Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

601 chair. Okay. Call this meeting to order. This is the regular meeting of the Marina Planning Commission and we have a roll call. Uh, Vice Chair Woodson, Commissioner Baron here, Commissioner Rana here. Chair St. John here. Commissioner Jacobson here. Commissioner Simmons. We have Cororb. Thank you. The bell. Okay. A moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance. Stand up.

I have a volunteer. The pledge. I'll do it. Okay. Again. 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. Special announcements and communication from the floor.

We we don't have any chair. Okay. All right. Uh, expporte communications or qua judicial matters. I I might have one. Um, this week I met with a citizen who's also going to be running for mayor. And uh, we may have touched on the downtown revitalization plan, but I don't think we got into anything specific about anything on the agenda tonight.

Okay. That's pretty clear. No issue. Uh item six, the consent agenda, approval of the minutes from March 26. Has everyone had a chance to review or find any errors, omissions? Not. Do I have a motion? Make a motion to approve the minutes from March 26th. March March March. April 23rd. April 23rd. Oh, I'm sorry. I think it's April April 23rd. I think it's April 23rd, isn't it? Yes.

For I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes for April 23rd, 2026 from the funding commission. Good second. Pardon me. Second. Okay. Commissioner Rana seconds. Roll call. meaning. Yeah. Commissioner Simmons, yes. Commissioner Jacobson, yes. Chair St. John, yes. Commissioner Rana. Commissioner Baron, yes. Vice Chair Woodson, yes. Motion passes.

And now the The public hearings for today will be the downtown citywide downtown vitalization specific plan amendments. We have a presentation from Sarah. We do. And before we start, uh Tim is our new planning services manager. I think he's been to a couple meetings. I can't remember now. Just wanted to formally introduce him to the commission. So, hi Ken. Good. Tim, that was great. I'll pass it off to Tim. Um,

great. Point of order before we begin. Um, we never had public comment, open public comment. I don't know why it's not on the agenda, but we for I guess it's special announcements, communications from the floor. We never actually took the time to see if anybody on the floor or online wanted to provide comment. That is a good point. So, Chair St. John, if you wanted to, it's it's up to your call to reopen number four to ask people if they want to speak on anything not on the agenda. So,

okay. Yeah. Okay. Let's reopen agenda item four if we have any communications from the floor. Do we have any communications from for for items not on the agenda? No. No. From the uh online public. Yes. Uh our No, they just lowered their hand. Chair St. John. Okay. So, all right. Thank you, Vice Chair, for Yeah. Thank you.

spotting that. Then we will proceed with the public hearings and the first uh phase of that will be the presentation from staff Kim. Tim is Tim. Tim. Oh, good. I'm not the only one. Okay.

All right. Well, good evening, Chair St. John and members of the planning commission. My name is Tim Mayor, planning services manager with the city. Um this evening the planning commission is cons requested to consider and make a recommendation to the city council regarding proposed amendments to the downtown revitalization specific plan following direction from a recent market feasibility report and based on feedback from public outreach. Uh next slide please. Um as you're likely aware Marina has pursued the development of a vibrant downtown since before its incorporation in 1975. Uh key initiatives include the 2002 ad hoc Marina downtown committee's recommendations, adoption of a downtown vision and design guidelines in 2005, the initiation of downtown vital vitalization specific plan or DVSP in 2006, and the early draft of a downtown vitalization specific plan which was presented to the public in March of 2011. Uh traffic and retail analyses were conducted and informed planning decisions. In 2017, a second ad hoc committee was formed to address new concerns. And finally, by October of 2024, the Marina City Council adopted the downtown vitalization specific plan or DDSP to guide the redevelopment and enhancement of downtown Marina over a 20-year horizon. Uh the downtown revitalization specific plan presents an aspirational vision for downtown Marina as a vibrant pedestrian friendly destination encompassing mixeduse buildings, retail and office space and new housing in alignment with the city's general plan. The plan establishes a regulatory framework by identifying lists of allowable land uses and establishing objective design standards within several designated districts to promote compact development, foster street improvements, and facilitate enhancement of public spaces. The DVSP therefore serves as a primary vehicle for the city to promote future

investment and reposition its urban center for growth and community renewal. Uh, next slide, please. So stated goals of the downtown vitalization specific plan include the following. Um enhancement of mobility, economic vitality, housing, cultural diversity as well as community identity. Um the downtown revitalization specific plan contains various policies, programs, and actions to attain its identified goals and over time uh facilitate the community's buildout potential of 1.38 million square ft of commercial or retail space and up to 2,94 housing units, which brings with it significant redevelopment opportunities. In developing and refining the DVSP, the city has sponsored and hosted many public outreach efforts over several decades, including outreach conducted in the last few months. Next slide, please. In adoption of the DVSP, the city sought to develop a plan which was visionary in nature but realistic enough to allow practical implementation. To this end, the city council directed staff to commission studies of his economic feasibility within the year following plan adoption and to return to the city council with the results of this research. In early 2025, the city retained HDL Econ Solutions or HDL, a consultant uh to prepare an economic and market assessment and retail void analysis. As part of these services, HDL prepared a peerreview report of the downtown plan which is attached to the staff report presented to you. The report prepared by the consultant uh entitled city of Marina downtown vitalization specific plan peerreview report cites the challenges um in creating a walkable pedestrianoriented downtown associated with the existing conditions are largely created by a prevailing built environment centered on four-lane roads with 5-ft wide sidewalks which are very narrow surrounding a suburban strip mall urban form dominated by chain stores many with long-term

leases that have been in place for many decades. As described in the peerreview report, the transformation of Delmonte Boulevard and Reservation Road to urban downtown streets featuring vertical mixeduse development as cited in the report remains fairly unlikely. Several challenges include uh number one, the lack in the DVS of a financing mechanism for construction of pedestrian friendly features such as water sidewalks, landscape medium with pedestrian respbit areas, boldouts at major intersections or narrower traffic lanes. along with number two, the low likelihood for construction of roadway improvements through rideaway dedications associated with future development projects. In light of those challenges, the peerreview report presents several recommendations to land use regulations and identified design standards. Uh, next slide, please. To address these challenges, the consultant team recommended several revisions to downtown vitalization specific plan is listed on this slide. I know there's a lot of text here, so I'll provide a kind of an overview. Uh several suggestions include um for programs and policies, uh first revise to a shortterm time frame rather than a midterm time frame as currently stated in the DVSP, uh the following. Um so program M1 which requires development of a mobility plan for the downtown to include complete streets design and program PF5 for establishment of a downtown business improvement district or other funding mechanism to organize and finance the construction of downtown infrastructure improvements and meaningful and in intentional increments. Another recommendation includes number two um amend policy LU5.1 as follows. uh delete references to the mixeduse node due to its small area and existing residential development pattern. Add language facilitating exploration and encouragement of horizontal mixeduse design alternatives to facilitate redevelopment of the suburban shopping

centers in the core area and also redesate the mixeduse node as transition. Um the third item revised development standards to remove the mixeduse node development standards as the three properties as I mentioned comprising that district are recommended to be redesated as transition. And fourthly um include a number of revisions to appendix A of the DVSP mainly corrections of slight internal discrepancies and minor revisions to facilitate sighting of pedestrianoriented uses in order to activate the downtown area. Uh next slide please. Um, this slide includes excerpts from the downtown vitalization specific plan land use matrix on the right hand side of the slide and on the left hand side of the slide shows footnotes included as clarifying elements. A few uses within the land use matrix um, as shown in red were modified or reorganized to eliminate internal discrepancies while others were allowed to encourage foot traffic to enliven the downtown area. Several footnotes were added for clarification as shown shown on the lefth hand side of the screen, including footnote number seven related to childcare centers, which was not originally listed as a separate use in the DVSP development regulations, but was included as a use under the services major classification, but is now listed as um its own use. Excuse me. Footnote number eight was added to enable horizontal mixeduse development. Uh, footnote number nine references parks and recreational facilities, a category which appears to have been unintentionally omitted from the DBSB originally, but is now listed as permitted in all downtown districts. Uh, next slide, please. In pursuing vitalization of the city's downtown, it's notable that a variety of state legislation provides a whole pallet of tools made available in recent years with some laws passed even since the time of adoption of the downtown

plan. Although not requiring amendments to the DVSP directly, um it seems uh relevant to brief discussion of the potential of these statutes to the overall discussion as they do significantly reduce barriers to redevelopment and again these laws provide tools which help to achieve the desired outcomes of the DVSP while minimally impacting existing commercial centers. So um listed here several uh state statutes I'll quickly kind of run through. So, for example, Assembly Bill 2097 or 2097 prohibits local jurisdictions for requiring provision of vehicle or parking on any site within a half mile of a major transit facility with very few exceptions. A majority of the city's downtown, including all of its core district, falls within a half mile of a major transit facility and therefore requires no vehicular parking, allowing for conversion of a significant share of existing land area currently dedicated to parking to other purposes instead. Use of this legislation would allow for existing buildings to remain intact and allow for wide swats of unused parking to be converted to horizontal or even mixeduse development, providing new commercial offerings and placing residents in proximity to services while providing new patronage to existing businesses. Um, another piece of legislation, California Assembly Bill 20112011, uh, called the Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act of 2022, allows for ministerial review of 100% affordable or mixed income housing on commercially zoned sites. uh when coupled with AB2097 AB2011 legislation would allow for a streamlined review and approval of redevelopment projects in all districts of the DVSP without the need for reszoning. Therefore, shortening application review time and providing greater certainty to a developer in the results of the entitlement process. A third statute AB130 um effective June 30th of 2025 exempts

from California Environmental Quality Act or SQL review qualifying urban infill housing development projects and as ministerial reviews processing of qualifying development permit application would be exempt from provisions of SQA again and would remain a non-discretionary review process if demonstrating consistency with criteria of the law and compliant with the city's multif family objective design standards. Fourth, uh, California state density bonus law, which you're probably well aware, allows projects of five or more residential, uh, dwelling units to incorporate residential density beyond that generally allowable by the city's general plan with the provision of affordable units. uh consistent with the law. This legislation allows applicants to request waiverss or exceptions from development standards which would otherwise preclude development of a project at residential density as identified in the general plan. It also allows applicants to request incentives, concessions or exceptions to development standards resulting in actual and identifiable cost reductions allowing for redevelopment of proposed projects. Um Senate Bill uh SB 330 which is the housing crisis act of 2019 applies to residential projects mixeduse projects with at least twothirds of project square footage is residential space and supportive housing. Um this applica or excuse me this legislation allows for a number of provisions among them applicant to vest or freeze in place local ordinances and policies at the time of pre-application submittal. Uh the Housing Accountability Act um restricts the city's ability to deny or reduce the density of housing development projects that comply with existing zoning and objective um design standards. The Housing Accountability Act prevents the city from disapproving or rendering infeasible qualifying residential projects which are in compliance with objective general plans, zoning, and design standards. Any denial must generally derive from the project's inducing of public health or safety

impacts based on a prepoundonderance of evidence in the entire record. So all in all, the statutes listed on the slide include only a sampling of applicable legislation, generally all of which can be combined and which can create a powerful suite of new tools which can be invoked to facilitate significant redevelopment opportunities in the city's downtown. Besides state legislation, the city may also consider revisions to the downtown vitalization specific plan which facilitate downtown specific density bonus provisions um such as recently undertaken in the city of Santa Cruz's downtown plan expansion in which that jurisdiction encouraged targeted density increases intended to accommodate intensification, creating stancers which allow for density bonuses beyond those minerally required by state law in exchange for a provision of higher numbers of affordable housing uses. Uh, next slide, please. It's the time of production of the staff report. Staff have received several questions related to proposed DVSP amendments. Um, on this slide are in white text. The questions along with in green text um, city and acknowledging that uh, these may or may not have made it to you for review, I'll quickly run through them. Uh the first question is which components of the DVSP are realistically achievable within the next 5 to 10 years and stats response is redevelopment of sites in the core district as either horizontal or vertical mixed use are realistic. The second question is, what infrastructure improvements would encourage before additional density is encouraged? And staff's response is targeted investment such as development of wider sidewalks within the district um starting can act as a catalyst for redevelopment and densification of the downtown. The third question, what evidence supports future demand for additional retail and mixeduse commercial space? Uh staff's

response in short is at least two retail leakage studies completed in the past several years as referenced in the downtown vitalization specific plan conclude that Marina needs additional retail to prevent leakage of marina dollars to surrounding jurisdictions. The fourth question is, given that AB2097 limits the city's ability to require parking and Marina remains largely autodependent, has staff evaluated the potential for parking spillover into surrounding neighborhoods and existing businesses. uh staff's responses prior to adoption of the DBSP a parking study concluded that even accounting for um the reliance on AB2097 with future projects the city's downtown maintains an adequate parking supply to meet both existing and anticipated future demands and the fifth question is how will success of the DVSP be measured over time and would it be appropriate to establish clear key performance indicators or KPIs such as vacancy rates foot traffic andor business activity uh staff's response is completion of annual reviews and audits of the DVSP implementation and providing reports of numbers of project permits issued in the prior 12 months pursuant to the DVSP could serve as those key performance indicators. Uh next slide please. Based on information as previously presented, staff recommend that the planning commission recommend to the city council acknowledgement of the environmental determination and approval of the resolution as listed on this slide. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, staff are available to answer any questions. Thank you very much. This concludes staff presentation. Uh,

thank you, Tim. Very, uh, informative staff report. Thank you. Okay. See, I think we will start with uh so I had a I talked beforehand I had that statement I wanted to read before we started comment today. Okay. Vice chair chair, you have the floor.

Good evening, commissioners. So, um couple things. I have comments about the plan by itself, but I'll come back to those later. Um overall uh over time over the last few years um we have a number of of people in the community who like to engage consistently and provide large amounts of comments to our do to different commissions and committees around the city. And one of the challenges a lot of times they're just sent out there kind of scattershot and there's not a lot of organization. stream of thought caught and it's sent out to the public and it's posted on multiple different websites and it gets a lot of traction and a lot of of commentary, but a lot of times it's hard to then link it back to the role of whatever commissioner or group or council or whatever the meeting organization is that it's tied to. And so we we have one of those this week that came to us. And so I wrote a specific response to that that I want to read into the commission because I think it's important to understand for the community to understand what our actual role is and how when we receive these comments what the process is. Um so I I wrote this out generally commissioners and chair and commissioners. First I want to thank Mr. Peter Lee and all the residents who take time to review the city documents and submit comments to the planning commission. Public commentation and participation is important and helps keep us informed in the planning process. It is also important though to clarify that the role of the planning commission and the limits of our authority specifically underneath marina municipal code in California planning practice. The planning commission here serves primarily as an advisory role for land use zoning circulation policy planning consistency and amendments to adopted planning documents such as the downtown vitalization specific plan that we're reviewing tonight. Many of the items raised in the letter that was submitted for comment tonight instead involved public works operations, traffic engineering, pavement maintenance, signal timing, grant funding, budgeting, and city council fiscal authority. Those

functions are generally outside the planning commission jurisdiction. It does not mean that we don't care about them. It means that they are not covered by our responsibilities as a commissioner. It is also important to recognize that while Facebook posts, next door discussions and early and email distributions may increase public awareness, those channels do not replace the formal transparency, noticing, staffing, and coordination requirements that ensure govern that govern our public agencies and ensure that comments that are submitted are officially submitted and to be answered to by the commissions. One of the challenges with that specifically is that when they're done informally, they don't end up in the formal process and they don't have to be answered by a commissioner, which then puts us in a bind of we want to be responsive to the community, but at the same time, how do we be responsive when we have an item, a page that has 30 different items that don't even pertain to us? As a former Marina Coast Water District board member, Mr. ly is aware that agencies simply cannot convert emails and social media discussions into formal staff direction or commission action without proper process. This review alone required me to spend approximately 5 hours of independent analysis comparing the letter that was submitted against the marina municipal code, the downtown vitalization specific plan and the standard planning commission practice. Of the 20 total items and sub items raised in his letter to us, 11 reside primarily outside the planning jurisdiction, planning commission jurisdiction. Five could potentially involve planning commission review, but only through formal amendment analysis and city council or staff direction to us that an amendment has been made and needs to be removed. And that leaves only four that have direct application to the planning commission scope. Several of those items include lane reductions, roundabouts, major intersection modifications that are not under our purview and cannot be addressed during this discussion of the amendments that are

being made. They would likely require formal amendment language, circulation studies, engineering analysis, environmental review, andor city council policy guidance to the commission before we could con consider this. The commission also encourages continued participation through attendance at meetings, workshops, and public hearings where dialogue and clarification can occur directly with the public process. It is appreciated if Mr. would in the future please attend the meetings in person and outline directly what his discussion points are during public comment so that the commissioners, the staff and the public can engage in a more transparent and productive dialogue regarding these issues. Specifically, the areas that were outside of the planning commission jurisdiction reading this, this is my interpretation, are items 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 15, 15, and 15 of the letter. These items primarily involve public works operations, engineering standards, maintenance, funding, grant administration, and city council approval. Potentially within the council area, but outside of our review tonight because they're they are too large and don't have formal amendment requests from the council are items three, the reservation Delmani roundabout, item eight, the Delmani lane reduction project, Carter rain reduction project. Item 12, the roundabout implementation statements. And in 15A and 15 C, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks and modified traffic signal patterns. Lastly, within the scope of our area, that left four items. Item one, staff report and DVSP amendments. He is absolutely right except that there was no statement except to say that this was an introduction and no action needs to be taken. Item number two, exhibit A,

redline review. We concur. It is an item of topic, but there was no comment to it. So, there is nothing to action on it specifically other than what we're going to do at the meeting tonight. Comment number four, community workshop feedback. As Mr. Lee articulated in in the subsection, the conclusion of the workshop March 24th, 2026 did cover clear topics the public are interested in seeing in the downtown corridor. Therefore, eventually I would like to propose that our fellow commissioners do ask the staff to look and address some of those those items that were raised in the community workshop. However, but as I mentioned previously, the roundabout discussion is a larger item that would need to come before the planning commission separately as a formal amendment. So, we cannot discuss that and is not to be it should not be covered during our address tonight because we don't have the guidance on the studies to support that. It would be inappropriate for us to provide a hypothetical construction direction to staff and the city council without that specific request. Lastly, the downtown vitalization goals. Absolutely agree that this is a with your question of how can we make this open-ended without suggestions. Therefore, as stated, I believe that we should address those within our overall goals. The planning commission appreciates public comment and encourage community engagement through the formal meeting and hearing process. At the same time, the commission has to stay focused on matters within its legal authority and avoiding direct staff avoid directing staff on operational engineering, maintenance or budgetary matters that are assigned to other agencies and departments within the city of Marina. I appreciate you taking the time to let me read that, but I thought it was important because we do get these a number of times and a lot of times these things get pushed under the rug and we don't address them because we're not required to and then the public doesn't understand why we're not necessarily addressing it. So I felt it would important to read that into the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh thank you, Vice Chair Goodson Guido. I would suggest that the the email I think it would came as an email from Mr. Lee be put into the record. Uh yes, Brian uploaded it to the agenda packet on the city website. So it is now officially, you know, a public document. Yeah. Okay.

And I would also suggest that a copy of Vice Chair Woodson's uh comments and explanation to the commission also be included formally in the record. Yeah. So by making the testimony, it's part of the minutes. It's part of the deliberation tonight. So Okay. Yeah.

So let's proceed now with questions and comments from commissioners. Discussion. Open for discussion. So, so sounds just to help Tim and the the group out. So, just a summary, uh, we we got the DFASP adopted in October 2024 during the buildup to adoption. The council and the commission kept asking, "Hey, is this a living breathing document?" Yes, this is. um and how would we measure success and how are we going to evaluate this? So, as part of the buildup to adoption, we did promise to council that we would kind of do an analysis of the plan. And so, that's what we're here tonight that HDL was hired to do a peer review of the plan. And these are some surgical edits that are being recommended to actually hopefully further implement the plan amongst other policies. Uh the big one really is uh in their report really supporting horizontal mixuse, not just vertical. Based on their analysis, they're unclear if vertical mixuse will actually work in Marina. That's one of the bigger ones. And then Tim took their report and on the development code section where it breaks down different uses. Uh what are some ways that we could further implement the plan in terms of allowing residential here there and other sites and other uh policy recommendations we can make. So that's really why we're here today. Some surgical edits to the adopted plan. So we're here. We look forward to getting questions from the public and from the commission.

Okay. Thank you, Guido for the further clarifications. Um, this Marina's downtown revitalization. I think one or two years ago it it was addressed as a revitalization. I it never was.

Okay. Right. So it was the initial vitalization then. Okay. And um I I personally think that the the package the staff presentation it's pushing 100 pages. It's it's quite involved and uh uh extremely uh a uh addresses almost every piece of land that's either improved or unimproved in the whole area that's been outlined as downtown Marina. It's I'm new to Marina only five years resident and it's a difficult for me and I'm an older guy older dude and it's difficult for me to recognize without the the diagrams from staff where Marina's downtown is. It doesn't look like a typical city's downtown in any of the states I've lived in. So it's quite a challenge to in the the uh diagrams that uh Tim put up the first or second slide showed existing and future and the future looks a lot more like a downtown

you know that you would imagine and but the existing doesn't look like a downtown. So anyway, we've got quite a job here, the the commission and the city council and all of the city's departments to somehow create a downtown and implement this vitalization. It def, you know, desperately needs revitalization. The streets and areas that have been designated as downtown by definition now are a very challenge to all of us to make it into a downtown.

Yeah. Ju just a point of clarification, chair. Um the downtown vital vitalization specific plan has already been adopted by the commission and the city council. And so that that part of it isn't up for discussion tonight as far as I know. What is up to discussion are the amendments to that plan as they stand by themselves. So we're not going to change anything in the big vitalization plan nor do we have to discuss it. We just have to discuss the amendments to that vitalization plan.

Okay. All right. I think uh staff has annotated clearly the amendments. And so do we have any further comments to the amendments? Okay. Yes, you're on.

Thank you, chair. Um, first of all, um, I'm I'm very pleased to see that we had 56 of our citizens come out to review and have this discussion. I think that was a great representation. Um, I think that, um, what they did was thoughtful. Um it was um you know futuristic looking and I think that the consultants um embodied what they had to say into the recommendations for the amendments. Um as I as I looked through the documents and through the amendments, I I couldn't find anything in there that I couldn't say that well this is the will of the people. Therefore, it's okay with me. Um, the one thing that I did notice as I read through everything was that I realized that in the amendments um it would have been helpful to have a couple of definitions. And uh maybe I'm just ignorant, but I don't know the difference in time frame between a midterm goal or objective and a shortterm goal and objective. nor do I really understand what a horizontal development is versus any other kind of development. Does horizontal mean it's just one story or does that mean it's two stories or you know and then the the other extreme of that is you know five stories. Um so so those were the two of the things in the amendments that caught me. I got a hunch staff can address both of those.

Absolutely. We we can uh when we give this presentation to council we can clarify that. So

thank you chair comments on the difference between north and I would think that the typical strip centers and on reservation re would be classified horizontal improvements and even if they were too slow but still in the spread still whereas a midrise or a highrise center even if it's mixed use will be a vertical that's my I don't know how staff is going to define it but that would be my vision

that that's fine if we get a favorable recommendation from commission tonight we will when we present to council explain vertical versus horizontal mixuse. So,

next week,

thanks. Um, so I can I have some questions on the amendments. I'll kind of come back to those and I I respect the amendment side and I think I I didn't have a lot of comments about the amendments themselves. um contextually I did one thing that I would have what I would like to hear from mine is going back the time frame between now and then we've had the public comment period but what I didn't hear in the briefing was um what have what has actually happened with our community our businesses within the development corridor because we've had I know when we were doing the draft review and the final review we had a number of our businesses that were lined up that were really anxious to get this approved and we were engaging a lot with the business side of it, not just the community. And so I'm I'm curious because I have some I I have some ideas on the main plan itself, but I want to before I present those, I want to kind of understand what how what's the been re the reaction since the plan has been put in place in engagement by the business the community that lives within the the corridor or the boundaries.

Uh overall favorable. We haven't seen as many applications as I thought when we would get it adopted. We will have a couple projects coming to commission later in this year. Um I'm not sure if it's the economy or the interest rates or whatnot. We were expecting the year before we got the plan adopted, we had actually had 26 property owners express interests and then those never came to fruition. There have been a couple and we'll be bringing those but not as many. And that and

to Commissioner Woodson's point, we've had some internal discussions. Uh maybe having some downtown ambassadors with staff doing a little bit more outreach to the downtown folks, I think would be helpful um to further explain, you know, there's opportunities there if people do want to redevelop their site. So that's something that we're definitely going to be kind of taking taking a look at. So

So that in mind, um kind of clarifies it. Coming back to my questions, I kind of have it divided into three sections. One's so the first one is kind of contextual staff that I'm thinking about on the the main plan itself. Um just some small things I'm not sure that were addressed there. The second is just some grammatical staff change grammatical grammar like administrative things that I just happened to catch that I just didn't catch the first time. Um and then the third is some um questions that deal with the amendment itself. So kind of three sets out and I'll do a little bit and then seed my time to somebody else and the public and then we can come back and I can finish them. So my first two kind of deal with public business owner outreach um and engagement and I think it's a timeline issues of I'm starting with um program LU3 on page 54. Um we talked about business investment program and minority engagement. Um, and basically, I mean, it's just going to the concept that at the time, um, we kind of had an outreach strategy there, but should we continue to should we update the wording in there that that the plan needs to be the outreach plans should be continuous and not one time only. And so I'm not sure what the wording should be, but I think that looking back at the original recommendations, um, we should look at at developing maybe pre some targeted pre-adoption, um, whether it's a workshop series or whether it's a a set of, um, KPIs that we want to try to achieve metrically and then we can use those not to set a terminus point, but to set an interim set of goals um, to really try to get the public because, as Guero said, we had a large number of people that were interested. We don't necessarily know why that hasn't come to fruition right now. There are lots of reasons. I mean, I just got done reading a report about the the new economic numbers that came out today and it's just it's a tough environment right now if you're a small business owner. Um, it's tough anyway,

but definitely if you're a small business owner and we want to expand um and where's the return? But Commissioner Woodson, which policy so we can take note program I think it's LU3. LU3 says uh business investment program to support minority LU3.1. I don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong. I have it wrong. Okay. On page 54. Page 54. Develop a business

LU3. Develop a business investment program to support minorityowned stores and businesses in downtown. Is that the one you're referring to? Yeah. Okay. And I don't necessarily mean I I picked on that. It wasn't necessarily the minority owned as it was everything else in the sentence. Um but again, it's just idea of we have a plan. I think I think you've already emphasized the thing, but I think minor just emphasized the staff that we need to make this continuous and we need to keep pushing this. It's a hard thing to do and we want we want our businesses to know that even in today's tough time, we still support them and we support this area of the city from a development perspective because it's so easy for us to think about other things. And I think for me on a personal level and I I think about Marina Station being built um if you live in our southern part of the city and our newer subdivisions there you have the dunes and you have the prominade and you have all that new development and that's where people are going to go because that makes sense unless it's but for here where's Marina Station going to go? They have two options. They have an option to turn down the highway and immediately get on the highway go down at one exit and get off and go to the dunes in the prominade or they have an option to just drive through the secondary streets of Northern Marina and end up right here in this community. And so as Marina Station gets built over the next five to six years, trying to create a partnership between our businesses and maybe linking it to Marina Station development is giving us an opportunity to fill in on something that we have had a really strong t difficult time in this community, which is how to engage this side of town with the old part of the city as we develop it. Um, sorry to kind of get into preachy mode there for a second. Um the second one that I have is going to the

facade client small business capital program. Um when we did the initial analysis I think it's mainly on page we talked about again blight and refurbishment as two of the big weaknesses of the downtown. uh that is still an issue and I think that came out in the public in the public hearing that the beautifification issue. I know that we have we and the planning commission we have set aside and we have physically we have physically allowed some of our developers under tree permit removals and everything to put money into the pot for tree replacement and beautifification instead of actually planning a 2:1 or 3:1 on their sites with the idea that we would use a lot of that potentially in this corridor. We specifically discussed that and approved that for the true removal to support MST, the bus station and the Palm Avenue station that that the the money was supposed to go for beautifification of this corridor. And so I want to again I think it's not necessarily a red line but I'm not sure how to incorporate that but to show that that those are opportunities that we have that that we on the the planning commission of the tree committee and other places. We're trying to find opportunities to leverage current funding mechanisms we have in the city or current legis current legislative policies we have like the TR like the two for one replacement to be able to create opportunities to improve this this corridor and that we really should prioritize that. Um so that's number two. Uh number three is I'll stop at I'll stop at five. Let's see. Streamline permitting. We we've talked about the new AB issues. I mean, it's the the never- ending constant deluge of new AB and SB things that come in that can be beneficial to us sometimes and sometimes they're not. Um but ultimately though the one that we I keep coming back to is um streamline permitting and really working going back to outreach is

working with our um administrative developmental review process to ensure that anybody who is infected affected infected affected by the downtown vitalization site Pacific plan understands that that we put in place streamlined administration trail permits and we really tried to improve that area. Um again that goes back to the outreach. Um and then the last thing I have and I'll just I'll see my time at time is um lot what I labeled kind of lot consolidation incentives. Um we looked for for lot consolidation trying to do that. That was under LU2 which is on page 54. Um some things I just read through and some things I just stopped and tried to comment on. So on LU2 page 54, we directed the city to study incentives for lot consolidation to reduce developmental fees, administrative review, and decrease parking ratios. Um, again, I don't know if it's necessarily an amendment, but maybe a a highlight of how can we leverage that better um to increase that because we do have a lot of those areas here. And so I'm not sure I'm not sure the exact recommendation, but I I to me it goes I think it should be we may need to be a little more prescriptive in how we define that to specify what could we set an actual type of fee reduction percentage or timeline that gives the existing small property owners a concrete reason to act. What we gave them was hey we we're going to have this opportunity but I think from a redline perspective could we discuss this and say could could we actually give you a physical incentive? I mean, the state directs us to give incentives to all sorts of things. Maybe we should just come up with our own incentive to help spur the spur growth. And I'll leave that to the commission. So, that's my first set of comments.

Uh, thank you, Vice Chair. Let's see, we have one more. Uh, Commissioner Simmons. Yeah, I just wanted to point out u I was at the um the community meeting uh with the vitalization plan there. Um and I I've got to say that the HDL summary that we have here pretty pretty well clears that out. But one of the things that was talked about uh spec specifically to the vertical versus horizontal that it was pointed out that they said that contractors for the most part are business owners. They're not interested in going vertical. they only want to go horizontal um for cost uh reasons uh behind that. Um so that's that's one of the reasons I know that they they were looking for for changes you know on this. Uh and then also I just wanted to kind of point out um Commissioner Woodson's comments uh regarding specifically to the incentive incentivizing of the business owners I think is is something again that needs to be looked at and and done just as he said there because um it's it's already been brought up and I know at one council meeting regarding um that's private property for the most part uh through the whole um downtown area uh and the city in and of itself uh really doesn't have an opportunity to do the vitalization that's going to make this uh vibrant uh that they want unless they do some some sort of incentivizing. Uh what they can do uh of course is to uh to make the streets and sidewalks and and just the landscaping uh around the area be uh more attractive and and want to entice people in there. But I think uh Commissioner Woodson hit it on the head that there's got to be a lot more involved uh in incentivizing and telling you know this is why you can do it and make it a a marketable event for you. I think the last thing also one of the things that was discussed in here was the and I'm I guess a little bit

unclear. They talked they talked about um leakage or retail sales leakage. Uh I come from a retail background and and of course I know we we just called it sales loss but um I I'm just really kind of curious uh because uh of the the brick and mortar uh that we have doesn't reside in the downtown and I I'm just curious if uh staff knows are we talking about taking a a a brickandmortar type stores uh into the downtown area u for things like Target uh that provides you know, or Old Navy uh provides that, you know, that's that's my background on that. Are we talking about that? Uh or are we talking about more mom and pop uh type uh businesses small business owners? That's that's I'm just a little bit unclear on on what they're

Yeah. So, there were two retail, you called it sales law, leakage, whatever you want to call it. Um, it was really, I mean, I'd have to pull up the actual report, but it really was just trying to articulate that there's a lot of sales tax dollars leaving the city. I don't think it articulated exactly the size of the retail, just there there was some number. It was in the thousands and millions of dollars that are lost because people are not shopping and buying in Marino. So, yeah. So,

okay. Uh, thank you, Commissioner Simmons. Let me close temporarily at this time the planning commissioners comment period and questions and open public comments. So, let's start with uh the group that are present.

You have to press the button. Hi Grace Silva Santella. Uh many many years ago I sat up there on the dis just like you all. I served 10 years on the planning commission of which two of them I was the chair. And I will say that this all began in the late 90s when we had an economic development commission and the planning commission and the two chairs of those commissions, myself and Candy Meyers Owen came together, brought our commissions together and it was called revitalization at that time. We worked on a downtown revitalization plan. I don't know if it was back when Fred Agader came on board as our community development director or if it was under Guido that revitalization was dropped and changed to vitalization. But at the time when it started, we didn't really have a lot happening out on Ford or Ford or was actually still an active base. So, we were looking at the what we didn't really have as a defined downtown and trying to create something. I want to thank Guido and Tim for having given me some time just recently and uh uh re understanding my history behind all of this work. I also want to thank Tim. I think he did an excellent job breaking down all that's happened on the state level that a lot of this as was explained to me property owners are really becoming more aware of especi what really surprised me was that to learn that the parking uh not requiring parking close to a transit center wasn't just about residential, it's also about commercial. That was quite surprising for me to learn. However, what we have

here in Marina in our old shopping complexes is a lot of underutilized land with a lot of parking spaces that aren't necessary. So, I trust that infill will uh be successful without having to require the parking. Uh like um Commissioner Simmons, I was also in the at the recent workshop and uh horizontal. I'm 100% in support of us moving towards horizontal. I think with the economics as Commissioner Woodson spoke about, it's going to be really challenging for us to get any of these property owners to start doing a few stories tall with residential up above. I am a touch concerned about a lot of residential units on the frontage of Reservation Road and Delmani Avenue. I'm not sure that there's much that we can do about that given state legislature. Um I uh the BID conversation about financing that was something we talked about in the late 90s when I was on the planning commission. Not only did we have an economic development commission, but we have it had an economic development director. His name was Dick Gold. And we had talked about a BD back in those days. At the time, any extra revenue the city had that they were collecting. I can't remember if it was redevelopment agency money was going in to pay for the fire and police building structure on Palm Avenue. So we had no extra funds. Nothing ever came of the BID conversation. I think the challenge we have here in Marina is a chamber of commerce that's not

effective. Not together. Am I going to get cut off? Yeah. Let me ask you, D. Oh, are you going to ask me a question? Because I'd love to be able to get a few more points and if that's possible since there's only two other in the audience, if you wouldn't mind. Uh we have um I'm sorry I'm I have to stop sharing real quick. Um why is it not I can make it real quick too.

Well is searching. Go ahead. the uh you the mobility plan program M1. The council is currently discussing some rather dramatic changes to uh reservation road. I would suggest that you add in or consider an additional recommendation to the council that they postpone any of their conversation about reservation road until you have an opportunity yourselves and perhaps the public works commission and maybe even have a workshop between your two commissions to talk about mobility, infrastructure, sidewalks um pedestrian crossings. I think that would be really beneficial for the city. And then if you could just ask the staff, one thing that came up in my uh talking with Tim and Guido is under park and recreation facilities, the if a park is on a private commercial property, it's an outright allowable development. But if it's on city land, it is a conditional use. So maybe staff could just clarify that because in that downtown a vision to action workshop, there was a lot of conversation about residents, those 50 plus people really wanting a uh d uh a a meeting place for the community to come together for farmers markets and things like that. It'd be nice to understand why that on city land is a conditional use but is not but is an outright allowable use on commercial property. Thank you very much for

allowing me. So, uh, Chair St. John, we have one, two, three, four people. Uh, but I think only two of those are going to end up talking. So, yeah. And we have a Peter who would like to speak. his hand is raised. So, okay, let me um and just out of deference to all the speakers, you did give one of the speakers additional time. So, it's up to the chair and the commission. You should probably give people equal amounts of time as well.

Okay. Thank you, Quido. So, anyone else in the in the public present? If not, okay, then we will go to the uh on the ones online.

There you go. Uh, Peter, you need to unmute yourself. His hand is right. Uh, Peter, I've unmuted you and um, you need to unmute. Well, yeah, you you have to unmute yourself. So, um, okay. U chair, if you want to move on to someone else or

Yeah. Um, yeah, Mr. If you can figure out a technical issue, we're going to come back to you. Okay. So, we don't That's fine. Uh chair, I would defer to you, but if there's no other speakers, then it would go back to the commission. So, Oh, okay. That's it. Let me see if uh Mr. Lee can figure out how to connect there is

with us. because I really want him to have the opportunity to uh to speak. Uh Peter, you are unmuted. You can now speak if you'd like.

Do we have him visually? There is no visual for his. I can totally feel the frustration having been on the other side at times. You try to mute it, it just doesn't want to unmute these. This Zoom thing doesn't work. Um, so, uh, chair, uh, if you want to continue the meeting and I have miss, I believe I have his email. I'll email him and just try to figure out what's going on. So, okay. All right. And let's go back to the commissioners for a second round. Another bite. Anyone? I I have my other ones. Pardon me. I have my other set. I'll go through my next set. All right.

Um I'm gonna Thank you, chair. Uh I think I'm going to pick up on the comments that have been raised. I'll start with the the parking exemption because I again AB2097 the missing the proactive policy. We do have a lot of that that exists. I mean, it is at least it's not as bad as as what we get at the dunes at times. I mean, that was so backwards the way the entire development was made initially um community from just a plank site. We just not standard policy anymore on how we build parking. We don't just build big black top areas without um the landscaping. But I guess coming back to this when I look what I saw is when I looked at at the discussion on AB 2097 and we talked about it as a catalyst for facilitating development within the urban center I was like okay like this statement. Um but then when I looked at section, if you go to section 5.5 um of the main plan, we still frame parking as a future supply problem where we discuss the potential need for structured garages um as the forecast for development intensifies. Um, so I think there's somewhat of a still a disconnect in the main plan with the new guidance for AB 2097 where we're we're talking about that and that what I wonder about is should we update the parking discussion in a chapter which is on page 67 of the plan to a affirmatively state that existing surface parking within going back to a half mile of transit is a priority for redevelopment. um really to kind of make that point and get that out there that that we do believe that's a part of it. So I think the red line is absolutely appropriate. I think bringing up 2097 is there. I think it's just making sure that we synchronize it across the plan. I think that's the only place that I saw that um kind of going that and I think the

second part of that would be does it make sense um to you and the staff to ensure that as part of our outreach going back to before that we actually are notifying the property owners of this opportunity and I think um Grace summarized it very well um I can't improve on what she said there on which which specific policy commissioner Woodson this is 20 AB 2097 on the public oh you're just in general about in general but I wanted to synchronize it because I think section 5.5 of the of the of the vitalization plan itself, we still didn't correct the framing of the of the the context within the document. Okay, sounds good.

So, it's just it's just cleaning up the wording so that they they actually reinforce each other. Y

um my next one is comment like everybody else. I think the horizontal mixed juice I would agree that we need to work on the definitions of that. I don't need to go in a lot of it, but in mine is it's funny because I was listening to you talk about okay what is horizontal growth and is it about property is it residential there is it about having a commercial business here and then right next to it so when we think of vertical we usually think of of residential over commercial what does horizontal mixed use is a much different definition it's just not as clear-cut so I think it's not only about providing a definition I know when We looked at the objective design standards. We ran into this kind of same discussion of what is an objective design standard when we put that out there. Are people going to understand it? And then what we decided to do was okay text is really nice but people learn and differently and having examples or visuals that could go on with that so people could see this is what it would look like. Um, I know it adds a little bit of space to an already big document, but I think having that that physical visual side of of what horizontal could mean will do a lot because it is a it is a little kind of more difficult idea conceptually to get across of how do you make that work? Um because I don't know a horizontal development, for example, would be the Starbucks on the corner with the residential one-story 1950s houses next to it with the commercial used car lot with the the tracked buildings next to it that are sitting right down here. I mean, technically that would be horizontal mixeduse, but I'm not quite sure that that's what we're trying to get to. Um, and that's nothing against any of the owners there. It's just that's an example of that's currently how our mixeduse horizontal looks. Um the third part that I I'm not sure was was there kind of just again um see let

me read my I want to read my comment here make sure I understand what I wrote right now reflected in implementation chapter. Um okay going back to again disconnect um we have all the new regulations. This is maybe more of a a bigger policy on on how are we going to do the review. So this the council here requested that we do an update and kind of an assessment and a red line. That makes sense in a normal review process. And this is and this is from a staff perspective. This goes to all of our plans. So it's this plan. It's objective design standards is is absolutely going to have to be the general plan. and I'm going to throw that out right now that we've got to have some type of an just a simple annual review process that we update the plans. So in this case, one of the update and the update one that I think of here is the the regulatory changes and I think if you look at chapter seven of the site specific plan, we did not really we talked about this in the red lines but we didn't do a good job within kind of chapter 7 pages 83 to 93 ensuring that we're incorporating that into the implementation chapter. I don't know if it's a matrix. So, I don't know if we put a table in there that kind of emphasizes things. Um, but I think as we continue to grow, as as the years go by from the time that the plan was put in place and as new AB and SB policies come on top of it, we need to have a way within our implementation plan to at least bring that bring it into a single place in the document so that we can summarize what are the changes and how we're how we're pushing these out across the entire plan because otherwise we're going to get into this. It's really hard to understand what the red lines are over time and how we're going to incorporate that at scale. Scale being here year-over-year. And then let's see.

Uh the last comment I have is um see program M1 timeline conflict. Let's see. We talked about um mobility plans on page 67 of the document from again midterm to short-term. Uh however the the amendment itself um explains that the lack of a financial mechanism for sidewalk widening bulb outs everything else is itself identified as a primary factor in viability. Um, I guess my question is if if M1 on mobility plan development is short-term and the business improvement district is about short term, then it doesn't seem like they are synchronized um against funding that we we're talking about this. And so when we talk about I guess what we come down to is when we when I looked at that and what I was reading is if we're looking at short-term and we're and again not having a formal definition short-term but if I'm thinking short term I'm thinking within a year or two potentially that's within our immediate funding cycle for the city budget. And we need to make sure that if we're going to propose things to be done in the short term that we actually have a mechanism to be able to escalate that into the budgeting cycle so that we can actually execute that when it goes towards the council because otherwise the council's going to get there. They're going to have their 40-page budget with all their discretionary funding and everything else and this stuff can get lost within the budget review cycle. And so I think we need to have a way to synchronize the plan and the budget lines so that it specifically gets called out into the budget discussions so that we don't end up losing this opportunity. Again, this is

a critical part of the development of the city. And I don't it's not that I don't respect the 17 long hours that the city council holds their meetings for, but I want to make sure that at least 15 minutes of those 17 hours are dedicated to this plan. That's my second set. The third set of comments are just grammar ones in the main plan. I'll get with you Guido offline about those. Chair uh Woodson uh Mr. Lee uh emailed me back saying he's operational now. If you want to give him time to speak on this item. Yes, it's okay.

Very good. Okay. So, Mr. Lee, you're you've had the floor. Uh good evening uh planning commissioners. I uh send you the email with uh a lot of questions but uh for the meeting now I like uh to ask you on the amendment of the adopted uh tire vitalization plan and is the I have read in a mandate plan and uh I'm concerned that you haven't re We uh reflected the uh recent decision by the council that uh the city council make uh several approval last year in 2025 that affected the uh adopted plan. So my question is when will the uh planning commission consider the action by the uh city council? For example, the uh the city council has adopted uh and approved the reduction of traffic plan and on their monte also they they took action to approve the uh the plan for the new roundabouts. So what what you did you do what you do tonight just adopted the old you know the hour of death uh plan. So, I'd like to ask the uh commission to ask the city council. When will you consider their action that they took in 2025 and uh you know

have a new meeting to consider the action or or did the city council ignore the planning commission and they just uh you know they have authority to took their own action. So those are the main question like for example if you look at table 5.1 in the adopted plan there's no changes but uh but the table 5.1 is conflict with the action by the city council they took in 2025. So that's my main point and I hope that you in in in the resolution you amend it and you would like to convey to the city council how they think whether their action is overrule the uh amended uh plan or not or should they should the city council wait for you to consider their 2025 action first and amended another amended the plan later at a later meeting. Okay, thank you very much. Bye.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, so I think Mr. to speak and kind of going back to the the comment I made before specifically on the issues that deal with the the large capital projects for the city which would be the the Delmani reservation potential project that the commission that the city council has discussed about narrowing the lanes from 4 to2 and then the roundabout construction design. The challenge that comes back to the planning commission again is that is not our role to make proposals and make directions. We take actions that come before the commission that are coming to us. And at this point, the city council has not said that they are they've not made a decision that they're going to go with either of those projects. And as a result of that, they have not given staff direction to develop a specific project proposal, assessment, engineering, cost estimate, anything that would actually drive a decision that would need to come before the planning commission. So the first the first part of it is that right now it's just not in our it's not in our wheelhouse because there is not an official project on either of those to come form for us to review. Now, we can talk to staff and we could direct staff to do something, but everything at this point is a sta is a a city council to staff function and we would be engaging hypothetically in something that doesn't exist in real life. There is no formal proposal that said we're going to go to some type of new traffic pattern in this region. This the second part of that is you're absolutely right. We we could go through and we could we could again start making recommendations on how we want to improve the big capital improvements and road structure, but that's not what the downtown vitalization plan is built around. So addressing things such as the curbing and the landscaping and the things that came out in the public meetings as I discussed earlier today, those are things that that are here and that's what we've been discussing tonight. But

the bigger issues on the capital improvements, it's just we don't have a mandate to initiate those discussions in those projects. We react to things that are given to us and we act on those and we provide interpretation and then we can make recommendations on zoning or other policy changes, but we don't initiate projects in the planning commission and to staff. And that's what it comes down to. And that's why we we can't really address that here. I'm addressing it to you because I want I wanted to help educate you and everybody else on where the limitations come into the planning commission. Thank you, chair. Uh thank you, vice chair. Okay, so

chair uh St. John that's the only that's the last speaker online or in person so the commission can continue its deliberation. So, okay. Then I will officially close uh public comments and reopen back to the commission any additional comments or questions. Going going on. Okay. Oh, you do? Oh. Oh, I have a late one. Okay. Commissioner Erin, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I I have one concern that I want to um express. I'm not sure that really has anything to do or we can do something about it, but I just want to verbalize it. Uh first of all the this uh company that did the analysis says that Santa Cruz did this horizontal development is the app prove that it works. Uh well Santa Cruz already had a downtown before the new building of uh residential in their downtown. We don't have that. We have a reservation road and we have the Mont doesn't look like a downtown. Santa is a real downtown where they started to build up some residentials. So I'm not sure that the comparison is completely there. My concern is if I understood um we were talking about 2,94 residential units in the downtown transition and so core area.

Mhm. My concern is that uh we already having Marina Station being built. I can't remember how many units uh Marina Station has 1,367 or so units.

Okay. In addition to this, we're going to have another almost 3,000 units uh planned for downtown Marina. My concern is if there is not enough affordable uh housing in central Marina, this area is going to become an investment opportunities for people who already have money to buy those units and they might be out of towners who will have those units standing empty as an investment. and it will not really help people who live in this town who really need to buy those places because the even affordable housing here is already too expensive for many people. Thank you.

U Thank you, Commissioner Ga. So, uh, to the first point, um, so Tim just finished working for City of Santa Cruz, and I think his staff report was just, and correct me if I'm wrong, uh, just educating the commission on uh, based on all the state laws that he put in his staff report that property owners can take advantage of that have actually already occurred in his last city. I think that was the to your point, Commissioner Baron, we're not like Santa Cruz, right? We're we're trying to build the downtown. I think Tim was just trying to emphasize that because of all the changes of state law with the reduced parking and the allowed density bonus and the higher height that's allowed that if somebody wanted to redevelop the property, they could very rapidly do a huge project that could accelerate the downtown. Is that a fair kind of summary of

Yeah, that's correct, Rudo. Yeah. And then the second point was about I didn't catch the sec. How how do we ensure that this some these units were will be built downtown will really serve the community and not outside investors if there's any way to do that.

Um that's hard. I mean, people have the right to invest in whatever projects. Um, I would remind the commission that we did update our inclusionary ordinance. So, any project that has more than five housing units, 20% of the units have to be inclusionary or for affordable housing. So, if you were to build like a 100 unit project, 20 of those units uh would be affordable with preference given to Marina residents if you live or work in Marina. So, but it is a it is a note. It is, you know, anytime you do a redevelopment, there will be outside forces that come in. So, it's a valid point. So,

yes. Uh, Commissioner, yeah, it's a very basic question that there are two aspects uh to this development. One is the development of in infrastructure and other is the business and the housing development. How much leverage city has on both these aspects? Infrastructure, yes, it will be the city's investment and they'll do it. What about housing and uh business development? What role city plays in that? It's the private property. Well, I I'm I'm having trouble because you're not speaking to the microphone. How much um leverage

leverage do we have in terms of the housing and uh the business development?

Yeah, I mean that's a great question. I mean that it's a little bit of a chicken and egg that you know it it does take a couple catalyst projects to kick off the downtown. The city can leverage that by having targeted investment in the downtown. We've talked about potentially the recommendation to council tonight could be to further explore a business investment district to if all the downtown people are willing to self tax themselves and that money goes into a pot of money to um improve the downtown. All of those things can accelerate the adoption and leverage um getting more investment and getting the plan further implemented. Right? So, it's a little little bit of both private de development coming in plus the city utilizing some leverage to investment to accelerate the plan. So, hopefully I answered your question. So,

thank you. Any other last minute comment question? Okay, I would like to entertain someone to make a motion. I think

but before the chair does so what I've heard so far and if the commission is indulges us to to add this to your motion is um we've heard from Grace about looking at footnote 8 and footnote 9 that those were a little bit confusing and asking staff to take a look at clarifying those. Um there's some comments today about and there is I can't find the exact policy but it is talking about a business improvement district looking at ways to research that more or accelerate that um to when we go to council to do a better job of explaining what's horizontal versus mixed use. Um,

yeah. So, horizontal versus vertical. Horiz vertical. Sorry. Um, and there's a request from the commission potentially to do like an annual update of the DVSP to the commission. And um, Woodson had a couple on page 43, right? A couple of comments that were specific. that we captured this. Yeah. Okay. Um, so is that a fair if we're able to add that to your motion, chair,

I would also add that talked about definitions of horizontal, vertical, but then also um going back to I think we also had the suggestion of definitions of short-term and midterm, short-term, long-term, midterm, and how does that kind of fit into the overall city budget and then and then secondarily, how that ties to the budget. Okay.

Also, I think the the bid process um I had in my notes that it was on in tied to PF5 um for implementation matrix on I think there was somewhere in the towards the end. So I don't know page 85 or 90 or so I think is about where that was described maybe maybe a little bit further than that but I think it but definitely was tied to PF program PF5 PF5 under the implementation matrix sounds good okay so

sorry and then the other one was out improved some type of longer term improved outreach and metrics Yes. Yes. That that's something that we're definitely going to be taking a look at to help accelerate the plan. Thank you. Okay. So, we have the the written recommendation modified amended by the comments from this evening. Yes.

So, I'm sure if nobody else wants to, I will say I think I can hold up on the screen what it looks like. Oh, sorry. That's totally fine. I can't do almost anything on this screen. Uh, slideshow. Um, current. There we go. Uh, no. There we go. All right. Can you see it? Did I hyper attend it?

Go back to that for a second because I missed that one. Go back to that slide. One, the first slide in the notes for a second. I just want to see the speaker notes for that slide. Um, I just want to see what I said about healthy trees. I was like, we only do healthy trees. No, I I don't see the speaker notes are left over from the prior presentation. So, just I always find it funny. Wait, that was not in what we saw before. Like, yeah, we only we only put in healthy trees. I'm like, I hope so. I Well taken. All right. No, I I disagree with that. I thought it was a little bit of levity. Enough of that. Come back to the meeting.

All right. It's uh I think that that goes to like if everybody back in the early 1900 if everybody had their way they would have made a faster horse. We did. It's called an automobile. Well, and that statement was made by Henry Ford. Okay.

So, um moving on. Um recommendation. Uh let's see. I move to adopt PC council resolution 2026 hyphen whatever the number is going to be recommending that the city council adopt amendments to the downtown vitalization specific plan to accommodate one recommendations of the market feasibility analysis prepared by the consulting firm HDL Econ Solutions seeking to enhance the market relevance and implementation of the EVSP and two feedback back from the marina community in response to outreach regarding suggested changes to the infrastructure improvements and future use of land contained in the DSV with the added it's not shown here three the recommendations discussed during the planning commission meeting this evening period recommendations to the amendment recommendations to the to amend the downtown vital ization specific plan are subject to exemptions from environmental review per sections 15183 and 15061B3 of the sec guidelines.

Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair Woodson. Do we have a second? I second. Great. Commissioner Simmons, yes. Commissioner Jacobson, yes. Chair St. John, yes. Commissioner Rana, yes. Commissioner Baron, yes. Vice Chair Woodson, yes. Motion passes. Thanks, Grace. I'm sorry. And I wanted to thank both Grace and and M for coming tonight and speaking. I mean, I I put it out there enough to tell people to come, so I really appreciate when they do. So, I want to recognize them coming tonight and speaking and providing us.

Okay. Item eight on our agenda, informational items. Uh, no realformational. Uh, the next meeting is going to be very housing focused. Um, because we did get pro housing designation. Um, and May is affordable housing month. We are going to have somebody who lives in an affordable housing unit give a testimony about how it has changed their life. Uh, we did that a couple years ago. Yeah.

Uh the project off of Hillrest, we were going to do a tour of that one, but that one's not ready for a tour in a couple months when it's a little more ready for the commission. We'll go do a a a site visit of that property. Um that has mostly has three affordable units there. And then Tim is working on two housing element uh affordable housing programs that we'll be bringing to you guys in two weeks. So definitely housing focus. So definitely don't miss that meeting. So

um is there a possibility that we could get updates on the projects that we have approved and should be in motion but don't seem to be moving ahead. Uh kind of specifically the uh housing project out on Delmont. Oh which was the north the north side of town that 3298. Yes. Yeah. at a 96. Yeah, the threetory 96 residence. Yeah, nothing nothing's happening there. Um, yes, we can give you an update on that.

I mean, I think and I was like mine if running down the list, we have multiple residential, we have the also we have the MST, we have or by the M, we have the housing subdivision that we approved for an extension at. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I'd like to get an understand because that I believe that was coming up on a one that was coming on a last and final from the commission. We gave them one last extension and so I'd like to understand if we are that's actually moving towards a withdrawal of the permit.

Uh yeah, I can provide an update at the next meeting on that. And then secondarily kind of to build onto that I think

it's not a critique it's more just a is there a what you have your staff has so much extra time in a day. Um is coming back to some of the smaller projects. So we we have some other smaller ones. I can get offline because I don't want to I don't want to highlight a develop I don't want to highlight somebody at that turn. Um they've come before the commission and they've presented we really have to do this and it and we want to build this and we want to add this feature, we want to add a sign or lights or do whatever and we approve it and then a year or 15 months or 18 months or two years later you keep driving by and nothing. And there are times when I kind of wonder about this of just does the staff are do we have a way kind of to go back to things that have list of everything we've gone through and approved and just kind of softly reminding were you ever going to do anything with this that we approved you to do and I said I can talk to you offline about one specific project I'm thinking about.

Uh yeah if you want to we can talk. I want to I don't want to create additional work, but I'm like, okay, your staff put in time to staff a packet. We presented it. We spent time here discussing it, and then it just kind of languishes and it's like, okay, what's going on? And it and we talk about it's easy to hang on the big things, the the 96 three 96 residents, threetory buildings. It's another thing when we have, but even small projects are still projects and there's still time that we're that we're putting into these things. And I'm I don't know. I I just it's about efficiency and I don't want to I don't want to harp on our on the residents because I think I I would rather have them come in and just keep pushing it forward, but I would also like to see these things when we spend the time here on the commission actually coming to fruition. Um yeah, I mean if the commission as a whole or individual commissioners has questions about individual projects, I can answer those either during course of normal business or we can agendaize these two and we can talk about them however the commission wants to proceed. That's fine.

Thanks. Yeah, either way. Uh just one more item I would like to I recommend that we get on the next agenda or whenever it's appropriate. The planning commission must assign a representative to the tree committee. Oh yeah. And I have been that representative and and I was reminded that there is no record of my assignment for this current term. Can we just Can we actually just you can extend me. I'm fine with it on I don't think Paul I mean Paul already said he didn't really want to be on it. So

Right. So he's not here and everybody else is. Um it's not agenda for today. So you can't take action. Okay. today, but I believe your term is till January 2027, but we can certainly Okay, that's fine. I can confirm that Phil is our tree committee staff person and I'll have to get back to you on that. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we're not in violation of it. No, but I'll double check with Phil and I'll get back to you. The state police after you did not show up to your tree committee meeting. Therefore, for your arrest, there's a bench warrant outbreak. Okay. So, any other announcements? And we have a or announcements time.

None. I do have an announcement. Oh, another one. Yeah, promised an ice cream social at the next meeting. Oh, did I really? Okay, I guess I You know what? You're right. I did promise you guys ice cream several meetings ago. So, I'm I'm committing to ice cream for the next meeting. Okay. So, thank you. So, noted. I hope it's hot. So, correspondence none and then adjournment. Thank you.