Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Let's call a meeting to order.

Roll call.

Hold on.

Commissioner Chang?

Yes.

Commissioner Simmons? Yes. Commissioner Jacobson? Yes. Chair St. John? Here. Commissioner Rana?

Yes.

Commissioner Barron? Here. Vice Chair Woodson? You have quorum.

He will now have a moment of silence and the pledge allegiance. Volunteer.

I pledge allegiance.

To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God and liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Commissioner Simons. Do we have any special announcements and any communication from the floor at this time? This would be specifically for any items that are not on tonight's agenda.

I don't believe so, Chair.

Okay. From the commissioners, do we have any exportate communication for quasi-judicial matters? specifically for tonight's agenda items okay uh consent agenda is next the first item or item a is approval of the minutes of last week last the last meeting

What was the final determination? Did we end up including Mr. Lee's comments into the final minutes or did we just recognize that we got them all, but that we were not including them in the meeting minutes?

If you can speak into the microphone chair or vice chair.

I wasn't yelling. So just coming back to Mr. Lee's comments that were missed officially in the packet last meeting, I know we reached out to him and apologized. Usually we don't put the submitted comments in the meeting packet, but do we need to do anything about that? here?

No, it was just an error on my part. I did forward it to the commission and you guys talked about it. But I should have posted it to the planning commission packet, but there's no requirement to put his comment or other people comments into the final minutes.

And that's what I understood. I just wanted to make sure it was just a it was just a one off mistake. It happens. Right. I have no other comments.

Okay. Thank you, then. I will accept a motion for approval.

Make a motion to approve the minutes from May 14th.

I'll second.

Okay.

Commissioner Chang.

I abstain as I was absent.

Commissioner Simmons. Commissioner Jacobson. Chair St. John. Commissioner Rana. Commissioner Barron. Vice Chair Woodson. Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay. The next item is public hearings. And we have one this evening. It will be a special presentations on CHISPA affordable housing testimonial. There's two elements to that housing element program 6.1 and housing in the second housing element program 9.2.

uh staff will make a presentation yeah so may is affordable housing month we're almost done with may but at least we're doing it now um so we are having two housing element programs that tim and hottie are going to present and then we do have a special guest here from chispa to share how an affordable housing unit has personally changed their life so pass it off to the chispa representatives

pull it together. And maybe Jeff Morgan, CEOs.

Is that better? So I'm Jeff Moore. I'm the president of Chispa. I saw you a little while back and we talked a little bit about building technology and affordable housing. Today, I'm going to have a chance to talk about the folks who are really active and benefit from our community. So you're going to get to hear from Philip. And Philip is a resident who just started living at Gen Se Oaks. He was unhoused. worked all his life. And through other circumstances that he'll share, he'll tell you a little bit about his story. But we're grateful to have him. He's been there since October of 2025. And frankly, this is the reason why I love doing the work that I do. So without further ado, I'll let Philip, if he can come on up and just share a little bit about his story. I think the thing that really strikes me about this is this could be any of this could happen to any of us. You think about how many of us are just one paycheck away. So, Philip, I'm so glad you wanted to tell your story.

Well, I don't know where to start, but I worked all my life since I was five years old in the fields, Salinas, the lettuce fields, carrot fields, you name it. And, well, like I said, I worked most of my life and moved to Arizona for a little bit. I put my 20 years in Walmart working again and came back to take care of my mother and took care of her for 15 years and she passed away and There was a family feud over the housing that I was in because it was my mother's house, but my brothers and sisters wanted their portion. And so I got thrown out of there. And a couple of years later, I got a stroke and just things went from bad to worse. Ended up in Chinatown. at the Navigation Center, which I heard about the place over here at Dunsay Oaks and I applied and it took about a year of paperwork and going back and forth and just working all the time, just trying to get in and eventually got in and it's a very nice place, very quiet compared to Salinas anyway. I like it there. It's a very good place to live. And I thank cheese bus for having a place like that. And affordable.

Yeah, thank you Philip and Philip if you don't mind me asking what was what was it like when you moved into the navigation center for you? Did you sleep?

Well, it was terrible. Let me tell you every day you have to keep 1 eye open, you know, at night. And the first day I was there, there was a dead body in the street. And you know, that's my first day there. And I was there for about a year. And all that time I was there, I seen about three killings there. And it was terrible. It was terrible. Chinatown is not a place to be. And thank God for Chispas over here, for John Say Oaks.

that's completely different we're glad to hear from you and glad that you're on the way up thank you yeah all right thank you paul that's it thank you everyone and thanks for improving gen say oaks

We're here doing this really just trying to put a face to affordable housing. The 15 unit project down on Hillcrest, we were going to do a site visit because they do have three affordable units within that, but they're just not ready for us to do. They're just barely doing the grading for the site. So when that is more deeper into the construction site. We'll do a site visit there. Just once again, trying to put a face to affordable housing within Marina. So thank you for the commission.

Okay. How about the, we have a presentation for housing element program 6.1.

Actually, Chair, since that was technically a public hearing item, I think we should invite comments even though it's a slightly different kind of presentation than we normally have.

Oh, okay. Okay. Hold off on your presentation. We open the floor to public comments. And do we have anyone online? This would be the public comments to the presentation from Jeff, Maureen of Chispa, and Phillip, one of the residents.

Chair, we have no comments online.

We have any comments from attendee?

No, I'm good. Thanks. All right.

Then we'll close public comments on that presentation, that hearing. And we will proceed now with program 6.1.

Good evening, Chair Woodson and members of the Planning Commission. Adi Javani, Urban Planner and Designer, Interim Cities Community Development Department. And I'm pleased to present to you this evening suggested actions to implement housing element program 6.1 related to energy efficiency. This evening, the planning commission is requested to consider a number of recommended actions, which combine to form a city of Marina energy efficiency strategy. Next slide, please. Energy efficiency is broadly defined as the ratio of usable energy production to energy input. In the context of housing element, energy efficiency is the process of minimizing energy consumption, generally through the strategic use of building technology. Currently, the city uses a variety of approaches to encourage energy efficiency in existing and rehabilitated structures by encouraging the use of renewable energy technologies, low-power use appliances, and weatherization and insulation. In new development, the city promotes the construction of mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods that advance alternative transportation, less reliance on private automobile travel, and capitalize on passive heating and cooling strategies. Next slide, please. Housing element and energy efficiency. Why are we talking about? Energy efficiency in housing element. What's the connection between these two? Promoting energy efficiency in the context of housing element implementation achieves several important goals. The reason that energy efficiency is included as a topic in the housing element is because promoting a strategy which minimize energy consumption, reduce costs of tenants and homeowners of existing dwelling units. Reduce utility costs, in turn, reduce overall housing costs and enable people to stay in their homes. This is especially true for low-income tenants and those on fixed incomes, which are populations generally the most vulnerable to potential displacement and even homelessness due to cost increase. Promoting energy efficiency in new construction also advances housing element goals by prolonging the life of structures, therefore reducing costs over time. Implementing green building standards, installing energy-efficient equipment, and upgrading insulation all reduce dependency on outside energy sources and reduce susceptibility to energy price fluctuations, actions which are essential for promoting housing stability in low-income populations. Incorporating green building standards has the additional benefits of enhancing air quality and building safety. Next slide, please. The housing element contains a number of goals or statement of values which are made measurable and attainable through identified policies and achieved through various actions or programs. Creating an energy efficiency strategy is intended to implement housing element policy 6, which is to support and initiate where feasible public and private energy conservation programs that would reduce the energy needs and costs of housing in Marina. Program 6.1 is intended to help the city attain the objectives stated in policy 6. Program 6.1 directs that the city continues to work with Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Sustainability Program by distributing information flyers at city offices and the Marina Public Library and informing people verbally of MBAC's programs. Next slide, please. The city has taken a number of actions to advance the Association of Monterrey Bay Area Governments Sustainability Program by distributing informational flyers at city offices and the Marina Public Library and by informing people verbally of MBAC's programs. Through these activities, the city aims to provide information to minimally 20 households annually through announcements made during city council hearings, as well as through local media and the city website. Next slide, please. In order to develop a successful energy efficiency strategy, city staff recommend that a planning commission consider directing the staff to take several actions, which collectively form an energy efficiency strategy. The suggested actions are found on this slide and the next slide. The first recommended approach is to provide information regarding energy conservation and financial incentives, tax credits, utility rates, etc. So various means, including at the public counter on the city's website, at public libraries and community centers through social media and the like in order to advance the community's awareness of available programs advancing energy efficiency, which will simultaneously assist in the attainment of housing element goals. Giving people access to energy saving information. and financial incentives like utility rebates and tax credits helps raise awareness of programs that promote energy efficiency, which then encourage investment in building improvements and bringing about behavioral change to reduce energy consumption while promoting environmental conservation and lowering operation costs. The second recommended approach is to continue participation in community choice aggregation and pursue the development of a community climate action plan. Community choice aggregation, CCA, allows local governments to pool the electricity demands of their residents and businesses to purchase or generate power on their behalf and is an alternative to traditional investor-owned utility generation. CCA therefore provides cleaner energy while maintaining low utility costs for customers. The City of Marina participates in Central Coast Community Energy, the Community Choice Aggregator, CCA, for the Central Coast and many may continue its participation. The City may also seek to prepare a climate action plan, which is currently being pursued as part of its general plan and local coastal program updates. The Climate Action Plan can, among other things, identify specific policies and programs related to green building design and construction, advancing energy efficiency, providing more resilient structures capable of understanding climate extremes to protect residents who are vulnerable to heat extremes, and introducing design approach to lower energy costs and reduce risk from climate-related disasters. Next slide, please. A proposed action is to promote mixed-use development in the downtown vitalization-specific plan area near activity centers and transit routes to reduce vehicle trip and transportation energy consumption. By requiring compact, high-density, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented construction, the City of Marina's downtown-specific plan, or DVSP, encourage energy efficiency. To create a more sustainable urban core over the course of the next several decades, the plan encourages and in some cases requires implementation of green building practices, reduce size parking facilities, improve transit accessibility and mixing of land uses. By concentrating development around the mountable work and reservation road. The DBSP encourage evocable urban form, increasing the number of homes close to transportation hubs, improving energy efficiency and saving on heating, cooling expenses, which cost reduction can be passed on to tenants. Employees may promote energy efficiency by putting the DBSP into practice and continuing to improve it. Our recommended action is to adopt municipal code amendments promoting strategic site design techniques, including intentionality in landscape placement for enhanced energy efficiency and reducing lifetime energy costs, and encouraging use of alternative fueling systems among other energy conservation features. The city may pursue revisions to the municipal code that encourage or require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate strategic site design to promote energy efficiency. Reduction in energy costs can be passed on to tenants, furthering housing retention and preventing displacement and homelessness.

Next slide, please.

In order to more effectively implement the city's housing element, city staff recommend that the Planning Commission make the motion shown on this slide.

Thank you. Next we will have some planning commission opportunity to ask questions of staff. Okay, we'll start with Vice Chair Woodson.

I just have one question, and it's really about the CCA portion of it. Do we have any statistics in the city of Marina on, number one, on how many of our residents have actually switched over to the CCA versus not? because it was initially an opt out process instead of an opt in process, number one. And number two, are we actually seeing, is there any way to judge what if there are any savings to the CCA or not? Because when it was initially told us that that was kind of, that was the theory that, oh, there would be savings, but I'm not sure if those savings have ever materialized and created any kind of green energy dividend other than for some green energy company someplace way outside the grid.

I don't have that at the moment. We can certainly provide that. We can look into that and bring that back to the commission.

If you could at some point, that would be nice.

Thanks. My main one.

Okay. Next we have Rana.

Hey, this strategy is, I see it very prescriptive in nature. And from the implementation point of view, who are we targeting? Who will implement this strategy? The developers?

It's mostly city staff kind of using existing resources. That's kind of Hottie's kind of focus of his presentation in the staff report was we don't have a sustainability department or a coordinator. So a lot of this is just utilizing existing PG&E and other programs and kind of connecting people to those programs. So it would be city staff. Yeah.

Next is that it's the developers who develop the projects. And if they see that there are cost-saving and benefits to the people, let them use this as a business model rather than city staff coming up with a strategy which is prescriptive to them that you do it this way.

Yeah, I mean, this is really just the floor. If there's other opportunities to help consumers save on energy, yeah, absolutely. We will partner with the developer for that.

And the last one is that we have very few developments which are only for the low cost affordable housing. It is a small percentage. It is affordable in all new developments. And when the developers do that, they have their own considerations. What is their incentive to kind of follow this strategy if they feel that if they are saving costs otherwise, why should they do it?

I mean, if you build a building in a smart way that saves energy costs for renters, condo owners, or the actual builder, I mean, there's no downside to, you know, saving money, right, for everybody involved, right? Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Rana. Commissioner Simmons.

Thank you chair 1 of the things I saw Guido that just a question is trying to get this information out to the to the public and it shows only target is 20, which kind of surprised me. I thought we would look for something a much larger number. Um, on that, um. And I saw them, you know, putting things on, um. the city site, but what about just also was consideration of social media, where I think a lot more people, you know.

Absolutely.

On that. It just kind of occurred to me to answer one of the things I know coming from a retail background, looking at savings, cost savings on energy. I mean, we used to call it feature and benefits. And a feature is just what it is. It doesn't really tell you anything. But the benefit is what sells it. And I think when you take a look at this, that's one of the why a developer might want to do this is, you know, here's the feature. You know, it's a cost saving, and this is going to save you over, you know, a period of just like we see the stickers on water heaters and everything else. You know, this is going to save you this amount of money, you know, over time. So I can see that being beneficial to everybody involved on that. Guido, the other thing, too, I guess is kind of getting out there a little bit. Right now, I'm probably pretty sure that the inclusionary housing that we do have going on here, that this is kind of based around also, is each developer responsible for their own, such as like Seahaven, where I'm at. I mean, they take in their own. I'm guessing the Dunes takes in their own. radio station will do their own and then other sites throughout the city is that correct on that they can their own but they they uh they're the ones that are going to take the applications for the people that might qualify under the inclusionary housing uh yeah so we have a third party vendor who vets all those folks for the bmr units so a third party vendor vets them but do they put the list together of uh who's eligible uh and and They have a single list. Is there a single source, I guess, for a person to go to and apply for inclusionary housing throughout the community of Marietta? Yes, yes.

Okay. I mean, they vet them, but we ultimately have the list, the master list. So, yeah.

That's everything I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Simons. Guido, I have a discussionary comment. on just one element of this, of the program 6.1, the whole discussion on green energy or green building requirements. And I could take the time now or we could- Of course, go ahead. Okay. See, this was passed out on the table to all of the commissioners. But let me go through it real quick, if I can. Just as a background, a key question would be how far can green building requirements go before they begin to reduce housing feasibility and production? How far can we do it before we shoot ourselves in the foot? So where we are today, California's baseline has a strong existing energy code. It's called Title 24. Solar is required on most new residential construction since 2020, I believe. And water efficiency and material standards are already in place. They are required under state law. And my implication is that new requirements are incremental, not foundational. We already have in California, quite lucky, probably leading the nation on foundational requirements that are already requirements, not options. So what we're looking at is incremental improvements for energy conservation. And under the green building requirements, if we focus on that, I'll break it down into incremental costs, category light, moderate, and high. So light would be above code measurements, such as improved insulation, mandating LED lighting, fixtures, economical or energy efficient fixtures, drought tolerant landscaping. Next, we'll go to moderate requirements, which would, and the cost impact of light above code measures would range from zero cost to as much, maybe a maximum of 2% above the anything so moderate requirements cost impact would range from say 2% to 6% of the final cost of say a residence all electric which would include heat pumps for heating solar PV which is a Photovoltaic, which is already mandated. Enhanced building envelope, and we'll expand on that in a minute. Ventilation systems such as ERV and HRV. We'll expand on that in a minute. And performance verification. such as a blower door test or others. And we can talk about that also. I'll expand on that. The high performance level would be net zero in energy consumed versus energy saved. And that's the cost impact is going to jump it up to say 5% to 15% above item one and two and that would be advanced insulation and air tightness and battery storage example for the solar power so what drives cost the most scale large projects absorb costs better than small projects timing early design integration minimizes the cost Electrification adds upfront cost, but there's a big offset in gas infrastructure for new developments, like a new subdivision. And battery storage is the longest single cost driver. Practical policy guidance, to balance sustainability with housing production, you want to prioritize high efficiency envelope in all electric design, align with existing solar requirements, avoid mandatory battery storage, that's considered an incentives, consider incentives instead. because the battery storage is a very high cost item and allow flexible performance-based compliance paths. Bottom line, moderate green requirements are manageable, say 2% to 6% cost premium, and aggressive mandates, you risk the feasibility of the project. So a well-calibrated policy achieves environmental goals without constraining housing supply. Biggest cost risk, battery mandates. Best ROI, return on investment, would be to focus on the envelope and the electrification, which, and another way to say that is to stop using gas in the residence or stop building with gas and go with all electric and with heat pumps the sweet pot spot would be performance based not prescriptive i think in california a lot of what we find doing is prescriptive from the state rather than performance-based from good design practice. The items that I talked about earlier that I would explain, that would be the, what is the enhanced building envelope? That in one sentence is everything that separates inside the house or the residence from outside. The walls, roof, windows, doors built to a higher standard than the code minimum. What's enhanced? More insulation in the walls and the attic, sometimes a slab. Better windows, a lower E, that's the emissivity, which increases. The first element of a low E is a coating to block the ultraviolet UV, but it also is a double or triple pane. Air sealing, tight construction, fewer leaks, reduced thermal bridging. Thermal bridging is like If you put insulation between studs, then the studs themselves transmit the heat, and there is nothing to block that. The heat is bridged going through the stud as opposed to where there's insulation. So you reduce the thermal bridging. Why does it matter? It cuts the heating demand anywhere from 20 to 40%. And that is significant. It cuts the cooling demand in the same ratio, makes the building more comfortable, no drafts, even temperatures, reduces the long-term operating costs. The truth is that the highest return on investment for the green investments is the building envelope. If you do nothing else, improve the envelope. What is performance verification? One is the blower door test. And that's testing to prove the building actually performs as designed, not just on paper. On paper, it's good. Does it pass a test after it's built? And that is a pretty simple test. I've seen it done in my past life and I've seen it fail and I've seen it pass. The blower door test measures how leaky the house is. The next test would be duct leakage, and it checks the heating, ventilation, AC distribution efficiency. If the ducts leak before the air gets to the people inside the house, if the ducts leak into the attic, then you're not efficient. Sometimes another test is thermal energy imaging, which they use a sort of like a radar gun. It's a thermal imaging gun and they check the thermal flares from the project and find hidden gaps. Why does it matter? The builders say it's tight, but the tests prove it. It identifies problems early. Say you do some of these tests before you do the drywall. And then otherwise you have to start doing demolition to correct a problem. These envelope improvements and tests are already required in many jurisdictions. So it's not something new. It's been happening for at least the last 20 years before the turn of the century. Okay. So air changes, the typical metric air changes per hour And the lower the air changes per hour, the better the performance. Without testing a high-performance building, it's only just a marketing words. Ventilation systems. What is ERV and HRV? They're mechanical systems that bring in fresh air without wasting energy. There's two main types. HRV is heat recovery ventilators, and they transfer heat between the outgoing and the incoming air. ERV is energy recovery ventilators. They transfer heat and moisture, which in many climates, that's absolutely necessary. Why you need it? Tight buildings enhance the building envelope. Don't breathe naturally. So without ventilation, you get stale air, moisture, and mold. So what do these enhanced ventilations do? They bring in fresh air condition continuously, exhaust stale air, stale indoor air, and they keep the energy loss low from these air bringing in the fresh air and dumping the stale air. If you tighten the building and don't add these type of ventilation systems, what you do is you create a better insulated problem. How they work together, this is the key insight. Enhanced envelope reduces the energy demand. Verification ensures that it was built correctly. And the ERV, HRV keeps the air healthy in the tight building. You don't pick one. If you're going to do it, you pick all three. The cost reality, just some quick numbers, enhanced envelope will add one to two, between one and 4%. And it's generally based on the size of the residence, the size of the building. so one percent would be a a a small a small residence and four percent would be a mac mansion blower door testing is a few hundred dollars and an ere hr system hrv systems those are

Chair St. John, I understand what you're saying, because I've been a planner for over 20 years. I did want to politely bring it back to this agenda topic in terms of, I know you're going into the detail of energy efficiency. So I'm hoping to ascertain from you, based on all the information you provided, Is there something you want to add to this agenda item, or as Tim and Hadi bring this forward to the city council, the recommendation in the staff report, or how can we tie in the good information you've shared with this agenda item?

What I want to propose is that we consider upgrading our municipal code monitoring municipal codes to in to require some level of green energy building for residential projects rather than than just encourage that the builders take it upon themselves if we know the builders are going to do what is required by the state laws and codes and the marina municipal codes and they are not going to do more and if we require some level of green energy for new residential construction then

everybody wins understood okay so i i would i would point the commission to um recommendation number two within the staff report uh talking about encouraging the city to potentially pursue a climate action plan and i've worked on two or three caps and all of them have uh recommendations in terms of improve improving energy efficiency uh having a more stringent green code um so all the all the stuff that you're mentioning would generally be in a climate action plan and then also i would point out in july i will be bringing to the planning commission um our draft general plan and there are climate action plan policies throughout the draft general plan, which a lot of the stuff that chair St. John has mentioned will be goals and aspirations for the city to work on for the next 20 years or so. So.

All right. I, I think it's good to have goals and aspirations, but I think it's better to have codes and, and requirements that you can measure and that, Anyway, enough from me. Let me open now to public comment.

Chair, can I say something, Chair?

Yes. Oh, Paul, I'm sorry, I don't have your light, so you have to speak up. Thank you.

Okay, sorry, I had to interrupt. Well, I support what Chair had mentioned. I think, if I do not know, thank you, Hardy, for your presentation, Hardy. I'm wondering, do you have a guidebook just to show energy efficiency property, how it looks like. And I think education here is very important, not only for the builder, but also for the owner, occupants of the property or the rental. The reason I say the education is important because how do we save energy in the property is not just having a solar systems, but for example, and not to mention the builder's name, but the property I had, between the wall is not insulated. If you want insulation, you have to upgrade it. And I thought the insulation is something is needed, to save energy. And it should be, if the property owner educated, then they were able to tell the builder, this is what I expect to have for energy efficiency home. So I do not know how they do have a guidebook, a booklet to educate property owners. community about how to have energy efficiency home. I think that is very important to have it. And also, if you could, this is the first thing, first question I want to say. The second one, I'm referring to the pass-through, anti-pass-through programs. When you have energy savings The builders are profit-minded. They want to save costs, right? And if they do have it, energy efficiency as programming the property, tendency to increase the cost of the rental to the people who are renting the property. So how do we protect the renters through this anti-pass-through protection programs. I do not know whether the city have any way to monitor it and how to help the rental on the cost saving rather than facing rent increase after the improvement. These are the two questions here, yeah.

Yeah, so...

Testing. Okay. So we... Oh, is that microphone on right here?

So, Commissioner.

chang we don't have a program right now in terms of modeling what you're asking for and this is embedded within the housing element so these are all programs and we have a very small staff and so a lot of these as i've mentioned are really just trying to piggyback on existing programs So, for example, the low income assistance weatherization program, we would partner with the state on that with the utility specific program from PG&E. We would basically refer people to PG&E. The information you have, we don't have today. We could certainly get that and share that with the commission. But these are all really just trying to implement a housing element program to comply with housing element law, and then connecting people with different programs to help with reservation. But we don't have a sustainability department who would track this stuff for us.

Will the city prepare a booklet in educating the community?

That is something we can certainly do. We can take these programs and Hadi can create like a booklet of here's ways or programs to help people in terms of being more energy efficient. That is something we can certainly take a look at.

Thank you. That's all I had.

Thank you, Paul. Okay. Yes. Public comment from the from the floor. Would you come to the podium and you turn on the microphone?

I guess I understand what you guys are wanting from me. Okay, I'm never coming back. But I did see something that I wanted to bring to your attention. The rebates and financing, I'm in taxes. So I know that the federal tax credit, that ended, I believe in- Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Okay, you're okay.

Okay. I believe that ended in 2025. And then also the HEE HRA, that has been exhausted, phase one was. And so there's only a phase two. And so am I right to assume, like, what you guys are proposing is basically give builders, like, rebates on the building?

Is that... No, that's incorrect.

Okay. So you guys are just wanting, like, a program, outreach program, and, like, basically... letting everybody know about the programs, right?

That's generally the idea.

Okay. But anyways, I really like Richard's changing the code and instead of the incentives. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Just a quick follow-up. If we settle for promoting energy efficiency, then especially for new residential housing in Marina, then we settle for no real change for what we have today. If we require energy efficiency, we will advance for a better tomorrow. Just to throw that out. Any other public comments? And we'll close public comment and you're fine.

Chair St. John, I don't see any other comments online.

I'm going to reopen the comments from the commissioners now. And yes, we recognize Commissioner Barron.

Thank you, Chair. I have a very small comment that kind of jumped at me when I was reading it. It felt like it came from a different city or from a plant from a different place where it says, reduce reliance on artificial heating and cooling. Technique includes planting deciduous trees to create summer shade on east-west sides. Marina is a very cold town. I would love not to have a tree hiding the sun in the summer. So it's not like I don't like trees or shrub, but this should be judicial planting of trees near windows in Marina if the purpose is to shade it from the sun. Because otherwise we'll have to turn the heat on in the summer. So it's kind of a small comment. It's not a major thing, but it just jumped at me that this is not really relevant for Marina very much. Thank you. You're absolutely right.

and we can we can take that out of the staff report when we present to council so thank you for that comment okay commissioner Jacobson when when I went through this excuse me it just felt like something was missing and I couldn't figure it out and it wasn't until commissioner's chair say john started speaking that it started to make sense to me. And what it is, is, is that this has no bite. It has no hold. It has no law or, you know, anything behind it. It's just, it's just words to say, we're going to get together with them. We're going to get together with them and we'll tell these people. And I don't know why it's even necessary the way it's written because that, The action steps aren't really action steps. They're just passing it off to somebody else.

Well, I would say we actually got some good comments today actually from the audience in terms of apparently one of these programs expired last year. I think the commission's making some strong recommendations asking staff to follow up in terms of maybe doing some more outreach. The comment we got was, hey, why are we only doing this for 20 people? um and then potentially compiling this stuff doing some more outreach um connecting people to these resources so and i would point out to the commission this is a housing element program so we have to kind of do something so if if there is some additional inputs to be glad to take it um you know we don't want the waste you're done so yeah it's also interesting that um

As we went through some of these and there were comments, the response was, well, we don't have an environmental or we don't have an energy person or whatever that is. And I understand that. But given the growth of what's going on here and the increased tax revenue that we're getting, why don't we have that if this is important? Obviously, it is.

well i mean there's a lot of priorities for the city i'm only in charge of the planning commission there's you know obviously the council sets the overall priorities for the city so i mean there's you know they make the final call in terms of budgeting and prioritization but uh so yeah all right i'm i'm done sir

that quickly uh what we're attempting to do is receive direction from the planning commission about the sorts of approaches that the commission would find feasible practicable for us to pursue so part of the reason why there is no kind of definitive compliance component is is precisely because we're asking for direction from the commission So if there's so essentially we're presenting a series of potential options to you all for what you would like staff to pursue. And so I think that's hopefully helpful to kind of frame the conversation. So if there's certain program or certain approaches that you find more potentially feasible or successful than others, we'd love to hear that. But again, the idea is not every single one of these is necessarily going to be followed as is written in the staff report. They're kind of food for thought, so to speak. But we do hope to pursue actionable outcomes from the conversation this evening.

Okay. We are... But I guess the next step would be a motion. That's correct, Chair Woodson. No, wrong person. Vice Chair St. John.

It's got the wrong signature page. You got the wrong signature page on it and got me wrong. But you bought the ice cream, so it's all good.

Okay, so we will certainly change it to Commissioner Chair St. John, though.

I would like to make a friendly amendment to staff's motion draft that we put some teeth into it and require things like all elect for new residential buildings in new subdivisions. We can limit it to a brand new greenfield, all electric home, which would require heat pumps for the heating if we do away with gas. The enhanced building envelope And the code upgrades could be with respect to insulation and et cetera. And ventilation systems, because when you seal the house with this advanced enhanced building envelope, you will create a bigger problem than the energy savings with mold and stale air. So you need a ERV or HRV to overcome a new problem and then performance verification that the envelope, enhanced building envelope, does in fact provide the features that the engineer requires.

That's it. So if it's possible to the chair and the commission, so we can certainly add that to the motion. There is a state law AB 130 that freezes upgrades to the building code for the next eight years. So I would just ask that our friendly amendment be if the commission wants to add this stuff, that we would consult with our city attorney to verify that these don't violate AB 130.

So what did AB 130 do again?

AB 130 froze amendments to green codes and the building code for the next eight years. Starting in January 1st of this year. So I would say all this stuff is really good stuff. We can put it in the motion, but we would want to consult with our city attorney before we would put it into official city programs and policies.

So we cannot require it, but we can allow it.

Yeah, but the way you wrote the most...

Right, I was trying to require it. But if the state has already tied our hands and said we can't require improvements... by code. I'm surprised. But anyway, yeah, have the attorney, our attorney confirm that. That doesn't sound like the governor or the legislature.

Why don't we just say, Guido, for purposes of the And this is a friendly amendment, right, Chair? Is that what I... Yes, yeah. Okay. So we still need to get a vote on it, or a second to motion. But you could say, you know, consistent with state law or something like that. And I would just say that AB 130 is probably not the only place that we would have to to look if we're talking about a sort of a mandate or requirement which is very different from what was on the agenda tonight we would need to probably look at consistency with other um state laws or at least uh processes to adopt such new requirements so i really have had my my thing on for like the entire discussion are we going to call can i speak today yes

The chair recognizes Vice Chair Woodson.

So before we make the amendment, we can step back a minute, a couple of things, and I guess I'll add on to this. And my first one to Guido and staff would be under AB 130, because that was a comment that I was wondering. No, I can't, because it's not. It's Brian's microphone, and I don't feel comfortable using it.

Is that better? Better.

Okay.

It's coming back. Now it feels really loud.

All right, so coming back to the issue of code modification versus entitlement under AB 130. AB 130 does not allow us to make building code modifications. It does not mean, though, that we cannot require implementation. The requirements can be implemented to allow for entitlements to occur. So we can tie to it a different way, I believe. And that's what I want staff to look into. So for example, if we had a requirement for solar, which is one of the five things that I'm kind of wanting to raise, if we had a requirement for solar ready new construction standard that requires all new residential commercial development to have solar ready infrastructure, so conduits, panel capacity, roof orientation, for example, that as a condition of entitlement, that we could implement that that means it remains permissible under ab130 to freeze but it targets the building standards not the land use conditions wouldn't that be that's not my understanding i had our building official

Uh, review it and obviously we would consult with our city attorney, but the 2025 building standards code remains effective, but local agencies are generally prohibited from adopting new or more restrictive residential building standards, including building green building standards. Unless a statutory exception applies. So I, like I said, I don't claim to be an expert in the law, but I would just say if the commission can craft the motion to say whatever you guys want to say, but we'll just verify with state law on AB 130. So.

Yeah, I don't, I mean, I understand what the vice chair is saying and we can certainly look into whether that's a way to move these ideas forward. forward would it be okay with the the um friendly amendment um movements if we um it sounds like maybe what you're doing is recommending adoption of this resolution as is but also directing uh recommending to counsel to direct staff to look into taking these additional steps rather than recommending to the council to adopt these additional measures and have staff look into these in the meantime? Can you just clarify your intention with the amendment?

Well, I think the way it's written, the key word in there is promoting energy efficiency and I think there could be several definitions and many definitions of what promote means, but we all know what require means. Require is, and we know that builders and developers will do what's required and there has to be And they'll read the rules that we put out and it says we're promoting energy efficiency. And they'll say, well, whatever is required is what you're going to get. And so I wanted to update to a minor requirement that does more than promote energy efficiency. in new construction. What we've got is at least 20 years old now. And the technology that I'm talking about, it's been around since 1970 or 1980 for 40 years, 50 years. So we can stick with promoting it And I'm pretty sure that in the next 10, 20 years, we're the same as we were 20 years ago for energy efficiency. Yeah, please.

Hey. Just countering this viewpoint, changing from promote to require, comes to mandating something And that can also be perceived as promoting some kind of a business or some people who are in business for providing such services. And that may not be a very good idea. I still say that it is a business decision. The developer, he sees there are benefits and he implements. these measures and also the buyers, if they prefer certain kind of, I mean, I personally like greenhouse and I have a lot of developments made in my own house to this extent. But this, I say that it should be matter of choice. rather than mandating. And from that perspective, I would like to continue with this, promote energy efficiency rather than mandating it. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner. Okay.

So I wasn't finished. That's fine. My first question was addressing that. The second question that I have, which also goes, I guess, to Seth and Wano and understand is, if we looked at... A second option that I have is looking at green building code, green building density bonus. Again, we can't make it a requirement, but we can make it incentive-based, I believe, under AB 130, code neutral, so that we could add an administrative or an expedited permit review if a project achieves a Greenpoint or LEED standard or a passive house certification. So that if a plan came in and it met these requirements, just like we do with our ADUs and some of our other things that are falling under really state guidelines. But here, we could create our own guideline that says, if you voluntarily come in and you meet these requirements, the incentive that we're giving you, not a requirement, is that we are going to expedite your permit review process. So, again, that feels like we can still investigate that, but that's a way around, that's a way of dealing with AB 130 while at the same time trying to seek some of the green improvements that we are looking to try to achieve that were presented tonight. I mean, it's a question for the staff, but it's something to look for. Yeah, I think we can look into that, yeah. And I've got three more, but then I think before I address those quickly, or maybe I'll address those and I'll come back to my issue with the motion itself, the way it's written. The second one would be, it's the same thing if we looked at community solar. And the reason I talked about the CCAs earlier is because I feel like a lot of people in the community have felt like the CCA has not been this great... program that were sold to us five years ago or six years ago when the CCA first was created in the city. And so looking at that, is there a way that we could partner with the CCA to create some type of community solar subscription program? Again, we have a community that is 35% renters. Um, and they're not eligible and there's nothing they can do unless the owners put in there. And is there a way that we can create some type of subscription program that allows renters or multifamily residents to access to solar benefits without having actual physical rooftop ownership? And there are programs that exist in the country that have done that. And so an idea would be that opens it up so that more of our residents who, who in some cases are struggling, some of our most, most, um, That's what I'm looking for. That's what I'm looking for. So I think that's another one. So it's trying to balance out the idea of what is good for our ownership, people who can put solar in, whether we get the full benefits of tax rebates or not, based on the way the programs are running at the moment. But the idea is, how do we do that? Then the third one that I am interested in is going back to what I call electrical reach. We've talked about the residential side. The thing about AB 130 is my understanding of AB 130 is it only pertains to residential. It does not pertain to commercial development. I'm pretty sure that commercial projects are not subject to the same freeze on source code adoption. So again, kind of the idea of looking at, if we're looking at trying to create new all electrical or some type of decarbonization, we can't do much under AB 130 to require it. But what I am kind of looking at is, is there any way that we could go back and look at the general plan and find a way unfortunately the way the general plan is written in 2005 i don't know if there is a way to do it um anything in there but look and see what the general plan stated in 2005 um that if there's a way that we can kind of kind of side door our way into looking at that um because one of the requirements under ab130 if i remember right is that it doesn't it can be overridden but only if you have a new general plan that was was put in place prior to the date that the law was passed, which would have been sometime last fall when that was. And then the last one is on energy retrofit and renovation. um what i would like to look look at is the possibility of using some of the pro housing grant programs that we have to create a set aside that we could use to provide again incentive for renovations because we keep coming back to new homes you know new we want a new home to have this we want to come down but some of the biggest benefits to our community from green energy is being able to look at renovations and there are renovations that exist so mcwd has renovation or have has programs that exist So PG&E have programs that exist, but there are a lot of things that, again, renters especially, don't necessarily have access to because of the way those programs are structured. And so are there ways that we could take some of the set aside of that new grant money that we get through our housing element that we're now eligible for under pro-housing and create a set aside that's got a maximum value to it. It's not, okay, we're not going to give you thousands of dollars, but maybe it's a $400 or $500 type of incentive program to look at. And it may be only last for three or four years that we have that, but just, I think that would be my other one. So those are the five areas that I was thinking about, which then comes back to the motion itself. The way the motion is written, it's kind of like, okay, we have this motion and we would like you to pass this. direct the staff to additional energy requirements. How do we create that list? And so last month, when we presented the motion based on the discussions that we had on the topic for last month, we didn't have to have the full fledged list here. We went through what was discussed in the meeting because the meeting is recorded and you can go back and you can pull the list of all the things that we were talking about. And I wonder if when we do this, the second paragraph here, we can keep it directed staff to research additional IMG requirements as discussed during the meeting, because if we can list it the way we're doing right now, we've had a number of ideas that have come up here. This is not an all-inclusive list, and it's very hard to create an all-inclusive list when we're sitting here in the meeting. And I believe we can do that by going back and looking at the recording. and that way we don't have to have this definitive list here we can go create that after the fact i believe we can do that guido and seth that's fine that's fine legally whatever guido thinks is most efficient for staff i think is also is also important that was my comments thanks yeah thank you vice chair

Okay, we have the motion part A and part B. Do we have a...

Chair, could I add something on to the motion?

Yes, please.

I was thinking also to add to the motion to instruct the staff to look into the anti-pastoral protections.

And so the anti pass through protection.

Yes. So that they will not increase the rent to the tenant because of the improvement for energy.

I would prefer not to get into this applies to owners. This applies to renters.

for that I think we're getting into the weeds if we do that yeah yeah but I I know what he's saying um if a if a owner puts in a substantial improvement such as well I'm just going to make the big one on the block solar all right and what I think what what the commissioner is what he's talking about is under the anti-pass-through protection, what you're doing is trying to protect the renters from the owners making substantial increases to become more green, and then 100% passing all of that off on his renter. So he's getting the dollar, they are getting the dollar value increase while actually kicking the rent price up to the maximum values. And given the policies on rent increases in the state right now, That could become substantial over two or three years, and that could really negatively impact a lot of our low and middle income renters if they take advantage of this. Again, Art, not to put words in your mouth, but if we were looking at that, I would think looking at the idea of having an anti-pass-through protection for renters versus owners so that there's an equity to the renters so that they're not taken advantage of. I think that we could add that to the list in the study. and just leave it at that. I mean, I would support that. I think that that's a really good idea. Okay. Yeah.

We do not have the capacity right now to do that. So I just want to be clear. That's not something I don't even, wouldn't even begin to figure out a program for that.

I think that's fine, but I don't, but if I put it in the world of construction and IT, which I've spent most of my career working in, just because we rate up raise a process and raise it as an option to look at does not mean that we have to execute it it could always be backlogged and say this is something that that we recognize is is a viable a viable or important issue to the city and to this program we don't have the the ability to deal with it right now but we are recognizing that it's there and that we're going to we will backlog it for a future a future date I mean, I don't, what's the harm of adding a few words such as that to say that? Or is there a real reason that we can't say something like that?

I would be hard pressed to put it in an official motion because there's no way feasible for staff to implement it. So I just, yeah.

Well, the implementation could come later, but I think at this time maybe let the committee know that the city do consider the entire pastoral protection programs.

Am I to understand that I'm a little confused about, I don't know if we're saying do it, but we're saying consider it or, or, or.

I think none of these are, none of these are due. No, every single one of these, everything, everything here is a consider.

Right. So I don't see what's this arm and putting it in there. Okay.

That's fine. We're going to wear you down.

Tell me the, the four corners of housing element 6.1. Does it include a 50-year-old apartment building upgrading to solar? Is that under 6.1?

I was taking up the question, Chair.

Can you repeat your question? I'm sorry, Chair. Can you repeat your question?

Yeah. This... The motion is focused on housing element program 6.1. Yes. I thought that was new construction.

The program is written pretty broadly. I mean, obviously we're not going to go into somebody's house and make them do something, but if they do like a 50% upgrade to their property or, you know, a pretty substantial upgrade, then potentially it could get triggered. But I think right now we're just focused on the programs that are out there and connecting people. And then these other potential energy efficiency programs that commission's recommending pending review of compliance with state law. Yeah.

well commissioner chang's focus on his friendly amendment would would focus on protecting renters from uh being fleeced by property owners or managers. And I didn't...

Which, honestly, city planners wouldn't normally get involved with. This would be something, a landlord-tenant issue. They would go speak to the Peninsula College of Law has a mediation center that deals with this stuff. And somebody would bring their lease in. They would argue why whatever's been occurring has violated the lease. And this is not something city planners normally deal with.

We can draft law.

We actually do. That's actually part of the commission's role is to make recommendations. But I think Greedo, actually, the way it's written is backwards. It's not. And I would hesitate. I mean, I disagree. I think that if we create programs in the city, whether it's a rebate program or an enhanced program, Or an incentive process for approving or accelerating approval of permits or. A whole whole house electricity, whatever we're doing that we're trying to improve. The overall capacity of our city and our residents to do that, and we have any programs that are executed through the city. We can always we could have. could have one so i mean in this the example that i would give not that we're going to have this but if we gave a a 500 incentive for them for owners to make changes whatever the changes were and we turned around and we put on that that you cannot directly pass off 100 of that to the renters to make that because you're improving the value of your property you're not and So I think that that is something that we can discuss and put down. I'm not saying we have to do that. I'm not saying I know what the rules would be. I think a lot of that on the pass-through, it's not considering reviewing a pass-through provisions to protect, yes, to protect renters. And it's anti-pass-through, but it's, again, it's not that we're going to do that. It's just a, it's a study item to say, okay, we want to make sure that we are protecting our vulnerable renters because they are a sizable portion and that's it. And it's not saying we're going to do it. And we may not be able to, and it may not be a reason to do it because we may not in and create policies within this plan that actually are conducive to actually having that as part of it. And that was it. Commissioner Chang, am I summarizing your context?

Yeah, you do. Thank you very much. Only thing, Guido, could you add the word reviewing anti-pass-through provisions?

It should be anti-pass-through instead of pass-through. Thank you, Guido.

Thank you. Thank you, Vaishay.

Thank you. Okay. We have it captured on the screen, the recommendation.

And just to remind everyone where we were in terms of procedure, I believe this is the wording of a friendly amendment to the original motion. Is that right?

No. Well, the original motion is the first paragraph on the screen. The second paragraph and third last paragraph are part and parcel of the friendly amendment.

that's what i mean um yes okay so we need uh we need we need to we need a motion on the on the friendly amendment i think or at least a second or at least accepted by the original movement and i can't remember who that was yeah we have not passed the first motion the original motion yeah under under uh rules you you take motions in reverse chronological order so you first you first we start with the amendment that's right and then that's right okay all right yeah yeah please commissioner um um i i just want to say i i

If anything, I'm glad to see that this is staff to research additional. I think when we take a look at making requirements, I'm not sure that we really fully understand the cost, even though I know we've got it down there one to five percent. And then I think it was twenty six hundred for something and something else here. I'm just not sure I understand. believe those numbers to be that accurate as much as I want to see energy efficiency and everything. I like the idea of incentivizing. I think that's a great idea to take a look and as Commissioner Woodson said, especially for non-new homes, that's where the energy is being lost. It's not being lost in new homes, not like the old homes that are out there. uh on this uh but i'm not comfortable with uh quite honestly and again i'm glad this is additional uh research uh but i would not be comfortable right now um looking at requiring something like that. I don't think we have enough information, enough research to make sure that, you know, these numbers that we're looking at are quite accurate. I mean, I know for a fact I've purchased 13 homes, you know, in my career and six of those were brand new homes and And I've seen a lot of new things. And one of the things we've got now are high energy efficient windows. And I want to tell you, my new home in Seahaven, I've already had 13 windows fail that we've had to replace and have been there for seven years because they don't hold up. I've talked to developers and they said that's very common. So, you know, some of the things we talk about here that are going to save energy, when everything is said and done, I'm not sure that's going to happen. I've had to deal with mold, you know, in homes. And when you seal a home up that tight, you're going to have a problem, even if you are trying to replace the air. But I'm just not comfortable with right now just saying that we need to make a requirement. I would much rather see incentive ice.

Thank you, Commissioner Simmons. I... i given the discussions for the last uh i would withdraw my friendly amendment and we'll leave it to the state uh to pass state laws like in 2020 they required all new homes to have solar panels with new residential starting in 2020 so i don't think that would have i don't think marina would have required solar panels if it wasn't a state law and i don't think i would have uh opted for solar panels if it was an option.

So to the commission, because I know you guys have had a lot of really healthy discussion. So an alternative to help out the commission is, it sounds like there's a lot of interest in this issue, which. I wasn't aware of until I came today. So, uh, an alternative could be to adopt the base motion and then I could organize a meeting with our building official. maybe get somebody from PG&E weatherization, somebody from the community was it the choice program you mentioned vice chair to come and speak to the commission and maybe have a theme for the meeting could be just energy efficiency in general. And maybe there could be some other good ideas that come out of that. Is that a possible compromise instead of throwing away all the last hour and a half of really good discussion with the commission, but that's up to the chair and the commission. So.

From my perspective, I really just made a, I don't, I mean, I'll go back to the staff discussion earlier, and that one of the things that you were looking for today was to gain insight into ideas, that this was not creating a program of record. And so I don't think necessarily the friendly amendment, the second and third paragraphs here are necessarily incorrect. it i didn't say direct staff to research additional energy requirements as discussed um if we go back to again where this conversation started the idea was that we want to create a create a subsection to our our housing element that addresses this and so what would that plan look like and again it's a it's a plan it's not in concrete it's these are the ideas and so I think that that's fine, Guido. I would love to do that. I think it could be a very interesting community meeting if we had that to get people here. At the same time, I think the topics that we've raised and even the topics that are listed here, if we're just listing those as the topics for the staff to use as the basis to begin looking at what the planning looks like, I think we could still go along with making that recommendation. today. And so we could, we could leave that there. I'm not, I think the wording still works the way it's written. Because again, we're not, we're not directing you to create a plan. We're not directing you to create a new requirement of anything. We're asking you to research. So I think it's the way it's written right now. We've covered, we've encapsulated I think the primary items here Again, what I may go back to is we could just simplify and just say direct staff to research additional. If I was going to make a friendly amendment to this, I would say direct staff to research additional energy efficient requirements as discussed at the meeting period. And then just leave it at that. And as I suggested before, as we did before, we captured a lot of these discussions separately as a list during the meeting, just like when the two speakers came up last month and spoke. We didn't necessarily write those down into a friendly amendment, but we captured those as requirements in last month's agenda, as last month's takeaways. So I think that would be an easier way of dealing with that. So I think...

the way you have it updated i think you could even get rid of the consider consider reviewing the anti-pass-through would actually go away also because that's just another one of the list items so i think my what's that also is requirements the right word isn't methods a better thing to say additional energy efficiency methods as discussed not requirements

Seth, we are completely blowing your kind of mind right now on rules of etiquette, aren't we?

All right. I think we're going to just treat this this sort of discussion as one friendly amendment. Yeah. Yeah. And then just just fold it all into a single friendly amendment vote by the original movement and then we'll all vote. Then you'll vote on it. Yeah. And then to the chair's earlier point with the friendly amendment, you don't have to actually vote in the original motion because it was amended. So it just becomes a single motion.

I agree now. Finish typing this and see if it makes sense, and I'll do this.

Works for me. OK, so I would like to make a friendly amendment to the original motion. to direct staff to research additional energy efficiency methods as discussed at the meeting pending review of compliance with AB 130 and state law, and to direct staff to organize an energy efficiency meeting with the commission in the fall of 2026. I'll second.

Sorry, who was the original move-in?

The vice chair. The vice chair.

Vice chair Watson.

You were amending your own motion?

No.

Okay. No, I never made the amendment.

We don't have the, we never made the motion motion. We haven't made, we haven't done any of it.

I thought somebody read the original motion, motion language and then that's what we were trying to say before, but okay.

Okay. You want to start over?

Sure.

All right. So I'm going to, I'm going to start and then you're going to pick up. So I'm going to make a motion. Actually, I'm going to make a motion to adopt PC Resolution 2026-02, approving the City of Marina Energy Conservation Strategy to promote energy efficiency and further implementation of Housing Element Program 6.1. The energy efficiency strategy is subject to environmental exemptions per Section 15061 of CEQA guidelines.

I'll second.

He wants to make a friendly amendment.

I'll make the friendly amendment. Got it. Direct staff to research additional energy efficiency methods as discussed at the meeting pending review of compliance with AB 130 and state law. And to direct staff to organize an energy efficiency meeting with the commission in the fall of 2026.

I accept that friendly amendment.

And I second and accept it as well.

So Commissioner Simmons.

Yay.

Commissioner Jacobson. Yes. Chair St. John. Yes. Commissioner Rana. Yes. Commissioner Barron. Yes. Vice Chair Watson. Yes. Motion passes.

Commissioner Chang. Yes.

Commissioner Chang. Sorry. Yes. Commissioner Chang.

We were so close to having it just right.

Next. Did Commissioner Chang have a chance to vote?

He did. Okay.

All right. I did, Chair.

And now we're to Housing Element Program 9.2 presentations. Is it on? Okay.

Okay. Good evening, Chair St. John and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Mayer, Planning Services Manager with the City. This evening, the Planning Commission is requested to consider a number of recommended actions which collectively can be considered the City of Marina anti-displacement strategy. And the recommended actions are required to implement program 9.2 of the city's housing element as required pursuant to state law. Next slide, please. So the focus of this conversation again is to really kind of gather information and direction from the Planning Commission regarding this program, which is required by the city to pursue our housing element. So displacement is defined as involuntary relocation. Anti-displacement is a term used to describe policies and actions intended to support existing residents' abilities to remain living and working in the community. during periods of change in the housing market and local economy. Anti-displacement strategies therefore seek to reduce involuntary moves and promote housing stability for residents most vulnerable to market pressures. Jurisdictional policies to offset displacement may address housing affordability, tenant protections, preservation of existing units, replacement of units removed, relocation assistance, financing strategies, employment stability, resident outreach, and many others. Two forms of displacement may take place. The first, which is direct displacement, probably the most obvious, occurs when residents are forced to relocate due to redevelopment or rehabilitation activities. Tenants who are directly displaced due to development are entitled to relocation benefits and protections under state law. While these protections are required, they're largely reactive and do not address broader market pressures that destabilize availability of housing. Therefore, local jurisdictions like the city of Marina may and often do provide protections which exceed those codified in state law. The second type of displacement, indirect displacement, occurs when residents are forced to move due to rising rents, loss of naturally affordable units, changes in neighborhood conditions, or other market forces. Legal protections for indirect displacement remain very limited, which places lower income households, fixed income residents, and historically marginalized populations at greater risk of displacement. addressing indirect placement is therefore a key component of housing stability and fair housing planning. The city of Marina seeks to address the impacts of both direct and indirect displacement. Next slide, please. The City of Marina six cycle housing element covering the period of 2023 to 2031 recognizes displacement as a barrier to achieving housing goals and advancing equity. Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 686, jurisdictions are required to affirmatively further fair housing by addressing housing disparities and barriers to housing opportunity. Anti-displacement strategies are therefore an essential component of AFFH goals and implementation. The city's housing element program 9.2 directs the city to adopt an anti-displacement strategy. This evening, city staff will present a range of possible approaches to translate program 9.2 into actionable measures to successfully implement the city's housing element. So that's the focus of the conversation. Staff have identified implementation strategies that are consistent with Marina's housing element goals and feasible within existing and potential program structures. These recommended actions provide a framework of implementation strategies for the production of new affordable housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, protection of current residents through tenant education and strategic partnerships and engagement of stakeholders through distribution of relevant information. Community outreach, next slide, please. Community outreach and education are foundational to many housing element programs, particularly those related to tenant protections of fair housing. To that end, the city has established a partnership with Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, also known as Echo Housing, to support housing element outreach goals by providing residents with direct access to fair housing information and tenant resources. Through this partnership, city staff and Echo Housing have conducted one-on-one engagement with Marina residents on several occasions at the farmers market on December 7th of last year. And additionally, also hosted a housing rights workshop on December 20th of 2025. City staff expect to host quarterly workshops and continue engaging residents at community events consistent with housing element commitments to ongoing outreach. Next slide, please. So again, this evening the Planning Commission has requested to consider programs and actions forming a cohesive anti-displacement strategy. As such, staff have presented a list of potential approaches which further Housing Element Program 9.2 focus on housing preservation, affordability, and resident stability. These actions are intended to advance adopted goals without altering the substance of the housing element. Potential approaches appear on both this slide and the following slide. And there are several. So I'll go through them as quickly as possible. For instance, staff may, as the first listed, partner with nonprofits serving underserved residents to share information on fair housing tenants' rights and housing resources. So this is an approach the city has largely already undertaken. But the city can designate a liaison, for example, to affordable housing advocacy groups such as the Ecumenical Association for Housing, EAH Housing, Habitat for Humanity, Community Homelessness Solutions, ECHO Housing, and others in order to enhance city stakeholder coordination. Again, that's just a list of possible advocacy groups. The second possible approach is, for example, to develop a community engagement strategy to disseminate information on tenant rights, rental assistance programs, and protections. So to elaborate on that, in coordination with ECHO Housing, city staff can provide information, listing resources regarding tenant rights, rental assistance programs, and potential locations for relocation, post all applicable documents to the city's website, and distribute outreach materials through in-person community engagement events, such as staff visits to the farmer's market, community workshops, and others. A third potential approach is to partner with a housing share service to promote and support Marina's aging population. The city can, for example, identify and promote house sharing programs and opportunities such as available through Home Match Monterey and make relevant outreach information available on the city's website. A fourth possible approach is to address corporate ownership of housing. This is a more far-reaching approach than the first three mentioned. This approach research has demonstrated corporate ownership of housing may result in comparatively higher rents, greater likelihood for charges of ancillary fees beyond base rates, increased eviction filings, and neglected maintenance due to corporations focus generally on maximizing profits for shareholders. The city may consider studying and subsequently taking action to address, for instance, for-profit institutional ownership of rental housing stock. A fifth possible approach is to protect affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate by partnering with the housing authority of the County of Monterey and other affordable housing providers. So there, the city may consider a number of strategies for protecting existing residences, affordable residences, excuse me, such as providing a platform for public input following the time a property owner gives notice with the intent to discontinue subsidies or expiration of rent restriction and or coordinating early to identify sources of financing to enable nonprofit ownership. Again, kind of a more far-reaching measure there. Next slide, please. So additional potential approaches, again, for consideration appear on this slide. There's several, again. So the first one, restrict the conversion of lower-income housing units to short-term rentals to preserve long-term rental availability. So this is actually... a fairly uh pragmatic option so that as the city recently took action in support of this strategy capping the number of strs at 50 through our recent updates to our short-term rental ordinance so this is a again an approach that the city has effectively already undertaken or begun to undertake um the second here enact anti-retaliation policies for affordable housing tenants to prevent displacement resulting from enforcement or tenant landlord disputes the city can consider for example adopting a just cause eviction ordinance or policy in order to protect tenants from arbitrary discriminatory retaliatory evictions while ensuring that landlords can lawfully evict tenants when justified Another potential option is to pursue outside funding and partnerships to preserve or acquire naturally affordable units through community ownership models or nonprofit acquisition. So here the city can adopt an ordinance or policy promoting the formation of community land trusts to permanently preserve affordable ownership housing from low and moderate income families. Some strategies may include, for example, the first consideration of donation or sale at a discount of land in our buildings from the city's inventory to community land trust. The second potential option, support the development of CLT homes by reducing our waiving application and impact fees. Third potential option here is to relax zoning requirements for parking supply, lot coverage, or other development standards. A fourth potential option under this approach, making available similar regulatory concessions. Another approach, relocation benefits and right of first return, also known as right of first refusal or first right of refusal. Although existing state law does include protections for residents of deed restriction affordable units, the city may consider adopting an ordinance providing relocation benefits such as payment of two months rent and offering of a right of first refusal to occupants of any non-deed restricted, that is market rate unit proposed to be demolished. Another approach, return of foreclosed properties to the lower income supply. They're incentivizing purchase of foreclosed properties by affordable housing advocates can retain distressed properties as housing resources for the Marina community. Also preservation of expiring use properties. The city may consider creating a platform for public input following the time that a property owner gives notice of intent to discontinue subsidies or prior expiration of rent restriction. and finally there, provide information regarding programs which promote home ownership. And as we all probably know, home ownership benefits both the property owner in many ways, but also the city by cultivating a more stable population of increased civic engagement, the tendency for increased property improvement and upkeep, expression of community pride and organizational involvement and similar attributes, which promote the betterment of the city of Marina and its residents. To further homeownership, the city may identify, develop, and make available information regarding grants, loans, and first-time homebuyer assistance programs, and post this information on the city's website, among other ways of distribution. Next slide, please. Since the time of production of the staff report, staff have received several questions related to proposed changes, and those are shown here on this slide. And staff can later address these particular questions following the presentation. Next slide, please. Based on the information as previously presented, staff recommended the Planning Commission acknowledge the environmental determination and approve a motion to adopt a resolution as listed on this slide. Next slide, please. Of course, staff are available to answer any questions. Thank you very much. This concludes staff presentation.

Thank you. Planning Commissioners. Questions?

Thank you, Jeff. Thank you for the presentation. I have a question. In the packet that we received, there was one point that was not mentioned in the presentation. So was this kind of an oversight that you didn't notice, or was it dropped from the packet? And that was point 11? which refers to adapt a mobile home park designation in the general plan. And it was skipped in your presentation. I don't have page numbers.

Yeah, was that...

It was between pursue... After they enact anti-retaliation policies, I think pursue outside funding. That was the next bullet point. And then it skipped that one about mobile park home. And the reason I'm mentioning it, because I did have a question about it. So if you dropped it... I don't have a problem with that. But if you feel there, but it just missed on the presentation, then I just wanted to ask.

Thanks for that question. I think, unfortunately, it sounds like maybe the list of options was an older version than what was intended to be. produced for your review. So a couple that appeared, it sounds like in the version that you received were ultimately deleted from the list of potential approaches that were recommended the commission based on conversations we've had with city leadership. So I think that may be what took place here. because we have a total of um those uh the referenced um yeah we have a total of 12 approaches listed in the um the the document the version that should have been released to you all here i have 15 15. okay i think unfortunately perhaps an older version of the staff report was released for your review so the answer is that the mobile home That was deleted, correct, yes.

Okay, because I did have a problem with it. Thank you.

And I apologize for that.

That was clearly not intended. Exhibit where. I think that's what she was saying was included. We should.

Oh, I see. Okay.

I understood.

Right.

it did it's the the one that's down before yeah yeah so i think exhibit a was an old version right that's correct i think that's what took place unfortunately included in the packet yeah so there's a list of 12 total strategies or total approaches that was included the body the staff report and that was what it was intended to be distributed to the planning commission for review yeah so

Yeah, I think that's. Thank you for catching.

I apologize for that problem.

In the body of the staff report is the 12 recommendations. If somebody is listening at home and then I think we accidentally added. Exhibit A to the resolution, which had the 15. But I think what I hear Tim saying today is we're recommending the 12 in the body of the staff report.

Is that correct?

Yes, correct. Thank you.

Thank you, Guido, for acknowledging the clarification. Okay. Commissioner Jacobson?

Thank you, Chair. I understand these are all and what we're recommending or at least considering being done. As I have seen people in Marina having trouble with rent increases or being displaced or whatever it is, the one thing I always see is they keep posting, who can help me? Where can I get help? Who do I talk to? And this is another exhaustive list of who I can talk to and what I can do. Is there any possibility that we could establish a single point of contact?

for for housing and rent you know like rental issues or housing issues uh I think that's um a great suggestion and um maybe um Guido if you can uh provide a response to that I believe that the city is currently pursuing um hiring a housing manager uh and that would be that person you know who would be designated as the point of contact that would be great that would that would help a lot of people

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Jacobson. Any other commissioners questions? Comments? Commissioner Chang, please.

Thank you. Thank you, Timothy, for your presentations. I have two questions, as you listed. You have 12 recommendations, and which actions would you consider immediate priority, and which are intended as long-term policy for further study?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner Chang. So to acknowledge that Commissioner Chang provided a list of questions post-production of the packet. And so one of the questions was the one that Commissioner Chang asked just a moment ago. And so those would be, the immediate actions would be the first of those, probably four or five, to partner with nonprofits serving underserved residents to share information on fair housing, tenants' rights, and housing resources. So that's a fairly easy approach to attain, I think. And the city's actually already doing a lot of that type of work. A second approach would be to develop a community engagement strategy. Again, this would require work, of course, and engagement in and of itself, probably. So develop a community engagement strategy to disseminate information on tenant rights, rental assistance programs, and protections would be a second. reasonably attainable option in the short term. A third would be partner with the Housing Sheriff Service to promote and support Marines aging population. Again, there are advocacy groups that already do such a thing. Another fourth would be probably The relocation benefits and right of first return or first right of refusal, that would be, again, another relatively short-term approach that could be taken. And as I mentioned earlier, the approach related to short-term rental benefits. uh the the approach states restrict the conversion of lower income housing units to short-term rentals to preserve long-term rental availability again that's something the city's actually already undertaking so i think those five would be reasonably attainable in the the short term and the others would be either more aspirational and or kind of longer term approaches okay and

The second question is about the, I'm not sure about your policy. Will you distinguish between large institution ownership and smaller local property owners and who only own maybe one to four units and they are renting it out? And will you provide any exemption to the smaller property owner? Right.

So thank you, Commissioner Chang. So again, I think part of really what we're trying to achieve, again, is direction from the commission about approaches related to housing element implementation. question is kind of and the attorney can correct me if i'm wrong on this but it seems to be getting more in the realm of private property rights but i think the approach that was as it was phrased is it essentially uh intended to address corporate um housing ownership and that being you know corporations that are essentially answering to their stakeholders. And so smaller property owners typically would not be corporations, so I don't think would be included within that approach. So the idea is these are the large housing conglomerates that really are kind of typically owned by folks that don't live in the community and aren't necessarily directly tied to Marina. So again, I think that to answer that question most clearly, probably folks that were owners of one to four units or a smaller number would not even fall within that approach.

Thank you. That's a good news because the smaller owner-occupied property, most of them are family-owned or retiree, senior, and short-term rentals. If you could differentiate them from the large corporation, I think that is a great thing. Thank you very much. Absolutely.

Thank you, Commissioner Chang.

Any other questions or discussions? Public comments.

We have nobody online wanting to comment. No one online wants to comment on this item.

Okay, then we will close public comments.

Chris, who do we have actually online today? Who do we have online tonight?

The guest and a Zoom user. That's all it says. Vice Chair Woodson.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

And we are open for a motion. You can put the motion on the screen.

Chair, I move to adopt Resolution 2026, Approving the City of Marina Anti-Displacement Strategy Addressing Housing Element Implementation and Advancing Housing Protections for Residents Most Vulnerable to Housing Market Pressures. The Anti-Displacement Strategy is subject to environmental exemptions per Section 15061B3 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Vice Chair Woodson? Commissioner Barron?

Yes.

Commissioner Rana?

Yes.

Chair St. John? Yes. Commissioner Jacobson? Yes. Commissioner Simmons?

Yes.

Commissioner Chang? Yes. Motion passes.

Additional items? Bribes through memorandums?

One second. I'll just give a very, I don't have slides. That Brian's going to take care of it.

so uh you know we always try to follow up on what the commission asked us to work on so we had a meeting about a month ago about drive-throughs and there was some confusion about where drive-throughs are allowed so brian prepared a very quick memo just articulating that different commercial zones do allow drive-throughs with a conditional use permit Drive-thrus are allowed in the transition zone of the downtown specific plan. And within the Dunes, drive-thrus are allowed. There is this weird quirk in the Dunes specific plan, and it just basically says... If the specific plan is silent on an issue or doesn't speak to it, then we have to revert back to the zoning code. And for the last one that the commission heard, therefore, it was allowed with a conditional use permit. Within Seahaven, they're not allowed. There was a question at that meeting about, are they allowed in Marina Station? They are not. And so we just wanted to clear that up because that was a question that was kind of unresolved from that hearing. And so that was just really just trying to follow up on a disinformational item for the commission. So that concludes my very brief overview.

Just to comment, it Has there been any pushback from the Dunes since the Planning Commission disallowed the drive-through service for that? For the gas station? For the gas station, gasoline station. Any pushback?

The applicant did file an appeal, which is going to council on June 2nd.

Okay. That's good.

All right.

The next item the Commission asked us to do some follow up on two projects. So the first one is at 3125 DeForest. This is the property directly abutting the MST site. So that permit is good until December 13th, 2026. And they are eligible for two one-year extensions. So that permit could be alive for another two years. And then the commission asked for an update on 3298. They are going through the plan check process. They will be potentially filing for an extension, but there's also a request to potentially modify that permit. So that the more details to follow on that, but yeah, they're actively pursuing building permits.

and potentially could be seeking a modification to the permit so those were the two that commission asked for updates on so design plans they do they're going through plan check right now with the building department so 3125 when we so i'm assuming the two the two one-year extensions that they have now are because of a new state change that's allowing them to do this because last year or two years ago, when we approved the current extension that they're on, we specifically said, this has come before us four times or whatever number of times it was, this is your last time they agreed to that. And so this should be a permit. There should be a, this meeting in December should be a permit verification at that point. not another two times one year extension because he has not come up with any plan whatsoever on funding or anything else to move that project forward. So I'm kind of uncertain. Why would this come forward as additional extensions?

because the city council and the commission updated the code last year that granted authority to have extensions on projects and also we're referencing in our letter ab2729 which extended permits out an additional 18 months so so basically we are stuck with another and i i am frustrated on this so we are going to be stuck for another 18 months with no funding options no plans

no follow-up on a prime piece of real estate that we have asked for development on for 10 plus years?

I mean, if the applicant files for the extension and they have the right to potentially get that extension.

Has the applicant submitted anything since the last permit, since the last approval?

No.

so in other words that statement that you made that um we wouldn't consider any more extensions that's now moot because of a new law that's correct and it's really not um these are extensions that would be done at a staff level so

That's how the code was rewritten when the commission and council changed that section of the code.

They're two one-year extensions. Just like the council was asking for other clients to be discussed at the council instead of the commission, we could ask that certain ones come to us. But it doesn't really make a difference at this point because it's a moot point. he's he's going to have 18 more months to submit nothing and that's fine and and he can be as upset with me as he wants because he's not it's just it's it's very this is very frustrating guido that we have a prime piece of real estate and we have a developer who is consistently just taking advantage of the laws and it's not even like he's suggest he's not even suggesting anything he's just not doing anything with the land

And we're just giving because this item is, is just agendized as an informational. I'm not even sure the, this person has been provided notice of this discussion or anything. We don't, can you clarify?

No, because they just asked for an informational update. I'm done.

I'm done, Seth. Okay, great. Thanks.

Okay. I, for the soft record, I share vice chairs, uh, frustration over this one. But what you're saying is that the request for an extension will come to staff and staff will grant it and they won't see it.

I'd have to reread that section of the code, but generally we grant those extensions, right? That's by our practice.

All right. Thanks. Item nine, announcements. No announcements at this time. Correspondence?

No correspondence. Adjourned. Thank you.