[00:00:02] THE APPROPRIATE HOUR. I GUESS WE WILL START OUR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE LAST MONTH, [A. CALL TO ORDER] LAST DAY OF THE MONTH OF MARCH 31ST. AND FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, THIS IS A CONTINUATION DUE TO SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES AND WE ARE CONTINUING ACTUALLY FROM THE SAME AGENDA WE'RE LEFT, OR DO WE HAVE TO START AT THE BEGINNING PART OF THE MEETING AS WE HAVE HERE IN THE OUTLINE? CAN WE JUST GO RIGHT TO THE AGENDA ITEM? YEAH, I THINK WE NEED TO GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THE ITEM, THE AGENDA AS PUBLISHED. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. YEAH. BECAUSE IT WAS IT WAS PUBLISHED THAT WAY. VERY GOOD. FIRST OF ALL, I GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE A CALL TO ORDER. SO A ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER LIGHT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. COMMISSIONER YOUNG. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GADDIS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CONROY. HERE. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. HERE. CHAIRPERSON CRAIG. PRESENT AND HERE. AND IN HONOR OF COMMISSIONER YOUNG, WE WILL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. WOULD YOU BE SO KIND AS TO LEAD US. WOULD LOVE TO. PLEASE RISE. PLACE YOUR RIGHT HAND OVER YOUR HEART. 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. OH, THERE YOU GO. SO, CAN WE GET AN APPROVAL? MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA. [D. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA] SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY BLUE FOLDERS TO RECEIVE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I LOOKED. OKAY. THEN SHALL WE GET THE CONSENT CALENDAR? [F. CONSENT CALENDAR] CAN WE GET APPROVAL FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR? MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. VERY GOOD. ARE THERE ANY EXCLUDED CONSENT COLOR ITEMS? NO. NEXT IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON AGENDA ITEMS. THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ANY SUBJECT THAT DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS AGENDA. FOR ACTION. 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 WITH WRITTEN REQUEST, IF ANY, WILL BE CONSIDERED FIRST UNDER THIS SECTION. JAMAL, DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS FOR THE PUBLIC? WE HAVE NO CARDS AND WE HAVE NO EATTENDEES. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING ON THAT AGENDA THAT MIGHT BE PRESENT? SEEING NO, I GUESS WE'LL MOVE ON. LET'S SEE, WE ARE NOW IN IF I COULD READ CORRECTLY, MY EYES BEING BLURRY. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. I HAVE NOTHING TO DECLARE. [I. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION] OKAY. THAT'S COMMISSIONER LIGHT. COMMISSIONER YOUNG. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. MR. GADDIS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. I GUESS WE HAVE TO REFER TO THE PRIOR ONE AS WELL. SO SO COMMISSIONER BOSWELL AND CHAIRMAN CRAIG VERY GOOD. AND COMMISSIONER CONROY. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND. COMMISSIONER. HAZELTINE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND CHAIR CRAIG. I SPOKE WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. MAYOR LIGHT. ACTUALLY SINCE I SPOKE SUBSEQUENTLY TO COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI AND COMMISSIONERS HAZELTINE AND GADDIS. AND MR. SCULLY, I BELIEVE ALSO AND STAFF. OKAY. SO WE WILL NOW GO TO ANY ITEMS CONTINUE. ALSO STAFF. STAFF. VERY GOOD SIR. OKAY. SO. WE NOW START OUR PUBLIC HEARING. SO NOW WE'RE ON ITEM. I GUESS ITEMS CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM K1. [K. ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS ] DO I NEED TO READ THAT OR CAN WE JUST JUMP RIGHT IN. IT'S ALREADY OPEN. SO YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. REOPEN THE HEARING A MOTION. MOTION TO REOPEN THE HEARING. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. VERY GOOD. SO WE BEGIN WITH YOUR PRESENTATION AGAIN. IS THAT HOW IT WORKS? OKAY. YEAH. AND THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE I DIVE IN, AND THIS WILL FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC THAT WASN'T ABLE TO VIEW THE PRESENTATION LAST TIME, I'M GOING TO HAVE THE SAME SLIDE DECK, BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST POP THOSE UP AND, AND A QUICK RECOUNTING OF A COUPLE OF THE KEY ITEMS BEFORE WE CLOSE DOWN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND I ALSO WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH US TONIGHT ON ZOOM IS OUR HOUSING CONSULTANT, VERONICA TAM. SO SHE'S AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. SO WITH THAT, THIS IS THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE. WE'RE REPLACING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS. AND THESE CHANGES ARE ON OUR PROPOSED HOUSING SITES WITHIN THAT ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE [00:05:10] HOUSING ELEMENT. SO JUST THIS IS THE KIND OF THE RECAP OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSING ELEMENT OR THE CURRENT HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE CERTIFICATION BY THE STATE, AND THEN IDENTIFIES THE HOUSING SITES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AMENDING AT TONIGHT'S MEETING. AGAIN, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, A LOT OF IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED THAT WAS BACK IN THE END OF 2024. A LOT OF ITEMS THAT ARE PROGRAMS WITHIN THE HOUSING ELEMENT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. A LOT OF ZONE CHANGES, ALL RELATED TO THE EXISTING HOUSING SITES. AND THEN THE THE SUMMARY, THIS IS HAPPENING TONIGHT. IT'S IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CITY'S STRATEGY FOR MEETING ITS ARENA AND IN RESPONSE TO A RECENT COURT DECISION. AND AGAIN, WE'RE REPLACING THE OVERLAY RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DESIGNATION WITH ON THE HOUSING SITES WITH A HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE AND HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE HOUSING ZONING DISTRICTS. ALSO YOU'LL SEE, AND I'LL FOCUS MAINLY ON THE AERIAL PHOTOS THAT SHOW THE CHANGES, BUT THERE IS THE REMOVAL OF ONE OF THE EXISTING HOUSING SITES, THE NORTH TECH HOUSING SITE. AND THE UPDATE SUMMARY, AGAIN, ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME OTHER CHANGES. WE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO UPDATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE IT WAS ADOPTED BACK IN 2022 OR 2021. AND SO THOSE, WE TOOK THE TIME TO DO SOME MINOR UPDATES AND TECHNICAL UPDATES. OH, AND CAN I INTERRUPT YOU FOR ONE SECOND JUST FOR THE RECORD? COMMISSIONER BOSWELL IS PRESENT. SO WE HAVE ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HERE TONIGHT. AND THEN THERE WAS FOR THIS UPDATE, WE HAD A PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD. IT WAS RELEASED FOR TWO, SEVEN DAY PERIODS EARLY IN JANUARY AND THEN AGAIN IN FEBRUARY. HCD HAS REVIEWED ALL THE UPDATES AND WE RECENTLY, RIGHT BEFORE OUR LAST MEETING, OUR FIRST MEETING ON THIS ON MARCH 13TH, RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE LETTER FROM HCD THAT STIPULATED THAT THE DRAFT AMENDMENT DOES NOT IMPACT THE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2022 FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. SO, WE WORKED REALLY CLOSELY WITH ANN VERONICA TAM, ESPECIALLY WITH HCD ON THESE UPDATES. AND THEN WITH THE UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT, WE'VE GOT TO UPDATE THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AS WELL AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS SLIDE JUST WALKS THROUGH THE REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON THE HOUSING SITES, AS WELL AS THE NEXT SLIDE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS. AND THESE, THESE ALL HAVE TO BE DONE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGES TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT. AND WHAT WE DID AND WHAT WE THROUGH THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS, IN PARTICULAR, THE STANDARDS WERE THAT WERE IN PLACE, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WERE IN PLACE ON THE THE OLD OVERLAY DISTRICT OR THE PRIOR DISTRICT WERE ESSENTIALLY LIFTED. AND THEN RE. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOW INTO THESE NEW STANDARDS FOR THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS THE THE MIXED USE DESIGNATION. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE LARGELY BEING THE INCREASE IN DENSITY SINCE WE LOST THAT NORTH TECH SITE. AND THEN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AS WELL HAD TO BE CHANGED. BUT THIS IS ANOTHER SLIDE THAT DETAILS THE ACTUAL CHANGES TO THE ZONING DESIGNATION TO IMPLEMENT THE INCREASED DENSITY. AND THEN, AND THIS IS WHAT THIS SLIDE REALLY SHOWS. IT SHOWS THESE ARE THE OLD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR THE STANDARDS THAT WE'RE REPLACING AND THE HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA RATIO SETBACKS, NUMBERS OF STORIES, THOSE ARE LARGELY THE SAME IN THE NEW DESIGNATIONS. AND THEN THESE ARE THE SLIDES THAT REALLY GIVE A SENSE OF WHAT WE'RE CHANGING IN THE UPDATE. THIS IS THE THE SLIDE ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING ZONING FOR THAT SITE. IT HAS THE OVERLAY. AND THEN ON THE RIGHT YOU SEE IT JUST THE OVERLAYS REMOVED. [00:10:01] AND WE REVERT TO THE C4 ZONE. AND THEN THIS IS THE KINGSDALE HOUSING SITE. AGAIN. THE SLIDE ON THE LEFT IS SHOWS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY. AND THEN THE SLIDE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE NEW ZONES THAT ARE REPLACING THE OLD AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY. SO YOU HAVE THE MIXED USE HOUSING ON WHERE THE C4 PROPERTIES WERE. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE RH-4, WHICH IS THE VERY HIGH RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION WHERE THERE WAS THE RH-3 WITH THE OVERLAY. HERE IS THE SOUTH OF THE TRANSIT CENTER HOUSING SITE. AGAIN, YOU REMOVE THE AHO AND REPLACE THAT WITH VERY HIGH RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION RH-4. AND THEN THIS IS THE 190TH STREET AGAIN. WE REMOVED THE AHO AND THEN REPLACED WITH THE. AND THIS IS TWO SLIDES. IT'S SO SMALL. SO THIS IS THE EXISTING WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY. AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE RH-4 THAT'S BEEN THAT REPLACES THAT AHO. AND THEN THIS IS THE SOUTH BAY MARKETPLACE HOUSING SITE. AGAIN, WE'RE REMOVING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY AND THEN JUST REPLACING IT WITH THE COMMERCIAL REGIONAL HOUSING, WHICH HAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXCEPT FOR AN INCREASE IN THE DENSITY FROM 55 TO 80 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND THEN THIS IS THE LAST SITE. THE FEDEX HOUSING SITE ON THE LEFT IS THE MU-3A WITH THE OVERLAY. AND THEN ON THE RIGHT IS THE NEW MU-H. AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS. WE WORKED WITH THE CONSULTANT PLACE WORKS WHO DID THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. AND ALONG WITH THESE CHANGES, WE'RE REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE ADDENDUM THAT DEMONSTRATES THERE'S ALL THE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CHANGES WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PROGRAM EIR, AND IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY PHYSICAL IMPACTS THAT DIFFER FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE AND WOULDN'T TRIGGER THE NEED FOR THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL EIR. AND THEN WITH THAT, THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND WE'VE REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING ALREADY. AND THEN ACCEPT PUBLIC TESTIMONY FROM STAFF, WHICH IS CONCLUDING NOW AND THE PUBLIC AND DELIBERATE ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MR. SCULLY. THE EXCELLENT PRESENTATION AGAIN. SO I GUESS WE OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF? I BEAT YOU TO IT. WELL, ACTUALLY, WE HAVE A NEW TECHNOLOGY WE'RE GOING TO BE USING. SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE ALL THE TIME. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE ROBERT GADDIS A NEW DEVICE WE'RE GOING TO BE USING FOR ACKNOWLEDGING PEOPLE, FOR HAVING QUESTIONS. THIS WAY. I'LL DO IT LATER. HE'LL GET A KICK OUT OF IT LATER. ANYWAY, PLEASE GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. COMMISSIONER LIGHT. PLEASE GO AHEAD. DID I READ THIS CORRECTLY THAT THE 90FT SEVEN STORIES IS ONLY CRH, WHICH IS ONE PLACE SOUTH BAY MARKETPLACE? IS THAT. THAT'S CORRECT, YES. NOT IN THE RH-4 OR THE MU-H. NO. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. SO JUST TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION, UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW THIS IS ALL CHANGING. THE NORTH TECH ZONE WAS PULLED FROM CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF LONG TERM LEASES THAT MAKE IT A UNLIKELY PLACE FOR DEVELOPERS TO BE ABLE TO PULL OFF ONE OF THEIR HAT TRACKS. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT WAS THE COURT'S DETERMINATION. CORRECT. YES. THAT'S THE DETERMINATION. CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STUCK WITH. OKAY. AND THERE IS NO SUCH SIMILAR SITUATION WITH LIVING SPACES. AND THOSE OTHER STORES DOWN IN THE DOWN AT WHAT DO WE CALL THAT? THE SOUTH BAY MARKET ZONE? YEAH. SOUTH OF THE GALLERIA. NO, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. AND WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THOSE WITH THE MANAGEMENT AND THE PROPERTY [00:15:01] OWNERSHIP. AND SO THERE, THERE ARE NO SIMILAR LONG TERM LEASES. I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE LEASE, BUT THEY WERE, THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE DESIGNATION OF A HOUSING SITE AND. THAT WAS THE OWNER OF THE TECH ZONE. HE'S, HE'S CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO DEVELOP THAT. THAT'S TRUE. SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? HOW IS THIS HOW IS ONE PULLED FROM CONSIDERATION? AN IDEAL SPOT RIGHT OFF THE FREEWAY. RIGHT BY A METRO STATION. YEAH. RIGHT BY MAJOR ARTERIES. AND WE DON'T SEE IT PULLED AT A PLACE THAT IS FAR FROM THAT. AND A DECADE OR MORE AWAY FROM A METRO STATION IN AN AREA THAT WILL EVENTUALLY SEE THOUSANDS OF NEW RESIDENTS IN AN ALREADY GRIDLOCKED SET OF INTERSECTIONS. VECTORING OUT FOR MILES. OKAY, HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? MAKE IT MAKE THIS MAKE SENSE TO ME. WELL, I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THAT COMMISSIONER BOSWELL IS THE FACT THAT WE'RE ASKING TO STAFF TO GO INTO THE MINDS OF A JUDGE WHO MADE A DECISION BASED ON FACTS AND INFORMATION. IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE STATE AND THE STATE AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE. I MEAN, MR. SCULLY IS WELL VERSED IN A LOT OF THINGS. I RESPECT HIM IMMENSELY. BUT I COULDN'T GO INSIDE THE MIND OF THE JUDGE AND THE LEGISLATOR ON THIS, EITHER. ONE WOULD THINK, AS YOU ASSUME, THAT THEY SHOULD BE THE SAME. NO, I DON'T. NO, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE. WHY WOULD THEY ALLOW ONE AND NOT THE OTHER ONE? ALMOST A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES MAY EXIST. AND THE FACT IS, WE HAVE LETTERS OF INTENT, I THINK, FROM BOTH OF THEM SAYING THAT THEY WOULD BUILD PROPERTY THERE AND. ONE IS OKAY AND ONE IS NOT. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE TO ME. YEAH. WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE THAT. SO IS THIS IS THIS A MATTER OF, OF THE JUDGE? I MEAN, MAYBE I HAVE TO ANSWER THIS FOR YOU. IS IT ONLY BECAUSE THE JUDGE SAID NO TO THE NORTH ZONE AND DIDN'T SAY NO TO ANYTHING ELSE? CORRECT. DIDN'T SAY THAT. WELL, THAT'S SO HARD. HOW HARD WAS THAT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING. SO AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ATTORNEYS DOUG, SO WE CAN'T INTERPRET THAT. WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL. SO WHAT HAPPENS SINCE THIS HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED ONCE WITH THE NORTH TECH ZONE BEING PERFECTLY FINE. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER WE DO THIS AND SOMEBODY TAKES IT TO A JUDGE? DO WE START ALL OVER AGAIN, OR DO WE PERHAPS SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS? THIS IS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM. IT'S GOING TO CREATE RIPPLE EFFECTS AND DELAY ALL OF THIS STUFF. LET'S JUST FIND ANOTHER PLACE FOR IT AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT LATER WHEN IT'S CLEARED BY WHOEVER. WHY DON'T WE FIND ANOTHER PLACE FOR THE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PLANNED TO GO THERE BECAUSE IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THAT'S THE NEXT THING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO A GOTCHA ON AND REMOVE OUR APPROVAL. AND THEN IT'S BUILDER'S REMEDY. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WANT THAT. I KNOW WE'RE NOT CRAZY ABOUT IT, BUT I'M WONDERING WHY. WHY ARE WE PROCEEDING ON THE ASSUMPTION FOR A SECOND TIME THAT BECAUSE THE OWNER SAYS I'M GOOD WITH IT, THAT IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD TO THE TO THE POLITICIANS IN SACRAMENTO. WE'LL, WE'RE DOING SO BECAUSE WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND THEY ARE THE THE AGENCY ASSIGNED TO MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT OUR HOUSING ELEMENT IS VALID. WHICH THEY HAVE DONE BEFORE. THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO THAT'S. ALL WE CAN DO. THE SITUATION STILL STANDS. WHAT YOU'RE BASICALLY TELLING ME IS, WELL, THEY DID IT BEFORE. AND EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS OVERTURNED, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THAT WELL AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO DRINK FROM THAT WELL AGAIN. UNFORTUNATELY DOUGH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH. WOULD IT GO BACK TO THE SAME JUDGE? IF SOMEONE FILED A SUIT AGAINST THIS TO GET RID OF THAT ELEMENT, AS COMMISSIONER BOSWELL WAS TALKING ABOUT, WOULD IT GO TO THE SAME JUDGE? BECAUSE I THINK THAT ONE'S ALREADY APPROVED THAT LOCATION. CORRECT? WELL, I MEAN, THE PROBLEM IS, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE'RE DOING IS SUBJECT TO LEGAL INTERPRETATION. AND JUST LIKE ANY LAW, ANYTHING PASSING THAT WE GO THROUGH. WE'RE DOING THIS BACK AND FORTH. IT'S POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, BUT BUT AT LEAST AT THIS POINT, I MEAN, WE DO HAVE FEEDBACK FROM ACD THAT THIS WILL AGAIN WORK THIS TIME. WE'LL HAVE TO JUST WAIT AND SEE. WE MAY BE COMING BACK AGAIN IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S POSSIBLE. SO I STARTED OFF BY SAYING, I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION. I DIDN'T WANT TO GET ANYBODY THINKING ABOUT GOING TO LAW SCHOOL. BUT IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING DOWN THE SAME OLD ROAD AGAIN AND THERE'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMS. NOW, ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I'VE GOT MY THIRD THURSDAY OF EACH MONTH SET ASIDE AND OCCASIONALLY ONE OF THESE EXTRAS. SO I'LL BE HERE, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GOT BIGGER FISH TO FRY THAN YOU KEEP DOING THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. [00:20:01] WELL, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THE BEST WE CAN DO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE, UNFORTUNATELY. I HAD A QUESTION, MR. SCULLY. IF YOU GO BACK, I THINK IT WAS SLIDE 15. I JUST IT WAS THAT SECTION YOU DID ON 190TH, I BELIEVE THERE'S LIKE AN OVERHEAD MAP YOU HAD. OH, YEAH. WHICH ONE? IT WAS 15, I THINK. YEAH, THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. ONE THING I WOULD JUST REMARK. WELL, I KNOW THAT AT THE TIME THIS WAS CREATED, THIS WASN'T ON THE TABLE, BUT THE DEVELOPER WHO DID THE PEARL STREET PROJECT IS DOING, I THINK, A PROJECT ON INGLEWOOD AVENUE AND 190TH. AND IF MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY CONVERSATION WITH THE MAYOR, I THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING LIKE A 70 UNIT COMPLEX THERE, POTENTIALLY? 60 OR 70 UNITS AS COMPARED TO THE 49 ONE ON PEARL STREET. CORRECT. CORRECT. SO THE GOOD THING IS AT LEAST THAT WILL COUNT TOWARD OUR RENA. IT WILL, IT WILL. VERY GOOD. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? SHALL WE OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT? ANYONE. MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, EITHER IN PERSON OR ON CARDS OR ONLINE? WE HAVE NO CARDS AND WE HAVE NO EATTENDEES. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ANYONE IN THE ROOM? NO ONE IN THE ROOM EITHER. OKAY. NOW IS YOUR TIME? OKAY. JUST GET UP AND SAY SOMETHING. OKAY. OKAY, SO SO WE CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND DELIBERATE. OR IS THAT OUR NEXT STEP HERE? MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS. WE CAN DISCUSS. THE MOTION. ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION OR DISCUSS FURTHER. I WANT TO SUMMARIZE IT AND JUST GIVE THE SHORT VERSION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES. IT'S NOT A BIG DEPARTURE FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. IT'S ONE LESS SITE, A LITTLE BIT HIGHER DENSITY AT THE FIVE REMAINING SITES WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER THE ZONING. SO IT'S VERY SIMILAR. ONE KEY DIFFERENCES IS THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT THESE SITES WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE 50% RESIDENTIAL 50% OF THE FLOOR AREA, AND THAT WAS BASED ON THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW ON THAT. AND THEN REGARDING THE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE'RE GOING DOWN A PATH OF, YOU KNOW, THIS UPDATED VERSION BEING CHALLENGED, I THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE WITH ANY PATH THE CITY GOES, THESE CAN CONSISTENTLY BE LEGALLY CHALLENGED. IT DOES TAKE TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THE COURT PROCESS, IT TAKES SEVERAL YEARS IN THIS CASE IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR, BY THE TIME THAT WOULD PROBABLY COME ABOUT, WE'D BE MOVING INTO THE NEXT CYCLE, WHICH IS ONLY ABOUT THREE YEARS AWAY NOW. SO THIS DOES HELP ADDRESS THE SITUATION. NOW IT'S, IT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE COURT. AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH STATE HCD ON THIS AND THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF IT AND THEY'RE PREPARED TO CERTIFY IT. AND THAT REALLY IS, AS YOU SAID, THE BEST WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW WITH THIS SITUATION. A MATTER OF JUST A POINT OF INITIAL CLARIFICATION. YOU MENTIONED WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED, YOU SAID A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSING, YOU SAID 50% HOUSING. IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID OR WAS IT. ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS, 50% OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS TO GO TO HOUSING. IN THOSE AREAS. IN THOSE AREAS. RIGHT. AND THEN IN THAT AREA, THERE IS A PRESCRIBED MIX OF LOWER INCOME TO LOW INCOME TO LOWER. LOW INCOME HOUSING OR ANYTHING IN THERE. IT'S NOT MANDATED. THERE'S INCENTIVES FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED. SO THAT WOULD COME UP WHEN THE PROJECT WAS PRESENTED KIND OF THING, WHERE THEY COULD HAVE LESS SETBACKS AND MORE, LESS PARKING, THAT KIND OF THING. THOSE SAME CONCESSIONS WE'VE SEEN BEFORE. YES. AND A MINISTERIAL PROCESS AS WELL. THERE IS A PROGRAM IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT THAT DIRECTS THE CITY AT SOME POINT TO STUDY DEVELOPING AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. IT'S NOT A MANDATE THAT WE PASS ONE, THAT WE ADOPT ONE. AND THAT WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THAT ON ANY FUTURE PROJECT, A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE BE AFFORDABLE. HCD DOES HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT THOUGH, BECAUSE CITIES HAVE HISTORICALLY USED THAT TO MAKE THE NUMBERS SO HIGH THAT IT MAKES HOUSING PROJECTS INFEASIBLE. SO THERE'S A KIND OF A SWEET SPOT, AND YOU HAVE TO DO SOME MARKET ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT WOULD BE. SO WE DO HAVE THAT ON OUR WORK PLAN TO STUDY THAT AND AT SOME POINT BRING THAT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT CURRENTLY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DICTATED THROUGH INCENTIVES. AND SO FAR WE HAVE SEEN THAT ON THESE PROJECTS. [00:25:01] MAYBE NOT AT THE PERCENTAGES THAT WERE ANTICIPATED, BUT WE ARE SEEING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ORDER TO GET THE WAIVERS AND THE INCENTIVES AND OTHER THINGS. WELL, AS WE SAW IN PRIOR ONES, WHETHER IT'S A 5% OR 10% OR 15%, AND THE INCENTIVES GO UP. THAT MAKES SENSE. MR. BOSWELL YOU HAVE A COMMENT? ANOTHER CLARIFICATION. YOU SAID THAT A NEW FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE 50% RESIDENTIAL. IS THAT AT LEAST 50% OR JUST 50%? IT'S A MINIMUM 50% REQUIREMENT. AT LEAST 50%. YES. OKAY. AND THEN THERE'S AN ALLOWANCE FOR MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING BUILDINGS ON THE SITES, WHETHER IT BE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL. AND SOME FLEXIBILITY TO, TO MAINTAIN THOSE. BUT, BUT YEAH, THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THAT IF IT'S LEFT AS OPTIONAL, THAT IN THE COURT'S OPINION, IT WOULD NOT IT WOULD NOT SUPPORT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON THESE SITES IF IT WAS AN OPTION. THERE HAD TO BE SOME MANDATORY COMPONENT TO THAT. THE COURT BELIEVES THAT IF A DEVELOPER WAS GOING TO BUILD ON ONE OF THESE SITES THAT WITHOUT THIS REQUIREMENT, THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T BUILD THE MOST PROFITABLE POSSIBLE THING THAT THEY COULD BUILD. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. BY FAR THE MOST PROFITABLE THING THAT THEY CAN BUILD, ESPECIALLY HERE, IS RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. NOT ANOTHER STRIP MALL THAT'LL GO VACANT FOREVER. NOT ANOTHER BREWERY. MINI BREWERY, NOT ANOTHER ANYTHING. IT'S HOUSING. AND YET THEY FEEL THAT THEY HAVE TO REQUIRE THAT OUT OF SOME SENSE OF MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S PROFITABLE. WELL, I THINK THAT DOUG, THE ISSUE IS THEY'RE APPLYING THIS STATEWIDE. THERE ARE SOME PARTS OF THE STATE PROBABLY THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE SIZE FITS ALL. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. BUT WE'RE NOT. BUT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS HOW DOES HOW DOES SOMETHING LIKE THAT COME TO PASS WHERE THEY SEEM TO THINK THEY HAVE TO REQUIRE 50% HOUSING BECAUSE A DEVELOPER IS GOING TO SAY, GEEZ, I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE EIGHTH MOST PROFITABLE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO THE BY FAR MORE PROFITABLE DEVELOPMENT. IT SEEMS LIKE IF THEY CAN USE MERELY INCENTIVES TO GET US THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE DESPERATELY NEED, THAT THEY COULD USE INCENTIVES TO GET RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT INCENTIVE WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING LIKE GO FOR IT. BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT AND THEY WILL BUILD RESIDENTIAL. SO I BRING THESE THINGS UP BECAUSE IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE STORY, THAT WE'RE BEING LED AROUND BY THE NOSE TO DO SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS WE DON'T HAVE TO DO, BUT IS PRESENTED AS SOMETHING WE MUST. SO THE TRUST FACTOR, OF COURSE, DISAPPEARED A WHILE AGO. SO I'M ASKING THE QUESTIONS TO SEE IF IT PASSES THE SNIFF TEST. AND RIGHT NOW THAT PARTICULAR THING DOES NOT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. MR. BOSWELL. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-03 PCR-03. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED REDONDO BEACH FOCUS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PROGRAM EIR CONCERNING THE UPDATE OF THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT OF MARCH 2026, EXHIBIT A AND ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S CERTIFIED 2021-2029 SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT EXHIBIT B AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT, EXHIBIT C AND SUBDIVISION, EXHIBIT D AND ZONING EXHIBIT E ORDINANCES REQUIRED FOR CONSISTENCY THAT REPLACE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICTS ON THE CITY'S IDENTIFIED HOUSING SITES WITH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 65 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS 65 TO 80 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PARTS OF THIS I NEED TO READ FOR THE. YEP. FOR THIS? THE WHOLE THING. IS THAT THE ENTIRE TITLE? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. THAT COVERS. OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. VERY GOOD. CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL VOTE? COMMISSIONER LIGHT. AYE. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER BOSWELL IS HOLDING HIS NOSE WHILE SAYING YES, HE'S ALSO KICKING HIS FEET. COMMISSIONER YOUNG. YES. COMMISSIONER GADDIS. AYE. COMMISSIONER CONROY. [00:30:04] AYE. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. YES. CHAIRPERSON CRAIG. AYE. MOTION CARRIES ALL IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. I HIT THE GAVEL. OKAY. ON OUR NEXT ITEM. L ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION. IS THERE ANYTHING THERE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. NOTHING, MR. SCULLY. OKAY. ANY ITEMS FROM STAFF? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING, MARC? [M. ITEMS FROM STAFF] YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR SHOWING UP AGAIN FOR THIS DUE TO THE TECHNICAL ISSUES. SO THANK YOU FOR BEING AVAILABLE FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING. ALSO, I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT TODAY THE CITY COUNCIL HAD THEIR STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION THIS AFTERNOON. AND AS THEY COVERED THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THIS PAST 12 MONTHS, THERE WERE 125 THAT WERE LISTED OUT, AND EACH ONE OF THOSE WAS PRETTY SUBSTANTIVE. SO I THINK IT'S BEEN A REALLY GOOD PAST 12 MONTHS FOR THE CITY IN TERMS OF GETTING THINGS DONE. AND THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS IN MY DEPARTMENT AS IT PERTAINS TO ADVANCE PLANNING THAT WE'LL BE BRINGING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OVER THE NEXT YEAR. SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP ON THAT. WHAT WE'LL PROBABLY DO AT THE NEXT MEETING IS I WILL BRING THAT WORK PLAN TO THE COMMISSION, JUST SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S IN THE WORKS. AND THIS IS WE STILL HAVE TO GET THE GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED AND FINALLY PUT THAT TO REST, WHICH IS GOING TO OCCUR THIS JUNE. BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO PIVOT FROM THAT AND WORK ON SOME OTHER ORDINANCES, LIKE A CITY WIDE SIGN ORDINANCE. AND THERE'S THE LCP CLEANUP PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH. WE RECEIVED A GRANT FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOR THAT. AND THERE'S OTHER ADVANCED PLANNING PROJECTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE. SO YEAH, SO WE HAVE A LOT TO LOOK FORWARD TO OVER THE NEXT YEAR. SO THERE'S NO TRUTH TO THE RUMOR WE'RE GOING TO BE COMPLYING WITH THE STUDENT YOUTH COMMISSION RIGHT? THEY CAN'T CONFIRM OR DENY THAT. OR DENY. YOU DON'T QUALIFY. MAKE SOME LIGHT OF THAT. TO LAW SCHOOL. WE GO BACK TO LAW SCHOOL. WE'LL BE ALL BE TAKING OUR LSATS RIGHT SO. OKAY. COMMISSION ITEMS. ANY FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA TOPICS? ANYTHING ANYONE WANTS TO CHAT ABOUT? YEP. OKAY. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND. I MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT, THOUGH. SO I DIDN'T GET IT RECORDED LAST TIME I DID. I DO WANT TO THANK THE THIS IS THE LAST DAY OF MARCH, WHICH IS NATIONAL WOMEN'S MONTH. AND I WANT TO THANK THE WOMEN ON OUR COMMISSION WHO HAVE SERVED THE COMMUNITY FOR, IN SOME CASES, DECADES AND ABOVE ODDS AND MANY ISSUES TRYING TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY BETTER. AND IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH FOR THEM, THEY'RE HERE NOW TONIGHT SERVING OUR COMMISSION ONCE AGAIN. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU AND THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS HERE TONIGHT FOR DOING A GREAT JOB AND COMING IN HERE IN A SPECIAL MEETING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND ALL IN FAVOR TO ADJOURN. AYE. WE ARE NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.