Dec 18, 2025 Planning Commission

[A. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

COMMISSIONER LIGHT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER YOUNG. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GADDIS.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CONROY. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE.

HERE. CHAIRPERSON CRAIG. PRESENT. AND CAN WE STAND AND SALUTE THE FLAG? AND I'LL LEAD IT THIS TIME [LAUGHTER]. ALL TOGETHER NOW.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT IS APPROVE THE ORDER OF AGENDA.

[D. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA]

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AGENDA IS APPROVED.

BLUE FOLDER ITEMS. THESE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE ADDITIONAL BACKUP MATERIAL TO ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OR PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA

[E. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS - ADDITIONAL BACK UP MATERIALS]

MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE BLUE FOLDER ITEMS. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OKAY. CONSENT CALENDAR.

[F. CONSENT CALENDAR]

COMMISSION MEMBERS MAY REQUEST THAT ANY CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS BE REMOVED, DISCUSSED, AND ACTED UPON SEPARATELY.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR WILL BE TAKEN UP UNDER THE EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR SECTION BELOW.

THOSE ITEMS REMAINING ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WILL BE APPROVED IN ONE MOTION. THE CHAIR WILL CALL ON ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PULLED BY THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK ONLY ONCE, AND COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF THREE MINUTES.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR OR PULL ANYTHING? NO I WANT TO PULL F.2 AND F.3.

OKAY. DO WE NEED A SECOND FOR THAT OR JUST PULL? I THINK THEY CAN PULL IT WITHOUT A. I THINK YOU CAN, [LAUGHTER] I WILL, I WILL ALLOW THAT. THAT'S OKAY.

OKAY ANY OTHER? SO IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOTION APPROVE F.1. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

F.1 IS APPROVED. COMMISSIONER GADDIS. ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT'S WHAT IS F.2 AND F.3 FOR THE PUBLIC'S EDIFICATION.

THIS WILL BE TO STOP. I WAS GOING TO PULL THAT DOWN.

IT'S OKAY. I WAS GONNA PULL IT [LAUGHTER]. I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT F.3. OKAY.

YEAH. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. THOSE ARE ON AN ERROR.

YEAH. REALLY? YEAH. [LAUGHTER] OH. I THINK WHAT THIS IS, IS THE CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE THAT INCLUDE NEW PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS.

AND I KNOW STAFF IS BRINGING THE RULES TO THE COMMISSIONS AND MAKING THEM AWARE OF IT.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ALREADY OCCURRED AT A PRIOR MEETING [LAUGHTER]. YEAH.

WE WERE GIVEN WE WERE HAND OUT THERE HAND OUT. IF I MAY CHAIR ACTUALLY. ACTUALLY, THOSE AREN'T IN ERROR. I APOLOGIZE, I MISSPOKE. THOSE ARE? YES. THOSE WERE RECENTLY ACTED ON BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

OKAY. AND THEY ARE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INFORMATION.

THEY'RE THE RULES GENERAL RULES OF THE CITY, FOR THE COMMISSIONS, ALL THE COMMISSIONS, AS WELL AS SPECIFIC PURVIEW RULES, BYLAWS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. OKAY, SO THEY'RE FOR YOUR INFORMATION GOING FORWARD.

THEY WERE RECENTLY ADOPTED, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S CHANGED IN THE PRIOR RULES AGAINST THE PRIOR RULES? THERE ARE SOME CHANGES. I DON'T HAVE THEM ITEMIZED.

I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, ITEMS HAVE BEEN UPDATED.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. SO YOU DID YOU DID I GET THAT RIGHT? YOU SAID THESE ARE ALREADY IN EFFECT? YES. ALREADY APPROVED? YEAH. REALLY? YEAH. THE COUNCIL I BELIEVE APPROVED THESE IN OCTOBER, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

SO THESE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CERTAIN COMMISSIONS THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDERED THE ACTUAL RULES OF CONDUCT OF MEETINGS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS NOT ACTED UPON.

THAT WILL BE LATER IN 2026. AND THEN ONCE THAT'S.

I KNOW WHAT THIS IS. ONCE THAT'S ADOPTED, I'M SURE STAFF WILL BRING IT TO THEM.

I READ THEM I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. I'M JUST A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.

AND YET IT CAME BEFORE US, I GUESS, IN ERROR.

RIGHT? WELL, NO. WELL, THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FORWARDED THEM TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AND ASKED THAT THEY BE PROVIDED.

OKAY. AND SO WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THESE.

[00:05:02]

WELL YEAH. NO. NO, WE'RE ABOUT TO TAKE A VOTE.

AND THE VOTE WOULD MEAN WE'RE APPROVING F.1, F.2 AND F.3 AND THIS IS F.2 AND F.3.

WELL, CERTAINLY NOT APPROVING THE ORDINANCES.

SO NO ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. IT'S REALLY A RECEIVE AND FILE ITEM ON THESE.

POSSIBLY IT COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED LATER ON ONE OF THE LATER ITEMS. UNDER ANOTHER CATEGORY PERHAPS. YES. OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY THIS.

IT LOOKED TO BE SOMETHING THAT WAS LIKE, WOW, OKAY.

WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THIS. NOT THAT I OBJECT TO IT, BUT IT'S JUST.

I DO. MEATY [LAUGHTER] OR SO. HAS OUR CITY ATTORNEY VETTED THIS FOR ANY KIND OF ILLEGAL REQUIREMENT OR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? BECAUSE I, I SEE THINGS IN HERE THAT THAT MAY CROSS THAT BOUNDARY.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SOME PROPER LEGAL ADVICE AS TO WHETHER THIS IS EVEN ENFORCEABLE OR, OR, YOU KNOW, DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK US TO DO THINGS LIKE, DO NOT COMMENT.

DO NOT COMMENT, WE'RE BARRED FROM COMMENTING.

OKAY? THAT'S A VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ISN'T IT? I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE BEING YOU'RE NOT BEING ASKED NOT TO COMMENT, BUT.

IT SAYS. IT SAYS. TO NOT REVIEW, EVALUATE, INVESTIGATE OR COMMENT UPON MATTERS THAT ARE SOLELY WITHIN THE DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF OTHER COMMISSIONS. NOW, OR COMMITTEES OR WHATEVER.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WANT TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM PUTTING THEIR FINGER ON THE SCALE OR FROM SAYING SOMETHING THAT COULD IMPACT THE OUTCOME.

BUT THE FACT IS, CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES US THE RIGHT TO COMMENT.

SO AS THE GENERAL AND I DON'T WANT TO. YOU WANT TO SAY.

THESE ITEMS ARE FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES. SO I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE MERITS OF IT.

I WILL SAY THAT THE COMMISSION IS APPOINTED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO YES, YOU MAY COMMENT, BUT THESE ARE THE RULES THAT THEY'VE ESTABLISHED.

AND IT'S NOTED THAT THERE COULD ALSO BE REMOVAL FROM THE COMMISSION IF THE RULES ARE NOT ADHERED TO.

WHICH WOULD BE YOU. WOULD NOT BE BREAKING THE LAW. SO YOU DO HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO MAKE COMMENTS. BE VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, TO PUNISH SOMEBODY FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. I MEAN, YOU COULD SAY I MEAN, IT COULD BE WORDED BETTER SO THAT IT WOULD WORK.

YOU COULD SAY THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS AS A AS YOU CAN'T SPEAK AS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THIS MANNER, BUT YOU CAN SPEAK AS A CITIZEN OF REDONDO BEACH IN THE UNITED STATES.

I MEAN, YOU COULD PHRASE IT BETTER SO THAT IT WOULD WORK.

THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING, HAS OUR, AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY VETTED THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL PROPER AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT'S BEEN DONE? IT HAS GONE THROUGH OUR OFFICE. WE WORKED WITH THE MAYOR AND WENT THROUGH ALL THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU FOR INFORMATION. REVIEWED THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE PROCESS AND TRIED TO APPLY IT TO THIS? I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT, AND IT'S REFLECTED IN THE RECORD.

AND IF YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH THE ORDINANCE, THEN IT'S, YOU KNOW, PERFECTLY FINE FOR YOU TO STATE THOSE HERE AND AT A COUNCIL MEETING. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER GADDIS, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO TAKE THIS OUT AND MAYBE JUST GET A BRIEFING ON WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE BETWEEN THIS SET OF RULES AND OUR PRIOR SET OF RULES? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REALLY EQUIPPED TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. SO WE CAN PLACE THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR THE JANUARY MEETING AND THAT THAT MEETING GO THROUGH IT.

I BELIEVE IT WAS THIS WAS DERIVED FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

SO PERHAPS ONE OF THE ASSISTANTS TO THE CITY MANAGER CAN COME IN AND AND SPEAK ABOUT IT OR STAFF.

I HAVE NOT BEEN VERY INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT, SO I CAN'T.

OTHERWISE, I'D BE ABLE TO TELL YOU MORE SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE CHANGES ARE FROM MEMORY.

BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT AND GET THIS BACK ON JANUARY.

JUST TO EXPLAIN WHAT SOME OF THE MODIFICATIONS ARE TO THESE CODE SECTIONS.

THAT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD. YEAH. AND A QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT WAS IN A PRIOR MEETING, WE HAD TRIED TO ADD SOMETHING TO OUR AGENDA AND IT WAS REMOVED.

AND I KNOW THERE'S A SECTION IN THERE WHERE IT STATES THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO BRING UP SOME THINGS, PROVIDED THAT STAFF OR THE COUNCIL SAY IT'S OKAY.

[00:10:02]

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE DO SAY WE WANT TO HAVE AN AGENDA, IT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK WITH OUR ASKING FOR IT WITHOUT HAVING IT BEING PULLED AGAIN. YES. AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GO THROUGH THE RULES COLLECTIVELY AND ALSO EXPLAIN WHAT THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN. SO LIKE A RED LINE VERSION. AND THAT WAY THE COMMISSION IS AWARE AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED.

AND THE PUBLIC. YEAH THE PUBLIC. VERY MUCH SO.

OKAY, GREAT. SO IS THERE A. SO DO WE HAVE TO.

WE HAVE TO DO. THAT'S NOT FOR US TO MAKE A MOTION ON AND APPROVE AND OR ANYTHING THAT WE VOTE.

RIGHT? I WOULD SUGGEST JUST PULLING F.2 AND F.3 FROM THE AGENDA.

OKAY. AND THEN THEY CAN JUST PUT IT BACK ON WHEN THEY'RE READY TO DISCUSS IT.

OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. SO DO WE NEED A MOTION TO PULL THAT? MOTION TO PULL THEM.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. VERY GOOD. GREAT. OKAY.

ITEM G EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT.

ITEM H PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS.

[H. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS]

THIS SECTION IS LIMITED TO 30 MINUTES. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE AFFORDED THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK ONLY ONCE WRITTEN REQUEST OF ANY WILL BE CONSIDERED FIRST UNDER THIS SECTION.

JAMAL, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS FOR NON-AGENDA? GALE. YEAH. AGENDA. JAMAL. LET'S SEE.

OKAY. NON AGENDA, I HAVE DOCTOR HOLLY OSBORNE.

GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS HOLLY OSBORNE FROM DISTRICT 5.

AND THESE COMMENTS WOULD PROVIDE ANY TO ANY PROJECT.

AT THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 9TH, THERE WAS AN AGENDA ITEM ON THE ON TREE CANOPY N.3, AND I SPOKE ON THAT.

I SPOKE ON A TREE CANOPY WAS IN THIS ERA OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING.

AND I ALSO MENTIONED ASSEMBLY BILL. BILL AB 2251 PASSED IN 2022.

AND BY THAT REDONDO AND OTHER CITIES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INCREASING THEIR TREE CANOPY AND SET GOALS, AND THEY HAVE GOALS IN THAT BILL. SO I HOPE YOU EXAMINE YOUR PROJECTS IN THAT LIGHT.

AND SO IS THE PROJECT GOING TO STICK OUT MORE THAN ITS NEIGHBORS BLOCKING CHANCES FOR WALKERS TO STAY IN SHADE? THOSE KIND OF THINGS. SO HERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PARKING.

HOW DOES THE PARKING COMPARE OF A PROJECT THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING COMPARED TO THE PARKING OF OTHER SIZED PROJECTS? AND IF IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH PARKING THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE STREET, AND IMPACTING THE STREET IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY IMPACT WHETHER WE CAN HAVE BIKE LANES OR BUS LANES.

AND THOSE ARE ALL GOALS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IN THE FUTURE.

SO AND THEN MY FINAL ONE IS IF THE GOAL IS TO MAKE HOUSING AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS IS WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO MAKE SURE THAT HOUSING IS NOT.

IS. DOCTOR OSBORNE, I'M SORRY. WE'RE TALKING.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PROJECT WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING TONIGHT? I HAVE NO IDEA, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SEEN THE PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW ONE PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE. I DON'T KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THE I'M JUST.

SHE MENTION IT'S JUST A GENERAL COMMENT. GENERAL, OKAY? OKAY. THAT'S FINE. I'M SORRY, PLEASE CONTINUE. GOING TO BUY THE WHOLE THING AND JACK UP THE RENTS RATHER THAN MAKING AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTIAL BUYERS.

NOW, THEY'VE HAD RULES IN THE ASSEMBLY. THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT LIMITING THE BUT BUT I DON'T KNOW THOSE BILL NUMBERS AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY EVER PASSED.

SO ANYWAY, PLEASE CONSIDER ALL THESE THINGS FOR ANY PROJECT.

YOU KNOW, TREE CANOPY PARKING AND ANTI HEDGE FUND.

OKAY. I STILL HAVE A WHOLE MINUTE. I'M JUST GOING TO SIT DOWN.

[LAUGHTER]. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A CARD FROM MARTY HALL, BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS FOR THE AGENDA ITEM.

LET'S TALK ABOUT PARKING AND GRIDLOCK. SO I'M ASSUMING IT'S FOR A LATER ITEM.

SO I'LL HOLD YOUR CARD FOR WHEN WE GET TO THAT.

ARE THERE ANY ONLINE COMMENTS? I'M SORRY. THERE IS ONE E-ATTENDEE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

PLEASE GO AHEAD. NON-AGENDA ITEMS. HI, MY NAME IS VASILIOS BILL DIVIS.

AND I LIVE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PEARL AND PCH FOR 28 YEARS.

[00:15:04]

IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THE PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING UP LATER. YOU CAN SPEAK THEN WHEN WE ACTUALLY ARE ON THE ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS FOR ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. OKAY. SO SO JUST HOLD ON AND WE'LL CALL ON YOU LATER.

OKAY? THANK YOU. WE HAVE ANOTHER E-ATTENDEE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

PLEASE GO AHEAD. OH, OKAY. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

DAVID FARNEY FROM DISTRICT 5. REGARDING CALIFORNIA AB 1893 AND SB 330.

IN OCTOBER 2025, THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH LOST A LAWSUIT FROM NEW COMMUNE DTLA LLC STRIKING DOWN THE REDONDO BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE AND FOR 2021 TO 2029 AND OPENING UP THE BUILDER'S REMEDY TO HELP THE CITY MEET ITS REQUIREMENTS FOR THOUSANDS OF HOUSES.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL HOUSES THAT WILL BE ALLOWED, AND HOW SOON THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL BEGIN TO RECEIVE SUBMISSIONS FOR UP TO 10 UNITS ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, ZONED R-1. PLEASE CONSIDER PUTTING OUT A SUMMARY FOR THE RESIDENTS TO UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK ABOUT IT.

THERE'S BEEN VERY LITTLE RESPONSE TO THIS PUBLICLY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE? THERE ARE NO MORE E-ATTENDEES. OKAY, GREAT. SO ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVEN'T TURNED IN A CARD WISH TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS? THERE'S ONE MORE E-ATTENDEE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI, EVERYBODY. THIS IS MARK FINNIGAN. I'M PLAN TO SPEAK ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2025-0074 LATER IN THE MEETING.

SO I THINK I RAISED MY HAND BY ACCIDENT TOO EARLY IN THE MEETING, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

OH NO PROBLEM. WE'LL WE'LL CALL ON YOU LATER. PLEASE HOLD ON. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO WE ARE NOW ON ITEM J-1. NO. COMMENTS.

[I. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION]

THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW ALL OFFICIALS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVEAL ANY DISCLOSURE OR EX PARTE COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

COMMISSIONER. I HAVE NOTHING. NOTHING TO DECLARE.

COMMISSIONER. CALL ON ME? THAT'S RIGHT COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. THANK YOU I HAVE NOTHING TO DECLARE.

I SPOKE WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. COMMISSIONER GADDIS.

I SPOKE WITH CHAIRMAN CRAIG, MEMBERS OF STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. CHAIRMAN CRAIG, STAFF, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

COUNCIL PERSON OBAGI AND MAYOR LIGHT. I SPOKE WITH COMMISSIONERS GADDIS AND HAZELTINE.

I ALSO SPOKE WITH MAYOR LIGHT. I SPOKE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

AND I SPOKE WITH CITY STAFF AS WELL. DO WE HAVE ANY WRITTEN NON-AGENDA COMMENTS THAT WE NEED TO RECEIVE AND FILE? GOOD QUESTION. DO WE? YEAH. DO WE HAVE ANY WRITTEN NON-AGENDA COMMENTS TO RECEIVE AND FILE JAMAL? WE DO NOT.

OKAY. THANKS FOR CORRECTING THAT. APPRECIATE THAT.

OKAY. SO NOW STARTING ON J.1, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN EXEMPTION DECLARATION AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A

[J. PUBLIC HEARINGS]

4 STORIES AND 45FT HIGH WITH 17,000FT² OF COMMERCIAL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND 2 FLOORS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING WITH UP TO UP TO.

WAIT. OH, THAT'S A CORRECTION. THAT'S BEEN CHANGED.

THAT'S BEEN CHANGED. WELL, IT STATES UP TO TEN5 PARKING SPACES LOCATED ON FIVE PARCELS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF I MENTIONED ALL OF THEM WITHIN A COMMERCIAL ZONE, C-2.

ADDRESSES 401 TO 417 SOUTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A CORRECTION TO THAT.

IT WAS IN THE BLUE FOLDER. THIS DOCUMENT HERE SAYS UP TO TEN5.

I BELIEVE WHEN OUR COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY TEN5.

AND IT DOES IN THE RESOLUTION. THE BLUE FOLDER RESOLUTION.

CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY, GREAT. YEAH, I'M READING FROM THE AGENDA, BUT OBVIOUSLY.

OKAY YES. SORRY. OKAY. MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AND I BELIEVE WE START WITH A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF.

YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. BEFORE I TURN IT OVER FOR THE PRESENTATION AND MARC WIENER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE.

BEFORE I TURN IT OVER, I JUST WANTED TO SET THE STAGE FOR THIS PROJECT AND GIVE A LITTLE SUMMARY OF WHY IT'S BEING PROCESSED IN THIS MANNER.

OVER THE PAST 6 TO 8 YEARS, THERE'S BEEN DRASTIC CHANGES TO LOCAL ZONING HANDED DOWN BY THE STATE.

[00:20:06]

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH WITH THIS APPLICATION.

WE'VE HAD A FEW OTHER APPLICATIONS HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS WHERE IT'S THERE'S BEEN SIMILAR APPLICATION OF STATE LAWS.

THIS ONE HAS A FEW NEW VARIETIES OF STATE LAWS BEING APPLIED TO IT.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND A LOT OF CITIES ARE GRAPPLING WITH IT RIGHT NOW, IS THE CITY HAS LIMITED ABILITY OR DISCRETION OVER THE PROJECT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT BACKGROUND. OUR STAFF DID WORK CLOSELY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND OUR HOUSING SPECIALIST ATTORNEY DIANA VARAT, AND WE HAVE CHERYL. THEY'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO STEVE GIANG, OUR SENIOR PLANNER, AND SEAN SCULLY PLANNING MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE PRESENTATION.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS STEVE. I'LL BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM TONIGHT. THE PROJECT LOCATION IS AT 401, 405, 411, 413 AND 417 SOUTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

THE LOT SIZE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.76 ACRES. THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS ZONED UNDER THE REDONDO BEACH ZONING CODE AS COMMERCIAL C-2. THE SURROUNDING ZONINGS INCLUDE, TO THE NORTH, COMMERCIAL C-2 AND MULTI-FAMILY MU-3 TO THE EAST, AND THE SOUTH COMMERCIAL C-2 AND TO THE WEST MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-3A.

EXISTING USES ON THE SITE INCLUDE THREE STRUCTURES AND VACANT LOTS.

SURROUNDING USES TYPICALLY ARE GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL, MULTI-FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, AND A CHURCH.

THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK IS A DEMOLITION OF ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4-STORY, MIXED-USE CONDOMINIUM BUILDING. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF, FOR A TOTAL OF 49 UNITS.

IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY. OF THOSE 49, 5 ARE VERY LOW INCOME AND 3 ARE MODERATE INCOME UNITS.

FOR THE COMMERCIAL, IT'S GOING TO BE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE USE, TAKING UP APPROXIMATELY 17,000FT² OF FLOOR AREA.

PARKING IS GOING TO BE FULLY SUBTERRANEAN. IT'S GOING TO CONSIST OF 2 LEVELS OF TEN5 SPACES.

IN TERMS OF HEIGHT, THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED AT 45FT.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE PROJECTIONS THAT GO 15FT AND SEVEN INCHES FOR STAIR AND ELEVATOR PENTHOUSES.

HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE PROJECT RENDERING AS PROPOSED FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

THIS IS FROM THE CORNER OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND PEARL STREET.

IN TERMS OF SITE DESIGN AND ACCESS, THE PRIMARY ACCESS IS GOING TO BE OFF OF PEARL STREET.

NO ACCESS IS GOING TO BE ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

THE IN TERMS OF PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ACTIVATION, WE'RE LOOKING AT LARGE TRANSPARENT STOREFRONT OPENINGS ALONG PCH TO CREATE AN ACTIVE STREET EDGE. LANDSCAPING IS GOING TO CONSIST OF DROUGHT TOLERANT CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANTINGS AROUND THE PERIMETER.

AMENITIES FOR THE SITE WILL CONSIST OF A SHARED COMMUNITY SPACE A GROUND FLOOR POOL AND A 3988 SQUARE FOOT ROOF DECK. IN TERMS OF BUFFERING OUTDOOR AREAS LOCATED IN A LANDSCAPE TO BUFFER NOISE AND PRIVACY IMPACTS ON NORTH AND WESTERN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN.

THIS IS GOING TO BE THE GROUND FLOOR, SO YOU'LL SEE THE POOL HERE.

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IS GOING TO BE THE TOP OF THE PAGE AND PEARL STREET TO THE LEFT.

FOR THIS PROJECT, WE STAFF HAD TO ANALYZE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF LOCAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS.

WE HAVE CUP OF TABLES TO SHOWCASE THIS. THE LOCAL REQUIREMENT UNDER THE MU-3 ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THIS SITE IS ONE POINT.

IS THE FLOOR AREA OF 1.5. THE PROPOSAL IS AT 2.57.

IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING A CONCESSION FOR AN INCREASE OVER THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO.

LOCAL ZONING STAFF. OKAY. OKAY. THE. FOR THE LOCAL ZONING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 15,000FT².

[00:25:06]

THE MAX HEIGHT WE ALLOW FOR FOOT PROJECTION OVER THE MAX MAXIMUM HEIGHT, AND THEN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT IS THREE.

WE HAVE FURTHER SLIDES TO GO OVER THE THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAWS, WHICH I THINK WILL BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO GO DOWN LATER IN THE PRESENTATION.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE ELEVATIONS OF THE PROJECT FROM THE REAR.

SO THIS IS GOING TO BE FROM THE WESTERN SIDE LOOKING AT THE PROJECTS OPPOSITE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

SO YOU'LL SEE THE POOL ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THE TOP PHOTO IS GOING TO BE FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE LOOKING TOWARDS PEARL STREET TO THE NORTH.

HERE'S A RENDERING WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR THE MATERIALS FOR THE SITE.

WE'RE LOOKING AT COMPOSITE SHINGLE SIDING PLANK SIDING, A MIXTURE OF PLASTER AND STONE GRAY SHEET METAL FASCIA.

THE STOREFRONT ITSELF IS GOING TO CONTAIN A LOT OF GLASS TO PROMOTE THE TRANSPARENT AND PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR.

FOR SETBACKS. THE DEVELOP THE PROPOSAL IS RELYING ON THE AB 2011 STANDARDS FOR SETBACKS.

SO FOR THE FOR THE PROPOSAL, THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE GROUND FLOOR IS WITHIN 10 FEET FOR 80FT OF THE FRONTAGE.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS A THREE FOOT SETBACK AND WHICH COMPLIES WITH AB 2011 ON THE STREET SIDE ON PEARL STREET.

THE PROPOSAL IS ASKING TO HAVE 10 FEET ON ALL FLOORS.

AB 2011 HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT 10 FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THEN EVERY FLOOR THEREAFTER HAS A SETBACK OF 7 FEET.

THE APPLICANT IS USING STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW FOR A WAIVER TO MAINTAIN 10 FEET ALONG THE ENTIRE FACADE ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

STATE LAW REQUIRES ZERO FEET AND APPLICANTS PROVIDING 5 FEET AND ON THE REAR.

THE GROUND FLOOR IS ALSO GOING TO BE 10 FEET ON ALL FLOORS.

WHILE STATE LAW REQUIRES 10 FEET ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND SETBACKS OF 7 FEET FOR EVERY FLOOR THEREAFTER, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO GOING TO BE USING STATE A WAIVER FROM STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW HERE TO TERMS OF PARKING AND STORAGE.

THE LOCAL ZONING REQUIREMENT IS 19,600 CUBIC FEET.

THE APPLICANT COMPLIES HERE WITH THE MATCHING PROPOSAL.

THE LOCAL STANDARD FOR PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING IS 114 SPACES.

HOWEVER, STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW ONLY REQUIRES A TOTAL OF 61 SPACES, WHICH THE APPLICANT COMPLIES WITH HERE.

THE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT IS 68 SPACES FROM THE CITY REDONDO BEACH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING 44, AND ARE REQUESTING A CONCESSION FOR A REDUCTION IN PARKING FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION.

AND SHARED PARKING ROLES WILL INVOLVE A STRICT OVERLAP REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSALS HAVING A DEVIATION FROM THE RULE SET, THUS ALSO REQUIRING ANOTHER CONCESSION FOR SOME STATE DENSITY.

BONUS LAW. THIS. THIS IS THE. THIS IS THE P1 PARKING LEVEL.

HERE, SOME OF THE AMENITIES INCLUDE THE PRIVATE STORAGE FOR EACH OF THE. FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THERE ARE 49 BIKE RACKS PROPOSED IN THE CENTER AS WELL.

AND THEN THIS IS WHERE THE COMMERCIAL PARKING WILL CONSIST.

AND THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING IS GOING TO BE PARTIAL ON THIS AND THEN MOSTLY ON P2, THE LEVEL BELOW.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU STEVE. AND NOW I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH FOLLOW UP ON A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT MARC MADE.

THE LAYERS OF STATE REGULATIONS THAT ARE REALLY FRAMING THE PROJECT AND THE AUTHORITIES OF THE CITY AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE STATE HOUSING LAWS AT PLAY WITH THIS PROJECT.

THERE'S THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THAT THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY LIMITING THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DENY OR REDUCE DENSITY BASED ON ANY SUBJECTIVE OR DISCRETIONARY REASONS WITHOUT SOME SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT.

IT ALSO VESTS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED.

THE THE MAIN NEW OR MORE RECENT LAWS THAT ARE AT PLAY HERE ARE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HIGH ROADS JOB ACT OF 2022.

THAT'S REFERRED TO. AND WE'LL REFER TO IT THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT AS AB 2011.

AND THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED THE ROLE OF COMMERCIAL ZONING IN HOUSING PRODUCTION.

AND I'LL HAVE A SLIDE THAT DETAILS OUT MORE ON AB 2011 AND THEN AB 2243.

[00:30:09]

AND REALLY, THE MAJOR CHANGES IN THAT LAW ARE HOW AB 2011 PROJECT.

PROJECT APPLIES OR HOW THE COASTAL ZONE APPLIES TO AB 2011 PROJECTS, AND THEN STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS WORKED WITH ON SOME OF OUR OTHER PROJECTS OF LATE.

SO AB 2011 AGAIN, IT'S REALLY CHANGED HOW WE UTILIZE OUR COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THERE'S A ZONING OVERRIDE COMPONENT. SO THE PROJECT SITE IN THIS CASE IS ZONED C-2 COMMERCIAL, WHICH IN OUR LOCAL STANDARDS PROHIBITS RESIDENTIAL USES.

AB 2011 OVERRIDES THOSE LOCAL ZONING ALLOWANCES FOR QUALIFIED HOUSING PROJECTS ON WHAT'S CALLED COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS.

THE PROJECT MUST BE TREATED AS CONSISTENT REGARDING THE LAND USE FOR THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PURPOSES.

THAT'S THE ZONING OVERRIDE COMPONENT. THE PROCESS ALSO CHANGES.

IT MANDATES A MINISTERIAL APPROVAL PROCESS. SO IT REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE APPLIED TO THIS PROJECT.

PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW AND ALSO REMOVES CEQA REVIEW FROM FROM THE PROJECT.

AND SO THERE'S IN ORDER TO BE SUBJECT TO AB 2011, THERE'S VARIOUS ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND SOME OF THEIR SITE AFFORDABILITY. AND THERE'S ANOTHER CATEGORY I'LL GET TO.

BUT THE SITE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA HAS TO BE A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, ESSENTIALLY NOT ON A FREEWAY AND ON A RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN 70 AND 150FT. AND PCH QUALIFIES FOR THAT. THERE'S ALSO LAND USE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY.

THE SITE DOES NOT CONTAIN OR ABUT INDUSTRIAL USES THAT WOULD DISQUALIFY IT.

NO TENANT OCCUPIED HOUSING WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS, AND NO DEMO OF A RENT CONTROLLED OR INCOME RESTRICTED PROTECTED HOUSING ON SITE. THOSE CONDITIONS DON'T EXIST AS WELL.

AND THEN SO SITE ELIGIBILITY, THESE ARE THE THESE ARE THE CRITERIA FOR SITE ELIGIBILITY.

THAT'S CONFIRMED BECAUSE PCH QUALIFIES AND WE DON'T HAVE THE INDUSTRIAL USES OR ANY RESIDENTIAL USES.

THE OTHER CRITERIA FOR QUALIFYING FOR AB 2011 IS AN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT, AND AT LEAST 15% OF THE UNITS MUST BE OFFERED AT AN AFFORDABLE COST TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

THE BASE UNIT IS DEFINED BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS THE SITE COULD SUPPORT.

SO IT'S IT'S 15% OF WHATEVER WE DETERMINE IS THE BASE DENSITY.

AND I'LL GET INTO THE BASE DENSITY CALCULATION AS LONG AS 15% OF THE UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE TO THAT BASE UNIT NUMBER, THEY CALL THAT THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT IS MET.

AND THE BASE UNIT CALCULATION HERE IS BASED ON THE CITY'S MU-3 ZONE.

AND THAT'S 35 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND WE DO THE MATH.

AND THE RESULTING BASE DENSITY WITHOUT STATE DENSITY BONUS IS 27 UNITS FOR THIS PROPERTY.

SO 15% OF THE 27 HAS TO BE AFFORDABLE TO VERY EXCUSE ME TO LOWER INCOME AND THE.

YEAH. SO THAT'S FIVE UNITS. SO THE PROJECT PROPOSES FIVE UNITS OF VERY LOW, PLUS THREE UNITS OF MODERATE, AND THEREFORE IT MEETS THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT.

AB 2011 ALSO HAS OVERRIDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

SO THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN AB 2011.

AND THAT'S FOR ALLOWABLE DENSITY BUILDING HEIGHT.

THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS 45FT. STEVE WENT THROUGH SOME OF THOSE.

THEY WERE IN THOSE TABLES IN THE EARLIER SLIDES.

SETBACKS FRONT SETBACK OF ZERO SIDE AND REAR 0 TO 10.

IF IT'S ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL 15FT. IF IT'S ADJACENT TO ANOTHER COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.

AND THEN AS STEVE PRESENTED, THERE'S ADDITIONAL SETBACKS OF 7 FEET AS YOU GO UP EACH STORY FOR THE THE SIDES ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL.

[00:35:03]

THERE'S ANOTHER LAW THAT WILL GO THROUGH THAT KIND OF BRINGS IT BACK INTO THE PICTURE.

AND THEN THERE'S IF THE, IF THE OTHER ZONE WE'RE USING, IT HAS A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT, THEN THE COMMERCIAL, THE MIXED-USE COMPONENT IS SOMETHING WE CAN REQUIRE.

AND SO WE DO THAT. SO IT ALSO SO IT HAS ITS OWN STANDARDS.

THEN IT HAS A NUMBER OF OTHER STANDARDS. AND THE OTHER STANDARDS ARE SET BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION.

AND IT'S SET BY THE CLOSEST ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AT THE DENSITY PROPOSED BY THE PROJECT, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS 35 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

AND OUR ZONING CATEGORY THAT'S NEAREST TO THE SITE WITH THAT SAME DENSITY IS OUR MU-3.

SO OUR MIXED-USE 3 ZONING ARE THE OTHER ZONING STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.

SO IF THERE'S NOT AN AB 2011 STANDARD AND WE HAVE A STANDARD, WE APPLY THAT ADDITIONAL MU-3 STANDARD.

AND IN OUR CASE IT'S THE DENSITY. IT'S THE COMMERCIAL FAR FROM THE MIXED-USE ZONE.

AND THEN OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE APPLIED THAT AND THE PRIVATE STORAGE SPACE REQUIREMENT.

SO THOSE ARE THE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN APPLIED.

IT'S A MIX OF AB 2011 AND MU-3. THEN WE NOW HERE COMES AB 2243 THIS YEAR.

AND IT CLARIFIES AND CLARIFIES AND REVISES HOW AB 2011 APPLIES TO PROJECTS IN THE COASTAL ZONE BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY AMBIGUOUS. IT REALLY DIDN'T. WE HAD NO DIRECTION IN AB 2011 CONCERNING A PROJECT IN THE COASTAL ZONE, AND THIS PROJECT IS IN THE COASTAL ZONE. SO THIS LAW CLARIFIES THAT AND IT ONE, IT REQUIRES A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. AND THAT'S THE PURVIEW OF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW.

AND THEN IT DEFINES EXCLUSION ZONES. SO THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS OF THE COASTAL ZONE.

IF THIS PROJECT WAS LOCATED IN WOULD AB, THEY COULDN'T APPLY FOR AB 2011 PROJECT.

SO OUR LOCAL ZONING WOULD, WOULD PREVAIL IN THOSE PLACES.

AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THE EXCLUSION ZONES. AND THEN IT ALSO AND THIS IS REALLY CRITICAL TO THIS PROJECT, GRANTS THE USE OF STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW TO DEVIATE FROM ANY OF THE AB 2011 STANDARDS PARTICULARLY THE THE HEIGHTENED SETBACKS. AND IT ALLOWS, YOU KNOW, STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW TO DEVIATE ANY OF THE MIXED-USE 3 ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

AND THE CRITICAL COMPONENT TO TO WHAT 22 AB 2243 DOES IS IT SAYS ANY WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF AN LCP LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM STANDARD GRANTED BY OR UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS TO FIND THE PROJECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

SO THAT'LL GET REPEATED IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES.

SO AB 2243 THE EXCLUSION ZONES. THOSE ARE AREAS WITHIN THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S APPEAL JURISDICTION.

THE PROJECT'S NOT THERE. AREAS LACKING A CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND THE PROJECTS LOCATED WHERE WE DO HAVE A CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND THEN THE AREAS AT RISK OF 5 FEET OF SEA LEVEL RISE.

THAT'S ANOTHER EXCLUSIONARY ZONE. AND THE PROJECT IS NOT IN AN AREA SUBJECT TO THAT.

AND THEN, AS I ALLUDED TO, ALSO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IS AT PLAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE THAT AFFORDABLE COMPONENT AND IT QUALIFIES FOR INCENTIVES BY PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW ALLOWS ADDITIONAL UNITS BASED ON HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH AND WHAT TYPE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PROVIDED.

AND IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE, IF APPLYING THE STATE DENSITY BONUS ALLOCATIONS THERE.

THIS PROJECT IS ALLOWED TO GET A TOTAL NUMBER OF BONUS UNITS OF 24.

SO 24 PLUS THE 27 ARE 51 UNITS. COULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 51 UNITS.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES 49 UNITS, SO THE FINDING HERE IS THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT AS IT IS BELOW THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE FOR FOR DENSITY. YOU KNOW COASTAL ACT PARKING IS A CRITICAL ISSUE.

[00:40:07]

SO THERE'S IN STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, ONE PARKING SPACE FOR A 0 TO 1 BEDROOM AND ONE AND A HALF FOR TWO AND THREE BEDROOMS. IF WE BASE IF WE LOOK AT THE UNIT COUNT AND THE UNIT MIX HERE ON THIS PROJECT, PER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 61 SPACES FOR RESIDENTIAL.

AND THE PROJECT PROVIDES 61 RESIDENTIAL SPACES.

SO IT'S COMPLIANT WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, AND NO CONCESSION IS REQUESTED OR REQUIRED.

THE COMMERCIAL PARKING THAT DEFAULTS TO THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND THE STANDARD APPLIED IS ONE SPACE PER 250 250FT².

SO DOING THE THE MATH ON THE PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL, THERE'S 68 SPACES REQUIRED.

THE PROJECT, HOWEVER, IS ONLY PROVIDING 44 COMMERCIAL SPACES.

SO THEY'RE DEFICIENT BY 24 SPACES. SO THEY'RE REQUESTING THE PROJECT APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW CONCESSION TO ALLOW THE REDUCED REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING.

THERE IS THERE IS SOME. WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE APPLICANT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD GET MORE PARKING.

OBVIOUSLY. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO ADD SHARED PARKING STRATEGIES TO THIS PROJECT SO THE RESIDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO USE THE COMMERCIAL SPOTS AFTER HOURS. COMMERCIAL USES WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO USE RESIDENTIAL SPOTS DURING BUSINESS HOURS.

AND THEY'LL HAVE SOME KIND OF A MANAGEMENT PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY IN PLACE.

AND IT'S SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT WITH OUR OVERLAP PARKING REGULATIONS.

BUT THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR A UTILIZATION SURVEY TO BE DONE FOR 14 DAYS.

THERE'S THE APPLICANT WASN'T ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT.

THERE'S NO USE THERE TO ACTUALLY DO THE SURVEY.

SO THAT REQUIRES A STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW CONCESSION TO DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIREMENT IN OUR OVERLAP PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SURVEY.

SO THE SPECIFIC STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW REQUESTS CONCESSIONS THE PROJECT ACTUALLY BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF AND THE CATEGORY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT THEY PROVIDE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY QUALIFY FOR 4 CONCESSIONS.

BUT THEY'RE REQUESTING 3. THAT'S THE FAR INCREASE FROM THE 1.5 TO THE 2.58, THE COMMERCIAL PARKING REDUCTION.

IT'S REQUIRED 68. THEY'RE PROPOSING 44. AND THEN THAT SHARED PARKING CONCESSION TO WAIVE THE 14 DAY SURVEY REQUIREMENT.

THE WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS, THE THESE ARE THE STANDARDS EITHER FROM AB 2011 OR FROM THE MU-3 ZONE THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, AND THE SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR THE WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS ARE TO THE STORIES REQUIREMENT AND THE MUNICIPAL CODE. THE MU-3 ZONE. SO FROM IT LIMITS STORIES TO 3.

THEY'RE PROPOSING 4 THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AS A 10 FOOT SETBACK PER AB 2011.

AND THEY'RE REQUESTING SIX. AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL BUFFER.

THESE ARE AB 2011 STANDARDS. AS YOU GO FROM ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR, YOU HAVE TO SET BACK AN ADDITIONAL 7 FEET.

AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR REQUESTING A WAIVER FROM THAT REQUIREMENT AS THEY'RE, THEIR UPPER STORIES ARE THE SAME SETBACK AS THE GROUND FLOOR AND THEN THE REDUCED THE SETBACK TO THAT NON RESIDENTIAL USE TO THE REAR FROM 15FT TO 10FT. AND THEN THERE'S A HEIGHT PROJECTION MODIFY WAIVER THAT THEY'RE SEEKING. AND THAT'S FROM THE CITY'S ALLOWABLE PROJECTIONS ABOVE THE 45FT.

THERE THAT'S A 4 FOOT LIMIT. BUT THEIR FOR THEIR ELEVATOR SHAFT AND STAIR SHAFT, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A 15 FOOT,

[00:45:06]

SO THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR DENIAL. AND WE HAVE DIANA ON THE LINE AS WELL.

AND CHERYL HERE IF WE NEED YOU KNOW, HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THIS.

IT'S THE WAY IT'S SET UP IN THE LAW. IT'S A MANDATORY APPROVAL FRAMEWORK.

AND THE THE THE BURDEN IS THE CONCESSION. THE CITY MUST GRANT THE REQUESTED CONCESSIONS UNLESS IT PROVES BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE CONCESSION DOES NOT RESULT IN ACTUAL COST REDUCTIONS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

IT CAUSES A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR TO A HISTORICAL RESOURCE, AND IT IS CONTRARY TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. THE WAIVERS THE CITY MUST GRANT THE WAIVERS UNLESS THE STANDARD DOES NOT PHYSICALLY PRECLUDE THE PROJECT OR CAUSE OR CAUSES SPECIFIC ADVERSE HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS.

SO, STAFF, WE LOOKED AT ALL THESE FINDINGS. WE ARE NOT HAVE DOCUMENTING ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARDS THAT ARE VIOLATED.

AND THE SITE IS NOT LISTED AS A HISTORICAL RESOURCE.

SO STAFF'S CONCLUSION IS THAT THE CITY CANNOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS TO DENY THE REQUEST.

THE REQUEST AND STAFF HAS PREPARED THE RESOLUTION THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT TO APPROVE ALL THE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS FOR THE AND THEN THE PROJECT WITH THOSE WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS MEETS ALL THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW IS TO TO IT'S AND IT'S LIMITED.

VERIFY COMPLIANCE OR CONSISTENCY WITH THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.

AND THE LAW STATES PUBLIC AGENCY WITH COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING AUTHORITY SHALL APPROVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IF IT DETERMINES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. REMEMBER, THERE'S OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN AB 2011 AND THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN THE MU-3 ZONE AND ANY WAIVER. AND THIS IS A STIPULATION CRITICAL STIPULATION IN THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW, THAT ANY WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF ANY OF THOSE LCP STANDARDS OR AB 2011 STANDARDS THAT ARE GRANTED UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS TO FIND THAT THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

SO THESE THESE ARE THE FINDINGS THE PROJECT DEMONSTRATES CONSISTENCY BASED ON THE FOLLOWING.

IT'S IT'S COMPLIANCE WITH MANY OF THE OTHER MU-3 OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.

THE USE THAT'S PERMITTED PER MU-3 THE, THE FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT, THE LOT SIZE, THE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND THE STORAGE.

SO IT'S COMPLIANT WITH THOSE STANDARDS. AND THEN IT'S COMPLIANT WITH THE AB 2011 STANDARDS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT.

THE 45 FOOT HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING THE SETBACKS TO PCH AND THE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND THEN IT'S STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW COMPLIANT FOR ALL THE REMAINING DEVIATIONS, THE, THE HEIGHT PROJECTIONS, THE STORIES, THE UPPER FLOOR SETBACKS AND THE COMMERCIAL PARKING.

AND THOSE ARE ADDRESSED THROUGH THROUGH VALID STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS.

THE FINAL NOTE BEFORE THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

SO THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA QUALITY ACT.

AND THERE'S THE MAIN PROVISIONS ARE AB 2011 EXPRESSLY REMOVES DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY AND REQUIRES MINISTERIAL APPROVAL FROM LOCAL AGENCIES FOR ELIGIBLE MIXED INCOME PROJECTS AND THEN AS A MINISTERIAL PROJECT.

THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE AND CEQA GUIDELINES IDENTIFY THAT A MINISTERIAL PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA.

SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THIS SLIDE HAS OUR RECOMMENDATION.

JUST. IN SUMMARY, THE PROJECT PROPOSES A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT THAT UTILIZES STATE HOUSING LAWS AB 2011 AND AB 2243 AND STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW TO MODIFY LOCAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

[00:50:04]

THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIND THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN THE CERTIFIED LCP AND APPROVE THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

YEAH THANK YOU SEAN. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY, I THINK THE PRESENTATION REALLY HIGHLIGHTS THE COMPLEXITY INVOLVED IN REVIEWING THESE APPLICATIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WHAT USED TO BE MORE OF A PLANNING ZONING APPLICATION TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAS BECOME VERY MUCH A LEGAL EXERCISE.

SO WE APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THE THE LEGAL ANALYSIS AND THE PRESENTATION, BUT WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO EDUCATE AND INFORM THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY AS TO WHAT LAWS ARE AFFECTING THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR DOING IT AND FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND.

THIS IS VERY COMPLICATED. THERE ARE LITERALLY A MYRIAD OF BILLS PASSING ALL THE TIME.

IF YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED IT, I DO, BECAUSE I'M IN A BUSINESS WHERE WE TRACK A LOT OF THESE HOUSING LAWS.

IN A TYPICAL TWO YEAR SESSION OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, THEY PASSED EASILY PASSED ABOUT 800 BILLS IN THE LAST ONE YEAR.

THEY PASSED ALMOST 2000. SO IT'S DIFFICULT FOR STAFF FOR FOR THEM KEEPING UP.

I WE ALL APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF YOU HAVE 3, 3 OR 4 DIFFERENT LAWS HERE.

YOU'RE TRYING TO WADE THROUGH AND GIVE US INFORMATION ON.

SO WE DO APPRECIATE THAT. AND WE DO APPRECIATE YOU SITTING DOWN AND MEETING WITH US AND ANSWERING SOME QUESTIONS AS WELL, WHICH HELPED OUT A LOT. SO BEFORE WE GIVE COMMENTS NOW, ONE THING I'D LIKE TO MENTION TOO BEFORE WE ENGAGE IN COMMENTS FROM THE THE COMMISSION, PLEASE WAIT TO BE CALLED ON. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, I'M SURE.

AND WE HAVE TO DOCUMENT THIS VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY JAMAL IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS LATER [LAUGHTER].

AND I FEEL BAD WHEN WE HAVE FOUR PEOPLE TALKING AT ONCE, AND HE'S TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE OF US IS SAYING SOMETHING. SO I WILL DO MY BEST TO CALL YOU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT PLEASE BE PATIENT.

OKAY? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. YES.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS SO DETAILED. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SEAN WHEN YOU PUT UP AND GO BACK THREE SLIDES, WHICH WAS OUR RIGHT HERE. RIGHT? WOOP! BACK THERE.

THIS ONE? YES. OKAY, SO I WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND, JUST AS YOU GUYS DID.

THIS PROPERTY. WE HAVEN'T HAD THE APPLICANT GET A CHANCE TO COMMENT YET.

OH. SHOULD WE DO THAT? I THINK SO, BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SHOULD WE HAVE THE APPLICANT DO THEIR PRESENTATION NOW AND THEN ASK QUESTIONS.

OH THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION. IF THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION. YEAH. SURE.

I GUESS. YEAH THEY SHOULD GO NEXT. OKAY. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS TIME? YES, NO, MAYBE. [LAUGHTER] OKAY. THEY'RE HERE.

IF SO, THEN. YES. AND IF YOU WHEN YOU COME DOWN, YOU.

PLEASE YOU HAVE THIS STORY, YOU KNOW, TO TELL THE TRUTH.

BEFORE YOU BEGIN, PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME. AND DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ELISA PASTER.

I AM THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE. I'M AN ATTORNEY AT RAND PASTER NELSON.

I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING US TONIGHT.

AS I MENTIONED, MY NAME IS ELISA PASTOR. I'M THE MANAGING PARTNER OF RAND PASTOR NELSON.

I'M ALSO A FORMER PLANNING COMMISSIONER. I KNOW HOW HARD THIS JOB IS.

AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU ALL ARE DOING HERE TONIGHT.

I WANT TO GIVE A HUGE SHOUT OUT TO STAFF. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY COMPLEX LEGAL PROCESS.

THE STATE HOUSING LAWS, RIGHT. WE FOLLOW THESE REGULARLY, AND EVEN, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO DO THAT.

AND SO I THINK THAT STAFF HAS REALLY RISEN TO THE OCCASION.

I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB. I'M SORRY. ONE SECOND.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THERE WAS A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THAT WAS? THAT WAS DONE. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S OKAY THANK YOU.

AND SO AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH TO STAFF. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ANY OF THE LEGAL ISSUES. I'M HERE TONIGHT WITH THE OWNERS.

WHO'S THE FAMILY WHO'S SITTING BEHIND ME? THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE SOUTH BAY FOR 40 YEARS, 20 OF THOSE YEARS IN HERMOSA BEACH.

THEY OWN A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN THE AREA AND ALSO THE ARCHITECT.

AND SO WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

WE KNOW THIS IS A BIG DEAL, RIGHT? AND WE KNOW THAT THIS PROJECT IS KIND OF UNUSUAL.

AND WE HAVE DONE OUR WE'VE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT.

THERE'S EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING AND GREENERY. WE'VE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THE ACTIVATING THE PEDESTRIAN AND THE COMMERCIAL SPACE ON PCH.

WE HAVE THE STOREFRONT WINDOWS TO DRAW PEOPLE IN.

THE BUILDING IS NOT A SINGLE MASS. IT'S AS YOU SAW FROM THE ELEVATIONS.

IT'S BROKEN UP INTO MASSES. WE'VE GOT A VARIED ROOF LINE, WE'VE GOT BALCONIES, WE'VE GOT ARTICULATION.

[00:55:01]

THIS PROJECT IS REPLACING A BLIGHTED PROPERTY.

SO THIS PROPERTY HAS BASICALLY BEEN VACANT AND BLIGHTED FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND IT'S GOING TO BE REDEVELOPED WITH NEW MODERN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SPACES.

IT WILL BRING A LOCAL DEMAND FOR GOODS THAT CAN BE MET BOTH BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE BUILDING AND THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA.

IT'S ALSO GOING TO GENERATE TAX REVENUE AND GENERATE JOBS FOR THE CITY.

IMPORTANTLY, AS STAFF MENTIONED, THE PROJECT DOES INCLUDE FIVE VERY LOW AND MODERATE INCOMES.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE.

AND SO THIS BUILDING IS NOT ONLY GOING TO ALLOW 49 HOUSEHOLDS TO BE LIVING IN THE COASTAL AREA, WHICH IS ACCESS IS A HUGE PART OF THE COASTAL ACT.

AND THIS IS PROVIDING ACCESS. AND IT'S ALLOWING THESE EIGHT FAMILIES WHO WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO LIVE IN THIS AREA, TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE. SO IT'S GOING TO INCREASE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO HOUSEHOLDS.

AND WE BELIEVE IT IS ACTUALLY CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE LCP AND THE COASTAL ACT.

WE DO KNOW THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT PARKING. AND I'M AND I'M GOING TO JUST SORT OF TALK GENERALLY RIGHT NOW WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AGAIN.

MY ARCHITECT IS HERE. THE OWNER IS HERE. BUT WE HAVE GIVEN A LOT OF THOUGHT TO IT, SO WE COULD HAVE ASKED FOR A BIGGER PARKING REDUCTION, AND WE INTENTIONALLY DID NOT DO THAT. WE NEED THE PARKING TO WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, RIGHT? IT'S NOT MARKETABLE IF IT DOESN'T WORK. WE CAN'T MAKE THE NUMBERS PENCIL.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET RESIDENTS. AND SO BASED ON MY CLIENT'S LONG EXPERIENCE IN THE BUSINESS, WE THINK THAT WE HAVE RIGHT SIZED PARKING FOR THIS PROJECT.

WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT THINGS.

VALET. WE'RE GOING TO BE MONITORING THE PARKING.

WE'RE GOING TO BE TRYING TO DO SOME AS WHAT YOU CALL OVERLAP PARKING IN REDONDO BEACH TO REALLY MAKE THIS THING WORK.

AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE LOOKING AT SOME LIKE SMART PARKING TECHNOLOGY.

WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.

WE'VE GOT BIKE RACKS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE GOLF CARTS FOR THE RESIDENTS.

AND SO AGAIN, IT IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO MAKE THE PARKING WORK THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO GO A LONG WAY IN HELPING THE CITY SATISFY ITS ARENA GOALS.

AND WE THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE LCP.

AND IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE COAST.

SO I'M GOING TO CUT IT OFF THERE. AS I SAID, WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OH SURE. COMMISSIONER GADDIS.

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FIRST? LET'S GO FIRST. YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR HER.

OKAY. COULD I ASK HER TO OUTLINE THE WHAT CONSTITUTES A LOW, VERY LOW INCOME PROPERTY? WHAT DEFINES THAT? AND ALSO MODERATE INCOME PROPERTY? AND THEN WHAT IS THE MIX OF ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS OR MORE THAN TWO BEDROOMS BETWEEN THOSE TWO? THE ALLOCATION OF THAT. SO IN TERMS OF THE ALLOCATION FOR LOWER INCOME UNITS, WHETHER THEY BE MODERATE INCOME UNITS OR VERY LOW INCOME UNITS, THEY HAVE TO BE AT THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE UNITS IN THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF BEDROOM SIZES.

SO AND I DON'T HAVE THE MATH IN FRONT OF ME, I APOLOGIZE.

I CAN TALK TO MY ARCHITECT AND WE CAN DO THE MATH FOR YOU, BUT LIKE, WE CAN'T MAKE ALL OF THE LOW INCOME UNITS ONE BEDROOMS IF THAT'S PART OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING SO. YEAH I'D JUST LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY OF WHAT.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CALCULATE THAT. SO IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT, WE WILL DO THAT.

SURE. LOW INCOME UNITS ARE 60% OR BELOW OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

AND WHAT'S THAT? IN. I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THE RENT SCHEDULES.

OKAY. WHICH WE CAN DO. I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS THE.

MAYBE DIANA HAS THE RENT SCHEDULES. AND IT'S BASED ON INCOME BY COUNTY.

SO IT'S A FACTOR OF THE AVERAGE INCOME FOR LA COUNTY.

OKAY. AND THEN MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ARE 120% OF MEDIAN.

SO I'LL GET YOU THOSE NUMBERS. GREAT. THANK YOU.

MAY I EXPAND ON THAT? PLEASE. CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT HOW YOU CHOOSE PEOPLE IN THOSE LOW INCOME AND MODERATE INCOME? COMMISSIONER YOUNG. SO WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH FAIR HOUSING LAW.

SO WHAT WE WILL WHAT WE WILL BE DOING IS WE WILL PROBABLY BE WORKING.

THERE'S GOING TO BE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENANT THAT'S GOING TO BE RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY.

AND WE WILL BE WORKING THROUGH THE CITY'S HOUSING DEPARTMENT TO IDENTIFY THE TENANTS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY INCOME QUALIFY.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION TO THE CITY SHOWING THAT INCOME QUALIFICATION.

IN WORKING WITH THE CITY TO DO THAT, IS THERE A WAY TO PRIORITIZE CURRENT REDONDO BEACH EMPLOYEES IN THAT?

[01:00:07]

IT'S I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY FAIR HOUSING ATTORNEYS THAT YOU CAN'T ONLY RENT TO CURRENT REDONDO EMPLOYEES, BUT WE CAN DO TARGETED MARKETING. AND WE I MEAN, LOOK, I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE HAPPY THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT IS ALLOWED BY FAIR HOUSING LAW THAT WE WILL PRIORITIZE REDONDO BEACH EITHER RESIDENTS OR EMPLOYEES.

SO I THINK WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO AGREE TO THAT.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER LIGHT. YEAH. I JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER GADDIS' QUESTION THERE.

I'M JUST WONDERING WHERE THAT 61 SPACE NUMBER CAME.

IF THERE'S ONE SPACE FOR ZERO AND ONE BEDROOMS AND 1.5 FOR TWO AND THREE BEDROOMS, THAT'S OUT OF THE TOTAL, 49. OR IS THAT EXCLUDE THE LOW INCOME? BECAUSE I'M HAVING TROUBLE COMING UP WITH THE MATH THAT MAKES THAT RIGHT.

UNLESS IT'S ALMOST ALL ONE BEDROOMS. I BELIEVE THAT THE LOW INCOME UNITS HAVE A DIFFERENT PARKING CALCULATION THAN THE MARKET RATE UNITS, AND I WILL I GOT TO LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS AND I CAN.

YEAH JUST CURIOUS WHERE THAT 61 CAME FROM. I BELIEVE IT'S 66. SEEMS LOW BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION FOR 49 UNITS.

WELL, THOSE ARE THE THE PARKING CALCULATIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED BY THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

IS 23 TIMES 1.5 35. YEAH, I JUST I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THE NUMBER.

OKAY WELL, LET ME GET YOU THE NUMBERS. YEAH. I APOLOGIZE I DON'T HAVE THAT IN MY FINGERTIPS, BUT. WE HAVE THE NUMBERS TOO. I'LL GET YOU THAT INFORMATION FOR STAFF. STAFF HAS THE NUMBERS. STAFF HAS THE NUMBER. COMMISSIONER GADDIS.

THERE YOU WERE REFERRING TO RENTS WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LOW INCOME AND MODERATE INCOME UNITS.

BUT THESE ARE CONDOMINIUMS. THEY'RE FOR SALE, RIGHT? YES. SO THEY CAN BE SOLD OR RENTED. WE DIDN'T HEAR THAT BECAUSE.

THEY CAN BE SOLD OR RENTED. SO IT THERE'S ALSO A FORMULA FOR SALE.

SO IT'S BASICALLY SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THAT WE WILL WORK WITH YOUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND THEY WILL BASICALLY COME UP WITH WHAT IS THE PERMITTED SALES PRICE. AND AGAIN THIS IS ALL COVENANTED.

SO THE COVENANT TYPICALLY WILL ALLOW EITHER OR FOR SALE OR FOR RENT.

RIGHT? AND SO THEY CAN CHOOSE TO RENT. BUT WHATEVER, WHETHER IT BE FOR SALE OR FOR RENT, IT HAS TO BE TO A LOW INCOME FAMILY.

WHO IS THEY? SORRY. I'M SORRY. [LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONER YOUNG GO AHEAD.

WHO IS THEY? THEY WILL DECIDE. WE HAVE TO WORK WITH YOUR CITY HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S THE CITY HOUSING DEPARTMENT THAT IS CHOOSING WHETHER THE LOCATIONS WILL BE RENTED OR SOLD? NO. WE WILL RECORD A COVENANT AGAINST THE PROPERTY THAT WILL ALLOW EITHER FOR SALE OR FOR RENT.

BUT THAT FOR SALE OR FOR RENT HAS TO BE TO A LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD.

SO IF I COULD ADD. SO YOU'RE SAYING THE FOR SALE OPTION IS ONLY FOR THE LOW INCOME HOUSING? NO, I'M SAYING THAT WE ARE WE ARE DOING WE ARE GIVING OURSELVES THE OPTION OF DOING FOR SALE.

I CAN'T TELL YOU TODAY THAT WE'RE ABSOLUTELY GOING TO DO FOR SALE UNITS, BOTH FOR MARKET RATE AND FOR RENTAL UNITS.

OKAY. RIGHT SO WE'RE GIVING OURSELVES THE OPTION.

COMMISSIONER BOSWELL, YOU HAD A QUESTION? NO, BUT I'LL ASK ONE ANYWAY. [LAUGHTER]. SO.

MAKE SURE I GOT YOU. IF I UNDERSTAND IT NOW, AND I DIDN'T CATCH THIS WHEN READING THE MATERIALS PRESENTED BEFORE, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE FOR SALE AT THE RIGHT PRICE.

SO IT STARTS OFF BEING YOU'RE OFFERING APARTMENTS FOR RENT, RIGHT? AGAIN, BY RECORDING A MAP, WE ARE GIVING OURSELVES THE OPTION, DEPENDING ON THE MARKET, TO EITHER HOLD THE PROPERTY AND RENT THE UNITS OR TO SELL THE UNITS. SO THAT'S BUT BUT IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE ALSO SAID THAT IT COULD BE A COMBINATION OF THAT.

IS IT EITHER GOING TO BE ALL RENTAL OR ALL I THINK, OR IS IT A COMBINATION? IT WILL PROBABLY BE ALL OF ONE OR ALL OF THE OTHER.

OKAY, SO IT'S EITHER GOING TO BE CONDOS FOR SALE OR APARTMENTS FOR RENT.

CORRECT. AND APARTMENTS FOR RENT IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

IF IT'S FOR SALE, DO YOU HAVE FIGURES AS TO WHAT SOMEBODY'S INCOME WOULD BE TO QUALIFY FOR A PURCHASE?

[01:05:04]

I JUST DID A 40-UNIT PROJECT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SELL THE UNITS FOR ABOUT $100,000.

SO $150,000 FOR THE LOW INCOME UNITS. ZIP CODE? IT'S IN WEST LA. AND AGAIN, BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON AGAIN, THE I DON'T DO THESE CALCULATIONS.

YOUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT DOES THESE CALCULATIONS.

THEY SAY TO US BASED ON THE INCOME. AND SO IF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME IS APPROXIMATELY $100,000, THEN $60,000 IS A VERY LOW INCOME TENANT. TYPICALLY THE WAY THAT IT WORKS IS IF UNDER THE HUD RULES THAT SOMETHING THAT IS AFFORDABLE IS WHEN YOU ARE PAYING NO MORE THAN ONE THIRD OF YOUR INCOME TOWARDS YOUR HOUSING COSTS.

AND SO THEY TAKE THE ONE THIRD OF THE HOUSING COST AND THEY BASICALLY LOOK AT, OKAY, WELL, WHAT IS INSURANCE COST? WHAT ARE YOUR TAXES? AND THEY FIGURE OUT WHAT THE COST OF THE UNIT WOULD BE, WHETHER IT BE FOR SALE OR FOR RENT. I HAVE ONE QUESTION TO STAFF DISREGARDING THIS COMBINATION OF FOR SALE OR FOR RENT.

I KNOW THE LAST PROJECT WE HAD THAT CAME UP IN FRONT OF US AT THE GALLERIA WAS PREDOMINANTLY FOR RENT, BUT THERE WAS A SMALL SECTION SUBSECTION OF THAT THAT THEY WANTED THE OPTION TO SELL THE TOWNHOMES TYPE OF THINGS.

HAVE WE EVER DONE THIS BEFORE IN THE CITY? I MEAN, WE YOU KNOW, WE DO CONDOMINIUM MAPS, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL OUR LARGE MULTI-FAMILY NOW, THE OWNER OF THAT MAP OR THAT PROJECT, THEY COULD RENT SOME OF THOSE UNITS OR SELL THEM, BUT WITH AN INCOME REQUIREMENT, IN THIS CASE, THE VERY LOW INCOME.

THE 15% THAT THEY'RE DOING VERY LOW INCOME. THOSE CAN BE FOR SALE OR FOR RENT.

THE MODERATE THEY HAVE TO BE FOR SALE BY STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

SO THE MODERATE UNITS, THE MODERATE INCOME UNITS HAVE TO BE FOR SALE.

WELL, BECAUSE WE THE OTHER PROJECT WE DID ON VINCENT AND PCH, THAT WAS ALL FOR SALE.

AND I KNOW THAT WE HAD A CALCULATION ON WHAT IT WOULD QUALIFY FOR A LOW INCOME UNIT.

AND BASICALLY THE WE ASKED THEM WHAT THE MEDIAN PRICE THEY WERE GOING TO SELL FOR, AND THERE WAS ENDED UP BEING ABOUT $1.6 MILLION FOR THE MARKET RATE HOMES.

THE OTHER ONES WERE ABOUT $100,000 AND $200,000, WHICH MEANS THAT THE OTHER UNITS WERE JUST PAYING TO SUBSIDIZE THOSE THREE, I THINK THREE UNITS WE HAD IN THAT COMPLEX. BUT BUT THOSE ARE ALL FOR SALE.

THERE WAS NOTHING FOR RENT AT ALL. SO IN THIS CASE, WE'RE GIVING AN OPTIONAL.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE PROCESSING A SUBDIVISION, A CONDOMINIUM MAP.

SO THESE IN THE CITY'S EYES, THIS THESE WILL BE SEPARATE UNITS BY CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION.

WE DON'T REQUIRE THOSE TO BE SOLD EXCEPT FOR THE MODERATE UNITS.

THOSE ARE REQUIRED. RIGHT BECAUSE THE REASON IS BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IS AS CONDOMINIUMS, EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS WILL HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE APN NUMBER OR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER.

RIGHT? [LAUGHTER] SO. YES. OKAY. AND THEY WILL BE HELD, YOU KNOW, THEY WILL HAVE SEPARATE SEPARATE.

THEY WILL BE SELLABLE UNITS AS A CONDOMINIUM.

OKAY. ONE THING WE HAVE EXPERIENCED IN SOME OTHER PLACES, ACTUALLY, IS THAT IT IS SOMETIMES VERY HARD FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO PULL TOGETHER THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO DO THE DOWN PAYMENTS.

SO WE HAVE A PROJECT IN WEST HOLLYWOOD THAT I REALLY THINK THAT ONE BEDROOM, IT'S A PRETTY IT'S LIKE THE UNITS ARE ALL MOSTLY ONE BEDROOM.

AND SO THERE IS A FOR SALE ONE BEDROOM THAT I THINK IS BEING SOLD FOR $86,000.

AND IT HAS TAKEN US YEARS AND YEARS TO FIND A QUALIFIED PERSON WHO CAN BASICALLY MEET ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS.

AND SO THAT'S WHY HAVING THIS FLEXIBILITY OF EITHER FOR RENT OR FOR SALE ACTUALLY GETS THOSE LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THERE MORE QUICKLY.

SO SO THE MODERATES HAVE TO BE FOR SALE. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM STAFF? THEY HAVE TO BE SOLD? PER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW YES.

OKAY. SO THE MODERATE INCOME. SO WE'LL START THERE.

SO SOMEBODY BUYS THE MODERATE INCOME PROPERTY, THE SORT OF INCOME TEST IS OVER FOR THAT PERSON BECAUSE THEY'VE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.

ARE THEY THEN, YOU KNOW, ABLE TO RENT IT OUT AT WHATEVER PRICE THE MARKET WILL BEAR THEREAFTER? OR THEY PROHIBITED FROM LEASING THAT PROPERTY? I DON'T THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A REQUIREMENT THAT THE MODERATE INCOME UNITS ARE FOR SALE, BUT I WILL DOUBLE CHECK THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT IS EITHER. AND I THINK THE WAY THAT STAFF EVALUATED THIS PROJECT WAS THAT ALL THE UNITS ARE GOING TO BE FOR SALE AND NOT RENTAL UNITS. AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENT MODERATE INCOME DENSITY BONUS, WHICH IS A FOR SALE DENSITY BONUS.

[01:10:06]

STATE HOUSING LAW IS VERY COMPLEX. BUT AGAIN, THERE SHOULD BE A COVENANT THAT IS RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY THAT WILL PROHIBIT SOMEONE FROM RENTING IT. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER I BUY IT AS A LOW INCOME AND THEN I RENT IT TO YOU.

IT CAN ONLY BE RENTED TO A LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. SORRY, SORRY. MAY I? YEAH. COMMISSIONER YOUNG.

HI. I'M ACTUALLY LIVE IN AN AFFORDABLE USING AFFORDABLE USE PROJECT.

THERE IS A DEED RESTRICTION ON OUR PROPERTY FOR 30 YEARS.

IT ALSO HAS TO REMAIN OUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE. SO WITH WITH CITY'S CODE AS IT WAS 16 YEARS AGO WHEN WE BOUGHT.

THAT'S HOW IT WAS. BUT THAT'S THAT'S A HOUSING LIKE CONTRACT.

I FORGOT ELSE I WAS GOING TO SAY. WELL, SOMEBODY RENTING THEIR PLACE OUT? YOU RENT IT OUT? I CAN'T. IT HAS TO BE MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

OKAY. SO NONE OF THE UNITS? SO I HAVE TO LIVE THERE SIX MONTHS PLUS ONE DAY.

EVERY YEAR. EVERY YEAR. OKAY. AND I GET A USED TO GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY EVERY YEAR.

ARE YOU STILL LIVING HERE? ARE YOU STILL WITHIN, LIKE, MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR YOUR.

YOUR HOA AND WHATNOT. BUT THAT SPECIFIC SPECIFIC TO THE DEED RESTRICTION THAT WAS PUT AT THE TIME THAT PROPERTY WAS BUILT.

SO WHAT SHE'S SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT. IT'S DIFFERENT NOW. BUT THAT THAT GOES BACK TO THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, IF THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. PROBABLY. CORRECT.

AND SO UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, WE HAVE TO DO A 55 YEAR DEED RESTRICTION.

OKAY. AND I MEAN, I HAVE NOT SEEN YOUR HOUSING COVENANT, I MUST ADMIT.

I'VE SEEN THEM IN MANY OTHER CITIES, AND THIS IS TYPICALLY HOW THEY'RE DONE. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS ANYTHING TO ADD BY ADDING THAT, BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN A HOUSING COVENANT THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO RENT IT TO SOMEONE ELSE.

AND OFTENTIMES I SEE IN HOUSING COVENANTS THAT THEY CANNOT BE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. YEAH, I'M REALLY CONFUSED ABOUT THIS.

THIS PROJECT CAME TO US AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 45 UNITS.

IT DIDN'T COME TO US AS AN APARTMENT BUILDING.

SO I'M REALLY CONFUSED NOW. ARE YOU CONFUSING THE 8 AFFORDABLE WITH THE 49 TOTAL? IT'S A 49 TOTAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT. ISN'T IT? OR IS THE OWNER SUGGESTING THAT WELL, ACTUALLY, THEY MAY JUST SWITCH IT INTO AN APARTMENT BUILDING.

I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US. NO, WE ARE DOING A CONDOMINIUM MAP.

THE INTENTION IS, IS TO SELL THE UNITS, BUT WITH ANY CONDOMINIUM MAP QUITE HONESTLY, AN OWNER CAN ALWAYS DECIDE NOT TO SELL THEM. TO NOT TO TURN IT INTO AN APARTMENT BUILDING? CORRECT. IS THAT TRUE, STAFF? IT HASN'T BEEN SO.

WELL, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THAT. SO JUST THAT I WANT TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSIONER SOME BACKGROUND ON THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY DICTATING THE SALE OR RENTAL OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY THAT ASSISTS THE CITY WITH THAT.

IF THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE AGREEMENT THAT THE UNITS CAN ONLY BE SOLD, THAT WOULD BIND THEM TO THAT REQUIREMENT.

AND THAT SAID, THE WAY THIS PROJECT WAS CALCULATED BY STAFF, IT WAS FOR SALE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

RIGHT. AND WE HAVE OUR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DIANA VARAT.

YOU CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

EXCUSE ME. I DON'T HAVE A PROJECT. I THANKFULLY THERE'S AFFORDABLE UNITS.

THAT'S GREAT, BUT YOU CANNOT BRING A PROJECT IN FRONT OF US THAT IS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WHERE EACH ONE OF THESE PLACES IN OUR MIND IN THE PACKET, IS BEING SOLD, AND THEN WE HEAR, OH NO, MAYBE IT'S GOING TO BE RENTED.

THE PROJECT IS GOING TO BE AN APARTMENT BUILDING.

THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN APARTMENT BUILDING AND A CONDOMINIUM BUILDING.

AND SO THIS TO ME IS NEWS THAT I DIDN'T PREPARE FOR.

YES AND I AGREE WITH YOU. AND SO WE HAVE DIANA VARAT ON THE LINE.

AND IF YOU CAN OPEN UP HER MIC AND SHE CAN ADDRESS HOW THIS IMPACTS THE WAY THAT THIS PROJECT WAS EVALUATED UNDER AB 2011. YEAH IT'S A CONDO. IT'S COMPLICATED. SO, JAMAL, IF YOU COULD.

IT'S A CONDO VERSUS APARTMENT. SHE CAN SPEAK. OKAY. THE AFFORDABLE UNIT COMPONENT OF IT. THAT PART IS FINE I DON'T CARE DO WHATEVER.

BUT FOR. IS THIS A CONDO PROJECT OR IS IT AN APARTMENT BUILDING? WE NEED TO KNOW THAT. AND IF IT'S ONE OR THE.

IF IT'S AN APARTMENT BUILDING, WE CAN'T WE CAN'T ACT ON AN APARTMENT BUILDING.

IT DIDN'T COME TO US AS AN APARTMENT BUILDING.

OKAY. AND I'M GOING TO HAVE DIANA. THANK YOU.

CHIME IN HERE. DIANA, YOUR YOUR MIC IS OPEN. OKAY.

GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS. I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THIS QUESTION.

[01:15:05]

AT ONE POINT, IN MY UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF WAS THAT A TENTATIVE TRACK MAP, EXCUSE ME, THAT A MAP WAS SUBMITTED AND THIS WAS GOING TO BE A FOR SALE PROJECT.

IN THIS CONTEXT THE REASON IT MATTERS, ACTUALLY, IS BECAUSE AB 2011 ESTABLISHES THE REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY LEVELS DIFFERENTLY FOR RENTAL PROJECTS AND FOR FOR SALE PROJECTS. MY UNDERSTANDING HERE IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO PROVIDE DEEPER AFFORDABILITY THROUGH THE FOR SALE PROVISION. AND SO UNDER AB 2011, YOU CAN PROVIDE 15% OF THE BASE UNITS FOR LOWER INCOME AND QUALIFY FOR AB 2011. WITH THE APPLICANT HERE, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT UNDER THE RENTAL PROVISIONS WAS DOING SORRY FOR SALE PROVISIONS WAS DOING WAS PROVIDING THAT 15% AT A DEEPER AFFORDABILITY.

SO SAYING THAT 15% WILL BE FOR VERY LOW INCOME IN THE FOR SALE CONTEXT, IN ORDER TO MAX OUT THE BENEFITS FROM DENSITY BONUS LAW, GET TO THE TIER TWO, PROVIDE THE THREE MODERATE UNITS AND GET THE EXTREME DENSITY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BUILD THE NUMBER OF UNITS THEY'RE PROPOSING HERE THAT, IN MY OPINION, ONLY WORKS IN THE FOR SALE CONTEXT UNDER AB 2011 BECAUSE UNDER AB 2011.

IF THIS IS A RENTAL PROJECT, THEN THE REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY IS DIFFERENT.

THE REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY FOR A RENTAL AB 2011 PROJECT WOULD BE EITHER THAT YOU'RE DOING 15% LOWER INCOME OR 8% VERY LOW INCOME AND 5% EXTREMELY LOW INCOME.

SO I DON'T, GIVEN THE MAKEUP OF THE UNITS PROPOSED HERE, SEE HOW THIS WILL BE A RENTAL PROJECT THAT FITS INTO AB 2011. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS TO BE A FOR SALE PROJECT. IF IT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED AS AN AB 2011 PROJECT.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE UNITS MUST BE SOLD AND THEY MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WILL HAVE FIVE UNITS, THAT THEY HAVE TO FIND VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO PURCHASE THOSE UNITS FOR.

SO I'M HOPING THEY'VE BUILT THAT INTO THEIR PROFORMA.

AND DESPITE WHAT MS. PASTER SAID ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF FINDING VERY LOW INCOME PURCHASERS, THAT THEY ARE ANTICIPATING THE ABILITY TO DO THAT BECAUSE OTHERWISE A FOR SALE AB 2011 PROJECT WOULD NOT WORK, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THE RENTAL AND THE FOR SALE AT THE SAME TIME AS AN AB 2011 PROJECT.

OKAY. SO I STAND CORRECTED. I WILL I WILL ADMIT I THINK I GOT CONFUSED.

I JUST CONFIRMED WITH MY CLIENT THIS WILL BE THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS MS. VARAT SAID WE ARE DOING. I'M LOOKING AT THE PERCENTAGES HERE, AND THAT IS CORRECT, THAT WE.

I HAD SOME PROJECT MERGE THAT THIS WILL BE THIS WILL BE A CONDO PROJECT.

I'VE SAID IT ON THE RECORD. THIS IS. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION.

THANK YOU. WAYNE. COMMISSIONER GADDIS GO AHEAD.

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I WAS GOING TO CHANGE TOPICS.

OH, OKAY. SO SO SOMEBODY PURCHASES ONE OF THESE CONDOS VERY LOW INCOME.

ETCETERA. ETCETERA. SO THEY THEY ARE LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM RENTING OUT THAT CONDO THAT THEY OWN TO ANYONE? OR IS IT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW SOME SORT OF AFFORDABILITY RULE IF THEY RENT OUT THE CONDO? HOW DOES THAT WORK, EXACTLY? YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT ONE OF THESE AGREEMENTS IN A LONG TIME, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THEY CANNOT TRANSFER IT TO ANYONE ELSE UNLESS THEY MEET THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS, MEANING THEY CAN'T SELL IT TO ANYONE ELSE UNLESS THEY MEET THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND THEY CAN'T RENT IT EITHER.

AT ALL? YEAH. YOU CAN'T DO LIKE, A SUBLEASE I THOSE THINGS ARE PROHIBITED.

AND AND SO THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. USUALLY THESE AGREEMENTS ARE, YOU KNOW, 50 PAGES LONG AND THERE'S COVENANTS AND YOU HAVE TO RECORD THEM. AND SO THEY'RE VERY DETAILED.

THEY HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE CITY TO ACTUALLY SELL ONE OF THESE UNITS.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONTROL OVER HOW THESE UNITS ARE TRANSFERRED AND MANAGED AND WHO GETS TO BUY THEM AND SO FORTH.

[01:20:08]

OKAY. YES WE DO. AND WE'VE NEVER ENCOUNTERED A VIOLATION.

OR HAVE WE? I'M SURE WE HAVE. I DON'T PERSONALLY HANDLE THEM, BUT I'M SURE WE HAVE.

OKAY. AND I'LL NOTE ENFORCEMENT IS HANDLED BY THE HOUSING DIVISION, WHICH IS STATIONED IN COMMUNITY SERVICES.

THEY'RE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACING RESIDENTS AND HOUSING, FINDING OPTIONS, HOUSING OPTIONS IN THE CITY.

SO THAT'S THE DIVISION WITHIN THE CITY, WITHIN COMMUNITY SERVICES THAT HANDLES THE ENFORCEMENT.

OKAY. AND TO SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE, I'VE SOLD UNITS LIKE THIS.

I KNOW THE CITY OF TORRANCE. THEY HAVE AN AUTHORITY THAT DOES THAT. WHEN I HAD TO BRING A BUYER, THEY HAD TO BE PRE-QUALIFIED BEFORE THEY COULD EVEN GO THROUGH THE MOTION.

AND I THINK RECENTLY THE CITY COUNCIL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WASN'T THERE A SALE OF AFFORDABLE UNIT AT THE MONTECITO THAT THE CITY WAS INVOLVED IN? I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DEED DOCUMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL? YES, I'M SURE THERE WERE.

YEAH, IT HAPPENED LIKE THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO.

SO THERE WAS ONE AT MONTECITO THAT WAS IN THAT SAME CALIBER.

SO THE CITY IS ACTIVELY DOING THAT NOW. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND WE'RE HAPPY TO AGREE TO RATE ALL OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS IN THE COVENANT.

WE'RE EXPECTING TO DO THAT. VERY GOOD. OKAY. I DID WANT TO SET THIS PROPERTY UP JUST A LITTLE BIT FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. SO IT HAS BEEN A DIRT LOT. I WOULDN'T CALL IT DIRT BLIGHTED.

IT IS DIRT LOT. OKAY. IT'S ACTUALLY A CHRISTMAS TREE FARM.

AND IT'S OTHER THINGS AS WELL. BUT IT SITS ON PEARL.

AND PEARL WHEN IT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN, IT HITS THE PARK AND IT HITS THE PIER.

IT ALSO HITS THE BUSIEST PART OF THE BEACH. SO RIGHT NEAR THE PIER DURING THE SUMMERTIME, IT GRADUALLY GOES DOWN TOWARDS THE AVENUES WITH LESS PEOPLE ON THE BEACH. WE HAVE NO PARKING ON PEARL.

WE HAVE NO PARKING ON BROADWAY. WE HAVE NO PARKING ON CATALINA.

IT'S ALL FILLED BY THE TIME PEOPLE COME HOME FROM WORK.

YOU CANNOT PARK ANYWHERE AROUND THERE, RIGHT? YOU'RE GOING CIRCLES. SO OUR JOB TONIGHT IS TO GIVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

THIS PROJECT SITS WITHIN THE LOCAL COASTAL ZONE.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS, IT'S AN AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY HAS MADE WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO.

TO RESPECT THE FACT THAT WE WANT PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE STATE, IF NOT THE COUNTRY, TO BE ABLE TO USE THE BEACH.

THAT IS OUR GOAL. OKAY? WE REALLY TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY.

AS AN EXAMPLE, WE HAD A VETERINARY CLINIC ON TORRANCE ON TOPAZ AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

SO IT'S JUST A BLOCK AND A HALF AWAY. THE COMMERCIAL PART OF THAT REQUIRED 7 OR 8 SPACES, AND THIS IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

THEY HAD TO HAVE 7 OR 8 SPACES. SO IN ORDER TO GIVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, WE HAVE TO HAVE OBJECTIVE FINDINGS. OKAY? I JUST GAVE YOU ALL KINDS OF SUBJECTIVE FINDINGS.

I TOLD YOU, THERE'S NO PARKING SPACES, WHICH THEY AREN'T. AND I'M SURE CHAIR CRAIG, WHO LIVES, YOU KNOW, A BLOCK AND A HALF FROM THERE. I LIVE THREE BLOCKS AWAY, WILL TELL YOU THERE'S NO PARKING.

OBJECTIVELY, THERE WAS NO PARKING SURVEY DONE.

THERE WAS NO PARKING. SO WHERE DO THOSE 24 PARKING CAR? WHERE DO THOSE CARS GO? THERE'S NO SPACE FOR THEM TO GO ON THE STREET.

SO IF WE'RE TO SAY, YEAH, THIS IS PERFECTLY FINE WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE LOCAL COASTAL ZONE, AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIVE NUMBERS FROM ANYBODY.

WE NEED THAT SURVEY. WE ALWAYS GET A SURVEY WHEN IT'S A PROJECT LIKE THIS.

THEY THEY DO IT. I MEAN, WE CAN'T MAKE THIS CONCLUSION [LAUGHTER] WITHOUT SOME OBJECTIVE FINDINGS THAT WOULD COMPLETELY GO AGAINST WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. YOU KNOW WHAT? OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED WHICH CONFIRMS THAT THE 24 SPACE REDUCTION IN COMMERCIAL PARKING WILL NOT AFFECT COASTAL ACCESS OR VISITOR OR VISITORS SERVING THE AREA.

YOU KNOW, YOU YOU WE HAVE THIS CONCEPT OF THIS SHARED PARKING SURVEY.

BUT AGAIN THAT ISN'T THAT THAT ISN'T PROBABLY GOING TO CORRECT THE POSITION BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A WE

[01:25:09]

RIGHT. WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. SO NOW WE'RE 24 SPACES SHORT.

HOW WHERE DO THESE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER PARK TO GET TO THE PIER, THE BEACH TO WALK ALONG THE BEACH TO GO FOR A SWIM? BECAUSE THOSE 24 COMMERCIAL SPACES ARE NOW ON BROADWAY.

CATALINA. THE ESPLANADE, WHEREVER. RIGHT? OKAY.

AND THEN HOW DOES THE LACK OF A SURVEY ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO MAKE FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH ALL SUBJECTIVE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN STANDARDS? SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT NOW IF WE OKAY A PROJECT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SURVEY.

WE ARE NOW ANOTHER PROJECT IS GOING TO COME FORWARD AND SAY, BUT WAIT A MINUTE, YOU DIDN'T WE DIDN'T REQUIRE PEARL HAVE A SURVEY, YOU KNOW, AND THE SURVEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN, IN SUMMER WHEN IT'S REALLY, REALLY BUSY [LAUGHTER].

RIGHT? SO WE NEED THAT SURVEY. I MEAN, I'M WILLING TO HAVE A SURVEY DONE IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY SO THAT WE SEE WHERE DO WE STAND.

I'M SURE THAT THE THE PARKING EXPERTS KNOW HOW TO FIND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECEMBER AND AUGUST.

BUT I CAN'T COMFORTABLY MAKE A DECISION. IT'S MISSING INFORMATION.

IT'S WE AND IT'S SET ON THAT SLIDE SEAN. ON THE THIRD SLIDE THAT I ASKED YOU TO PUT UP, IT SAID THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE OBJECTIVE FINDINGS TO HAVE THE PERMIT.

[LAUGHTER] WE DON'T HAVE ANY ON THE PARKING. IF YOU PUT THAT SLIDE BACK UP SEAN IT'S ON YOUR IT'S A THIRD FROM THE LAST ON YOUR SLIDE PRESENTATION.

YOU USE THE WORD OBJECTIVE. DO YOU DO YOU WANT ME TO START? OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. HAZELTINE, HAZELTINE? HAZELTINE IS FINE. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS.

SO THIS IS FIRST, I WANT TO TALK TO PRECEDENT.

RIGHT? SO THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC LAW AND IS A VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION.

SO UNDER AB 2011 THERE ARE THERE ARE CERTAIN GIVES AND TAKES SOME OF THE GIVES AND TAKES ARE.

THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO HAVE TO EMPLOY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND PAY THEM A PREVAILING WAGE.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, RIGHT? THE STATE HAS SAID IF YOU DO THOSE THINGS, YOU ONLY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.

SO IT'S NOT THAT. IT IS NOT THAT YOUR. SO THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ARE THINGS LIKE THE HEIGHT IS 45FT.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE X NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. BUT THE STATE LAW FURTHER SAYS THAT YOU ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THROUGH A INCENTIVE OR CONCESSION IN THIS STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW WHICH MAY DEVIATE THOSE STANDARDS.

SO WHERE IN A NORMAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS.

AND AGAIN, I WOULD POTENTIALLY DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY BECAUSE THEY ARE YOUR ATTORNEY, RIGHT? I'M NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION.

I COULDN'T COME IN FOR A REGULAR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SAY, WELL, THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T DO THAT.

THIS IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION. IT IS NOT COMPARABLE.

ALSO, A PARKING SURVEY WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED.

ON THE CHECK, ON THE CITY'S CHECKLIST. AND SO THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO DO.

AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BE MANDATED TO DO.

BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONSTERNATION AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, BUT THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT AND SPECIFIC PROJECT.

AND THAT IS THIS IS HOW STATE LAW ALLOWS THESE PROJECTS TO BE PERMITTED.

WHERE WHERE YOU'RE MAKING MAYBE OBJECTIVE IS THAT THE WORD OBJECTIVE AS DEFINED MEANS THAT IT HAS MATHEMATICAL IT IT YOU CAN SUBSTANTIATE IT.

I CANNOT FIND AN I CANNOT GIVE A PERMIT BASED ON SUBJECTIVE.

WHAT I'VE SEEN. I KNOW IT'S BAD. I IT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION WOULD NOT BE HAPPY WITH.

I THINK MAYBE WE'RE SPEAKING PAST EACH OTHER ON WHAT IT MEANS TO COMPLY WITH OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.

AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I MAY LOOK TO YOUR CITY ATTORNEY.

OUR PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.

THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, WE CAN DEVIATE FROM THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THROUGH THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. SO IT'S NOT WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES THAT.

YOUR WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS DO NOT SAY CONCESSION NUMBER, WHATEVER.

[01:30:01]

I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER NOT HAD A PARKING SURVEY ON A BIG PROJECT LIKE THIS.

I MEAN, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK TO STAFF FOR THAT.

YEAH. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT ONE OF THEIR THREE CONCESSIONS IS A WAIVER OF THE PARKING STUDY.

NO. SO. NO, IT'S NOT. IT MENTIONS IN THE BULK IT SAYS CONCESSIONS, BUT WHEN YOU LIST THEM ONE, TWO, THREE, THERE'S NO MENTION OF A WAIVER OF A PARKING STUDY.

THERE IS A THERE IS A CONCESSION FOR THE 24 SPACES.

SORRY, MARC. [LAUGHTER] I LOOKED EVERYWHERE FOR IT.

I LOOKED. ALSO, AND I'LL LET SEAN SPEAK TO THAT.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING CODE REQUIRED 200 SPACES FOR THIS PROJECT, AND THEY PROVIDED THAT THAT WOULD MEET IT. AND IT'S BECAUSE IT'S THE OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS.

IN THIS CASE, THE PARKING IS BEING SET BY STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

THAT'S SETTING THE LIMIT. ON THE COMMERCIAL. ON THE COMMERCIAL AS WELL, BECAUSE IT'S IT'S ONE OF THE CONCESSIONS FOR THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE THAT APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT. IN THE LOCAL COASTAL ZONE.

YES. AND THERE'S LANGUAGE AND THIS WAS STATED IN THE PRESENTATION IN THE REPORT THAT CONCESSIONS OR WAIVERS THROUGH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS TO FIND THE PROJECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

AND THEN SEAN. YEAH, I'M TRYING TO. YEAH, LET ME FIND IT.

NO. NO, THAT'S NOT IT. WHERE'S THAT? IT'S UNDER THE 22 43.

SO THOSE LAST TWO BULLETS. ANY WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF AN LCP STANDARD GRANTED UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS TO FIND THE PROJECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

SO, SEAN, CAN YOU BRING UP THE SLIDE THAT HAS THE THREE CONCESSIONS THEY REQUESTED? OH, YEAH. LET'S SEE. THERE WE GO. SO YEAH, THIS IS IT.

YEAH. THE FAR COMMERCIAL PARKING REDUCTION FROM 68 TO 44.

AND THEN THE THE LOCAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE 14-DAY UTILIZATION SURVEY FOR, FOR THE OVERLAP PARKING.

CHAIR CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION AS FAR AS PROCESS? IF THE APPLICANT IS DONE MAKING A PRESENTATION, THEN MAYBE WE CAN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN AND THEN DO AND THEN DO COMMISSION QUESTION AND ANSWERS. THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. PUBLIC COMMENT.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO START FIRST WITH SPEAKER CARDS.

AND THE VERY FIRST CARD I HAVE IS FROM MARTY HALL.

MARY HALL. OH, MARY HALL, I'M SORRY. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME SOME TIME ON YOUR AGENDA.

THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC. MY NAME IS MARY HALL.

I LIVE ON MIRAMAR DRIVE, WHICH IS NEAR PEARL STREET AND PCH.

MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IT WILL DESTROY THE HISTORIC LOOK AND FEEL OF OUR SCENERY.

THERE ARE HOUSES ON PEARL STREET AND BROADWAY THAT ARE ALSO HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED AND COULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THEM. AS SOMEONE WHO'S INVESTED IN MY HOME AND PAID QUITE A HIGH PRICE FOR THE HOME AND THEN PAID TO RESTORE IT, I'M REALLY HEARTSICK TO HEAR THAT REDONDO WOULD CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TYPE.

I ALSO BELIEVE THE DEVELOPMENT INTERFERES WITH RESIDENTS AFFORDED PROTECTIONS, THE USE OF

[01:35:06]

THERE WILL BE CONSTRUCTION, NOISE, BLOCKING OF OCEAN VIEWS AND PARKING WILL OVERFLOW TO SMALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

SHARED PARKING IS NOT PRACTICAL. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE HAS BEEN AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY ON THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE I THINK THIS WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WILDLIFE AND COASTAL LIFE IN REDONDO BEACH. THIS PROJECT IS IN A COASTAL ZONE.

WHY THIS PLOT OF LAND SO CLOSE TO THE OCEAN WHEN OUR COASTLINE IS ALREADY ERODING? FINALLY, I HAVE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY THIS IS STRUCTURED, AND A LOT OF YOU HAVE ALREADY CAUGHT ON TO. IT'S KIND OF A BAIT AND SWITCH. IT'S A CONDO.

WAIT, IT'S A RENTAL. WAIT, IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING [LAUGHTER].

IT'S ALL THESE THINGS. I'VE SEEN THIS IN SAN FRANCISCO.

I'VE SEEN THIS IN SAN JOSE. IT RUINS THE CITY.

THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. MAYBE YOU HAVE 2 OR 3, AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ALL KINDS OF FRAUD WHERE PEOPLE COME IN AND APPLY FOR THEM, AND THEY'RE NOT LOW INCOME PEOPLE. THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE.

AND THAT'S ANOTHER BURDEN ON THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONTROL.

THAT'S MY TIME [LAUGHTER]. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER I HAVE IS A FAMILIAR NAME.

SHEILA LAMB. CHAIR LAMB. FAR TO SAY FORMER CHAIR LAMB.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, ESTEEMED COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR, CRAIG.

I'D LIKE TO RAISE ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE RELATED TO THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

AND AND THAT IS THE PARKING AS IT RELATES TO COASTAL ACCESS.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CORRECTLY APPLIES STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING, AND SHOWS COMPLIANCE WITH A STATE MANDATED CAP OF 61 RESIDENTIAL SPACES.

THAT PORTION OF THE ANALYSIS IS CLEAR. HOWEVER, THE REPORT DOES NOT ANALYZE HOW THE REDUCTION IN COMMERCIAL PARKING AFFECTS COASTAL ACCESS, WHICH REMAINS A CORE OBJECTIVE OF THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND A REQUIRED CONSIDERATION FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

UNDER THE LCP THIS PROJECT WOULD ORDINARILY BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 68 COMMERCIAL PARK PARKING SPACES, BUT ONLY 44 ARE PROPOSED, A REDUCTION OF 24 SPACES.

THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTS A WAIVER FOR THE REQUIRED SHARED PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY THAT WOULD NORMALLY PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THIS REDUCTION WILL NOT CAUSE SPILLOVER IMPACTS. THAT SURVEY IS MISSING.

THIS SITE IS LOCATED ALONG PCH AND ATTRACTS WEEKEND AND PEAK PERIOD VISITORS.

WITHOUT A PARKING UTILIZATION ANALYSIS THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE WHERE DISPLACED VEHICLES WILL PARK DURING HIGH DEMAND PERIODS, PARTICULARLY ON WEEKENDS, OR HOW OVERFLOW PARKING MAY AFFECT SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL STREETS OR ACCESS TO COASTAL RESOURCES. THIS SURVEY IS MISSING THAT WOULD GIVE THE EVIDENCE.

FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THE COMMISSION'S ROLE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBJECTIVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM STANDARDS. THIS DETERMINATION TYPICALLY RELIES ON PARKING DATA, ESPECIALLY WHERE COMMERCIAL PARKING IS REDUCED.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ADDRESSING WEEKEND AND PEAK PERIOD PARKING DEMAND AND POTENTIAL STREET OVERFLOW. THE. THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO IRREGARDLESS OF 2011 AND AND THE DENSITY BONUS LAW. IRREGARDLESS, THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO TO PROVIDE THOSE FINDINGS

[01:40:02]

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. PLEASE CONTINUE. BUT THOSE LAWS STILL REQUIRE THE CITY TO ISSUE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

ONLY IF THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM STANDARDS.

PARKING IN THE COASTAL ZONE IS DIRECTLY TIED TO COASTAL ACCESS, WHILE DENSITY BONUS LAW ALLOWS PARKING REDUCTIONS.

IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR AN AFFIRMATIVE FINDING THAT REDUCED COMMERCIAL PARKING WILL NOT IMPAIR COASTAL ACCESS OR CAUSE WEEKEND SPILLOVER.

THIS ANALYSIS IS MISSING FROM THE RECORD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO BE BACK.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER CARD I HAVE IS FROM ANIKA BLAIR.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ANIKA BLAIR.

I'VE LIVED IN REDONDO BEACH FOR OVER 40 YEARS.

I INTENDED TO SPEAK SOLELY ON SAFETY TONIGHT, BUT I HAVE TO ADDRESS WHAT WE JUST WITNESSED.

WE JUST WATCHED THE APPLICANT'S OWN LEGAL COUNSEL ON THE RECORD STATE SHE WAS CONFUSED ABOUT WHETHER THESE ARE FOR SALE OR FOR RENT.

SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THE ANSWER. SHE DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER UNTIL HER CLIENT WHISPERED IT TO HER.

COMMISSIONERS IF THE APPLICANT'S LAWYER DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, HOW CAN YOU? AND THIS BRINGS ME TO THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF CONCLUDED THAT THIS PROJECT CREATES NO SAFETY ISSUES.

I'M CHALLENGING THAT FINDING BASED ON THE LACK OF PARKING STUDY AND THE INTRODUCTION OF VALETS ON A FIRE LANE.

I ASSERT THAT THIS PROJECT CREATES A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

STAFF CANNOT VERIFY THAT THIS. THIS IMPACT IS MITIGATED BECAUSE THEY ANALYZED A PROJECT THAT APPARENTLY DOESN'T EXIST.

YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEIR REPORT. HERE IS THE EVIDENCE ON THAT SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT.

HAZARD NUMBER ONE THE VALET QUEUE BLOCKING EMERGENCY RESPONSE.

TO SOLVE THEIR PARKING DEFICIT THEY ARE NOW SUGGESTING VALET PARKING.

IF YOU APPROVE A VALET SYSTEM, YOU MUST ASK WHERE EXACTLY DO CARS STAGE UNTIL WHILE THEY WAIT? IF THREE RESIDENTS ARRIVE AT 6:00 P.M. WHERE DO THE SECOND AND THIRD SIT? THEY SIT ON THE STREET. I CHALLENGE THE APPLICANT TO SHOW US ON THE MAP WHERE THE QUEUE GOES, THEY CAN'T. THE QUEUE WILL BLOCK PEARL STREET, AND WHEN YOU BLOCK PEARL STREET YOU ARE PHYSICALLY BARRICADING FIRE STATION NUMBER 2.

BLOCKING A FIRE LANE IS A IS A DEFINITION OF A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON SAFETY.

HAZARD NUMBER TWO IS THE ABSURDITY OF GOLF CARTS.

THE SUGGESTION THAT RESIDENTS WILL USE GOLF CARTS TO MITIGATE IS A DANGEROUS FANTASY.

TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IS A DANGEROUS FANTASY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND PEARL.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BLIND LEFT AT PEARL. MIXING LOW SPEED GOLF CARTS WITH HIGH SPEED TRAFFIC ISN'T AN AMENITY, IT'S A COLLISION WAITING TO HAPPEN. TO SUGGEST THIS WILL THIS WITHOUT A SAFETY STUDY IS NEGLIGENT.

HAZARD NUMBER THREE, THE THREAT TO VULNERABLE CHILDREN.

MOST CRITICALLY. LOOK AT THE MIX YOU'RE CREATING ON THE SIDEWALK.

THE APPLICANT WANTS TO WANTS A WAIVER TO SLASH THE SETBACK TO JUST 60FT.

YOU HAVE A CHILD CARE CENTER WITH CHILDREN WALKING TODDLERS TO THE PARK ON THAT SAME STRIP, AND NOW YOU'RE ADDING RUSHING VALETS. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY TO THAT SAME SIX FOOT SIDEWALK.

VALETS ARE INCENTIVIZED TO MOVE FAST. SMALL. CHILDREN ARE SMALL BY APPROVING THE DRIVEWAY YOU'RE CREATING A COLLISION POINT BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS AND PRESCHOOLERS.

IN CLOSING, STATE LAW SETS A HIGH BAR FOR DENIAL.

BUT THIS PROJECT MEETS IT. THE APPLICANT DOESN'T KNOW IF THEY'RE RENTING OR SELLING.

THEY'RE GUESSING THAT VALETS WILL WORK. THEY'RE GUESSING THAT GOLF CARTS ARE SAFE.

YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY BECAUSE THE IMPACT HAS NOT BEEN STUDIED OR MITIGATED.

YOU HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY AND THE MORAL OBLIGATION TO DENY THESE WAIVERS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES. NEXT SPEAKER CARD HAS FROM ERIC HAROLD.

HELLO, COMMISSIONERS. YOU CAN MOVE THE PODIUM UP.

THERE'S A BUTTON ON THE SIDE. ON THE FRONT BUTTON.

YOU CAN LIFT THE PODIUM UP. YEAH, YOU CAN. YOU CAN MAKE THE PODIUM HIGHER IF YOU WANT. NO, NO, NO. JUST SQUAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT [LAUGHTER].

ON THE RIGHT SIDE. MORE. WON'T START YOUR TIME UNTIL IT'S UP.

YOUR TIME AFTER IT GOES OFF [LAUGHTER]. EVERY TIME I COME UP, I ALWAYS WANT TO PLAY ELEVATOR MUSIC. OH,

[01:45:04]

THERE YOU GO. FIRST OF ALL, I CAN SAY THAT I AM THIS IS THIS PROJECT IS NOT EXCITE ME ONE BIT.

I'M AGAINST IT. THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS HAVE ACTUALLY ANSWERED AND A LOT OF QUESTIONS I HAVE, AS WELL AS THE TIME THAT WAS GIVEN HERE BY THE PRESENTATION, WHICH BASICALLY STATES THAT THE STATE IS DOING YOUR JOB.

IT'S SAYING, WHY HAVE COMMISSIONERS? WHY HAVE A BUILDING SAFETY? BECAUSE THE STATE WANTS TO DO EVERYTHING NOW, TODAY.

SO MY POINT IS THAT WE CAN'T REALLY ALLOW THAT.

WE HAVE TO AT LEAST LOOK AT EVERYTHING. AND TO THE I TO THE T AND SEE WE AS THE CITY CAN GET INVOLVED WITH TO PROTECT THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH. TWO ISSUES THAT COME UP ONE THE SIDEWALK.

WE CAN HAVE ANY TYPE OF A CHANGE IN THE SETBACK.

WE'VE ALREADY HAD A DEATH ON THAT STREET ON KNOB HILL AND GERTRUDA AND PCH.

WE'VE ALREADY HAD. WE CAN HAVE MORE. THAT IS A THAT IS A ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN ON PCH, ONE OF THE BUSIEST STREETS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

SECONDLY, PARKING. YES, THAT IS A MAJOR ISSUE.

I LIVE ON GERTRUDA AND I HAVE PEOPLE THAT PARK THERE, AND I'VE ACTUALLY TAKEN PICTURES AND THEY LIVE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE. I FOLLOW THEM DOWN PCH AND THEY KEEP THEIR CAR THERE FOR A WEEK.

I MEAN, WE'RE CUTTING DOWN THE PARKING EVERYWHERE AND THAT'S A HAZARD IN ITSELF.

SO IF WE CAN LOOK AT THE AT THE STATE LAW AND SEE EXACTLY WHAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE CONTROL OF.

WE HAVE TO GET INVOLVED AND MAKE DECISIONS FOR OUR CITY.

OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER COME OVER HERE AND DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING. UNTIL WE LOOK LIKE FREAKING MARINA DEL REY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE HAVE TO KEEP OUR CITY AS THIS INDIVIDUAL ITSELF, JUST LIKE THEY WANT TO SAY THEY HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT WHILE THE NEXT ONE WILL LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME. I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.

AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER CARD I HAVE IS SIMON FAINBOIM.

I'M PRONOUNCING IT WRONG [LAUGHTER] SORRY. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M DEEPLY. PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME AND THEN. YES, I AM SIMON FAINBOIM.

I AM A LOCAL PHYSICIAN. I'M DEEPLY HUMBLED TO BE HERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIRPERSON.

SO I USUALLY DON'T ATTEND THESE MEETINGS, AND I WANT TO ATTEND BECAUSE I DO LIVE NEAR THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

AND YOU KNOW, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED.

AND IT DOES CREATE A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY, AS WE TALKED ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.

WE DID SKIRT WE DID SKIRT CEQA. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SKIRTING THE GENERAL REDONDO BEACH GENERAL PLAN PLAN.

WE'RE SKIRTING A LOT OF ZONING YOU KNOW ISSUES.

AND SO THE LOCATION IS ALREADY ONE OF THE MOST CONGESTED CORRIDORS IN THE CITY, AS IT ALREADY IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP.

YOU KNOW, THE ON SITE PARKING IS AN ISSUE. THE IT WILL FLOW OVER TO THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS, WHICH IS IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING AND YOU KNOW, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S UNSAFE TURNING GOING ON.

IT'S HAPPENING QUITE A BIT. I LIVE IN THE OLD JENSEN'S HOUSE AND THE, THE RED CURB THERE WAS GREAT.

BUT THEN PEOPLE ARE JUST FLYING BY. AND WHENEVER THERE'S CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN PEARL AND PCH, IT GOES THROUGH FRANCISCA AND THROUGH THAT, AND IT BECOMES DANGEROUS.

AND I HAVE A TWO YEAR OLD AND I WOULD NOT. SHE DOESN'T PLAY OVER THERE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S ANY KIND OF ACCIDENTS.

THAT DOES HAPPEN FREQUENTLY, NOT FREQUENTLY, BUT DOES HAPPEN.

OR IF THERE'S ANY, YOU KNOW, FIRE TRUCK THAT'S RUNNING THROUGH THE ROAD OR POLICE PULL SOMEONE OVER, TRAFFIC FLOWS OUT TO THE OTHER STREETS. AND THEN THE HEIGHT AND THE MASSING OF THE FOUR-STORY STRUCTURE IS OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING, LIKE, FRAME AND PICTURE WORK.

IT'S IT'S AND IT'S DEFINITELY IN CONFLICT WITH THE ESTHETIC LOOK.

THE PROJECT WOULD PERMANENTLY BLOCK THE ESTABLISHED OCEAN VIEWS AND NEIGHBORHOOD VIEWS, WHICH IS PART OF THE COASTAL.

ISN'T THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION ALSO SAY THERE HAS TO BE IF I'M CORRECT, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE VIEWS.

AND LASTLY, YOU KNOW YOU KNOW, THERE'S UNMITIGATED TRAFFIC, PARKING, SAFETY AND VISUAL IMPACTS.

BUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER DOING TWO THINGS.

ONE, REDUCING THE HEIGHT, ADJUSTING THE PARKING.

HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN REALLY WORK WITH ALL OF US BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WANT TO GET THIS HERE, AND I KNOW WE NEED SOMETHING ALSO. BUT YOU KNOW, BUT I HOPE THEY CAN WORK WITH US.

AND I THINK TODAY IS NOT THE DAY THAT WE CAN SORT ALL THESE COMPLICATED AND CONFUSING ISSUES.

[01:50:06]

NEXT SPEAKER CARD I HAVE IS OKAY. IT'S REALLY LIGHT, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO READ IT HERE.

ARUN BHUMITRA. DID I SAY IT? OH, OKAY SORRY. DID I SAY IT CLOSE OR? AARON. [LAUGHTER] SORRY. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS STAFF.

YOU'RE PROBABLY ON AN INFORMATION OVERLOAD. MR. COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN. YOU DID PRONOUNCE MY NAME PRETTY GOOD, THOUGH, YOU KNOW.

OKAY [LAUGHETR]. THANK YOU. YOU ARE ALL ON INFORMATION OVERLOAD, I GUESS.

WHAT PROS AND CONS. I'M GOING TO BRING A LITTLE DIFFERENT ELEMENT TO THIS.

MY NAME IS ARUN BHUMITRA. I'M A RESIDENT OF ROLLING HILLS.

BUT I'M JEALOUS. I'M JEALOUS OF THE LOVELY LIFESTYLE YOU HAVE IN REDONDO BEACH.

I WAS IN YOUR LIBRARY A LITTLE WHILE AGO. AMAZING.

DAYNA VINKE IS DOING A GREAT JOB OVER HERE. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS I WENT THROUGH A SIMILAR.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO BRING WHY I AM HERE.

BEN AGARWAL, THE PRINCIPAL ON THIS PROJECT, WAS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ON THE ON THE PLANE F-18.

THAT'S THE PLANE IN TOP GUN, TOM CRUISE. I WAS THE PROJECT ENGINEER 44 YEARS AGO, SO HE.

BEN BRINGS A LOT OF CREDIBILITY. NOT BECAUSE WE WORKED AT NORTHROP TOGETHER, BECAUSE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAWTHORNE AND LOMITA IS RJ PLAZA. THAT'S MY BUILDING. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF LOTS ON HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD, AND WE WENT THROUGH THE SAME THING.

IT WAS A VERY BLIGHTED AREA. OKAY. IT WAS A CLOSED DOWN GAS STATION.

ALL THE PROPERTIES WERE, YOU KNOW, IN A REALLY BAD SHAPE.

BUT THE CITY TOOK A CHANCE WITH US, AND MR. AGARWAL WAS KIND ENOUGH TO TAKE THAT PROJECT AND CONVERTED IT TO.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT INTERSECTION? SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAWTHORNE AND LOMITA? YES. THERE'S A BLUE SALT FISH GRILL.

ALL KINDS OF BUSINESSES. AND AGAIN, WE WENT THROUGH THE PARKING PROBLEM OVER THERE, TOO.

THERE ARE 187,000 CARS GO THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION.

YOU KNOW, IT'S AS BUSY AS YOUR TORRANCE BOULEVARD AND PCH.

SO WHAT WE DID WAS, YOU KNOW, AS A DEVELOPER, AS A ENTREPRENEUR, WE'RE TAKING A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY.

WE ARE PUTTING OUR NECK ON THE LINE. IF WE GIVE A BRING A LOT OF PUT ALL THE STRUCTURES AND PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK.

YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE CITIES AND EVERYTHING STUDIES, BUT THE FACT IS THE MARKET DICTATES IT.

SO THE WAY WE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION OVER THERE, WE LOOK FOR TENANTS WHICH COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE DID COME DOWN WITH A RESTAURANT BUT A SUBWAY.

AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME WE GOT A WOMEN'S SHOE STORE, WHICH DOES NOT BRING THAT MUCH TRAFFIC OR A PHARMACY.

SO THE MARKET DICTATES, IN MY OPINION, WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

SO WE HAVE A VERY THRIVING, THRIVING AREA. FIRST WE CAME DOWN OVER AT THE CORNER, THEN A FERRARI.

THAT WHOLE AREA BECAME GOOD. SO WHAT YOU WILL SEE, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THE SAME THING HAPPENING AT PEARL AND PCH.

ALL THE EVERYTHING THE MARKET WILL DECLARE AND THE OWNER, WHOEVER IT IS, HOPEFULLY THE PRINCIPAL, HE'S DONE A GREAT JOB WILL MAKE IT A SUCCESS.

SO I REST MY CASE. SO PLEASE GIVE. GIVE MR. AGARWAL THE OPPORTUNITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND DOCTOR ANDY LESSER.

I GUESS I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOWER THIS PODIUM. [LAUGHTER]. WE CAN SEE YOU.

YEAH. PLAY THE JEOPARDY MUSIC. OKAY, I'M GOING TO TRY TO SPEAK FAST.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY I HAD A PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY WITH THE PUBLIC NOTICE BECAUSE IT WAS A TWO PAGE NOTICE AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO POST ONE PAGE, TWO PAGE. WHAT PUBLIC WORKS. OR I WAS TOLD BY DAISY IN PLANNING, THEY STAPLED THE TWO PAGES TOGETHER.

SO SOMEBODY WITHOUT ANY INDICATION THAT SAYS, PLEASE FLIP OVER.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SECOND PAGE. SO IT WASN'T A LEGAL POSTING OF NOTICE.

NUMBER TWO, THIS WHOLE PROJECT AND THE STATE LAW AND EVERYTHING IS AIMED AT SCREWING THE RESIDENTS OF REDONDO BEACH.

OKAY? THE CITY HAS SOME DISCRETION, BUT THE STAFF DECIDED NOT TO USE ANY OF IT.

OKAY? AND COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE, YOU ARE MARVELOUS TO JUST START THE PROCESS OF SAYING, HEY, WE DON'T HAVE TO ROLL OVER AND GIVE EVERYTHING THAT A DEVELOPER WANTS TO MAX OUT BECAUSE THE STATE SAYS YOU CAN MAX OUT.

OKAY? I LIVE ON PEARL. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

THERE HAVE BEEN ACCIDENTS AT THE HIGHWAY. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS DRIVEWAY BEING ON PEARL.

OKAY? I LOOKED AT 1800 PCH. HUGE DEVELOPMENT.

[01:55:05]

OKAY. I LOOKED AT 1700 PCH, THAT MASSIVE THING AT PV BOULEVARD AND PCH.

THAT DRIVEWAY IS ON PV BOULEVARD, BUT AT LEAST THAT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE WITH TWO LANES IN EACH DIRECTION.

PEARL STREET IS A SMALL, NARROW STREET WITH DIAGONAL PARKING, AND IT'S RIGHT UP THE BLOCK FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. OKAY? THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE, AND STAFF COMPLETELY IGNORED THAT.

OKAY? YOU'VE GOT CHILDREN'S JOURNEY ACROSS THE STREET.

MY NEIGHBORS ON THE 300 BLOCK OF PEARL HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THEY GET OVERFLOW PARKING FROM CHILDREN'S JOURNEY.

SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT THIS HUGE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE UP THERE? AND PEOPLE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO PARK? THEY'RE GOING TO COME ALL THE WAY UP PEARL. IT'S GOING TO BE CONGESTED.

HOW'S A FIRE ENGINE SUPPOSED TO GET THROUGH? THERE'S NO DEDICATED LEFT TURN PROTECTED ARROW SIGNAL MODIFICATION TO BE PRESENTED TO CALTRANS. PEARL IS A SMALL RESIDENTIAL STREET.

THIS WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS RESIDENTIAL BEFORE THE STATE TOOK OVER IN 1933 AND CONVERTED SOUTH ILLINOIS AVENUE INTO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. SO THEY'VE ALREADY SHOEHORNED INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA, TONS OF COMMERCIAL.

SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE USED CAR LOT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER COMES BEFORE YOU ALL AND GIVES THE SAME BS EXCUSE? OH, WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOU ALL THIS PARKING.

MOTION TO EXTEND. SECOND. JUST A FEW SECONDS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. PLEASE CONTINUE. I MEAN, I'M ALREADY CONCEDING THAT I'M GOING TO LOSE TWO THIRDS OF MY OCEAN VIEW.

THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF RESIDENTS WITH PROPERTY, UNLIKE THE LEGADO ON PV BOULEVARD AND PCH, THAT DOESN'T REALLY BLOCK PEOPLE'S VIEWS. OKAY? SO WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO SUFFER EXTREME DIMINUTION OF OUR PROPERTY VALUES BECAUSE OF THIS HEIGHT.

NOW YOU'VE GOT THE DENSITY. NOW YOU'VE GOT PARKING.

THIS THING IS AN OBSCENITY. WHATEVER DISCRETION, YOU HAVE TO STILL COMPLY WITH THE STATE LAW, BUT PROTECT RESIDENTS AS BEST YOU CAN AND PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF REDONDO BEACH PLEASE DO IT.

IT'S UP TO YOU, BECAUSE STAFF WON'T DO IT. LOOK, I KNOW YOU GUYS HAD A LOT OF WORK TO DO.

A LOT OF LAWS, A LOT OF COMPLICATED STUFF. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO ROLL OVER IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPER, AND THAT'S WRONG. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

YEAH. NEXT SPEAKER WE HAVE IS KAREN FORD COLE.

FAMILIAR FACE ACTUALLY [LAUGHTER]. HI. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR CRAIG. I CAME DOWN HERE TONIGHT TO OBJECT TO IT, AND I THINK YOUR STAFF DID A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING WHY IT ISN'T FULLY IN YOUR CONTROL, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. I LIVE ON PEARL STREET, ONE BLOCK UP FROM THIS IN A IN A HOME THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1927. AND I'M GOING TO LOSE MY LITTLE TINY OCEAN VIEW THAT I HAVE FROM MY BALCONY.

IF THIS HAPPENS, I WON'T SEE ANYTHING EXCEPT THIS BUILDING.

AND SINCE WE MOVED IN IN 2009, 2008, WE HAD A VIEW GOING SOUTH OF THE PENINSULA.

BUT THAT IS GOING EVERY YEAR BECAUSE THEY BUILD ANOTHER BIG, YOU KNOW, $2 OR $3 MILLION BLOCK HOUSE, AND THAT BLOCKS THE SKY AND STOPS US FROM SEEING THE OCEAN.

I THINK THAT IS A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT. I THINK THAT THE AREA ON PEARL STREET IS A HISTORIC AREA, AND IT'S LOSING ITS CHARACTER BECAUSE EVERYONE WANTS TO BUILD HIGHER AND HIGHER.

WHEN YOU BUILD THESE FOUR STORIES, THE NEXT PEOPLE ON GUADALUPE AND HELBERTA, AND ALL THOSE HOUSES BEHIND ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD EVEN HIGHER TO HAVE THEIR ROOFS AND THEIR BALCONIES SEE THE OCEAN. THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

AND SO I REALLY THINK YOU HAVE TO THINK IT IS A KIND OF PUBLIC HEALTH TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE OCEAN FROM YOUR HOUSE IN REDONDO BEACH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER I HAVE IS ARIANE LYON O'BRIEN.

OR SORRY I THINK I SPOKE TO HER LAST NAME WRONG.

[LAUGHTER] SORRY. IT'S ARIANE LYONS O'BRIEN THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. I GREW UP IN A FAMILY OF DEVELOPERS IN THIS AREA, AND WE'VE ALWAYS PRIDED OURSELVES ON DEVELOPING BUILDINGS AND PARKS THAT ADD VALUE TO THE AREA AND ARE DESIGNED ABOVE STANDARDS,

[02:00:07]

MY ELDEST WAS HERE TONIGHT, BUT SHE HAD TO GO TO BED.

SHE'S EIGHT. THE FIRE STATION IS ONE BLOCK AWAY.

THE NEW DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT LOCATION DRIVEWAY ACCESS WILL COMPROMISE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE SPEED BUMPS ON PEARL BECAUSE THE FIRE TRUCKS NEED TO DRIVE ON IT WITHOUT THEM.

ALLOWING THIS PROJECT IS AS IS, DANGEROUS AND NEGLIGIBLE.

WHILE YOU SAY THAT IT WILL GENERATE INCOMES AND VALUES OR I'M SORRY, NOT YOU, THE DEVELOPERS IT WILL ALSO DECLINE IN PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA BY BLOCKING THEIR AREAS, AND IT DOESN'T PROTECT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE VIEWS.

IT ALSO DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE DEVELOPERS REALLY HAVE ANY INTEREST IN KEEPING IT AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, AND WOULD GLADLY ENTERTAIN THIS AS AN APARTMENT BUILDING.

WITH UNDER PARKING THE PROPOSED BUILDING IT AFFECTS THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE AREA FOR THE RESIDENTS AS WELL AS FUTURE BUSINESSES PROFITABILITY.

FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

THE DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE PROVIDING MORE PARKING DESPITE WHAT THE STATE MANDATE SAYS.

WHY SHOULD WHY SHOULD THE SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERYONE TO BE COMPROMISED FOR THE DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT A LESS COSTLY STRUCTURE? SHARED PARKING IS A BURDEN FOR BOTH, NOT A SOLUTION.

THIS IS NOT AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH TRUE ON HOURS AND OFF HOURS.

PARKING IS AN ISSUE IN OUR AREA, AND THE LACK OF IT AFFECTS HOW PEOPLE ACCESS THE BEACH, BUSINESSES, THEIR HOMES, THEIR LIFESTYLES. WHEN PEOPLE USE STREET PARKING RATHER THAN A DESIGNATED SPACE IS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR RESIDENTS.

THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS ALSO A HUGE ISSUE.

IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE AREA AND DOESN'T MATCH OUR AREA AND OUR VALUES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVE NOT TURNED IN A CARD? WE WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SAY YOUR NAME.

WHOEVER WANTS TO COME DOWN, YOU TAKE YOUR TURN.

WHOEVER GETS THERE FIRST. IT'S OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND PLEASE GO AHEAD.

SURE. MY NAME IS BRIAN LANE, ANOTHER LOCAL RESIDENT.

LIKE MOST PEOPLE HERE. I WAS GENERALLY AWARE OF DEVELOPERS MANIPULATING PROJECTS TO LEVERAGE STATE LAWS TO COMPLETELY NEUTER ANY SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE BY THE LOCALS, THE CITY, THE LOCAL LAWS, ALL OF THOSE KIND OF STANDARDS.

I GUESS THANK YOU FOR THE EDUCATION TONIGHT ON A REALLY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, AND I HAD NO IDEA THE EXTENT, EVEN THOUGH I HAD HEARD ABOUT THIS. THAT BEING THE CASE, I LIKE NOTHING ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT MOST OF MY OBJECTIONS TO IT ARE ALREADY PREVENTED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SO I WON'T EVEN GO THERE. I GUESS ALL THAT'S LEFT IS A COUPLE OF THE THINGS THAT OTHERS HAVE SPOKEN MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I CAN.

MY REQUEST IS SPECIFICALLY TO ALL OF YOU TO YOU KNOW, THINK OF ALL OF US AND FIND THOSE OBVIOUS IMPACTS THAT IT REQUIRES TO MAKE A FOR REAL OBJECTION.

AND I THINK I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. I HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF COMMENTS ABOUT, LET'S NOT TURN REDONDO BEACH INTO HERMOSA BEACH.

YOU KNOW, ALI, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE LITTLE POWER TO STOP.

AND THAT MAKES ME SAD. YEAH THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT.

WE APPRECIATE IT. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE COME DOWN AND SAY YOUR NAME.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ALEX FEINMAN.

I'M A RESIDENT AND HOMEOWNER IN REDONDO BEACH.

I HAVE TWO KIDS. THE OLDEST IS IN KINDERGARTEN AT BERYL HEIGHTS.

AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT. I LAST SPOKE AT A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN FEBRUARY REGARDING A SIMILARLY SIZED PROJECT AT PCH AND VINCENT.

AND ONE THING I HEARD ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SAY AT THAT MEETING HAS STUCK WITH ME FOR THE PAST TEN MONTHS, AND IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE SUGGESTION THAT KIDS WHO GREW UP IN REDONDO BEACH SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETURN TO LIVE IN THEIR HOMETOWN.

AND ONE COMMISSIONER SAID, THIS IS A QUOTE, STOP THINKING YOU CAN CUT CORNERS AND JUST JUMP INTO A $2 MILLION HOUSE RIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE.

[02:05:05]

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS EXPECTING THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE ABLE TO ONE DAY LIVE IN THIS CITY AND STAY IN THIS AREA IF THEY CHOOSE.

AND THIS COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY, I THINK, HAS LONG BEEN OPPOSED TO BUILDING ANY NEW HOUSING THAT ISN'T STANDALONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

WE NEED MORE HOUSING OF ALL TYPES TOWNHOMES, CONDOS, APARTMENTS, BOTH AT MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE LEVELS TO KEEP THE CITY LIVABLE AND SUSTAINABLE. A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT HERE HAS AN AVERAGE ANNUAL RENT OF OVER $33,000.

THAT'S OVER 40% OF THE PER CAPITA INCOME IN THE CITY.

WHEN I MOVED TO THE BEACH CITIES 15 YEARS AGO, I PAID LESS THAN A THIRD OF THAT FOR RENT.

YOUNG PEOPLE CAN NOW BARELY AFFORD TO LIVE IN THIS CITY PERIOD. THE MEDIAN AGE IN REDONDO BEACH IS 41 YEARS OLD AND GETTING OLDER EVERY YEAR.

THIS CITY IS FAILING TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. IT IS SETTING REDONDO BEACH UP TO BE, IN A COUPLE OF DECADES, A GEN X RETIREMENT COMMUNITY. I URGE THIS COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. AND I AGREE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE APPROPRIATE TYPE OF HOUSING FOR A YOUNGER GENERATION OF RESIDENTS.

AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO START SUPPORTING BUILDING THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR A YOUNG WORKING REDONDO RESIDENT.

WE HAVE A CHOICE. WE CAN REFUSE TO CHANGE OUR APPROACH AND TELL OUR KIDS AS THEY GRADUATE.

GO FIND ANOTHER CITY OR STATE THAT WANTS YOU.

OR WE CAN HAVE A REDONDO BEACH THAT PLANS AND BUILDS FOR A FUTURE GENERATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OH BROTHER. THANK YOU. ACTUALLY, FOR THE RECORD, IN THE LAST YEAR WE'VE APPROVED NEARLY 400 UNITS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

400 THAT'S NOT. THAT'S NOT NOTHING. THANK YOU.

NO. ANY ANY MORE. WE'RE STILL DOING PUBLIC COMMENT ANY FURTHER.

ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TONIGHT? JAMAL, ANYONE ONLINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? YES. WE HAVE THREE E-ATTENDEES THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

HI, MY NAME IS VASILIOS DIVIS OR BILL DIVIS AS MY NEIGHBORS KNOW ME.

I'M OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT FOR A MULTITUDE OF REASONS THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN ABOUT. ONE THING THAT I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CAUGHT IT, BUT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A 4000 SQUARE FOOT ROOF DECK IN ADDITION TO THE SILO OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED FOR, THE ELEVATOR, WHICH IS GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY 16FT ABOVE THE 45-FOOT ROOF LINE, WHICH THAT REALLY TAKES IT TO 61FT.

AND OUR CURRENT STANDARD IS 30FT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

SO WE'RE THAT WOULD MORE THAN DOUBLE THE HEIGHT OF OUR CURRENT STANDARDS.

AND I RUN A BUSINESS. I UNDERSTAND THESE FOLKS ARE TRYING TO MAKE A DOLLAR, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RESIDENTS.

AND THE THE SUGGESTION OF VALET PARKING OR GOLF CARTS IS JUST ABSOLUTELY INSANE.

ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT A RESIDENT COMING HOME AT 2:00 OR 3:00 IN THE MORNING IS GOING TO FIND A VALET DRIVER WAITING FOR HIM? I DON'T THINK SO. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PARK BLOCKS AWAY.

AND ALSO, FROM A STANDPOINT OF BUSINESS, I'D BE CRAZY TO OPEN A STORE THERE KNOWING THERE'S NOT ANY PARKING AND THAT EVENTUALLY, EVEN IF THEY DO OPEN, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO STAY OPEN BECAUSE NO ONE'S GOING TO GO, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO WALK THE DISTANCE REQUIRED.

BECAUSE BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO PARKING. ALSO, FROM A STANDPOINT OF A BAIT AND SWITCH, THEY MENTIONED THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A CONDO COMPLEX, BUT THE LITTLE SWITCHEROO HAPPENS. OH WELL, WE MIGHT DECIDE TO RENT THEM OUT INSTEAD.

WELL, THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT STANDARD. AND THEY'RE TRYING TO BASICALLY PULL THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES.

FURTHERMORE, IN TERMS OF THE LOW INCOME HOUSING, HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE MAINTAINED? WHO IN TERMS OF SOMEBODY SAYS THEY WANT TO RENT THE PLACE OUT? WHO'S WATCHING THAT? FOR THE NEXT 25, 30, 100 YEARS. SOME DEVELOPERS PROFIT MARGIN.

I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

HELLO. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS DAVID FLANAGAN FROM DISTRICT 5.

I AM A 25-YEAR RESIDENT OF REDONDO BEACH, AND I HAVE YOUNG ADULT CHILDREN THAT ARE READY TO FIND THEIR FIRST HOUSE IN THE AREA.

SIMILAR TO OTHER SPEAKERS THERE, I IMAGINE MANY OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE ALSO HAVE YOUNG ADULTS THAT WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN THE AREA.

I'M A PROPONENT FOR PROVIDING MORE COASTAL ACCESS BY PROVIDING MORE HOUSING CLOSER TO THE COAST.

AND LASTLY, REGARDING VALET QUEUES, THE APPLICANT'S PARKING LEVEL P1 PLAN PAGE A2.02 CLEARLY SHOWS 12 SPACES DELINEATED FOR VALET QUEUING. THIS DIRECTLY ANSWERS THE CONCERNS OF VALET QUEUING ON PEARL STREET.

[02:10:03]

AND I WANT TO SHARE MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT.

THE CURRENT SITE HAS BEEN A VACANT LOT WITH AN EMPTY STOREFRONT FOR AT LEAST THE PAST 30 YEARS.

AND SO I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT A PROJECT FINALLY WORKS OUT IN THAT SPACE.

THAT WILL ALSO BE BRINGING 49 NEW HOMES TO THE CITY.

AND 8 SET ASIDE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. I DO APPRECIATE THE DILIGENCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY ABOUT THE PROJECT.

AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE SET UP AS A FOR SALE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO PROVIDE MORE HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES, BOTH FOR CURRENT RESIDENTS OF REDONDO WHO ARE LOOKING TO PURCHASE AND PEOPLE WHO WHO WANT TO COME TO THE AREA.

I HAVE FRIENDS WHO RECENTLY MOVED TO REDONDO BEACH AND THEY ARE A FAMILY OF PHYSICIANS BUT WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY HOMES WITHIN THEIR RANGE. AND SO BY BUILDING MORE HOMES LIKE THIS ONE FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES WE CAN BRING DOWN THE OVERALL COST TO HOPEFULLY ALLOW MORE FAMILIES TO, TO LIVE AND TO ENJOY OUR COMMUNITY.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT WITH REGARDS TO CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING THAT THIS SITE IS LOCATED NEAR SEVERAL BUS LINES THAT DO HAVE FAIRLY FREQUENT SERVICE. TORRANCE TRANSIT 13 AND 8 AND BEACH CITIES TRANSIT 102 AND 109.

THERE'S ALSO FAIRLY GOOD BIKE LANES ON TORRANCE BOULEVARD.

THAT I HAVE SEEN MORE AND MORE FOLKS ADOPT AND USE AND SO WE DO HAVE TRANSIT AND BIKING OPTIONS AND BECAUSE THESE ARE ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS THERE ARE LIKELY, YOU KNOW, THESE HOUSEHOLDS WILL ONLY HAVE ONE CAR PROBABLY ON AVERAGE.

AND SO I DO THINK THAT THE PARKING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE.

AND I THINK THAT THE COMMERCIAL SPACES WILL ACTUALLY ADD A LOT OF VALUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS MISSING, LIKE A LOCAL MARKET OR GROCERY STORE.

AFTER THE SMART AND FINAL LEFT. AND SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THESE COMMERCIAL SITES COULD USE THAT.

AND YEAH, THIS PROJECT WILL BRING MUCH NEEDED REVENUE TO THE CITY.

AND SO, YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SHARE MY SUPPORT.

AND ALSO REITERATE THE POINTS THAT WE SENT IN OUR LETTER FROM SOUTH BAY FORWARD EARLIER TODAY.

IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT, I ASK THAT YOU FOLLOW THE APPROPRIATE STATE LAWS AND APPROVE THE PROJECT.

AND YEAH, IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC CONCERNS OR THINGS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE BETTER ABOUT IT GO AHEAD.

MAYBE THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR LANDSCAPING OR.

TIME. ENHANCING PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE JAMAL? YES, WE HAVE TWO MORE SPEAKERS.

OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND SPEAK. YOU CAN. YOU COULD START IF YOU'RE GET YOUR HAND UP. YEAH. HI, EVERYBODY.

MY NAME IS MARK FINNEGAN. I LIVE ON THE CORNER OF PCH AND PEARL AND ACTUALLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PEARL, ACTUALLY RIGHT UP AGAINST THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

AND I'VE GOT A SLEW OF CONCERNS BASED AROUND PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNOW, A FOUR-STORY BUILDING SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

IT'S ALREADY STRAINED, AS WE KNOW, IN THAT AREA.

AND IF YOU LOOK NEXT TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE THE RAMADA INN.

THAT'S TWO STORIES. YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF HOTELS ON PCH, WHICH MAX OUT AT TWO STORIES.

AND THEN I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT ALL THOSE SKECHERS BUILDINGS THAT ARE GOING UP IN HERMOSA, MANHATTAN, THOSE ARE ONLY THREE.

AND NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING A FOUR-STORY WITH AN EXTRA 15FT FOR A POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, CLUB UPSTAIRS OR WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THAT PATIO.

SO POTENTIALLY 61FT, YOU KNOW, BLOCKING, YOU KNOW, VIEWS.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY SUNSHINE I JUST THINK THE SIZE AND THE SCALE DOES NOT MATCH THE ESTHETICS OF THE CITY.

AND THEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF YOU LOOK AT PEARL AVENUE WHEN YOU HEAD OUT FROM THE BEACH, THE ESPLANADE.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING AWAY FROM THE ESPLANADE THAT DUMPS OUT ONTO PEARL STREET.

IF YOU LEAVE THE PIER THAT DUMPS ONTO PEARL STREET AND ALSO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, RESIDENTS ON BROADWAY USE PEARL STREET TO ACCESS THE CITY AND PROVIDE CRITICAL

[02:15:07]

AND EVEN TODAY, I LIVE HERE. I CAN'T PULL INTO MY DRIVEWAY DURING RUSH HOUR.

AND SO THEIR PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD THE ENTRANCE TO THIS ON PEARL STREET.

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.

THEY'LL HAVE TO GO UP PCH, TURN ONTO PEARL, AND THEN GO ALL THE WAY AROUND AND MAKE A U-TURN BY THE FIRE STATION, AND THEN ENTER BETWEEN PEARL AND PCH. THERE'S LIKE I THINK 15FT.

I THINK THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE IS LIKE A FEW FEET OFF PCH.

SO THE DESIGN IS NOT THOUGHTFUL, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE OTHER YOU KNOW, HOUSES YOU HAVE.

MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1911 AS A SINGLE STORY.

MY NEIGHBOR WAS BUILT IN 1915 SINGLE STORY. YOU'VE GOT THE WOMEN'S CLUB BUILT IN 1922.

YOU'VE GOT THE HISTORICAL BUILDING ON 406 BROADWAY THAT WAS BUILT IN 1893.

SO A LOT OF SINGLE STORY LIKE HISTORIC BUILDINGS.

NOW YOU HAVE THIS FOUR-STORY MONSTROSITY WITH A 15 FOOT, A 61FT BUILDING ON PCH DOES NOT MATCH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST LET'S GO FOR A REDESIGN. AS IT STANDS TODAY, I'M OPPOSED TO IT.

THERE'S TOO MANY UNKNOWNS. TRAFFIC, ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY ISSUES AGAIN, PEARL STREET'S ALREADY.

YOU KNOW, FOOT TRAFFIC INSIDE THE THE ENTRANCE CANNOT BE ON PEARL STREET.

IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE. EXCUSE ME.

BETWEEN PCH AND THE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW FOR THE SAFETY FOR CARS TO TURN IN.

AND YOU'VE GOT THAT SCHOOL, YOU KNOW, THE CHILDREN'S JOURNEY ACROSS THE STREET.

THERE'S JUST TOO MANY UNKNOWNS. I JUST THINK THE PLANNING ON HOW THE RESIDENTS OF THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL ENTER THE BUILDING SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED.

IT HAS TO BE OFF PCH BECAUSE IF YOU JUST I WOULD CONSIDER.

TIME. EVERYBODY. MOTION TO EXTEND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. PLEASE CONTINUE. YEAH SO I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER HOW WE WILL ENTER THIS PROPERTY, WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO BE, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM BETWEEN PCH AND THE PROPOSAL FOR CARS TO SAFELY PASS.

IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DANGEROUS. SO LITERALLY ALL THESE CARS WILL BE DUMPED RIGHT ON PCH AND PEARL AND CAUSE MAJOR TRAFFIC ISSUES AND SAFETY ISSUES, ESPECIALLY FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE CHILDREN'S JOURNEY ACROSS THE STREET AND THE RESIDENTS.

SO I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TIME AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY. THERE'S JUST TOO MANY UNKNOWNS. I THINK WE SHOULD PUT A PAUSE ON THIS AND GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND SPEAK. SAY YOUR NAME.

HI, THIS IS JUDITH LONSDALE. I LIVE ON PEARL STREET, JUST EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

FIRST, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE. SORRY. I'M UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF PAINKILLERS RIGHT NOW, [LAUGHTER] OR ELSE I WOULD BE THERE IN PERSON.

I'D LIKE TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION FOR THE GROUP THAT DID ALL OF THIS STUDY AND THE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF ALL OF THE EXTENSIVE PAPERWORK INVOLVED. I MAY NOT LIKE THE AT LEAST SUMMARY OR PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS YOU DREW, BUT I APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK AND GOOD INTENTIONS BEHIND IT.

I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, I GUESS, WHAT SEVERAL OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE SAID.

I AGREE 100%. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE. PCH IS SO CONGESTED AS IT IS.

PEARL STREET HAS SO MUCH TRAFFIC. IT HAS BECOME ALMOST LIKE A AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO ACCESS THE PEARL AND THE CAMINO REAL FROM PCH SO THAT THEY CAN AVOID TORRANCE BOULEVARD AND PCH.

AND I THINK THAT TO EVEN INCREASE THE VOLUME WHICH FORESEEABLY WOULD HAPPEN IS INJUDICIOUS AT BEST, AND REALLY RECKLESS WHEN IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO IT.

THE ACCESS TO THE FIRE STATION, AND AT LEAST MORE SO THE PARAMEDICS AND THE FIREFIGHTERS ABILITY TO GET OUT OF THEIR FIRE STATION, WHICH FACES ON BROADWAY BUT IS RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF PEARL.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT AND GET AROUND ALL OF THE TRAFFIC BACKUPS WITH A WITH A BUILDING OF THIS SIZE AND MAGNITUDE OF RETAIL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE EMPLOYEES, THE STAFF FOR ANYBODY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, IF YOU COULD JUST IMAGINE ALL THE DOUBLE PARKING OF DELIVERY TRUCKS WHO ARE SUPPLYING WHATEVER RETAIL MIGHT GO IN THERE.

IT'S FUNNY TO ME THAT ANYBODY TALKS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ANY, ANY KIND OF RETAIL IN ANY DETAIL BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW.

[02:20:03]

THIS IS A AN ENORMOUS REALLY. IS THIS A FIVE OR A SIX STORY COMPLEX WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT.

ONCE YOU TALK ABOUT PENTHOUSES AND. TIME. MOTION TO EXTEND.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. PLEASE CONTINUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR YOUR COURTESY.

TO TO HAVE THE SIZE, THE MAGNITUDE, THE MONSTROSITY OF THIS.

I THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS, FOR THE TIME THAT YOU SPEND FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND I BEG YOU THAT SINCE YOU ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS IN THIS REGARD, THAT YOU STAND UP FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE HERE PAY INORDINATE TAXES FOR A VERY LONG TIME, WANT TO BE PROTECTED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BY THE PARAMEDICS, BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND HOW ARE THEY GOING TO ACCESS TO HELP US HAVE THOSE SERVICES IF THERE'S GRIDLOCK WORSE THAN WHAT IT EXISTS NOW? AND ALSO, I'M SORRY, THE PRESCHOOL, I THINK I THINK SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED IT, BUT THERE ARE SO MANY KIDS BEING WALKED TO AND FROM THEIR LOCAL HOMES BY THEIR PARENTS, RIGHT ON THE SIDEWALK.

AND. TIME. MOTION TO EXTEND. SECOND. NO, I FINISH UP.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE APPRECIATE THAT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE JAMAAL? WE HAVE ONE MORE E-ATTENDEE. PLEASE SPEAK AND SAY YOUR NAME.

GO AHEAD AND SPEAK AND SAY YOUR NAME. MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER TRUMAN.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE TIME. I WANTED TO SPEAK STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT.

WHILE I'VE HEARD LOTS OF CONCERNS EVEN JUST IN THE LAST COMMENT ABOUT TRAFFIC SAFETY, THE SPECIFIC DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT, I THINK THOSE ARE CONCERNS THAT ARE UNRELATED TO THIS SPECIFIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

THESE ARE PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THAT INTERSECTION AND PCH AS A WHOLE.

SO THOSE ARE PLACES WHERE I WOULD ASK BOTH MY FELLOW RESIDENTS AND, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMISSION TO THINK ABOUT THE WAYS THEY CAN MAKE THAT INTERSECTION SAFER.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS SPACE IS ACTUALLY USED.

ANY KIND OF HOUSING THAT IS BUILT IN THIS AREA IS GOING TO RELIEVE A LOT OF PRESSURE ON THE REST OF THE MARKET.

AS WELL AS HAVING A SPACE THAT IS MIXED-USE AND NOT PURELY RETAIL MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE A LOT LESS IN AND OUT TRAFFIC.

HAVING PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING THERE FOR THEIR SPECIFIC HOUSING CONCERNS WILL BE A LOT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND HOPEFULLY SAFER FOR THE WHOLE STREET THERE.

AND I WOULD DEFINITELY RECOMMEND THINKING ABOUT THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO MAKE PCH AND MAKE THIS PLACE A SAFE AND ENJOYABLE SPOT, BOTH FOR BUSINESSES AND FOR RESIDENTS. AND I THINK THAT REQUIRES MAKING THINGS MORE WALKABLE PROVIDING MORE TRANSIT OPTIONS.

THERE'S NO PERFECT SOLUTION THAT'S GOING TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF PARKING, THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF SPACE. YOU KNOW, EVEN IF YOU JUST BUILT ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE [LAUGHTER] A VERY DIFFICULT PLACE TO PARK AND DRIVE.

SO I'D ASK THOSE CONCERNS NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SPECIFICALLY WHEN USING SOMETHING FOR HOUSING.

AND THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

BYE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR CALLING. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE SPEAKERS ONLINE? WE HAVE NO MORE SPEAKERS ONLINE, AND I'LL PUT IT OUT TO THE ROOM.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN PERSON WHO HAS NOT? MAYBE EMAILS OR TEXTS.

OH, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? WELL, HE'S GOING TO READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD, I DON'T KNOW. DO YOU WANT TO JUST GET A SUMMARY? YEAH, I DON'T GET ANY. YEAH. OH, PLEASE GO AHEAD DOCTOR.

I WAS TALKING HOLLY OSBORNE, RETIRED ENGINEER, DISTRICT 5 WITH A RETIRED ENGINEERS ALWAYS THINK OF NUMBERS.

OKAY? THE LAST COMMENT I MADE, I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE HOW MUCH I HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS PROJECT. I LIVE IN NORTH REDONDO, BUT I SAID, IF THIS PROJECT IS REALLY GOING TO MAKE UNITS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE AS HOMES AND NOT BE SOLD TO SPECULATORS, AND THEN THE FIRST THING THAT COMES IS, WE DON'T KNOW, WE MIGHT RENT THEM. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THE FUMES COMING OUT, BUT TO ME, I LOST ALL RESPECT FOR IT THEN. AND THEN I WAS THINKING MORE BECAUSE I READ A LOT OF STUFF IN THE PAPER ABOUT HERMOSA BEACH,

[02:25:03]

OKAY? THIS IS IN HERMOSA BEACH. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE ALL THOSE PROBLEMS WITH PERMITS.

AND I'M THINKING TO MYSELF, THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO SELL THESE PLACES AND THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO RENT THEM.

I'M BEING VERY CYNICAL RIGHT NOW, BUT I JUST THINKING THOSE CYNICAL THOUGHTS.

I'VE JUST LOST ALL RESPECT FOR THE DEVELOPER.

I MEAN, MY OTHER PROJECT THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH, I DEAL WITH DUPLICITY ALL THE TIME, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WAS GOING TO DEAL WITH IT TONIGHT, BUT I GOT REALLY EDUCATED BY YOU GUYS.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THERE'S NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT.

OTHER THAN I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ANY YOU WANT TO ACCOUNT. I KNOW, I KNOW, THERE'S ECOMMENTS. WHAT? YES JUST FOR THE RECORD, BASED ON EMAILS AND ECOMMENTS, WE HAVE 12 THAT OPPOSE AND WE HAVE 13 THAT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

VERY GOOD. FRIENDS. COULD I HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? I MEAN MAKE A MOTION TO CUT THROUGH OR NOT? I DID HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.

SO THE ATTORNEY BROUGHT UP THAT THIS PARKING SURVEY WAS NOT ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY HAD TO DO. BUT THE CITY CANNOT ABSOLVE THEMSELVES FROM THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT IT DOESN'T HARM ACCESS TO THE BEACH. AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CALLERS MENTIONED WELL, THAT'S WHAT THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN STIPULATES.

IT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. AND ONE OF THE CALLERS SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S OKAY IF THE PARKING IS A PROBLEM.

WELL, NO, IT'S NOT BECAUSE THE COASTAL COMMISSION SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE BEACH. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE PIER.

AND WE ALREADY HAVE THE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THAT ZONE, WHICH MEANS THAT IT NEEDS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.

IT'S NOT THE SAME AS IF IT WAS ACROSS THE STREET.

SO I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS WHERE THEY WERE SAYING, YOU KNOW, IT'S BIG.

IT'S GOT TOO MANY UNITS. WELL, THAT'S WHERE THE STATE TIES OUR HANDS, BUT THE STATE DOES NOT.

THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND THE STATE HAVE AGREED THAT THEY HAVE TO THAT THAT IT HAS TO BE PRESENTED.

IT HAS TO GIVE US AN OBJECTIVE FINDINGS THAT SAYS IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

WHERE DO THOSE 24 CARS GO? WE DON'T KNOW. THEY DON'T GO ON THE STREET.

THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THEM. SO WHERE DO THEY GO? WELL, THEY DO. AND THE OTHER THING IS A LOT OF PEOPLE MENTION THE HISTORICAL COMPONENT THERE.

THAT MEANS THAT THOSE GARAGES AREN'T BIG ENOUGH.

THE ONES THAT DO HAVE GARAGES, THEY'RE NOT BIG ENOUGH TO PLANT TO PARK A TODAY SIZED CAR.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM. SO A LOT OF THOSE PLACES DON'T HAVE PLACES.

SO THEY'RE ON THE STREET. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT SURVEY.

THEY CAN'T GET AWAY WITH NOT DOING A SURVEY. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN YOU PUT A PROJECT LIKE THIS IN THE COASTAL ZONE, THAT THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, THAT IT RESPECTS THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

IT'S A REQUIREMENT. IT'S NOT. IT'S SO IMPORTANT.

I REALLY HAVE A HARD TIME THAT NOT HAVING THE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION.

HOW CAN I MAKE A DECISION? I HAD A QUESTION. I GUESS IT'S STILL APPROPRIATE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

CAN YOU PUT MY COMPUTER ON A 2.A. SHOW UP ON THE SCREEN.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT TONIGHT ABOUT BASE UNITS AND HOW IT'S CALCULATED AND THE BONUSES AND A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

AND I WAS PULLED THIS UP BECAUSE THIS IS IN THE STAFF REPORT WHERE IT SAYS DENSITY BONUS UNITS, AND IT STATES THAT BASED ON THE LOT SIZE AND OUR AND OUR DWELLING UNIT PER, PER ACRE, THEY HAD A STARTING BASE UNIT OF 26.74, BUT THEN IT'S ROUNDED UP. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM, THAT LANGUAGE? BECAUSE EVERY TIME I'VE COME IN FRONT OF A PLANNING COMMISSION OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, I DON'T JUST ROUND UP THINGS, I USUALLY HAVE TO EITHER THAT OR LOWER.

SO IS THERE A SPECIFIC LEGAL INTERPRETATION THAT ALLOWS THAT? I MEAN, IT IS IN THE CALCULATION PARAMETERS OR PROVISIONS WITHIN STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW THAT IT IS ROUNDED UP.

UNITS ARE ROUNDED UP. I DON'T HAVE THE SECTION OF THE, THE GOVERNMENT CODE THAT THAT STIPULATES THAT, BUT THAT THAT IS IN THOSE CALCULATION REQUIREMENTS PER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

[02:30:03]

SO THAT'S LIKE THE STARTING POINT. AND THEN THAT'S WHEN YOU CALCULATE THE BONUS UNITS ON TOP OF THAT BASED ON HOW MANY AFFORDABLE CERTAIN TYPES LIKE ON TIER ONE THERE'S A CALCULATION BECAUSE THERE'S A CERTAIN NUMBER BEING OFFERED. I THINK IT'S.

WHAT IS IT, FIVE? I HAVE A SHEET WITHOUT IT. THEN YOU MULTIPLY OUT, YOU GET AN EXTRA 13.5, AND THEN THAT GETS ROUNDED UP TO 14 UNITS OF THAT 27, BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER DENSITY BONUS ALLOWED FOR, I GUESS, LOWER INCOME. THAT IS ANOTHER 9.45, WHICH IS ROUNDED UP TO TEN UNITS.

AND THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVE AT THAT 24 ON TOP OF THE 27.

RIGHT? WHICH EQUALS THE THEY'RE CAPABLE OF ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT UP TO GETTING 51 UNITS, BUT THEY'RE ONLY ASKING FOR 49 TO DO THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAWS.

BUT THE QUESTION I HAD WAS I DID THE NUMBERS ON THIS, AND I JUST DID A SPREADSHEET, WHICH I LIKE TO DO ALL THE TIME TO DO, MUCH TO THE CHAGRIN OF MY FELLOW REALTORS. BUT ANYWAY [LAUGHTER] SO THE TIERS ARE BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF UNITS, SO IT SAYS, AND WE KEEP ON USING THE TERM BASE UNITS.

SO THERE'S 27 BASE UNITS WE ADDED UP ROUNDED UP, AND THEN WE COME UP ALL THESE DIFFERENT NUMBERS.

AND WITH THE IF WE USE THOSE. SO WITH THE THIS 49, THERE'S BASICALLY FIVE UNITS THAT ARE VERY LOW INCOME THAT IT'S LIKE 10.2% OF THE TOTAL PROPERTY.

I KNOW I SAID THE WRONG ONE, THIS ONE HERE. STAFF UNITS, THESE UNITS.

SO IT SAYS IN THE BASE UNITS WHICH ARE 27 THAT IF YOU TAKE FIVE OF THAT IS 18.5% OF THE TOTAL.

SO THAT'S HOW THEY QUALIFY FOR THAT TIER ONE BONUS.

AND THEN THE LOWER, I GUESS THE THREE MEDIUM INCOME UNITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN THIS TOTAL IS LIKE 11.1%.

SO THAT'S HOW THEY'RE ABLE TO QUALIFY FOR THE NOT ONLY THE BONUSES BUT ALSO THE CONCESSIONS.

RIGHT? BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATE LAW, IT HAS A DIFFERENT TAKE ON IT.

IT SAYS ON AB 2243, WHERE I HIGHLIGHTED BASE UNITS HAS THE SAME MEANING AS TOTAL UNITS AS DEFINED.

AND AS A SUBPARAGRAPH PARAGRAPH. AND THAT'S IN SECTION 65915, WHICH IS, I GUESS, THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

SO IF WE GO BACK TO THAT NUMBER OF TOTAL UNITS THE BOTTOM SECTION WHERE I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED WHERE IT SAYS TOTAL PROPOSED UNITS IS 49, 5 IS NOT 11% IS NOT 18% ANYMORE. IT'S ONLY 10.2% WHEN YOU BASE IT ON THE TOTAL UNITS.

AND THAT'S PER AGAIN PER THE LAW. THE NEXT ONE IT SAYS IN TIER TWO BONUSES IT'S THREE.

3 IS ONLY 6.1%. NOW THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 10% TO QUALIFY THOSE, THOSE TIER CONCESSIONS OR BONUSES. SO RIGHT NOW IF WE USE IT BY THE LAW, TOTAL UNITS, THEY ARE UNDER THE NUMBER THEY NEED TO BE AT.

SO THEY'RE SHORT. SO IF I MAY CHAIR. WELL YEAH GO AHEAD.

WELL I WAS THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS THAT BASED ON THAT, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THEY ARE.

THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LOWER INCOME UNITS TO QUALIFY FOR SOME OF THE CONCESSIONS.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, AM I LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY OR NOT? BECAUSE I AGAIN, I LOOKED AT THE LAW AND IT CLEARLY STATES THAT.

OR IS THAT HERE BASE UNITS. SO BASE UNITS AND TOTAL UNITS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

TOTAL UNITS MEANS 49 NOT 27. AT LEAST THE WAY I'M READING IT, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.

SO PERHAPS IF YOU WANT TO CORRECT ME ON THAT, PLEASE GO AHEAD. SO I'LL JUST YOU POINTED TO ALL THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE LAW.

AND SO THE BASE UNITS IS DEFINED IN THE SAME WAY THAT TOTAL UNITS IS DEFINED IN STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

AND WHAT IS EXTREMELY ODD AND CONFUSING IS THAT THE TERM TOTAL UNITS FOR PURPOSES OF STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, ACTUALLY REFERS TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY BEFORE YOU ADD IN THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED THROUGH THE DENSITY BONUSES THEY GET. SO IT IS ACTUALLY THE BASE BASE MAXIMUM DENSITY THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHEN THINKING ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY PERCENTAGES. AND SO IT IS THAT AFFORDABILITY PERCENTAGE IS CALCULATED ON THE MAXIMUM DENSITY BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY IS ADDED.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THE NUMBERS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT.

WELL I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW CAME INTO EFFECT. BUT AB 2243 IS THE ONE THAT MODIFIED AB 2011.

AND THAT AGAIN, MAYBE I'M READING THIS WRONG, BUT I THOUGHT THE LAST ITERATION OF A CHANGE IN LAW WAS WHAT WAS IN EFFECT.

AND IF IT CHANGES SOMETHING IN THE PAST, SHOULDN'T THAT STAND AS TOTAL UNITS? BUT IT'S CROSS-REFERENCING THE DEFINITION OF TOTAL UNITS IN DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH LOOKS AT THE DENSITY BEFORE THE DENSITY

[02:35:02]

WHAT IT SAYS IS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THAT BASE DENSITY, TOTAL UNITS CALCULATION, WHICH IS REALLY THE MAXIMUM DENSITY BEFORE THE DENSITY BONUSES ARE ADDED. OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT.

WELL NOT VERY CLEAR, BUT COMMISSIONER LIGHT. WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD THAT WE REALLY ARE OUR HANDS ARE TIED. STATE SAYS WE CAN DO THIS. AND I KNOW YOU DID A GREAT JOB OF REALLY CLEARLY ILLUSTRATING THAT AGAIN TONIGHT SINCE I WAS A LITTLE SLOW ON GETTING THAT. BUT THE EXCEPTION IS THIS ADVERSE SAFETY.

I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING WHAT I'VE HEARD AND WHAT I KNOW ABOUT REDONDO BEACH AND THAT AREA.

THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT THIS IS NOT AN ADVERSE SAFETY RISK.

AND ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.

WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION, AS COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE HAS POINTED OUT, OF A PARKING STUDY.

AND THE ISSUE ABOUT THAT THERE IS A FIRE DEPARTMENT THERE.

ENGINES COME DOWN THAT PEARL STREET. PEARL STREET IS A IS A NARROW STREET.

THE PARKING'S CRAZY THERE. I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED A POTENTIAL ADVERSE SAFETY ISSUE IF THERE ARE CARS COMING IN THERE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT PLAN ABOUT THIS VALET AND WHERE THOSE CARS WOULD GO, BECAUSE IF IT IS TRUE THAT SOME OF THOSE WOULD JUST END UP ON THE STREET OR IN TEMPORARILY OR DOUBLE PARKED, ETC.

I DON'T SEE THAT AS A GREAT DIRECTION THERE. SO I JUST HAVE THE ONE THING I THINK WE CAN DO IS SAY WE DO SEE THE POTENTIAL FOR ADVERSE SAFETY SITUATION HERE.

WE NEED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

AND I BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THAT WAY.

AGAIN, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE CONSULTANT ONLINE.

BUT AGAIN, I'M LOOKING AGAIN. AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE THICK AND BEING PERSISTENT ABOUT IT, BUT I'M LOOKING AT GOVERNMENT CODE 65915.

AND IT CLEARLY STATES IN THE SECTION ON I LOOK AT THE CODE SECTION, BUT 10% OF THE TOTAL UNITS OF A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING A SHARED BUILDING DEVELOPMENT, IT SAYS TOTAL [LAUGHTER] TOTAL UNITS, 5% OF THE TOTAL UNITS OF HOUSING, SHARED DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOW INCOME, IT SAYS TOTAL UNITS.

AND THEN 22 TO 43 AGAIN, SAYS BASE UNITS HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS TOTAL UNITS.

I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING I GET MY HAND AROUND THAT.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE WE'RE CHERRY PICKING A PART OF IT.

CHAIR. HOW MANY? HOW MANY DO YOU THINK THEY'RE MISSING? TWO? AT LEAST TWO. WELL, THE MINIMUM IF THEY HAVE TO MAKE A 10% THRESHOLD BASED ON WHAT I JUST SAID, IF THE. IT'S FOR THE TIER TWO DENSITY BONUS, THEY HAVE THREE.

THAT'S ONLY 6.1%. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO MORE PROBABLY IF.

CHAIR CRAIG I MAY RESPOND. SURE GO AHEAD THANK YOU.

THE I, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH REFERENCE TO TOTAL UNITS.

I THINK THE IMPORT HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM TOTAL UNITS.

IF YOU KEEP GOING DOWN IN SUBDIVISION. O PARAGRAPH NINE, THE WAY THAT TOTAL UNITS IS DEFINED IS A CALCULATION OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT EXCLUDES A UNIT ADDED BY A DENSITY BONUS AWARDED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, OR ANY LOCAL LAW GRANTING A GREATER DENSITY BONUS.

SO WHAT TOTAL UNITS ACTUALLY MEANS IN THE CONTEXT OF DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH I ADMIT IS EXTREMELY CONFUSING, IS NOT THE ACTUAL TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT, BUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WOULD BE IN THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU ADD IN ANY UNITS FROM THE DENSITY BONUSES THAT COULD BE GRANTED.

SO THE WAY THAT WE AND I AGREE, THIS IS SORT OF NONSENSICAL AND CIRCULAR IN A WAY, BUT THIS IS SORT OF HOW THE CALCULATIONS WORK IN STATE LAW IS THAT THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE IN ORDER TO QUALIFY IS BASED ON THE ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY. SO IT'S IT'S THAT DEFINITION BELOW THAT.

THAT MAKES IT SO. OKAY. YEAH. AGAIN, IT'S CONFUSING.

[02:40:03]

IT'S JUST NOT VERY CLEAR [LAUGHTER]. YOU GOT A QUESTION? I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL YOU HAD A QUESTION.

I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR. PEOPLE IN SACRAMENTO ARE DOING FAVORS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DONATE TO THEIR CAMPAIGNS.

AND SO WE HAVE THIS KIND OF CRAZINESS IN OUR LAWS NOW.

SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WE CAN DO NOTHING TO STOP, BECAUSE PEOPLE IN SACRAMENTO WANT PEOPLE LIKE THIS TO BE ABLE TO COME TO OUR TOWN, GRAB THIS LOT, BUILD SOMETHING THAT IS WAY BEYOND LOCAL STANDARDS AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BLATANTLY DISREGARD THE ENTIRE COMMUNITIES ISSUES WITH PARKING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH GOLF CARTS.

AND THERE'S NO GOLF CART AROUND. GOLF COURSE AROUND.

SO IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE GOLF CARTS, COULD MORE PEOPLE PARK? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEAL WITH THE GOLF CARTS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE DOING THIS NEXT TO A FIRE STATION, A PRESCHOOL, AND A SCATTERED HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS BUILT BEFORE GARAGES WERE A THING. THIS IS A THIS IS THIS IS A GROUP OF INVESTORS THAT FOUND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SCREW THE CITY, TO MAKE MONEY, AND VOILA, THEY'RE DOING IT. THESE PEOPLE COULDN'T GIVE.

AND I WON'T SAY A RAT'S WHAT, BUT THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT COMMUNITY OR THEY WOULDN'T BE BUILDING THIS.

AND THIS, THIS MIXED-USE ASPECT. WHAT HAVE WE SEEN ABOUT MIXED-USE IN THESE KIND OF DEVELOPMENTS? THESE THINGS ARE HARD TO RENT, BUT THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE RETAIL PART OF IT.

THEY'RE MAKING MONEY ON THE RESIDENTIAL PART.

AND THAT RETAIL SPACE COULD STAY VACANT FOREVER.

AND THEY WOULDN'T CARE BECAUSE IT'S STILL AN ASSET ON A BALANCE SHEET.

AND IF THEY DECIDE TO GO WITH, WITH CHANGING IT TO RENTAL, THEN IT'S CASH FLOW IN ADDITION.

SO THIS IS THIS IS WHAT SACRAMENTO HAS DONE TO US.

THEY HAVE CREATED THIS ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY CAN REWARD THESE DEVELOPERS TO COME IN WITH THEIR ONE SIZE FITS ALL AND DO THE SAME THING TO REDONDO BEACH, WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY BUILT OUT FOR DECADES THAT THEY COULD DO IN HEMET WITH NO NEGATIVE IMPACT AT ALL. BUT THEY DON'T SELL HOMES FOR AS MUCH MONEY IN HEMET AS THEY DO IN REDONDO BEACH.

SO THAT'S WHY OUR COMMUNITY IS GETTING THIS KIND OF ATTENTION FROM PREDATORY DEVELOPERS LIKE MR. AGARWAL. AGARWAL. SO WE CAN'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS LIKE THAT IN OUR STATEMENTS LIKE THAT.

I HAD A QUESTION TO STAFF WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING.

I HEARD ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SAY THAT IF THE PARKING THE DRIVEWAY WAS ADDED ON PEARL, WE WOULD LOSE SOME STREET PARKING? OR AT LEAST ONE SPACE OR TWO, I THINK, IF I HEARD THAT CORRECTLY.

WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS, OF COURSE, WITH PUBLIC WORKS.

THEY DID REVIEW THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. IN THEIR OPINION, THEY SUPPORT THE DIRECT ACCESS TO PEARL SO.

THEY WILL LOSE A PARKING SPOT. THERE MAY BE A SPOT LOST.

A LOT OF I WE WE'LL PULL IT UP ON STREET VIEW TO SEE IF THERE'S RED CURVE.

THERE IS THAT YOU KNOW THOSE A LOT OF AS YOU APPROACH AN INTERSECTION THERE'S RED CURB.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S RED CURB NOW.

SO WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS GOING WILL FILL THE RED CURB SO.

THIS IS WHERE IT. TECHNICALLY WON'T BE LOSING ANY ON STREET EXISTING ON STREET PARKING ON PEARL.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. I HAD A QUESTION ON THAT.

COMMISSIONER YOUNG. WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AS PROPOSED? WE'RE LOOKING THAT UP HERE. 30FT. ONE MORE TIME.

30FT. OKAY. CURB. CURB TO CURB. YEAH. CAN I ADDRESS THE VALET ISSUE AS WELL? I HAVE ONE QUESTION, THOUGH, WITH REGARD TO WE'VE HEARD TALK TO TALK ABOUT THESE UNITS ARE SELLING.

DO YOU HAVE A PERFORMER IDEA OF WHAT THE ONE, TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS WOULD BE SELLING FOR? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE WE THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE WE EXPECT CONSTRUCTION TO BE DONE IN 2029.

[02:45:05]

OKAY. I [LAUGHTER] MEAN, I HAVEN'T I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE.

AS A REALTOR, I THINK THAT WE HAD A PROJECT COME UP BEFORE ON VINCENT, AND I KNOW THAT THEY WERE HESITANT TO COME UP WITH IT.

AND WHEN WE SAID THE NUMBER, THEY AGREED IT WAS PROBABLY RIGHT.

AT THAT POINT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT $1.6 MILLION PER UNIT.

BUT AGAIN, THOSE WERE TOWNHOMES. THESE ARE BIGGER THAN OBVIOUSLY. YEAH I MEAN, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S THE AVERAGE COST OF A HOME IN THE ZIP CODE IS ABOUT $1.6 MILLION. I THINK THAT THESE ARE SMALLER UNITS.

THEY WOULD BE SMALLER. RIGHT. BUT THE QUESTION BEING I WAS JUST CURIOUS.

MARKET RATE OBVIOUSLY WE HEARD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT HOMES AND SUCH, AND OBVIOUSLY ONLY EIGHT OF THESE WILL BE AFFORDABLE.

41 WILL BE MARKET RATE. SO TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS IN THE AUDIENCE YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT A TWO-BEDROOM UNIT IN THIS AREA WOULD GO TO, BUT AROUND THE AREA THEY'RE GOING OVER A MILLION BUCKS SO.

I'M SORRY GO AHEAD. PLEASE SPEAK ON YOUR COMMENT. WITH REGARDS TO THE VALET.

SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE PARKING GARAGE, THERE IS ACTUALLY BOTH A VALET QUEUING AREA.

IT GOES ALL ALONG THE DRIVEWAY, ALL ALONG THE PARKING GARAGE ON TWO SIDES OF IT.

AND THERE IS A VALET STATION THERE THAT'S ON SHEET 82.02.

WITH I ALSO WANT TO MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WELL, THERE HAVE TO BE THESE, THESE IMPACTS. BUT IN ORDER TO DENY THE PROJECT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT, WHICH MEANS A SIGNIFICANT, QUANTIFIABLE, DIRECT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT BASED ON AN OBJECTIVE IDENTIFIED WRITTEN PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARD POLICY OR CONDITION. SO I HAVEN'T HEARD.

I UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE CONCERNS ABOUT VIEWS.

YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE TRAFFIC, BUT NONE OF THOSE THINGS RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT UNDER THE LAW.

AND THAT IS THE FINDING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE TO DENY THE PROJECT.

AND BOY, HAVE WE HEARD THAT ENOUGH. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. THAT EVERY TIME.

YEAH, I THINK WE ONLY ACTUALLY HAD TWO COMMENTS ABOUT VIEWS TO BE FAIR, THE MOST OF THE COMMENTS WERE REGARDING THE PRESCHOOL CHILDREN AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND AS FAR AS HEALTH AND SAFETY. BUT I ACTUALLY HAD THAT QUESTION AS WELL.

SO, SO MANY PEOPLE BROUGHT UP THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE KIDS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS A REALLY BIG DEAL, YOU GUYS. I MEAN, THESE.

YOU HEAR THEM AT CITY HALL THEY'RE COMING DOWN ALL THE TIME.

WHAT QUALIFIES FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY? SO I'M GOING TO ASK DIANA IF YOU'RE ONLINE, IF YOU CAN TRY AND. USE YOUR MIC ON WE CAN'T HEAR YOU VERY WELL.

YEAH. DIANA, WOULD YOU MIND RESPONDING TO THAT QUESTION ABOUT THE ADVERSE IMPACT? HEALTH AND SAFETY. SURE. I MEAN, I THINK, MISS PASTER JUST READ WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT IN STATE LAW.

SO THAT IS ONE OF THE FINDINGS THAT CAN BE USED TO DENY A REQUESTED CONCESSION.

YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE FINDINGS WHEN CONSIDERING A REQUESTED CONCESSION.

AND THE ONE WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE IS WHETHER THE REQUESTED CONCESSION WOULD RESULT IN A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT, WHICH IS DEFINED CROSS-REFERENCED AND DEFINED IN THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.

I CAN READ IT AGAIN. IT IS ESSENTIALLY A SIGNIFICANT, QUANTIFIABLE, DIRECT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT BASED ON OBJECTIVE, IDENTIFIED, WRITTEN PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARDS, POLICIES OR CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED ON THE DATE THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE.

EXCUSE ME. SORRY. AND SO I DO THINK THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A LEVEL OF WRITTEN HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS THAT NEED TO BE QUANTIFIABLE AND OBJECTIVE, THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THINKING ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR FINDING THAT COULD BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE DENIAL OF A CONCESSION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER OTHER QUESTIONS IF NEED BE.

YEAH. CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT? BECAUSE I'M STILL WONDERING, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A PEOPLE GAVE ACTUALLY EXAMPLES.

WHAT IS IT EXAMPLE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY? CONCERNS THAT WOULD BE OBJECTIVE? I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS.

EXCUSE ME. IN THE BUILDING CODE RELATED TO FIRE, RELATED TO EGRESS AND INGRESS

[02:50:01]

BUT I CAN'T PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT STANDARD WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT A PARTICULAR PROJECT IN A RIGHT OF WAY WOULD PREVENT EMERGENCY VEHICLES FROM PROCEEDING.

DOWN A SPECIFIC PATH, PERHAPS THAT COULD BE USED.

I'M. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME COMING UP WITH HERE, NOT KNOWING YOUR CODES WHAT THE STANDARD WOULD BE.

YEAH, I COULD PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES. SO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PROJECT WAS ON AN AREA THAT'S DOCUMENTED TO BE PRONE TO LANDSLIDES WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE. OR IF THERE IS AN IMPAIRED ROAD THAT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT.

AND I'M PROVIDING THESE SAMPLES BECAUSE I'VE DEALT WITH THEM PREVIOUSLY IN MY PRIOR CITY.

SO THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES. IT IS SOMEWHAT OF A HIGH BAR, AND ACCORDING TO THE LAW, IT SHOULD BE BASED ON SOMETHING THAT'S IDENTIFIED AND WRITTEN, PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARDS. SO THE CITY SHOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF SOME DOCUMENTATION THAT THERE ARE SAFETY IMPACTS IN THAT AREA OR SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS. COMMISSIONER LIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

I'M HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE NOT SEEING HOW THE THE CITY THINKS THAT 68 SPACES ARE NEEDED FOR THESE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE 44 DEFICIT OF 24 SPACES.

THE ABSENCE OF 24 SPACES MEANS THOSE 24 CARS WILL BE PARKED SOMEWHERE.

THAT COULD IMPACT ACCESS TO A FIRE STATION, TO GETTING TO THEM, OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY THAT USES THAT DIRECTION.

I'M NOT SEEING HOW THAT WOULDN'T BE AN ADVERSE SAFETY STANDARD THAT THERE HAS TO BE.

THERE'S A REASON THAT THAT NUMBER WAS THERE. SO WHAT I HAVE HEARD NOTHING THAT MEDIATES THAT SHARED PARKING IF THERE'S BECAUSE I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT 61 SPACES IS ENOUGH FOR 49.

SO WE'RE IN A DEBT ALREADY THERE. I DON'T SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GET THOSE OTHER 24 SPACES IN THEIR SHARED PARKING.

I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK. IF I HAVE A DEEDED SPOT.

I'M GOING TO WANT TO PARK IN IT. I JUST DON'T SEE IT.

I GET WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT. I GET WHERE YOU SAY HAS TO BE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD, SOMEWHERE THAT WE CAN POINT TO AND SAY, THIS IS A DANGER. I'M HAVING TROUBLE, THOUGH, NOT GETTING THERE FROM THOSE FACTS.

CHAIR. CHAIR. YES. CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT, THEN YOU CAN PROCEED. BUT IF THE COMMISSION IS READY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DELIBERATE, THEN THAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION.

AND WITH RESPECT TO THE BASES ON WHICH THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT CAN DENY ANY OF THE INCENTIVES OR THE WAIVERS.

I WOULD DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 10 OF THE STAFF REPORT.

IT'S PRETTY CLEAR IT HAS THE THE BASES THAT YOU CAN DENY A CONCESSION INCENTIVE OR WAIVER.

SO IT IS THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT, AND IT'S BASED ON THE DEFINITION THAT COUNCIL AND OUR, OUR COUNSEL JUST REITERATED TO THE COUNCIL, TO THE COMMISSION.

BUT IT ALSO, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND AND I THINK IT'S THE SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 10.

IT YOU CAN DENY A REQUESTED CONCESSION IF IT FINDS THAT EITHER THE REQUESTED CONCESSION IS CONTRARY TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, OR THE REQUEST WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR ON ANY REAL PROPERTY THAT'S LISTED IN THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES, ETC. SO THERE'S THAT.

THERE'S NOT ONLY THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT, BUT IF YOU MAKE FINDINGS THAT THAT CONCESSION OR WAIVER IS CONTRARY TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. SO THAT'S ANOTHER BASIS.

SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT THIS COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER.

AND IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE TEN. THANK YOU.

[02:55:01]

I'M SORRY. WELL, SORT OF A QUESTION, MORE OF A COMMENT ON THE ON THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE FACING IN THE IN THE FACE OF CLEARLY AN UNSAFE PROJECT. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO THERE'S NOTHING IN WRITING THAT DEFINES THIS. BUT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT ONCE THIS BUILDING IS BUILT, THERE'LL BE LOTS OF REASONS TO WRITE THAT UP, BUT IT WILL BE AFTER THE FACT. SO THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING WRITTEN ABOUT THE SAFETY ISSUES IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA SHOULDN'T SURPRISE ANYBODY, BECAUSE THE WAY IT IS NOW, IT'S NOT THAT BAD.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE SAFEST PLACE TO BE WALKING YOUR KIDS OR TRYING TO GET ACROSS THE STREET, BUT IT HAS APPARENTLY NOT BEEN TO THE LEVEL THAT THE CITY WOULD SIT DOWN AND WRITE UP SOME SAFETY ISSUE.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE NEEDED. AND THE FACT THAT THE CITY HASN'T HAD THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE THEIR JOB.

IT'S THAT THE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD CREATE THAT SAFETY ISSUE AND REQUIRE THEM TO WRITE THAT UP HASN'T BEEN BUILT YET. BUT THESE PEOPLE WANT TO BUILD IT.

SEEMS TO ME WE OUGHT TO WRITE THIS UP AND BE ABLE TO USE THAT TO TELL THEM TO FIX YOUR SAFETY ISSUES BEFORE WE CAN APPROVE THIS.

I'M ALSO AT AT ODDS WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO AS AS COMMISSIONER.

HAZELTINE. HAZELTINE. I SHOULD KNOW THAT BY NOW.

COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE POINTED OUT THERE'S NO PARKING STUDY AND A PARKING STUDY, A TRAFFIC STUDY.

WE'RE USED TO SEEING ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF, AND WE'RE USED TO SEEING THROUGH WHEN IT'S PRESENTED INGENUOUSLY.

BUT THERE ISN'T EVEN A STUDY. I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS TO ANOTHER TIME SO THAT THEY CAN DO THAT STUDY SO THAT WE CAN GET THE CITY CAN GET ITS DUCKS IN A ROW ABOUT THE SAFETY ISSUES THAT ARE ABOUT TO DESTROY THAT PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COME BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT IN THE CLEAR LIGHT OF HAVING EVERYTHING, HAVING ALL THE DUCKS IN A ROW SO THAT WE CAN DO OUR JOB.

MAY I RESPOND TO THAT? SURE. GO AHEAD. RESPECTFULLY.

THIS PROJECT IS VESTED TO THE LAWS, POLICIES AND ORDINANCES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT WE FILED OUR SB 330 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION.

SO, ANY. NO ONE'S DISPUTING THAT. LET HER SPEAK.

ANY SAFETY STANDARDS THAT WOULD BE IDENTIFIED IN THE FUTURE WOULD NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.

NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, WITH THIS IS A CEQA EXEMPT PROJECT.

SO THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A PARKING STUDY. THE TASK OF THIS COMMISSION TONIGHT.

THIS IS A MINISTERIAL PROCESS. WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS CAN BE DEVIATED FROM PURSUANT TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

SO WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT SOME VERY BROAD THINGS.

AND RESPECTFULLY, I THINK IT IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE A DECISION ON THOSE BASES.

AND YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH ME. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IS LIKE, CHANGE YOUR REPRESENTATION IN SACRAMENTO.

WELL, WE'RE ON THE WE'RE TRYING. COMMISSIONER GADDIS.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT RESPECTFULLY IF I CAN.

I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK IT'S. I THINK THAT ALL SHE JUST DID WAS REPEAT THE STUFF SHE'S ALREADY SAID.

SHE'S JUST TALKING CIRCLES AROUND EVERYBODY TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE SHE DID SOME KIND OF REBUTTAL.

BUT YOU HAVEN'T YOU HAVEN'T REBUTTED ANYTHING AND YOU'VE MISCHARACTERIZED WHAT I'VE SAID.

YES. YOU'VE SUBMITTED THIS, AS I SAID, THIS PROJECT BECAUSE AND THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT AND MAYBE YOU WILL, BECAUSE THE CITY HASN'T BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE SAFETY IS ENOUGH OF AN ISSUE FOR THEM TO WRITE IT UP.

BUT ONCE YOU BUILD THIS, IT WILL BE. NOW THE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO GET AWAY WITH THAT KIND OF TRAVESTY.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS.

THEY SHOULD WRITE THIS UP. YOU SHOULD DO A TRAFFIC STUDY.

EVEN THOUGH NOBODY'S TWISTING YOUR ARM TO DO IT.

JUST TO MAKE US HAPPY THAT WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO GO TO THE BEACH CAN HAVE A PLACE TO PARK SO THEY CAN WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE SO THEY CAN GET THERE.

AS THE STATE REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE OPEN ACCESS TO BEACHES ON OUR ENTIRE COAST.

SO I DON'T APPRECIATE RESPECTFULLY THAT YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO TALK CIRCLES AROUND THIS.

[03:00:02]

AND YOUR SOLUTION? VOTE SOMEBODY ELSE IN. ALL RIGHT, WELL.

I'M NOT SEEING THAT AS RESPECTFUL. OKAY? OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GADDIS, YOU HAD A QUESTION? I DID.

SO WE'RE HEARING FIRST OF ALL A LOT OF DISAPPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT UP HERE. I'M JUST LISTENING TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING.

NOW, THIS PROJECT IS ON A TIMELINE. AND SO THEY'RE REALLY ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINE.

THERE REALLY IS NO CHANCE FOR THEM TO DO THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND THE PARKING STUDY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE.

BUT THAT DOESN'T TIE OUR HANDS TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT.

YOU CAN TALK ABOUT MINISTERIAL ALL YOU WANT, BUT THE FACT IS WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT.

WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA TO SAY THAT THIS OBVIOUSLY DANGEROUS STRETCH OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WHERE PEOPLE HAVE RECENTLY DIED, CHILDREN, AND I PERSONALLY HAD MY CAR HIT A HALF A BLOCK NORTH.

YEAH, NORTH OF THERE, ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.

WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, A PARKED CAR. AND THIS IS A VERY, A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE.

AND WE KNOW. AND IT'S ALSO RIGHT BY THE FIRE STATION.

WE KNOW THERE ARE HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS. WE ARE NOT CHARGED WITH QUANTIFYING THOSE.

THEY HAD A CHANCE TO QUANTIFY IT WITH THEIR OWN TRAFFIC STUDY, PARKING STUDY AND TALKING ABOUT MITIGATING EFFORTS THAT CAN BE DONE AND STUFF.

I DON'T HAVE TO QUANTIFY THAT. ALL I HAVE TO ASSERT IS THAT, FOR INSTANCE, I WOULDN'T APPROVE THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I KNOW IT HAS HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. IT'S MY VOTE. NOBODY'S GOING TO FORCE ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

YOU GUYS CAN APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE TO VOTE FOR IT.

AND. BUT THEY HAVE A TIMELINE. THERE'S NO LUXURY TO CONTINUE THIS.

I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. ONE QUESTION TO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

WE'RE RAISING A LOT OF HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS OR ISSUES SHOULD THIS PROJECT GET APPROVED AND SOMETHING DOESN'T DOES HAPPEN.

ISN'T THIS GOING TO EXPOSE THE CITY TO SOME POTENTIAL LIABILITY? I REALLY COULDN'T COMMENT ON POTENTIAL LIABILITY REGARDING A PROJECT.

IF IT GETS APPROVED. WHAT I CAN SUGGEST AS FAR AS PROCESS AGAIN, IS IF THE COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT, THAT YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEN YOU CAN DELIBERATE IF THIS COMMISSION, LIKE WHAT STAFF HAS PREPARED, IS A RESOLUTION TO OBVIOUSLY APPROVE THE PROJECT.

IF THE COMMISSION AND I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR, IF THE COMMISSION IS INCLINED TO DENY THIS PROJECT BASED ON WHATEVER GROUNDS THAT THE COMMISSION ARTICULATES, THEN I WOULD REQUEST A BREAK SO THAT STAFF AND I CAN GO BACK AND, AND DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL BASED ON WHATEVER GROUNDS THAT THE COMMISSION ARTICULATES.

AND THEN THAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE VOTED ON BY THE COMMISSION IF, IF THAT'S THE, YOU KNOW, DECISION, IF THAT'S THE THE WAY THE COMMISSION IS LEANING TOWARDS.

SO THAT'S JUST A PROJECTION FOR FOR THE COMMISSION.

I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY ONE MORE THING AS A QUESTION.

THE TIMELINE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THE END OF THAT TIMELINE, THE PROJECT IS CONSIDERED APPROVED.

WHETHER ANYBODY VOTES FOR IT. AUTOMATICALLY. AUTOMATICALLY.

CORRECT? I DON'T THINK THAT TIMELINE HAS STARTED YET.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT THE TIMELINE HAS STARTED YET.

WHEN WOULD THAT START CHERYL? I BELIEVE THAT TIMELINE STARTS WHEN THERE'S BEEN A DETERMINATION AS TO THE CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY OF THIS PROJECT. AND THAT IS YOUR DECISION.

SO THAT WOULD BE TONIGHT. YEAH IT'S INCONSISTENT.

SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TIME. THAT SHOT CLOCK HAS COMMENCED AND DIANA IS ON THE LINE AND SHE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M

[03:05:02]

IS THAT WHAT FOR AB 2011 PROJECTS? THE TIMELINE BEGINS FROM THE DATE THE DEVELOPMENT IS DETERMINED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVE PLANNING STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN STATE LAW, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE IN THE APPLICABLE LCP. WAYNE. IT IS WHEN IT'S PRESENTED TO US, OR IS IT WHEN? IT'S WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION THAT IT IS CONSISTENT.

MAYOR. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY UP HERE HAS PROBLEMS. YOU KNOW, WE KEEP BRINGING UP THE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN POINT TO ANY OF THOSE AND SAY, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

WHAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS THAT WE'RE LACKING INFORMATION.

SO HOW CAN WE MAKE A DECISION? THE PLAN, THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS VERY, VERY THEY USE THE WORD OBJECTIVE.

THEY USE THE WORD. YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

I, I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN MAKE A DECISION. IT'S THE SAME THING.

I WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE A DECISION. IF IT WAS APARTMENT BUILDING. WELL, HOW COULD I DO THAT? I HADN'T PREPARED FOR AN APARTMENT BUILDING, YOU KNOW, SO I.

HOW DO WE. ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE. THAT'S LACKING INFORMATION.

AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME TO DO THIS PARKING SURVEY.

AND SO OUR HANDS ARE TIED. I MEAN, WHAT IF THE PARKING SURVEY CAME BACK AND SAID, OH, NO, EVERYTHING'S FINE. THERE'S MORE THAN 24 SPACES ON THE STREET.

SUBJECTIVELY, WE KNOW THERE'S NOT [LAUGHTER].

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO FIRE THOSE PEOPLE. I DON'T I MEAN, THE CLOCK CAN'T START.

WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION. WE HAVE TO HAVE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION.

CAN I SPEAK TO THE CLOCK? NO. WHAT THE STATE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS IS THAT THE CITY MUST MAKE A DETERMINATION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF CONSISTENCY.

SO WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE PROJECT. IT'S IN 65912.124.

AND IT SAYS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL DETERMINE IN WRITING WHETHER IT IS CONSISTENT OR NOT, CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVE PLANNING STANDARDS WITHIN THE FOLLOWING TIME FRAMES.

WITHIN 60 DAYS OF SUBMITTAL TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

YOU'RE USING THE WORD OBJECTIVE. WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION.

WE NEED OBJECTIVE. WE NEED A SURVEY. AND YOU CAN'T JUST.

THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ARE THE STANDARDS LIKE 45FT IN HEIGHT X NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

THAT IS WHAT THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ARE. SO AS MODIFIED BY THE DENSITY BONUS.

RIGHT? SO YOU CAN IN YOUR OPINION SAY YOU DON'T THINK IT QUALIFIES WITH THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.

BUT THE STATE LAW SAYS THAT WE CAN MODIFY THOSE STANDARDS AND IT IS DEEMED CONSISTENT WITH THOSE STANDARDS UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

NOT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW FOR THE COASTAL ACT.

AB 2011 SUPERSEDES THAT PORTION OF THE COASTAL ACT.

I DO A TON OF COASTAL ACT WORK. ABSOLUTELY. AND I INVITE MS. VARAT. YOU KNOW, BUT THERE IS A VERY AND IT'S IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

IT'S VERY SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IT WILL BE DEEMED CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL ACT IF THE DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVE OR WAIVER IS GRANTED. AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY INTERJECT, AND I [LAUGHTER] YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB FOR YOUR CLIENT. YEAH. BUT SHE'S NOT YOUR ATTORNEY.

SO YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT. YES. AND I APPRECIATE YOU, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING YOUR EXPERTISE, BUT MY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO TELL THE COMMISSION IS THAT THE CONCESSIONS AND INCENTIVES AND WAIVERS CAN BE DENIED. IF YOU FIND THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACTS BASED ON IDENTIFIABLE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, THAT'S ONE GROUND.

ANOTHER GROUND IS IF IT IS CONTRARY TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.

YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT YOU DON'T THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COASTAL ACT.

THAT WOULD BE GROUNDS TO DENY THE CONCESSION OR THE INCENTIVE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S MORE A, A MORE DIFFICULT FINDING IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION FOR THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT.

BUT I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD HERE AND FROM, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC IS THAT IT MIGHT BE THESE CONCESSIONS AND INCENTIVES AND WAIVERS. YOU COULD, IF THIS COMMISSION FINDS, COULD DENY BE DENIED BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T

[03:10:04]

SO THAT WOULD BE A POTENTIAL BASIS FOR YOU TO MAKE THE DENIAL FINDING IN THIS CASE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE AND MAKING THE FINDING THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE REQUISITE DATA TO MAKE THAT FINDING. BUT BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON, YOU COULD MAKE THAT MOTION BASED ON IT'S CONTRARY TO STATE LAW, I.E. THE COASTAL ACT. YEAH. WELL, THEY SAID WE NEED THE INFORMATION.

THAT'S WHAT. THAT'S WHAT THE COASTAL ACT SAYS.

THE COASTAL ACT SAYS WE HAVE TO HAVE IT. ONE QUESTION. QUESTION COMMISSIONER GADDIS. YOU HAD ONE. NO, NO. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. I'M JUST HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE GETTING OFF THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT HERE BECAUSE I'M READING THIS NOW, CONTRARY TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, COURTS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT UPON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

AND THEN BELOW THE PROPERTY HERE IS NOT LISTED.

FINALLY, GIVEN THE LIMITED DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT IN STATE LAW.

STAFF IS NOT AWARE OF ANY PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARD THAT COULD BE USED THIS FINDING.

I DON'T KNOW ALL THOSE LAWS, BUT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT HAVING A RESTRICTION ON EMERGENCY RESPONDERS GETTING OUT OF A FIRE STATION WOULD BE A SPECIFIC. THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER BASIS THAT YOU COULD MAKE A FINDING.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT. AND WE CAN HAVE TWO DENIALS.

I THINK WE HAVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS. YES. WE CAN DO THAT, BUT WE CAN DELIVER. MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU NEED TO CLOSE. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. SO NOW WE CAN START THAT PHASE. FOR DISCUSSION.

I DID WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY UP HERE ALSO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY TO THAT LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, RIGHT? THAT WHOLE AREA. AND IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS AND AND BE OKAY WITH IT, WITHOUT THIS PARKING SURVEY, WE'RE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS FOR EVERYBODY ELSE COMING IN FRONT OF US WITHOUT THAT.

AND I REALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT, BECAUSE BY THE TIME A PROJECT COMES IN FRONT OF US, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS. WE WANT EIGHT AFFORDABLE HOMES.

WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION TONIGHT.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT CAME IN FRONT OF US.

YES. AND THIS WE DO. YOU KNOW, ABBREVIATED STATE.

COMMISSIONER GADDIS FIRST AND THEN COMMISSIONER YOUNG. WE DON'T HAVE TO QUANTIFY.

WE DON'T HAVE TO KNOW THE SPECIFIC LAWS. ALL OF US KNOW YOU CAN'T IMPEDE FIRE ENGINES AND PARAMEDIC BY HAVING INCREASED CONGESTION AT A VERY, VERY KEY POINT FOR THESE EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT TO GET TO THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE THAT'S GOING TO GET THEM TO THE PLACE THEY NEED TO BE.

SO WE DON'T HAVE TO KNOW ALL. ALL WE NEED TO DO IS DIRECT STAFF AND THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TO. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY TO SAY, OKAY, THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS. THEY'VE HEARD IT. THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.

THOSE ARE PROBLEMS. AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE UP HERE WHO ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT ON THAT BASIS.

AND THE LANGUAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE CRAFTED. YEAH THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER YOUNG. I'M GOOD. OKAY. ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION DELIBERATION YOU WANT TO HAVE AT THIS TIME OR? ACTUALLY, I WILL GO. OKAY GO AHEAD. I CAN LITERALLY PULL UP GOOGLE MAPS RIGHT NOW.

AND I CAN SEE THAT ON PEARL STREET WHERE THIS DRIVEWAY IS LOCATED, WILL WOULD POTENTIALLY BE LOCATED, WOULD BE BLOCKED BY THAT SECOND ONCOMING WHITE CAR UP TO THE INTERSECTION AT PCH AT THE SAME TIME.

YOU CAN WE CAN HAVE A CAR TURNING THAT NORTHBOUND ON PCH, TURNING LEFT ONTO PEARL TRYING TO GET INTO THAT DRIVEWAY, THAT POTENTIAL DRIVEWAY. NOW WE'VE BLOCKED BOTH SIDES OF PEARL STREET AND THAT'S GOING TO BE NON-STOP AT THAT INTERSECTION. AND THAT IS SO PROBLEMATIC WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES LOCATED LITERALLY HOUSES AWAY. THE LOCATION OF THAT DRIVEWAY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY IN IN

[03:15:07]

YOU NEED TO DIRECT ME AS TO UNDER WHAT BASIS YOU WANT WHAT.

WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO. DO YOU WANT US TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL OF THE PROJECT? AND ON WHAT GROUNDS? I MAKE THAT MOTION. YES.

I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. BUT I WOULD NEED TO KNOW ON WHAT GROUNDS.

OKAY. SAFETY. TO STATE LAW. LET'S COMPILE THIS NOW.

RIGHT. CAN I? WOULD YOU MAYBE SOME WORDING HELP? MAYBE. SO THE SO THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN EXPRESSLY REQUIRES EVIDENCE OF COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW AND IT DOESN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE. THEN THE AGENCY CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN DENYING.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE THE PARKING.

I NEED THE EVIDENCE. TRAFFIC CONGESTION. TRAFFIC.

SAFETY. I NEED THE PARKING SURVEY. THAT'S WHAT I'M AFTER.

I AND AND YEAH. OKAY. SO I'M HEARING PARKING, TRAFFIC, SAFETY.

HITTING. EMERGENCY. EMERGENCY. EGRESS. INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE LOCAL FIRE STATION.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT THAT IS FORESEEABLE.

I DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD BE ANY MORE OBJECTIVE THAN LOOKING AT IT.

DID THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ASK ABOUT THIS. DID THE FIRE DEPARTMENT GET ASKED ABOUT THIS? HAVE THEY SEEN IT? HAS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SEEN THIS? WHAT IS THEIR. WHAT IS THEIR IMPRESSION? YEAH.

YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. ANYTHING. OKAY. WELL WE'RE GOING WE'RE GOING BACK TO QUESTIONS.

I MEAN, WE'RE PROVIDING SPECIFIC. SPECIFICS NOW, RIGHT? ACTUALLY, YEAH. SO WE'RE. I THINK COMMISSIONER LIGHT HAD A WORDED IT REALLY WELL FOR SAFETY.

CAN YOU REWORD IT FOR CHERYL? DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID [LAUGHTER]. SHE SHE'LL BE OVER.

FOR BREAKFAST. YEAH, BASICALLY. YET THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED WITH THAT IN THAT MANNER INEVITABLY WILL LEAD TO CONGESTION THAT WILL PREVENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL FROM RESPONDING IN A TIMELY MANNER TO EMERGENCIES.

MAKE THAT FIRE AND PARAMEDIC. EMERGENCY SERVICES.

I LIKE THE WORD PARAMEDIC TO BE IN THERE [LAUGHTER]. THERE YOU GO.

I KIND OF EIGHT SECONDS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH.

NO MATTER WHAT SO. OKAY. SO IF WE CAN HAVE. I DON'T KNOW, LIKE 15 MINUTES, AND THEN IF WE NEED ADDITIONAL TIME, WE'LL COME OUT AND LET YOU KNOW.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE'LL ADJOURN FOR 15 MINUTES WHILE YOU PREPARE.

NOW, IS THERE ANY I MEAN, IS THERE ANY WAY TO WORK IN, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD JUST BECAUSE OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE INTERSECTION PRESENCE OF A CHILDREN'S DAY SCHOOL, ETC.

THAT THAT THE THAT THE IN AND THE FIRE STATION THAT IT SIMPLY THIS INTERSECTION DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO THE TRAFFIC FLOW THAT'S INEVITABLE FROM A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE AND DENSITY.

SURE. ABOUT THE SIX FOOT I RESONATED TO THAT ONE AS WELL.

SIX FOOT SIDEWALK WITH A BUNCH OF KIDS THERE AND CARS COMING BY AND YOU KNOW.

AND SUPPOSEDLY HAVING VALET PARKERS AND GOLF CARTS DRIVING AROUND.

AND I MEAN, QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S JUST. I THINK WE ALL HAVE A LITTLE.

I HAD A FIVE YEAR OLD KID HIT BY A GOLF CART, AND HE'S BRAIN DEAD, YOU KNOW? SO YEAH. OKAY, WE CAN WE CAN INCLUDE THAT AS WELL.

THAT'D BE GREAT THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN BEFORE WE TAKE OUR BREAK, I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS, WE REALLY WANT [LAUGHTER] WE. WE NEED THESE PLACES.

WE KNOW WE NEED THESE PLACES, BUT THE COASTAL ZONE AND THE THAT AREA IS SPECIAL.

WE HAVE TO LET PEOPLE GET TO THE BEACH. AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THOSE 24 CAR GOES.

I MEAN, MAYBE THEY GO INTO A THIRD FLOOR DOWN ANOTHER PARKING LEVEL.

YOU KNOW, NO ONE'S TALKED ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE FOR ANOTHER DAY. RIGHT.

[03:20:04]

MOTION TO RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

WE OPEN IT UP. SHOULD WE OPEN IT UP AND THEN READ IT, OR SHOULD WE READ IT AND THEN OPEN UP? I WOULD OPEN IT UP AND THEN READ IT. MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC, NOT THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND. MOTION THE. THE MEETING. RECONVENE THE MEETING.

THE MEETING. MOTION TO OPEN THE MEETING. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. WE ARE NOW RECONVENED. REVIEWING THE DOCUMENT.

ONE SECOND.

OH, YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO LET'S SEE WHERE IT STARTS.

OKAY. GOOD.

JUST FOR THE COMMISSION'S EDIFICATION THAT THE FINDINGS ARE CONTAINED IN SECTION 3 AND SECTION 4.

AND SO YOU CAN CONCENTRATE ON THOSE. WE MADE SOME REVISIONS TO THE RECITALS AS WELL.

ADDED SOME INFORMATION IN THERE. AND I'LL LET YOU REVIEW IT.

YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

OKAY. OKAY.

[03:26:46]

OKAY. SO I CAN TELL YOU HOW WE ADDRESS THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS AND FINDINGS.

SO IN SECTION 3 YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THERE'S REQUIRED PARKING 68 SPACES AND THE PROJECT IS NOT PROPOSING TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED PARKING.

AND SO THAT WOULD ALSO RESULT IN A LOSS OF ON STREET PARKING.

AND THEREFORE, THE CONCESSION TO REDUCE THE PARKING SPACES TO 44 SPACES WOULD DECREASE ACCESS TO THE COAST FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND BE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.

SO THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE COASTAL ACT. OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT FIRST FINDING.

THE SECOND FINDING REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES FROM FIRE STATION 1. AND THAT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE THAT COMMISSIONER LIGHT BROUGHT UP.

IN ADDITION, IN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH, THE PROJECT WOULD WOULD RESULT IN PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONFLICT AS A RESULT OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THE DRIVEWAY ON PEARL STREET.

AND THAT WOULD AS SUCH, THE REQUESTED CONCESSION WOULD RESULT IN A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT UPON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

AND THAT ADDRESS COMMISSIONER GADDIS' COMMENT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE KIDS AND OTHER PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES IN THAT AREA.

SECTION 4. THE FINDING IS THAT THE CONCESSION TO AVOID THE UTILIZATION STUDY TO DEVIATE FROM OVERLAP PARKING REQUIREMENT DOES NOT RESULT IN ACTUAL AND IDENTIFIABLE COST REDUCTIONS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS, AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THE STUDY WOULD RESULT IN COST REDUCTIONS RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THAT TIES DIRECTLY TO ONE OF THE CONCESSIONS THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING.

AND THAT GOES TO COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE CONCERN ABOUT THERE BEING NO STUDY AND THERE BEING NO DATA TO TO MAKE A INFORMED DECISION. SO THAT WOULD ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD.

WE ALSO ADDED SOME RECITALS AND HAD TO CHANGE OBVIOUSLY SOME RECITALS TO BE IN LINE WITH A DENIAL. AND IT WAS, I BELIEVE ON PAGE FOUR AND ON PAGE CERTAIN CERTAIN WORDING HAD TO BE CHANGED ON PAGE THREE AS WELL.

CHERYL, IS THERE ANY WAY TO REALLY SPELL OUT ACCESS PUBLIC ACCESS IN THAT SECTION 3 THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY CONCERNED. IT'S JUST BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE DELIBERATED FURTHER, THAT IT BE REALLY CLEAR THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PART OF THE

[03:30:02]

TO THE COAST FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND BE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.

SO WE COULD ADD THE WORD PUBLIC BEFORE ACCESS.

SHOULD WE ALSO PUT PIER? BECAUSE THAT'S SO IMPORTANT.

IT REALLY LITERALLY STOPS AT THE PIER. AND, YOU KNOW, OUR PIERS.

SURE. ARE IMPORTANT TO US. SURE. HARBOR PIER.

THE COAST AND THE HARBOR. THE HARBOR AND THE PIER.

HARBOR AND THE PIER COAST. HARBOR AND HARBOR AND PIER.

YEAH. OKAY. BECAUSE. WE CAN SAY THE COAST. LITERALLY PEARL ENDS THERE.

COAST, HARBOR, PIER. PERFECT. THAT WORKS YEAH.

I HAVE A QUESTION TOO. COMMISSIONER GADDIS. OKAY AFTER SHE'S DONE.

I'M DONE, I'M DONE. OKAY. C7.

YEAH. C7, SECTION 7 UNDER C YEAH. THERE WE GO.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS THAT THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM ASSESSMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, AND CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, WHICH PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR PROJECTS THAT A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVES. SO THE ACT OF REJECTING OR DISAPPROVING THIS EXEMPTS THEM FROM CEQA? EXEMPTS THE CITY FROM CEQA.

OH, THE CITY. CORRECT. IT SAYS THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT.

I BELIEVE THAT. PROJECT STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM.

DO YOU MEAN THE CITY'S FINDING WITH REGARD TO THE PROJECT? OR DO YOU MEAN THE CITY IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT, OR WHAT IS THE ACTUAL INTENT THERE? HOLD ON ONE SECOND. LET ME JUST COMPARE IT TO THIS.

THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. SO IT'S YOUR DENIAL OF THE PROJECT IS AN ACTION.

AND SO THIS SECTION IS STATING THAT YOUR ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA.

OKAY. SO THE DISAPPROVAL OR. CORRECT. THE OKAY INSTEAD OF THE PROJECT.

RIGHT? YES. OKAY.

YEAH. AND IT SAYS AN EXEMPTION FOR PROJECTS THAT THE PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS.

YEAH. OKAY. GOOD CATCH THERE MISTER. GOOD CATCH.

THANK YOU I APPRECIATE THAT. COMMISSIONER LIGHT IS THAT SAFETY PART GOOD? WAIT, WAIT LET'S FINISH THIS FIRST.

OH, WE'RE STILL GOING SORRY. I APOLOGIZE. SIR, I CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS THAT THE DENIAL OF.

THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT.

IN THE THE FINISH OF THAT IS WHICH PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR PROJECTS THAT A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVES AN EXEMPTION. THAT'S THE CORRECT. THAT'S THE CORRECT. EXEMPTION FOR ACTION.

OKAY SO THAT'S CORRECT? YEAH. WHICH PROVIDES EXEMPTION FOR.

I THINK IT'S BECAUSE WHEN I, WHEN I ADD THE LANGUAGE, THE DENIAL OF THE PROJECT.

STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM ASSESSMENT UNDER CEQA.

SO, SO CEQA WOULD, WOULD REVIEW THE DENIAL OF THE OR SOMEHOW BE APPLICABLE TO THE DENIAL OF

[03:35:06]

OKAY. YEAH. SO JUST CONFIRMING BECAUSE INITIALLY THIS WHOLE THING WAS.

EXEMPT ANYHOW. SO JUST CONFIRMING THAT. OKAY.

YES. OKAY. SO WE SHOULDN'T CHANGE THAT LAST SENTENCE TO SAY AN EXEMPTION WHICH PROVIDE EXEMPTION FOR ACTIONS REJECTING PROJECTS THAT A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVE. BECAUSE IT'S THE ACTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT? THEN, NOT THE PROJECT. CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. I'D FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THAT WERE A LITTLE CLEARER SOMEHOW.

NOT THAT THE LANGUAGE I SUGGEST IS RIGHT, BUT IT'S THE ACTION WE AND NOT THE PROJECT.

THAT IS EXEMPT. OUR OUR ACTION. I THINK IT'S JUST THE THE.

WE COULD I COULD MAKE IT MORE CLEAR. PROVIDES AN EXEMPTION FOR.

REJECTION OR DISAPPROVAL OF A OF A OF A OF A PROJECT.

SEE, IF YOU TAKE PROJECTS OUT OF THERE AND YOU SAY AN EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTION OR DISAPPROVAL OF A PROJECT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? FOR AN EXEMPTION. PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR.

PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTION OR DISAPPROVAL OF A PROJECT.

OKAY THAT'S FINE. OKAY. THAT'D BE GREAT. IT'S LIKE WE DID THE FIRST PART OF THIS.

YEAH. WHAT WAS THAT? ARE YOU GUYS GETTING IT? REJECTION? OKAY. EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTION OR DISAPPROVAL OF PROJECT. NO EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC AGENCY. NO FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTION.

NO, NO, NO. I WOULD JUST DELETE [LAUGHTER]. OKAY SO THIS IS HOW IT'S GOING TO READ.

WHICH PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTION OR DISAPPROVAL OF A PROJECT.

OKAY. THE REJECTION. OR APPROVAL OF DISAPPROVAL OF. A PROJECT. A PROJECT. AND THEN THE REST OF THE SENTENCE IS DELETED.

CORRECT. OKAY. SO LET'S SEE. WHICH PROVIDE EXEMPTION FOR A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTION OR DISAPPROVAL OF PROJECT. AND SO THAT EXEMPTION IS FOR THE CITY FOR YOUR ACTION.

FOR THE ACTION. GOOD. OKAY. THAT'S IT. OKAY, GREAT.

ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS THIS NEW RESOLUTION.

SO I VOTE RIGHT IS A REJECTION IS IS APPROVING THE REJECTION? CORRECT. YOU CAN JUST READ THE TITLE WHICH STATES IT'S DENYING A REQUEST BUT YOU CAN READ IT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANYONE.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONCESSION UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW RELATED TO REDUCED COMMERCIAL PARKING, THEREFORE DENYING THE REQUEST FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65912.124 E FOR A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 49 UNITS, FIVE OF WHICH WOULD BE AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME, THREE OF WHICH AND THREE OF WHICH WOULD BE AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, FOUR STORIES AND 45FT IN HEIGHT,

[03:40:07]

7508012013, 7508012012, 7508012011, 7508012010, 7508012009 WITHIN A COMMERCIAL ZONE C-2 AT 401 THROUGH 417. SOUTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CASE NUMBER 2025-0074.

THAT'S MY MOTION. SECOND FOR THAT? SECOND. CAN I GET A ROLL CALL VOTE? COMMISSIONER LIGHT. AYE. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL.

AYE. COMMISSIONER YOUNG. AYE. COMMISSIONER GADDIS.

AYE. COMMISSIONER CONROY. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE.

AYE. CHAIRPERSON CRAIG. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. AND I'D LIKE TO THANK DIANA VARAT WHO HAS BEEN ON THIS WHOLE TIME AND I AT AS MARC IS SHE'S BEEN SICK SO REALLY APPRECIATE HER BEING HERE.

AND I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU. YES. AND YOU AND THE WHOLE STAFF AND HER ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I SEE YOU GUYS CAME UP WITH SOMETHING.

I MEAN, SOME YOU REALLY FORTIFIED THIS WELL. THANK YOU.

I HOPE SO. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. SO MOVING ALONG IN OUR AGENDA [LAUGHTER] PIECE. ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. I BELIEVE. OH, MR. SCULLY.

OH I'M SORRY. I JUST I'M GOING THROUGH THE REST OF OUR AGENDA ITEM K.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS.

OKAY. NO ITEMS. NO ADDITIONAL ITEMS OR ITEMS FROM PRIOR.

FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION. ANY ITEMS FROM STAFF?

[M. ITEMS FROM STAFF]

THIS TIME, THE FOCUS IS GOING TO BE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND WE'RE GOING TO FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE IN TERMS OF THE TEXT EDITS TO THE POLICIES. SO IT'S GOING TO BE A REAL DEEP DIVE ON JANUARY 6TH ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND GETTING DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL ON THE POLICIES.

AND THEN ALSO, WE'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTING DRAFT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE AACAP.

THE COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED POLICIES RELATED TO THE CORRIDOR.

HAD EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO INCREASE THE FAR FROM 0.6 TO 1.5.

SO THESE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT INCREASED FLOOR AREA.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE OF A DISCUSSION, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FOR THAT AS WELL AS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

AND JUST A QUESTION. I KNOW THAT THAT EVENTUALLY HAS TO BE VOTED ON CITYWIDE.

WHEN'S THE ANTICIPATION WHEN THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE UP FOR ON THE ELECTION? YEAH SO WE'RE TARGETING JUNE. THERE'S GOING TO BE A SPECIAL ELECTION IN JUNE RELATED TO TOT HOTEL TAX.

SO OUR GOAL IS TO GET IT ON THAT ELECTION AND HAVE IT WRAPPED UP BY THEN, WHICH MEANS WE PRETTY MUCH HAVE TO GET IT THROUGH IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.

AND THAT'S ONLY FOR THE LAND USE ELEMENT. THE OTHER ELEMENTS LIKE THE OPEN SPACE SAFETY.

WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? NOISE ELEMENT YEAH. THOSE ONES DON'T NEED TO GO TO A VOTE.

SO WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO GET THOSE ADOPTED.

BUT THERE IS SOME URGENCY WITH THE LAND USE ELEMENT.

RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING. I REMEMBER WE WERE TALKING BEFORE ABOUT TRYING TO GET THAT IRONED OUT BY NOVEMBER SO IT COULD BE ON A MARCH ELECTION, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE KIND OF A. WE TRIED TO BREAK OUT THE MAIN DISCUSSION ITEMS LIKE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, ARTESIA. THE OTHER ONE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS INDIVIDUALLY IS THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL FAR ALLOWANCE.

YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THAT WAS THE MAIN TOPIC OF DISCUSSION WAS CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

SO THAT WOULD BE WE'RE ANTICIPATING LATER IN JANUARY, ALTHOUGH NOW WE MAY HAVE AN APPEAL GOING TO THE COUNCIL THAT MAY GET PUSHED TO FEBRUARY SO BUT. I'D BE BETTING ON THAT. YES, INDEED. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON STAFF OR? OKAY.

VERY GOOD. COMMISSION MEMBER ITEMS AND FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA TOPICS? I DON'T HEAR ANY. HEARING NONE. I WILL MAKE A.

MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANKS, EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.