Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello. Welcome to this regular meeting of the planning commission this Tuesday evening, May 13th. I now call this meeting to order. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Hello, would you please call the role? Chair Patel, here. Vice Chair Nent, present. Commissioner Ednner. Commissioner Cler, present. Commissioner Williams, present. Thank you. Good evening and welcome. We are excited to be here in person with options for virtual participation. For those attending in person, complete a yellow request to speak slip and hand it to the clerk. If participating remotely, use the raise hand feature in Zoom and you'll be called on at the appropriate time. If calling in via phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and when called upon, press star six to unmute. These options for public comment will remain available until I close the public comment period for that specific item. And finally, we welcome speakers providing public comment, but please be advised this is a limited public forum. As such, speakers must stay on topic if speaking to a particular agenda item. If speakers fail to follow these rules, they will be warned and if they continue to disregard our rules, their opportunity to speak will be ended. The first item on the agenda is the consent calendar. Hva, would you please read the consent calendar? Item one, planning commission meeting minutes approval. Approve the minutes of the regular meetings of 211 2025 and 225 2025. Is there any member of the commission who would like to pull any item from the consent

calendar? Seeing none, are there any members of the public who wish to comment on any consent calendar item? Now would be the time to make your comment. This is for the consent calendar only. through the chair. We have no public comments. Great. Thank you so much. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar through the chair? I'll make a motion to approve the the calendar. I'd like to second that. Great. And for the vote, Chair Patel, yes. Vice Chair Nent, yes. Commissioner Ednner, yes. Commissioner Clater, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Great. Next on our agenda is public comment. Members of the public wishing to comment on any item not appearing on the agenda may address the planning commission at this time. State law prevents the commission from taking action on any matter not on the agenda. Your comments may be referred to staff for follow-up. Public comment is generally limited to a total of 15 minutes. However, that is subject to the commission's discretion and can be extended if the commission wishes to do so. We'll now open the public comment period. Um, if there are any members of the public attending in person, please turn in your speaker slip now. And any remote attendees wishing to comment, please raise your hand now. through the excuse me through the chair we have two inerson commenters and none

on Zoom. Okay, great. Since we have two commenters, um each commenter is allowed three minutes of time. Noia, if you could come to the podium first, please. The timer is set for 3 minutes. Thank you. Uh good evening. I hope this is a surprise that I'm here. Um just want to uh I came here this evening to uh thank um Commissioner Abnett and Commissioner Nent for their many years of service in person. And I want to talk a little bit a little bit about um how proud it's made me to know um that you two have been on this commission um reflecting what I think is the best of our city um and doing hard work to uh make fair decisions and do what is best for our community in terms of housing. And uh I think back to when I met each of you many years ago and Commissioner Abner, I think it's it may it may have been close to 10 years now actually. And uh I think you've seen me grow as a leader in this community, in our city, in our county. And um your steadfast support and um commission a commission um dedication to your values has always been something that

um has brought me a lot of joy. And um you know, I've got to go to your summer parties, which are really fun. And um I'm just really proud of of the work that you've done here and of your advocacy in in our community for a San Monteo that welcomes and houses everyone. uh for a Samato that um really values everyone here and does so not just in words but in actions and in policy decisions. And I don't think that's common enough all the time. And Commissioner Nent, I think we we've known each other a little uh a little probably around half of that time. Um, and I remember when I met you, a mutual friend of ours introduced us to introduced us to each other and it really came off to me as um, you the thing that stood out to me about you was your humility and um, also how beautiful your home was and how how good of a neighbor you were and how much you respected the neighborhood that you moved into and really wanted. um to keep that neighborhood's characteristic and also um be super welcoming as well. And uh it's been an honor to know you and your family, your amazing wife, your beautiful child, your your dog child as well. Um so, thank you so much. and I have some commendations for each of you on behalf of um the board of supervisors and I just want to thank you each for your many many years of service and um it's an honor to know you and be be friends with you all. Thank you. Thank you supervisor for your comment.

[Laughter] Carol, you can please come to the podium. I didn't realize it, but uh I am here this evening to echo Noelia Corso. I uh my name is Carol Eldridge and I've come because I have too wanted to thank John Ednner and Adam Nent for their service on this commission. Would it be possible to find two people who took their rules more seriously who worked more assiduously to ensure the sustainability of our community and who in the process upheld the interests of all of those living in the city? Would it be possible? I think it would not be. So, it's only been in the last few years that I've come to understand the extent to which land use created the pronounced inequality in this country. It has been a sobering education for me. But just as land use helped dig us into a hole, it can also be an instrument for digging us out of a hole. These two commissioners both recognized this and they both worked in the context of planning to ensure that we would have in this community and in this country as widely distributed opportunity as we possibly could have something betrayed by our history but also something that is important to so many of us. So for that I thank you both. Thank you, Carol, for your comment. Chair Patel, we have one public commenter via Zoom. Great.

Jonathan, if you could speak. The timer is set for three minutes. Thank you, Commissioners Ed and Nin. Jonathan Stone with Prometheus Real Estate Group. On behalf of our organization, I want to thank you for your time and service to to this wonderful city. Your leadership and guidance throughout the years has been great to see and be a part of, and the city is better for it. Thank you again. Thank you, Jonathan. to the chair. We have no more public comments. Thank you. We will go ahead and close the public comment period. Um I will mention that for our public commenters in person, if you planning to stick around to the end of the meeting, there will be a small celebration afterwards and you are welcome to join us. Okay. The next item on our agenda is the housing element implementation zoning code amendments and below market rate inclusionary program update. We will start with the staff presentation and move to public comments. Members of the public are given two to three minutes to speak depending on the number of speakers. Once the public hearing is closed, the chair may ask staff to respond to any public comments and the commission will ask clarifying questions, deliberate, and render a recommendation to the city council. Okay, just getting the technology to work. Uh, I'm Steve Golden, principal planner in the planning division. And, um, tag teaming on this one is Rachel Horst, the housing and neighborhood services manager, and she's attending virtually with us. So, I'll begin the presentation and then um, Rachel will also be presenting to us as

well. Okay. So, uh, just want to give you and the folks here a little background to begin with. So, after a multi-year process, the city of San Monteo adopted our housing element. Uh, city council adopted on May 20th, 2024, and it was certified by the California Housing and Community Development Department on July 23rd, 2024. As you know, there's five goals to support uh the compliance with state law and to achieve the scen the city's regional housing needs. It's supporting production, preservation, protection, promotion, and affirmatively further fair housing. It includes uh 53 policies and 150 implementation action items. and we're going to discuss um three of those implementation action items tonight. There's um numerous housing element policies and programs that require zoning code amendments. Uh we adopted some in 2024. We've been doing some this year in 2025 and there'll be some forthcoming hopefully in 2026. So to dive in those a little bit more, uh we adopted two ordinances in November 2023. The first increased the threshold for housing projects up to 25 units. Um as you know, we increased that again last month. And then the second adoption in November 2023 was the objective design standards for multifamily residential projects and mixeduse projects with residential

components. And in then in July 2024, as part of the housing element adoption, the city established a byite designation for housing sites that we re reused in uh prior housing elements, and those had to meet certain affordability and density requirements. Last month, the council adopted two ordinances to implement um a variety of housing element action and program items and um pursuant to and consistent with state law. Um and in that ordinance, the council increased the zoning administrator threshold for residential projects uh to 99 units. there was just giving you some additional information of when your recommendation went to council. They did look at that threshold and they thought that 99 units was an appropriate uh threshold for zone administrator approval and they did also adopt code sections for the general plan and measure T consistency. So tonight we're looking at more zoning code amendments and uh we've kind of categorized them in three buckets. The first one is um streamlining the development review process which is um part of policy H1.6. There's essentially three items that I'll discuss that fit within that bucket. We are also addressing or requiring minimum densities and mixeduse residential development projects part of policy H1.9. And we're updating um the city's below market rate or what is otherwise known as the inclusionary program um and policy

H1.3. And specifically, we're we're um adding guidelines for the on-site um well, alternatives for the on-site affordable housing requirements. So, we're proposing uh one ordinance to update zoning code amendments and then a resolution to update specific guidelines in the city's u BMR program or inclusionary program. So in the first bucket of streamlining the development review process, again there's there's three items in here. The first one is establishing an appeals process for a project that is determined by staff to be incomplete. So this is when an applicant submits an application, we have a list of requirements that the applicant has to um fulfill. If staff believes and determines that the application is incomplete, state law under the permit streamlining act says that we have to give that applica that applicant and appeals process. It out state law outlines the the general requirements but um we do need to adopt a a code to address how the appeals process will be completed. So, state law um does require that we have to make a a written determination within 60 calendar days and we are choosing the planning commission to make that final determination. And we also determined that an applicant needs to make that appeal for an incomplete determination within 14 days of staff making that determination. So, that's the first item in this bucket. The second item is amending the zoning code uh to allow the zoning administrator to approve up to

two extensions each for up to two years. So currently um there is one two-year extension that's allowed. an initial planning application. It's approved for two years and then the applicant needs to submit a building permit application within the that 2-year period and they get an additional 6 months to pull the building permit. So in total, a building permit needs to be pulled within 2 and 1/2 years from the planning application approval. Um, this amendment would um change that to give the two two-year extensions or a total of 6 and 1/2 years from the planning application approval. Um, we are recommending to remove language which automatically extends an application when there's an associated tenative subdivision map. So, it's a little bit of um um I guess credit for us removing this automatic extension to give a developer up to two years in addition to the existing 2-year extension. There are findings that have to be made. So, a developer doesn't automatically get the two two-year extensions, but um we're proposing this in the code. And then the final item under streamlining the development view process is modifying the requirements when a development project is supposed to go to city council for approval. So currently the zoning code requires all projects over over 55 ft in height to go to city council for approval. Um given

the fact that our general plan has now changed um the maximum heights allowed in a variety of um a variety of zoning districts. Um we have recommended this to be uh increased and um I think the graphic yeah sorry. So, this just gives an example of where we have um a variety of of building height maximums. And you can see that in different mixeduse districts, we allow all the way up to eight stories. And so a project that is consistent with the height allowed in the general plan would either go to the zoning administrator because we are trying to streamline the process and council allows up to 99 units um to go to the zoning administrator. So if it's 99 units and up to the height allowed in the general plan then it would stay at zoning administrator. If it goes over the heights, our proposal is if it goes over the heights in the general plan, then that's when it would go to city council. We have not defined a um numerical value for stories. We are working on that and we believe that'll be probably one of the first things that will be addressed in the comprehensive zoning code update. just to give um some Okay. Well, um I'll go into the next um the next bucket, but that's that's the last um streamlining um

proposal that we have for um for the projects that would go to uh city council. So, in the second um bucket of of proposals for the zoning code amendments, um we're looking at uh policy H1.9 in the housing element. We committed to establish minimum densities for mixed use residential projects and um those are based on general plan um 2040 land use designations. We did discuss this or staff took this item in a council study session on August 14th of 2024 and the council directed staff um that they were interested in minimum densities for mixeduse housing development projects and they were also interested in establishing higher d higher minimum densities near Cal Train stations. So what is before you tonight is our proposal to establish minimum densities in all mixed use land use designations that were established in the general plan um with slightly higher minimum densities for areas within a half mile of the Cal Train stations. So up on the slide is what we're proposing when projects are within a half mile from Cal Train stops and um and then also outside of the half mile from Cal Train stops. You can see where we have um categorized some of the land uses within the Cal Train stops with slightly higher densities than um I should say minimum densities than those outside of that halfmile radius area.

Uh and this is the graphic from the general plan showing the um land use designations and those halfmile areas that are outlined in the dashed line and we can come back to this if you um want to look at that more. Okay. So, the third bucket is our zoning code amendments to update the city's below market rate um program. And I'm going to turn it over to Rachel. Thank you, Steve. Good evening, commissioners. Um the zoning code amendment that I'll be discussing is, as Steve said, updating the city's below market rate or inclusionary program. These words can be used interchangeably in this presentation. This aligns with policy H13 in the housing element. As Steve mentioned, H13 uh the goal of H13 is to increase affordable housing production through various means including by updating the BMR program and specifically by allowing more compliance options than what exist today. These amendments will provide alternatives to what we call the on-site requirement. So the baseline requirement right now under the ordinance is to provide 15% affordable units at either at the lower income level for rentals or moderate income for for sale. This is for developments of 11 or more units. Doing this is also supported by state law, not only by the housing element implementation plan. And I should say that currently in the BMR guidelines, there is an option to build units

offsite, but this is limited to projects where building the units on site is economically infeasible. And so the onus is on the developer to demonstrate that. and it's limited to those developments where the city council could make such findings or staff could make s such findings. So what we're looking at this evening is how to create some additional flexibility to incentivize affordable housing production. Next slide please. So staff researched many other jurisdictions. We provided a summary in the report as one of the attachments with a lot of jurisdictions and various compliance options as you'll see. It was hard to fit it all on one page, but the most common ones which are also provided in the report and are listed here are inloo fees. Now, we won't be discussing that really this evening because the developer pays a fee instead of providing or constructing the affordable units. That's not really the objective here of of of the policy of H13. And in addition, when an inluff fee payment is made, it does go into a pot of funds that that are intended to support affordable housing production. But there could be a year'slong delay before those units are built, and those funds need to be leveraged with other funds to to create those units. So, we're looking at other options as an alternative to the on-site. Land dedication is another one that you'll find in many jurisdictions either code or in their accompanying guidelines. And this is basically where the developer provides a site other than the one where they are building the main development and that site is used for off-site affordable unit construction. But the dedication part is that the developer provides the land. Sometimes

it's to deed to the city. often the the preferred method is to a development partner such as a nonprofit development partner to then build all affordable units on the site. There's the off-site construction option which is in many jurisdictions ordinances today. This allows for a developer to build the affordable units off-site. Whatever is required of the project, those units can be constructed offsite. There's acquisition and rehab. So this is a um an option that several cities have, several jurisdictions have that allows a developer to acquire some existing units that are naturally affordable units that require some degree of of rehabilitation and they do that and deed restrict the units and that fulfills their affordable housing requirement. Now, doing that can be quite complex because the city has to establish an equivalency of how many units are required by the affordable housing or inclusionary ordinance and how many units are being provided um through the acquisition and rehab, but some cities do have this option. And then there is the developer proposed alternative which really varies. Some cities leave it extremely open-ended. propose propose an option to the city and the city council will find whether or not um it is an acceptable alternative. So we have bolded two of these here off-site construction and developer proposed alternative and I will get into those in the subsequent slide. But before we move to the next slide, I also want to point out that while we are looking at this specific um update to the BMR program and the ordinance, there will be a comprehensive BMR program revision in 2026. This is also in the housing element. So that will allow for additional analysis of all of these options and further additions and amendments to the policy and to the

ordinance. Next slide, please. So, what staff recommends this evening is that the planning commission recommend to um amendments to the um the code to allow for these uh updates to the city's ordinance and I should say the city's ordinance is very short. Most of the BMR program or policy is found in the BMR program guidelines. And so that's why Steve mentioned there is a resolution this evening because it is important to update those guidelines. That's where all the the information is for how to comply and what the requirements are of the of the ordinance. So, the two options are the off-site construction option as I mentioned and this both of these options would have to be approved by the city council and the way that the city council would make that determination is to make these findings which we've put into the guidelines in the track changes document that was attached to the report. These include meeting or exceeding the affordable unit requirement. So whatever that requirement was, the 15% affordable units either at lower income or moderate income, the developer must demonstrate that this can be met by building the units offsite. The site itself also has to be consistent with the general plan and housing element. So it needs to be possible to build those units on that site. Uh there has to be a viable financing plan in place. So there has to be some evidence that it is feasible to build the units on the site. The the site and the and the construction of units on the site should further affirmatively further fair housing. So that's AFH here meet AFH objectives which are also in the housing element

and the units should be delivered concurrently. So it when the uh main development whether commercial development or mixeduse or um market rate development is completed the BMR units should also be made available and if not then the developer has to follow a phasing plan which is already provided for in the guidelines. Number two the developer proposed alternative is much more open-ended. It also would require city council approval and the city council would find that and this should say apologies meeting or exceeding the affordable housing requirement. So similar to the off-site compliance option also need the developer needs to demonstrate consistency with the general plan and housing element goals of the general plan and housing element in whatever this alternative is. There also needs to be demonstrated financial feasibility. Um, and if the proposed alternative, whatever it is, and it's often one of the other options that I went over on the previous slide, if the alternative cannot meet the affordable housing requirement, the baseline requirement, the on-site requirement such as it is, the 15%. Then the developer has to demonstrate that the project can provide greater public benefit than building the units on site. So, these are kind of the threshold findings for the city council to make that determination as to whether or not it's an acceptable alternative to the on-site baseline option. Um, and the next slide simply shows as I mentioned what needs to be done to make these updates. So, on the left is the affordable housing section there that will be updated slightly as you can see in the attachment uh to the report. And then importantly to the on the right is just a snippet from the below market rate

program guidelines. These were last updated in 2020 also by resolution and so this resolution would um update or amend those guidelines. Okay, I think that does it for the inclusionary portion and I'm going to hand it back to Steve. Okay. And then just finally some highlights on what's to come. Um, we are looking at amending the city's ADU ordinance, uh, which is in chapter 27.19. We do need to align it with state law and resolve cons inconsistencies identified by HCD. We did receive a letter uh in November of 2024 um from HCD and the city did comment back or respond back to the letter and we committed to updating the ordinance in 2025. And then under policy H1.7, we are committed to evaluating uh zoning code standards to support housing production. Those include uh covered parking, floor area ratios, um and then other parking, off- streetet parking requirements um to support housing production. I would say that we are um currently implementing uh a law called AB2097, which you might be familiar with, which um restricts the city from requiring parking within a half mile of major transit stops. And we're also implementing parking reductions under the density bonus requirements uh that developers can receive um parking reductions as an incentive. So we are um although our code hasn't been updated, we have been implementing um these

policies. And then for tonight, um, we are proposing the adoption of the ordinance to be categorically exempt under SIGUA guideline 15183, which is projects consistent with a community plan or zoning. Uh, the city did adopt an EIR for the general plan. And um, the proposed project tonight is consistent with the densities that are proposed in the general plan. and there's no unusual peculiar impacts that the project tonight would um propose. So, we believe that it's consistent with um that uh SQA exemption. With regards to public comments and noticing, we did notice it in the newspaper um the planning e newswsletter that gets sent out via email and the planning division's what's happening web page. and we have not received any public comments on this item. So, with that, uh, staff is recommending that the planning commission recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance to amend, uh, the zoning code title 27, uh, which to address affordable housing compliance options, including development of of off-site units or, uh, developed alternative and also code amendments to amend the planning application procedures and also code amendments to m to for minimum densities for residential mixeduse development projects. We're also staff is also recommending that the planning commission recommend city council approval of a re a resolution to update

the city's below market rate program. And that concludes our presentation and after public comment, we're happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you so much. Um I believe typically we do public comment first before we ask our questions. So I will go ahead and open um public comment for this agenda item. If there is anyone in person who would like to speak on item number two, housing element implementation, please submit a speaker slip at this time. If there's anyone watching who would like to comment via Zoom, please raise your hand at this time through the chair. We have no public comments. Okay. Thank you so much. I will go ahead and close public comment for this agenda item. Um now I will look to my fellow commissioners to ask if anyone has any questions for staff. Commissioner Clara, would you like to go first? Uh, well, I I had asked a question and um we were talking about it for a minute before the meeting, but I'll reiterate it now. um about um I was looking at the BMR uh guidelines and I know there was a comment about how we wouldn't touch on fees but I was looking at the existing you know fees and um I had a question about projects that fall in that sort of four to 10 unit or I guess 5 to 10 unit um area where um we were currently asking uh developers or applicants to pay a an inloo fee and I was just trying to figure out how any projects in that range have actually been um applied for or constructed in the last uh few years.

I don't have a number on the off the top of my head. I'm sure we could come up with that number, but um in the and I should say I have been here for a year. So, in the year that I've been here, there has been um one development, I think, where there was an inloo fee payment, but it actually was to pay for a fraction of a unit. So, the in fee comes into play when the unit is between that five and 11 or when the calculation for a larger development leads to a fraction of a unit. So, I think the only time I've seen it in my time here is a fraction of a unit. I don't think there have been very many applications where this this fee payment is is comes into play. Okay. Yeah. Because I had also looked at the um the fund the blow market rate fund and it appeared to have stayed pretty flat from 2019 2020 to now about 258,000 in there I think. Yeah. It is not it's not ballooning from all these payments. Absolutely. Yeah. I think that was the one question that I had asked. Commissioner Meter, any questions through the chair? If we could go to slide five of 17, please. So I see that the you have to appeal within 14 days um to the city um and the planning comm and the

planning commission has to reply within 60 calendar days. Is the appeal 14 calendar days or 14 working days? It would be 14 calendar days. Okay. Um and slide eight on 17, please. So why have we determined that a half mile within a half mile location of a cow train stop and without and outside of the half a mile why are we going with different minimum densities? So this is also consistent with the transit oriented communities or TOC policy that MTC um is um heading which we got a grant for. So it's in in looking at what their policies are. We're trying to align where we would like to see more density. And so within that halfmile area from a Cal Train stop, we believe there's opportunity to um require developers to have more density or at least minimum densities within that and outside of the half mile radius to allow developers to have essentially less density there. This is not maximums. These are just minimum densities. So, um, we'd still look at the general plan as far as maximum densities. So, I think it's just the the general idea of land use

near Cal Train stops to support the transit. And also if you look at the map, those mixeduse projects, you know, we we're looking at the the transit hubs and um being able to support more um dense uses within those areas and requiring developers to to provide that to the city. Okay. And and this was also a directive by the council to have higher densities within the areas located um in proximity to the Cal Train stops. Okay. Uh could you go to slide 12 please? So, for the off-site construction option, is this intended to be um standalone lowcost housing units or could they be built in mixed use units that are offsite doing, you know, a full range of residential units including um lowcost housing or how do how do you see this program being implemented? The findings that the city council has to make don't box it in to either one of those two options. I think realistically based on the few times that I've seen this alternative used in other cities, you you get a an offsite traditional or what you would expect affordable units on their own, but this does not preclude some

other proposal that may include those units. The importance is that the off-site option meets or exceeds what that development has to provide. So if the developer can demonstrate that and also meet these other requirements and and and show that the units can be delivered concurrently with the main development the the commercial or market rate development then then I I do not think that this option automatically eliminates that. It would just be probably a more more complex proposal. Sure. So, now that I'm thinking about it, so if you were actually trying to meet your requirement on an off and using the off-site construction option, um, how would you control not getting a higher state density bonus added to that project? or would there be an additional state density bonus for higher percentages of lowcost housing on that property? Well, density bonus is available to a project where it's it's one project. And so I think um the the law, state law defines that as it doesn't have to be on the same parcel, but they have to be contiguous parcels and they have to be one project. So in this case, if the developer were providing the units offsite, that would not be if unless the offsite is perhaps contiguous. I'm not sure. I haven't thought through that theoretical or hypothetical, but um constructing them offsite would not qualify the development further for density bonus.

Okay, great. That's it for my questions. I will have some comments later. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Nent. Do you have any questions? Yes, through the chair. I some of the questions I had were already asked. Um but uh they actually are on uh this zoning code amendment. Um the ones that I have remaining. Uh, the question I have first with the off-site construction option is would a developer contributing money towards a another um say um fully um fully subsidized, fully um um below market rate uh de affordable housing project that would be developed by another developer, say like a mid pen or something contributing money towards those units, but not that it would just be a portion of that that development. Would that be what we're talking about for an option for the off-site construction option? So, um say there's a concurrent um just market rate development and a a concurrent affordable housing development elsewhere. Is this saying that the developer could pay whatever number of units that would be required of that market rate development inclusionary program towards this separate development to meet the off-site construction option. Is that what we're talking about? Or does it have to be a separate building that just contains the percentage that would be included within the market rate development? I think the most straightforward application of this option is that the developer controls multiple sites and is

the one constructing the main development and the one constructing the offsite units because they control the they control everything. They control the site. They they control the financing. They control the timing. So that's I think what is contemplated under this under this umbrella of off-site construction. By the same token, again, and you can see what's in the guidelines, what we've proposed. Could there be a very creative proposal that happens to meet these criteria and doesn't run into some what I would imagine are some some pretty big roadblocks to being able to meet all those criteria by doing something like like what you described. that would be I think that would be up for the city council to consider and decide on. Um but again it would have to meet the same bar. So it would be much more difficult for the developer to do. So I think you know in in terms of the intent and the what we've looked at other what other jurisdictions do we are really contemplating that one developer doing this but again you know that might fall into the developer proposed alternative number two right where if the developer can make that arrangement and make that case then it could be possible. Okay. Okay. Um, thank you. The other question on this topic I had was regarding specifically meeting AFH objectives. Is there do we have any criteria for that? Is it about making sure that the off-site um affordable component is within a similar [Music] um level of um oh um my mind is so um resource

resource yeah resource area um is that what we're talking about? Yes, that certainly that certainly would be one of them. One of the more obvious ones. Yeah. Yeah. I we we left it more open-ended than that because we have you know a whole AFH um plan in our in our housing element and and analysis. So it's not only that but that would be absolutely one of them. Yes. If the developer showed that where they're proposing to build is in an equally perhaps the main development is a high resource area. It's an equally high resource area that that would certainly be in the direction of meeting AFH objectives. Okay. Okay. Uh thank you. Um and then uh so for this inclusionary program would the 2026 uh anticipated revisions and reook at this is this also corresponding to the housing element policy H1.3 or is that a different policy that we're talking about? It's a different it's a different policy. there's an additional policy in the implementation plan that obligates the city to to undertake a revision. So, it's not only under um as we've been discussing for the um for just an alternative to the on-site. I do not have the exact policy number on the off the top of my head. That's okay. You you answer my question. Yeah. But yes, it is there is more in the housing element that obligates the city to take a big look at just an overhaul of the program, a potential overhaul of the program and not only zooming in on um alternatives to the on the on-site option. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions, Commissioner Williams. Okay. Thank you.

Um I have a couple questions. So, regarding the BMR inclusionary program, um, uh, I guess my I maybe these are more comments, but I'll I do kind of want to know the background of this, I guess. And so when I think of Sanonteo, which is a fairly diverse city in terms of economic diversity, um, you know, I I guess I can see where this is going. But my I can't help but think about how in some cities in our region that are, you know, high high uh high income, high cost cities, you know, small cities like Hillsbor or something that are not necessarily as economically diverse as us. um you know, doesn't this allow the developer to separate out affordable housing and sort of um isn't it sort of counterproductive to the idea of sort of integrating affordable housing within a project and a region and a community? And I I mean I guess that's a bigger question that maybe is part of comments, but I I'm just wondering did the authors what exactly is the intent that the authors of this had? Um is it really just to sort of streamline housing in any manner possible? Can is that too is that too big of a question to ask? I think it's one of the things that we that we often think about when we look at our inclusionary program is if our objective is to is the delivery of affordable units and that's the only one then what is the what are the most um effective ways of getting there but I think as as you're stating the there are other objectives it's not only we want to produce affordable units we want to meet the city's housing needs

we want to affirmatively further fair housing we want to um expand access to opportunity through um the location of housing. So you know access to amenities etc. We want to be consistent with the general plan and housing element which go beyond just saying we want to produce more affordable units. So whenever we look at our inclusionary or BMR ordinance, we have to look at what are potential tradeoffs and what um what is that equilibrium, you know, where where we're getting we're getting units. Perhaps not all of those units are are within a larger market rate or or a mixed use or a development. Um I will say that the flexibility is important as well. So that that's another that's another factor in incentivizing the production of units. And this is one of the chief reasons why other cities have these these options. It's why state law has has really pushed jurisdictions to go beyond just requiring on-site because there are simply some developments where building offsite makes more sense. The findings that we developed for both one and two are intended to act I think a bit as guard rails to make sure that what is being built offsite is not just it's the affordable units over there and you know they're they're just separated from this from this larger development but it actually serves you know multiple multiple ends even though the units are offsite. So, you know, the the bar is higher for for for doing either one of these two options than just than just building the units as part of the main development, right? So, I don't know if um if Zach wanted to make any comments on that, too. But, but I I think that's that's it's an important point and it's it will certainly be part of the excuse

me of the 2026 revision is thinking about how do we strike that balance. Mhm. Um, and then one other question just to kind of make sure I'm clear on it. So, these are what's proposed and if we like if I I mean I hear what you're saying and that makes sense, but if if they weren't acceptable for instance to the planning commission um then we would have the default of the inloo fees um as the as our default uh required option. Is that correct? Um we don't currently have the inloo fee as an as an option. It's um it applies specifically to when the the development is smaller. So the the 5 to11 units or when there is a like I said a fraction of a unit required. Um and so a developer can't just say I'm going to pay I'm going to fee out I'm going to pay the inland fee and not build the units. That's not an option. Um well I guess my question is in order to meet the requirements um we you know staff is recommending these two options if we didn't like these two options let's say I'm not saying I don't but I'm just saying like you know what does the city or planning commission or you know what's the fallback I guess for um you know we there was a number of different options and these these two. I mean, I'm I'm not saying they don't make sense. I just want to know what the process is if we didn't have this. I see that like some cities, you know, like Newark, for instance, just has the ENL fee. They don't or maybe they have something else, too. They have Oh, they have the alternative also. So, I'm just wondering what the law require or what the um what the policy allows for. I mean, you may have talked about this

already, but I guess I want to clarify that. Well, the commitment in in the housing element doesn't say that you have to have an off-site construction option, right? It does say it's an alternative to on onsite. So, I think if the planning commission did not agree or support these options this evening, then we would have to come up with other ones. We we definitely still have to develop an alternative to the on-site option. I think leaving the status quo is not an option, but um there as as you can see there are other iterations of that. Um and so we would have to go back and and go back to the drawing board. Zack. Okay. Okay. Good. Um if I could just build off of pardon me, hello Zack, community development director. Um just wanted to build add a few more points to what Rachel was saying about this one. state law does require that we have an alternative to our standard um inclusionary requirement. So I think the starting point for any project is you have to comply with our inclusionary program which is if you're over 11 units or more you have to provide at least 15% of your units base density as um affordable within the project. So that's kind of the default if say um the commit planning commission didn't like the proposed alternative and there would be findings that go along with it but state law does require this. The other thing is in order to be eligible for density bonus concessions and waiverss the units have to be provided if they pay in lye that that they lose their eligibility under state density bonus law. So there al a project is motivated generally um to build the units rather than try to fee out because of the access to density bonus concessions and waiverss. Um and I think the key is these are alternatives and so we would start with compliance with our BMR program. However, if for various reasons that the developer articulates that doesn't work, maybe the location of their project isn't optimal

for housing and so maybe there's a better location for housing and then they can do office or commercial or the other uses they're proposing on their site and then they have a different site that maybe is more conducive to housing. So that might be a scenario where it makes sense to not include housing on the primary site but they want access say to concessions or waiverss. So that might be a scenario where it makes sense, but I think looking at those findings and a higher bar, ideally we're looking at maybe a higher than 15% inclusionary requirement. So it's offsite, but maybe they're giving us 20 or 25% of the units. So those are kind of some of the things that would also play into this. Well, thank you for that. and that but my question isn't so much um that as from a state point of view what I if we if we're trying to come up with a zoning code amendment to um comply with this state requirement and you know item one and two on screen are not the only options there's a whole bunch of different things I guess my question is is is there like a default that um I mean we don't necessarily want to go with the default. These are well thought out but um I I have a hard time understanding what the authors of this um requirement were intending and in lie of fees for instance if that's the default to me that doesn't really um meet the objectives of getting housing completed. So anyway, I don't mean to belabor it, but I I I don't I don't find it very um clear like what the state wants, for instance, or what their state requires, I guess I should say. Um but I think I'll move on to my other question. And um my other question is about the um the

the um streamlining um of the approval process. So in appealing an incomplete determination um it seems like a developer may get a pass on some potentially component potentially important components of an application. So, I want to know from staff if um if they see, you know, two two questions, I guess. How likely is this appeal to process to be even utilized? And secondly, like does staff see that that there's a potential for some important components to be left out of a app submitt uh application through the chair. Um, I think state law has this requirement in the permit streamlining act for cities that may act unfair. I'll just use unfairly against a developer to keep on saying a project is incomplete when maybe a developer thinks that they have submitted all the materials and the city keeps asking for the same materials and not letting them have a completeness to move move on in the process. I don't work. I mean, we're collaborating with developers and after we send an incomplete letter to them, we follow up with meetings and we're talking to them specifically about the materials that need to be submitted. And I think so far in my in my experience as a planner and experience with the developer so far in um working with the city, I don't see this coming up very often. Again, there are cities that I would say maybe deliberately or undeliberately or deny what they're doing, but maybe

delaying some of the the processing of applications. So again, it's kind of those guardrails for staff to work within our our requirements and then giving a developer a way to get the city to move along the process. Okay, that's if I may add to that, I think your specific question is what is to stop um potentially important components from being left out of the application? And I think the answer is the planning commission. If they appeal it to the planning commission, it's then on the planning commission to review the application and determine if it's complete. And so if something I would think if something obvious is missing, the planning commission would notice that. I I think that's a big responsibility for people that are not the same level of expertise as planning staff. However, I hear what you're saying, so that answers my question really well. I'm thinking of in terms of city of Sanonteo and not everybody's as great as city of Sanonteo. So great. Thank you. I mean I through the chair I would invite the city attorney to speak on it but um in the planning commission would be reviewing this as kind of a quasi judicial review. If if the if there if a applicant is asking for the planning commission to make a determination on an appeal, then you're kind of acting in that role in this situation. Okay. Well, thank you. All right. I only have one question that I apologize. I thought of during this discussion, so I did not ask staff ahead of time. Um on page three of the staff report and this is talking about the conditions that trigger the minimum density requirements. Um page three of the staff report says however in a few cases projects have provided only a small residential component to qualify

for concessions and waiverss under the primary state density bonus law to benefit the commercial component of the project. I just wanted to confirm how many units of residential are required to be eligible for the state density bonus waiverss and concessions. I believe it is five, but wanted to confirm that. Correct. Okay, great. And that is why the recommendation is for five units or more. So, those were all of my questions. Um, shall we move on to discussion or do we have any more questions? No. Okay, great. I would suggest in order to keep this as streamlined and as um efficient and simple as possible that we go through 1 2 3 4 5 each of the five items before us one at a time and um if any commissioners have any comments or want to discuss we do them one at a time rather than trying to do them all at once. So, I would propose that we start by um discussing the um alternative compliance options for required on-site affordable dwelling units. So, the BMR alternatives. So, I will start by asking my fellow commissioners, does anyone want to discuss the recommendation of the staff? Yes, I had I had some comments on the BMR portion of the discussion tonight. Please go ahead. Okay. Well, through the chair. Um yeah, I I I had asked that question earlier about the um the lower unit projects like 5 to 10 unit projects because um you know I was thinking about some of the other uh policy goals that we have.

trying to think of a bit like holistically on this. Um and um I you know was asking that question about how many have actually been proposed because um you know I know that the the econ the economics of scale you know uh sometimes for missing middle um which is one of the um policy goals that we want to try and promote which is 8.1.12 sometimes you know for those types of projects you know you you might have um it might be more difficult to provide something on site. Um sometimes uh these fees can make those uh you know scales of projects um difficult to to pencil out and um you know the end result is we just don't see them because they don't get proposed and um so you know the end result is if it doesn't get proposed we don't we don't get any fees we don't get the housing um we just don't we just don't see it. So, um I just looking ahead to this comprehensive uh review um I was thinking it would be worthwhile to think about um 1.12 and 1.17 uh 1.12 which is um you know we want to uh promote um the production of missing middle housing which is that uh 4 to 10 unit scale and um with the goal of approximate has a goal of approximately 50 units of missing middle workforce housing. Um and um think about you know and then 1.17 which is uh study cumulative permit fees costs for new housing development of various sizes. Um you know if if uh we talk to you know talk to people who are are developing at that scale and

say you know like what's your per square foot cost you know what kind of fees can that scale support um or what kinds of things can that support like if like the other thing too is you know if we're proposing this alternative instead of the fee um if you're a small working on a small project, four to 10 units. You're not uh you know doing this large scale project. You don't have a spot where you can take this you know housing and build it elsewhere or you don't necessarily have Let me perhaps ask a clarifying question of staff to see if I can understand um what some of your concerns are. So I believe that currently for projects that are the small scale so projects that provide four to sorry I believe it's 6 to 10 units more than five units for projects that are below 10 units above five units and below 11 units I believe that is where right now we do not require the units to be built but we do ask for an enly is that correct yes that's correct and with these two alternatives that are being added the alternatives for off-site construction or an applicant to provide some other option. Would projects that are in that range of 6 to 10 units, could they make use of these alternatives as well or would they still be required to pay in Luffy? Um the the objective or the the intent was for it to apply to those those developments where there's an on-site requirement, which means there are 11 units or more. So these options would only apply to 11 units or more. Are are you saying that you would like these options to apply to the 6 to 10 unit projects

um through the chair? Um, yeah, I think I probably have to excuse if I started to ramble a little bit there. I think I think um uh I was I'm generally supportive I but I think of of the proposals for tonight, but I think um I like this idea that there's going to be this more comprehensive review uh in in 2026. And uh I think I think what I was getting at is I just like to kind of think about how we can use that comprehensive review to look at um these smaller scale projects and think about how these fees and how these other like and how flexibility um at that level as well um might make those missing middle um projects which we are also trying to support under a different policy goal um more feasible. Uh yeah because I ultimately I think I think we have to think about you know um flexibility um at all levels and in order to to make projects economically viable because ultimately um you know if we have if we end up saying like maybe the fee needs to be reduced or maybe the maybe the the numbers need to be adjusted in some way um some benefit is better than no benefit because ultimately um you know if it doesn't work we're just not going to see it. We're not going to know um because the only way we will know it's not working is because we just won't see any projects proposed. Sure. So I think we can consider that as part of the future. Yeah. Um investigation. Yeah. And so yeah, it's technically not it's not directly tonight, but I felt like, you know, now is a good time to bring it up and say, "Hey, let's think about this over the next year." Okay. U Great. Did you have any other comments or proposed alternatives to what the staff is recommending for the BMR specifically? Um I I appreciate that um there's a flexibil option for some more flexible, you know, flexibility to to uh project

applicants because again, you know, I think um you know, there's not going to be a one-sizefits-all solution for every project. Um the conditions are always going to be different. So I in general, I support the proposal this evening. Yeah, Commissioner Abner, I'm going to start calling on people. Do you have any comments about the options that staff is proposing? Uh through the chair, I do have a couple of um recommendations or questions. So, um, like Margaret, um, I am not a fan of building separate housing units for as BMR units, excluding them from being in what I'll call the general population for obvious reasons. Um, yet I understand the importance of having the ability to build elsewhere. I think that these recommendations will meet state requirements. Um yet I don't see them being all that feasible to be performed in the city of San Monteo because of the um difficulty in even finding spare land. Um but you know just to meet state law I think they make a lot of sense for the um below market resolution. I have a couple of recommendations andor comments. Um, I know that that part of the requirement is that the applicant must demonstrate via an economic analysis that on-site construction is infeasible. And what I'm curious about is who would pay for and contract to get that analysis done? And would there be an an option also to have a third-party

peer review of that analysis to make sure that we are getting accurate information to make our decisions on and that is a question to staff. We uh that language is in the guidelines currently and we are proposing to strike that language and not require that. Um so if I I I think I think I'm understanding you you were citing uh so the requirement to show that it's infeasible to build the units on the site. Correct. Is that part of the uh the the uh resolution going forward? It would not be in the guidelines. It would not be anymore. So they will not there will not be a financial analysis done that demonstrates that building the units on site is infeasible. No, because that's the specific um the specific language that is in the the guidelines right now because it's basically it's it's limiting it to the those developments where it's just not even possible to build the units on the site on the same site. Um I may ask staff to put the slide up that actually has the two options that are being proposed because those two options being proposed have bullet points underneath them showing exactly what would be required to utilize that option. So there's no economic analysis I believe required under either option. Um why wouldn't there be an economic analysis required? Um because these these two options would not require it to be in feasible would not require the onsite production or construction of units to be infeasible in order to allow the developer to to utilize either one of these two. Okay.

So there could be an economic analysis that that is required to support these findings. it just wouldn't be the same as what is currently in the guidelines which is really very clearly saying you have to show that it's not it's not feasible at all to build the units on a site. This is about providing developers more flexibility. So in Yep. Um, and I don't know how this would relate specifically, um, but for the rental unit affordable housing standards, and I don't have the page number that this is written on, but it's under, um, item number B, which is movein costs. And it says that the total cost and security deposits to occupy a unit shall be limited to first and last month's rent plus a cleaning deposit not to exceed one month's rent. So for this evening's discussion, how does that apply um as it pertains to these um um solutions, if you will? I believe you're referring to the section on the rental unit affordable housing standards. Yes. Okay. So, this is where um we restrict we say that the the rents are restricted to um to the levels that they are. Um yes, that would not be um are you asking if that would be affected by using one of these two alternatives? Well, it seems that that language um is um very costly for a family to um be able to cover those costs to be able to move into an affordable unit. And I was curious if that is a part of any of these discussions where, you know, this

is definitely a hindrance to a lot of people to be able to to even apply for affordable housing units. So if if our goal is to be make it easier for people to meet these standards, it seems like these move in costs are somewhat prohibitive. I think that's certainly something that would be part of the 2026 round of revisions. I you know because this one is focused on the on-site alternatives um looking at the what are essentially you know terms of rent rental terms of a lease or or lease up was you know it's just not part of the scope of tonight's specific code amendments but certainly when we open this up for a a full you know looking at a full revision that would that would be something that we that we take into account. Okay great that was all I had. Great. Commissioner Nent, any comments on the BMR proposals? My general sense of these two proposals, um, I don't think that either of these will likely get used. Um, I think that separate concurrent construction on two non-ontiguous sites seems to be too high of a hurdle for most infield development in a city like ours. Now, there might be an occasional project perhaps that could come along where that occurs, but it seems unlikely that that would occur. Um, that being the case, I'm not going to oppose providing this as an option. I just I don't have high hopes to see it come uh come to fruition. Um and then secondly, I think the developer proposed alternative is seems to have too much uncertainty uh and that developers would likely be unable to plan and perform and determine project feasibility without a

significant investment in a process that doesn't provide any sort of guarantees for approval. Um, I don't know it perhaps this the it's so open-ended the developer proposed alternative that it's really difficult to understand or wrap my head around when a developer would try to do that. Um, again, I'd be happy to be surprised if it if it does uh result in more units or a better outcome, but it to me it seems a little bit daunting for developers to to go through a process with so much uncertainty. Um, and then thirdly, I just to kind of piggyback on um some of the earlier comments, I I do I would recommend that in the future the city investigate a sliding scale on its affordable percentage requirement so that it might shrink for smaller sized projects and grow for larger projects in order to maximize our ability to get affordable housing produced. I think that if we can better accommodate um economies of scale with our affordable housing percentage requirements and it may prevent like on the low end the the infeasibility of smaller missing middle and then it might allow us to get more affordable units with larger projects that um we're just leaving on the table perhaps. So, uh, those are my those are my, uh, thoughts on this, but you would I'm just going to be super you'd be okay with, um, these alternatives. I'm okay. I'm just skeptical as these actually getting use. All right, Commissioner Williams, any comments on these? Um, well, I generally

agree with what Commissioner Nent said, but um I am still in addition to that though, I'm still a little unclear like if I didn't like these or if none of us liked these, what we would end up with. But um anyway, after considering it, I think that they are acceptable. I uh I mean, I was sort of thinking about like, well, where are they more likely? are they they're actually more likely in our city than in a city that is smaller and more um you know I don't know less commercial you know I could potentially see if a developer had two sites and wanted to do all the housing on one site and all of something else on another site. I don't know. It's I I think the key thing that will make me be feel okay about this is that um what Rachel said is that you know these are intended to be guard rails for us to be sure that we're meeting the overall goals of um bringing affordable housing along with some market rate housing And um so anyway um I I think I think if we if I when I if I analyze it too much I feel like it's counterintuitive to what we're trying to do. Why are we giving the developers so much flexibility? They you know they should be working within the same kind of um you know guidelines and and goals and that's not impossible. Okay. All of that said, I I think they're acceptable as opposed to inluff fees or nothing. Thank you. Um I have no comments on this one. So I think I am hearing a consensus

to agree to these two recommendations. Um the next item before us on the list is the provisions for appeal procedures for processing applications. So shall we go in the same order? And does anyone have any comments on these proposed changes or suggestions to revise them? Um if if you are concerned about what is being suggested. I see no from Commissioner Clafter, no from Commissioner Nent or sorry, Commissioner Nett. No, I I find that these are beyond my expertise to be able to provide any useful input. I think staff um kind of satisfied my questions great during the question period. And I mean does this also this streamlining piece also included the um additional two-year extension request which I uh support that. I think that that is um uh sort of the way projects go that we see people coming back for extensions as it is. So, I'm in favor of that. Great. Yeah, my my my note on that I I made a note. I just said sign of the times. Yeah, exactly. Okay, moving on to the next one. Sorry for me scrolling up and down in all my notes. Um is I'm going by the staff report. um modify provisions for planning approval expiration extensions. I think we just covered that as is part of the same one. Everyone's okay with the 2-year extension, it seems like. I just want to confirm. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. And then the next one is um modify language for approval authority of development projects that exceed height thresholds. So I'll go down the line

again. Any comments on this? Commissioner Cafter. Um, I I think this just brings brings it kind of in line with measure T, which made sense to me. Great. I agree. The revisions make sense to me. I'm seeing a yes from everyone. I have comments through the chair. Yeah. No, I I do also agree. I think that we may want to the city may want to come back and review um mixed use high uh in the future because the the um the density is 100 to 130 units per acre. We may find that a good port good portion of mixeduse high still is is commercial. Um, it's hard to know with with once you factor in density bonuses and such. Um, but it could be fine. I I just would recommend that this is something that we come back to look at after more projects come in in 5 to 10 years. So, I actually had a comment and a potential proposed revision to this one. Um, so anything that exceeds these height limits, well, what we're saying is anything that exceeds these height limits would then have to be reviewed and approved by the city council. I am wondering if we should propose an exception for projects that are utilizing state density bonus law. And I say that because um in many cases those projects that are using state density

bonus law well okay now let me think through this again. An exception I'm going to re revise my comment. An exception for projects that meet the definition of projects that are um protected by the Housing Accountability Act. Projects that are more than twothirds residential. I'm going to say that one. And I say this because there's a lot of limitations on the rejection of those projects. They can only be rejected if um the city finds that there's a specific and adverse impact to public health and safety. And the findings to determine that, you know, can be challenging. And so what I'm trying to avoid is an extra round of review on projects where the ability to deny them is very limited. And we talked about this a little bit briefly in a different scenario at a previous planning commission meeting where we were talking about projects that meet objective design standards and thus um cannot be denied. And we had discussed should those projects even be reviewed by the planning commission or could a decision be made at the zoning administrator level because they can't be denied then what is the purpose of coming before the planning commission and we as a body talked about well a real benefit of them coming to the planning commission is that it gives the public an opportunity to comment in a public hearing. So when there are concerns our community can feel heard even if we're very limited in acting on what those concerns are. And in this case, these projects will have already come before the planning commission. So they will have gone through a public hearing. There will have been an opportunity for concerns to be expressed. And so I wonder, does it make sense? Is it a valuable use of time for everyone involved for them to then have to go to the council afterwards as well?

So, are you proposing I am proposing an proposing adding an exception for projects that are at least 2/ird residential and meet um and and are protected under the Housing Accountability Act. Um just just want to interject one one thing that just want to correct one thing that you said though. We do have projects that could be up to 99 units that are approved administratively. So, they're not necessarily going to be heard at a public commission, a public meeting. So, just wanted to make sure you're a really good point. We could have projects that are under 99 units that exceed these height limits and the only public hearing would be if they were then approved by council. In that case, I may resend this suggestion because I think it would be too complicated to try to like carve out the use case of projects that are protected by the Housing Accountability Act and did have and were above 99 units. So they got the public hearing like that that then becomes really complicated to try to make that carve out and I don't know how many projects would fall into that category anyway. All right, I take it back. Any other comments on this one? I This is actually more of a question. So I don't know if this is calculable but with the minimum densities would do we know if if any mixed use development with uh residential is going to be 2/3 residential like is it just automatically two3 ends up being if it has resident if it's a mixeduse project

with our minimum densities that we're um proposing would a mixeduse project that has I think it depends on the parcel size. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it would it would depend. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm going to push us right along to what I believe is the last one before us, which is the minimum densities for residential mixeduse development projects. I'll go down the line again. Um I definitely uh definitely like this proposal. Um I had even before being on the commission had been reacting with some consternation to some of the projects in areas that could definitely have supported more density being used uh for you office buildings with a sprinkling of housing on top. And I just thought that was very very strange uh thing to be to be seeing um specifically here in San Mo for some reason. So um I I think this this uh makes a lot of sense just to maximize um the density that we have um you know our offering um particularly you know in along transit corridors downtown. I I think I think this just makes a lot of sense to the chair. Yes. I I I don't know. I I I'm just unfortunately not really clear what the logic is of having lower minimums outside of that half inch mile within a half inch mile to the C train stops. To me, it would almost be um productive to have the same dwelling unit requirement

or even more if it makes the property more feasible to be developed. Um, which I think is what we're trying to accomplish. And I don't know how keeping the units at a lower density or encourages more production. I'm just at a loss with that. I don't understand the logic. Um if there is a logic to it, I just I just I'm not sure what we're gaining by having two different sets of um dwelling units per acre. I have thoughts, but through the chair um um nan. Yes. I think the um I think the the potential is that if the if the minimum is too high, you might see in the mix zones um just scrapping of residential altogether. So that's a that's a line that the city needs to to walk where say there's a project that's that's proposing mixeduse residential and commercial and if the percentage is too high for some reason there might the the project applicant might just not do residential at all and I'm not sure whether that is affected as much by the distance from Cal Train stop but at this point I I think I I'm relying on staff to make that judgment um based on the guidance from the city council previously. Um but again, I think I think the the issue that that is in the back of there is that projects that would potentially have residential would scrap the residential if if we created a requirement that's too high. Um, and I think some of the logic here

is is to avoid mainly commercial projects using density bonus law to supercharge the commercial development. And so this is where I think it's kind of doing two things at once. It's trying to increase the amount of residential just overall as a percentage of projects. And then it's also trying to avoid the the use of the density bonus law for commercial primary primary commercial projects. Okay, that makes some sense because historically the um density bonuses were used to a minimum um to allow for the bonuses. I just struggle a little bit with the geography that we're looking at in Sonteo and specifically how much of the El Camino Rial and other areas of the city which are in very small lots. How do we encourage the um acquisition and um cobbling together those lots to build more? And I think that's going to be an ongoing issue issue for a long time because we've got a lot of our housing inventory in very small areas and how in very small lots and how do you encourage build cobbling them together and building at a higher density and I think that's going to be an ongoing issue for for many many years and I don't know how to address it. um through through the chair. I um this comes back to that missing middle thing which I mentioned you know we smaller lots smaller projects on smaller lots equates to the higher

density but you know or mediumsiz projects on smaller lots. Commissioner Nan do you have any comments beyond that Commissioner Williams? Uh, I just wanted to uh I I just wanted my comment Commissioner Claptor's comment that um there are projects that could have benefited from this as opposed to as you said like a sprinkling of residential on top of a larger commercial building. That didn't really quite make sense architecturally either. And so, uh, I mean, I'm, you know, just in general, I'm not thinking of anything specific, but but I think that, um, you know, it certainly makes sense in terms of housing, and I I think I I mean, I can think of some projects architecturally that would benefit from that. So, yeah, I definitely support that. Okay. Well, I've got some comments on this one. This is a special interest area of mine, and so I have a lot of comments. I apologize in advance. And I have a proposal. So, I'm curious to hear what my fellow commissioners say. If I may go up to my notes. So, I think it is great that we are making this requirement for projects that are five units or greater, which I believe closes that loophole. I don't know if loophole is the right term, but um solves the problem of commercial projects putting a bare minimal amount of five units of housing on top of a very large commercial building so that they can't get the waiverss and concessions that effectively allow them to build more commercial, which is not the spirit of state density bonus law. So, I'm I'm really glad that we are solving that problem. Um, I too, Commissioner was looking at the

differences suggested between within the transit oriented development and outside of the transit oriented development. And I don't have a strong opinion on this, but my first blush was these differences seem marginal. Um, and should we potentially have higher minimums closer to Cal Train? because I think as we look to the future and as we look to sustainable development um putting housing near walkable distances to Cal Train obviously seems beneficial from a sustainability standpoint. So I kind of have this thought in the back of my head that maybe they should be slightly higher closer to Cal Train. But then I hear Commissioner Nan make a really good point which is if we go if we accidentally go too high we might incentivize the scrapping of residential altogether and we definitely don't want to do that. Uh especially within walkable distances from Cal Train. So I I feel like this is one of those things where like we got to put a number out there and we got to see what happens and then we got to be open to revising these numbers if we find that they're having unexpected or undesirable effects. um a 50 dwelling unit per acre minimum I think will still result in projects that are wildly imbalanced. And one of my hopes with doing minimum densities is that we solve the problem of wildly imbalanced projects from a jobs to housing ratio. We routinely see mixeduse projects come before the commission that will build up to the 50 dwelling unit per acre maximum under the previous measure Y, add in the maximum state density bonus law, still have a bunch of FAR left over, fill that FAR with commercial, and then have an overall project that is still unbalanced. And so I'll give you two examples. I went through all of my notes. Um, block 21

had a total of 111 residential units, which was the max under measure Y and almost the entirety of the 50% state density bonus. Also had 179,560 square ft of commercial, which created a jobs to housing ratio of about 8:1. Pretty imbalanced. A healthy jobs to housing ratio is 1.5 to1. The original proposal of block 20, not the revised one, had a total of 86 units, which was the max under measure Y and the 50% state density bonus and 142,000 ft of office with a jobs to housing ratio of 8.25 to1. So I feel like if the goal of minimum residential densities is to create more balanced commercial to housing development that the 50 dwelling units per acre is not the right number. I also am not convinced that this is the right metric. And so my proposal is to suggest an alternative metric, which is actually a ratio of housing units to square feet of commercial, which is what Mountain View has done. And I think it has worked out really well in Mountain View. And um I can run through the numbers with you, but I was thinking and this is I've put some thought into this, but within the transit oriented development for the mixeduse low and the mixeduse medium, one unit per 300 square ft of commercial, and these numbers are very intentional. So 300 ft² is also what Mountain View uses. And they use that number because generally speaking, 200 square ft of gross usable area of commercial is about one employee in in um in the industry. And so when you have

300 square ft, you're talking about building one unit of housing per 1.5 employees, which is that healthy jobs to housing ratio. So I'm saying that within mixed use low and misuse medium of transit oriented development, we aim for that healthy 1.5 to1 ratio of one unit per 300 ft². When we go to mixeduse high, we actually try to dig ourselves out of the hole a little bit and um require one unit per 150 ft of commercial, which would be a 75 to1 jobs to housing ratio. For outside of transit oriented development, I was thinking for mixed use low, one unit per 800 square feet of commercial. That's a 4:1 ratio. For mixeduse medium 1, one unit per 500 ft² of commercial is a 2.5:1 jobs to housing ratio. For mixeduse medium 2, one unit per 300T of commercial. That's that ideal 1.5:1. And then again for mixed use high, one unit per 150t of commercial. So that's 75 to1 jobs to housing ratio. I think a ratio metric will get us closer to producing balanced projects, which I think is the goal of this effort. So I have a couple other suggestions, but I will leave that one out there for now to see what my fellow commissioners think about that. um through the chair. You suggested you said uh block was it block 20 or block 21 was your example? I had both block 20 and block 21 as an example. So both of them built the max at the time which was 50 units per acre and then did a 50% state density bonus on top but then there was still a lot of FAR left over that was filled with commercial space. Yeah. And and so so block block I say is block 20 was 111 units. Um that was

block 21 was 111 residential units and then 179,000 179,560 square feet of office space 179.5 divided by 200 square ft is about this gross usable square foot for one employee 200 so that was so that was 200 f feet it okay so sound 107 if you're trying to get the jobs to housing ratio if you're if you're trying to figure out how many units should it would have built I'm proposing one unit per 300 square F feet. So, yeah, if you want to do the math real quick. So, yeah, I think I got like 598 Mhm. units. Um, and so we're propos your proposal is to have that ratio be the minimum density. And then the question I have is, you know, is that something that's, you know, is a developer going to come along and say, you know, I'm I want to build 600 units. Well, what would happen in that situation is they would lower the amount of commercial, right? Uhhuh. Yeah. until they got to a reasonable number of residential. Yeah. I I mean I this is not something that I that I'm totally versed in, but I I mean I've gotten kind of hints from some people and reading and things that you know sometimes the commercial component is being used to subsidize the cost of the the uh housing units and um you know in certain certain cases and again I don't understand the economics of of office space uh fully but um you know I wonder if if you know that ratio is going to make um a higher unit count feasible or if it ends up in with a reduced unit count along with the reduced um office square footage. Yeah, I definitely think that in the past um commercial has been used to offset the cost of residential, but I think the economics change so quickly. It's hard to say. Um, right now we know that commercial isn't

financially viable or as financially viable and so we're seeing shifts to residential and lower density residential in the current economic climate uh through the chair. Um, this is a question for you. Have developments been built or proposed in Mountain View using this ratio yet? I definitely know projects have been entitled using this ratio. Okay. How old is this? I do not know that. Okay. And was it Commissioner Nent that brought up the issue or somebody brought up the issue of will this um tell me if I'm mixing up my issues. Will will this backfire and cause you know a lack of residential projects. It's, you know, it's um it's definitely a much stricter, you know, you're really swinging the pendulum the other way. And I guess the concern is is this going to uh you know, create a um more difficulty I guess in in create in creating housing. Um it's a great question. I I think I I don't know. Um all I know is the 50 unit an acre number which is the most that we are requiring is still resulting in unbalanced projects. And and the other thing I know is that we routinely get comments from the public asking why are we building more commercial and not building more housing or why are we building so much more commercial than we're building housing. And this would be a way to at least in the mixed use medium and mixed use high

um at least within the transit oriented development to require balanced development. And then outside of the transit oriented development, there's still those two lower options where you could be doing more commercial than the required amount of offset housing. Could you do me a favor and run through the numbers again for the transit oriented development? Sure. For the two categories. So for mixed use low and mixed use medium one, so where it is currently proposing 30 units per acre, I am proposing one unit per 300 square foot of commercial. But so what did you say the 30 and the 50 equate to in terms of the um the ratio that you were using? It totally depends on the amount of commercial that is being proposed. Right. I just gave two projects as an example where the projects were building the maximum amount of residential they could and still were able to add so much commercial on top of it that the overall project was very imbalanced. But the 50 I thought was like 1 point one to 1.5. The 50 number is separate. It's it's the 300 number that is the 1.5 to one. That's what you're propos you. It was 300 instead of the 50. Yeah, it was one unit per 300 ft of commercial for that top left category instead of 30 units per acre through the chair. if I can provide some insights here or comments to consider. Absolutely. Um, so I I do want to note and I do want to put this on the record. We've talked we've highlighted this before. The city of Sanonteo does not have a jobs housing imbalance. It's actually a little over one:1. We have a jobs housing fit imbalance and we definitely have an affordability imbalance, but the city of Sanonteo

actually is pretty balanced from jobs to housing. So I I do want to just put that on the record. Um the other part that is important to note is we're a much different context than Mountain View Mountain and so we would need to study to understand how those limits were justified. I think we need to understand if those type of limits here in Sonteo would be consistent with state density bonus law and it's also important to understand what are we trying to achieve here. We did have one project that provided the nominal amount of housing and then was able to utilize state density bonus concessions and waiverss. um to benefit primarily the non-residential portion of the project. And so as a response to that project um we wanted to make sure that if a project is going to utilize state density bonus law, thus the threshold of five or more, they provide a sufficient number of housing units. This is a starting point. Um we want to get this on the books because we do have um an influx of housing applications coming in. Um this isn't the last time we'll look at this. Um it's important to also understand that every project with the exception of a very small number have not only gone to our maximum base density they've then exceeded it under density bonus law and even new projects the vast majority are you maximizing our increased densities under the G general plan 20 240. So we don't have a massive issue here. We have a few projects that have have used this and and we want to make sure that everyone's at the same playing field, but it's important to go by units per acre because that's the familiar metric we've done. And maybe if the commission's interested in this, this is a recommendation as part of the larger comprehensive zoning code update. But I I would be concerned with switching to this type of metric at this point because we really haven't studied it at all. and I do have concerns that this might not be consistent with state density bonus law to do it this way short of underlying justifications and rationale.

Um, thank you for those comments. I think I will take a moment to strongly push back against the assertion that we do not have a jobs to housing imbalance. Um, there's a difference between the jobs to housing ratio and the jobs to household ratio. I know that we've seen data before from placework showing that the jobs to household ratio is holding steady. Um I think most recently at about 1.4 maybe 1.7. Um but I will just read from our own housing element that we uh recently adopted that since 2010 the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 42.7%. Um but the number of homes in the jurisdiction increased by 3.6%. That is a jobs to housing imbalance. And when we see that kind of disparity, what we expect is that the people who have the most money um are the ones who are able to access the housing. And we would expect to see an increase in home prices. And our housing element then goes on to note in the very next line that in the same period home prices have increased by 110%. And so what's happening is that we are consistent when it comes to overcrowding but the affordability is taking a huge hit because the people with the most money are the ones who are able to stay in the housing. Um so I'm just going to put that out there. I'm just I'm reading from our own housing element and I think the way to stop that problem is to make sure that we are not building more commercial than we are building housing and this is I think the best tool we have in our toolbox to do that. That said, I realize I'm I realize proposing a different metric is a big thing to propose at this time. I realize that there probably would need to be more analysis done about what the impacts would be, but my concern is is that I

don't actually think that what is proposed before us is going to solve the problem because we know already that these numbers were resulting in huge imbalances of the number of new jobs created to the number of new homes created. So through the chair, um I completely agree with your assessment. Um it has been extremely frustrating throughout the last five or six years when the state density bonuses have been introduced and used not in the intent that I think the state had hoped. Um I I I do strongly believe that we have a huge housing imbalance. Um, and it's gotten to the point where it's become infeasible for people to buy in our in our area. That's all there is to it. It's it's virtually imp virtually impossible unless you're already wealthy. So, and and part of that does have part of the jobs imbalance. it it it leads to that and as we continue to to make that imbalance more acute, we're only going to continue to exasperate the problem. I agree. Um to make that type of a change which you're pro proposing I think is a great idea for Mountain View and I think it could possibly at one point be a great idea for Sono. I don't think it would work this year. I think it would take time to develop it, understand it. We are constantly told, as you know, that the developers can't do it because the commercial is supporting the

residential. Have we ever been given any financial data from a developer to back that up? No. Will we ever get it? No. because they refuse to actually tell us why they make that argument. So, is that argument valid? I don't know. But it's the same argument they've used forever. Um, I'd like your proposal. I don't know if I would simply add that on at this point for the council to look at. Um, yet it makes a lot of sense. Is it feasible? I don't I honestly don't. Um, but I do like you thinking and and and comparing to Mountain View, how they got to that number in Mountain View. I would love to understand that more. I'm assuming I don't know Mountain View that well, but I'm assuming they have been dealing with this issue as long as we have, but they may have come up with some some crafty ideas to address it. Um, we're not there. Um, I I wish we were. Um, but I don't know what the rest of the commissioners would want to do specifically this evening to address this proposal um through the chair. Since this is this isn't something that I have been able to sit and think about on my own time, I I would like to just have it put forth a suggestion because I I like the I like the idea. I think maybe going forward we recommend to the council that that we adopt this but we look at how um in our in our general plan we have

ranges for for stories for mixed use low medium high for you know take mixed use medium for instance it's four to six stories now I would think this might be palatable for the council and also something they may be interested in in the future. If we were to say this this more general um density basis could be used for mixed use projects from up to four stories in mixeduse medium where the range is four to six. If you want to go up to six stories, then maybe we need to to include the the more stringent proposal that's similar to what Mountain View is is going. I don't think we have the capacity tonight to include that in, but I think that being able to provide that sort of flexibility in in a way that you can kind of see the proof in the pudding of like what gets developed. we're not necessarily preventing housing if it's the subsidy that's required, but I don't think it's actually necessary at this stage. Um, and then we can see if it is actually that developers are trying to just maximize the volume and use using that maximum volume for residential as a as kind of a way to figure that out, feel it out in the future. So just to to reiterate what I'm saying, we have ranges for our heights in our in our general plan for things like mixeduse high. And I would say in the future, we can progress this policy to say if you want the minimum of the range, you just use this flat density. If you want to go to the maximum of the range or anything above the minimum up to our maximum, you use the more

stringent Mountain View method to maximize. I mean, that's that's where I would put it. But again, I don't think that we're able to approve that tonight. But I think that that's a recommendation for the council to look at in the future as we continue to work through the housing element. Yeah. through the cherry. I um I think Commissioner Abner and Commissioner Djan both you know made some comments which I would agree with in terms of you know the difficulty of of uh full my like my ability to fully grasp this proposal this evening. I it I think it's very interesting. I don't know that Mountain View and Sonteo are so fundamentally different that it couldn't work here. Uh you know we're we're pretty close to each other and and um they actually have a higher arena than we do, right? So, I mean that they're more incentivized to enable more housing development. Yeah. Um, you know, but my I think I think I was having difficulty, you know, like specific ratios and things like that. You know, I was trying to write down as you were as you were as you were as you were mentioning them. I don't even have them all down here to look at you. So, yeah. So, it's a bit it's a bit challenging to to kind of deviate too much from I don't have it. Yeah. What's what's proposed here tonight? And I also agree it be I think we need to have something in place. I think it'd be really great to have some one of one of these in place before we leave this evening. Yeah. Uh I think then the question is you know how soon Yeah. I think it's an interesting proposal worth looking into. The question is how soon could we revisit it? Because uh you know if we say okay this is something for council to approach in the future. When when is that future you know are we talking about you know uh a year from now? Are we talking about you know in a few months? Are we talking about you know the next time we revise you know this stuff in in 10 years? you know like I don't I don't understand that part right now like you know how soon could we come back to this if we wanted to it's a good

question why don't we ask staff what would be I mean do we have any precedent in this kind of um in this kind of suggestion where we go forward with this as proposed and then we would recommend to council that it it be relooked at and this is outside of like a policy document specifically that you know the housing element has general dates and general timelines like how would we propose a relook at this in the future? I believe in the staff report it does mention that this is temporary, right? That the intent is to do more research and to come back, okay, to council with a um it says densities will be further studied during the comprehensive zoning update project, which I think is going to happen over the next two years, right? So, what we could do is we could we could adopt this but recommend that the council consider other metrics like a unit to commercial square foot ratio or what Redwood City has done which I believe our city manager would be very familiar with which is to create buckets of um uses and as projects come in the available amount in those buckets decreases and so it at some point forces only development ment of a certain kind of use. Um there's many many different ways that this has been done in other jurisdictions and so we could adopt this tonight but say as part of the comprehensive zoning update project we recommend that staff and council consider ways to ensure more balanced growth through the chair. Just as a clarification there is no adoption tonight. It's just oh sorry a recommendation. Yeah. Uh through the chair. Yeah. But um yeah, I think I I like this idea of

of it like including these other options um in in the study and and revisiting them and and like it would be it would be great if there was, you know, kind of the way we could get it is like, you know, here's A, here's B, here's C, something like that, you know, and and and um you know, I I think I've seen, you know, I've seen some, you know, uh reports where it's like, you know, here's what here's what this other city is doing. Um, I think what would be really great to see is like here's what would that look like here. Um, and so, you know, getting presented the options where it says, you know, like here's here's, you know, here's the option that we have before us. Um, that's one possibility. Here's another PO or, you know, here's the ratios or this this bucket um system which you me which you touched on there which sounds intriguing. Um, I it'd be great to, you know, kind of see, okay, like, you know, how could that actually work here? I'd really like to see that. I agree with the all the other commissioners that I need more time to digest this proposal from you. So, um I think um if we were to make a recommendation for approval in and include a general um in a general sense that we would like the opportunity to study this in the future. I and I I say general just because I haven't had time to digest the various options. So, okay. I think what I'm hearing is recommend adopting this, but also recommend that council investigate as part of the comprehensive zoning update ensuring an even more balanced approach through other mechanisms or metrics. Yeah, I think that the goal um a more

balanced approach as a goal is important and I guess it doesn't there's no harm in saying the pieces that you said the metrics or other measures or metrics. So um I know that you asked it's hard for me just reading these you asked what the exact numbers are. I'm going to look to our our attorney. Can I if I write down what I proposed and send it to staff, can staff then distribute that to the commissioners so they know what I proposed for their own I think study later. I'm trying to avoid any Brown Act issues with me emailing a written copy of what I just said directly to the other commissioners. Would you like to just state it again for the record and we could put it in the minutes maybe um verbatim? Yeah, sure. So if you I'll just I'll just uh looking at these boxes right start on the left within a half mile of the cow train stop mixed use low and mixed use medium one this is the top left box instead of 30 units per acre I am proposing one unit per 300 square ft of commercial and that translates to about a 1.5 to1 employee to housing ratio in the box immediately below that mixed use medium 2 and mixeduse high. I am proposing one unit per 150 square ft of commercial which translates to 75 employees per housing unit. If we move over to the right outside of a half mile from Cal Train stop, the top

box mixeduse low. Instead of the 10 units per acre, I am proposing one unit per 800 square ft of commercial, which is about four employees per housing unit. I'm watching Commissioner Williams pen for excuse medium one the next box down instead of 15 units per acre I am proposing one unit per 500 square ft of commercial which is about 2.5 employees per housing unit for mixed use medium 2 instead of 30 units per acre I am proposing one unit per 300 square ft of commercial so that's the same 1.5 to1 ratio and then for mixed use high instead of the 50 units per acre again proposing one unit per 150 square ft of commercial which is 0.75 employees per housing unit. And so the overall intent is that as we go higher, we are building more residential than we are commercial, which I believe is responding to feedback that we're hearing from the community about why are we building 10tory office buildings when what we need is housing. So, if if that made it into the minutes and was suggested as something for um council to consider as we do the comprehensive zoning update, I think

that would be a great outcome. I think it's a a great uh proposal. Thank you for your time. Great work. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I I definitely would be interested in seeing that like a like a proposal included, you know, in in the comprehensive update as a as something to to, you know, actively consider and and recommend. So, as a point of clarification, um, potentially recommend is is your metric with the boxes part of what you would like the city council to consider or for future study? For future study. So, what I'm saying is we recommend that they that they um adopt what staff is recommending here, but that they consider that metric for the future studies as part of the comprehensive zoning update. Okay, thank you. Because I assume that there would need time to study what that means and what the potential impacts could be. And because I am a wonk, I actually have one more suggestion. Um, which was do we give applicants the flexibility to achieve these minimum densities across multiple projects. I'm basically piggybacking off of what we are suggesting for the proposed BMR changes and allowing off-site construction to achieve these minimum densities. I wasn't particularly in favor of that. I think that's totally fair. It's totally fine to say no. My gut says no. Okay, fair enough. Is it is it is it

really is it mixed use at that point? It's not mixed use, but I was I was in the same mindset of the overall goals here, which is like how to increase flexibility, how to ensure that the housing even gets built, that we're not that it just doesn't happen because it's too hard. Um, that's where my mind was. Well, I don't think taking it to a separate site makes it any more likely to get built. I I just don't see that. I mean, we talked about that, but Yeah. So I I think I think it comes comes back to that issue where you know it's like oh we'll you know we'll build the office first and then we'll we'll build the 60 units or whatever you know whatever is of housing next and then it doesn't happen. Yeah, I the provisions in the BMR option require concurrent development, right? And so you would you would do the exact same thing. You wouldn't allow that. There's too many pitfalls to that in my mind. I think it's fair. It's totally fair to say no. That's too complicated. True. The chair also in mixeduse zoning, you can still have purely office development. You can have purely residential. Totally. And this is more focused, I would say, on using density bonus law because why if why wouldn't you just then only do a commercial building, right? Right. Yeah. Okay, fair enough. Do we have any other comments? Okay. I think what I heard is consensus on recommending the staff suggestions with the added caveat of um recommending that council consider this other metric units to square footage as part of the comprehensive zoning update for the chair. And and I would add as I would also phrase it as saying and as partially as a as a potential

response to community concerns about the overp production of commercial. Yeah. Can we get the resolution text on the screen or the uh recom Yeah. The motion text. Would anyone like to make a motion? I would like to make a motion um based on the staff recommendations that are posted with the inclusion with the conclusion of of the recommendation for future that you had for the future study of the of the ratio method for the um comprehensive zoning code update. I'll second that. And for the vote, Chair Patel, yes. Vice Chair Nent, yes. Commissioner Abnner, yes. Commissioner Kather, yes. And Commissioner Williams, yes. All right, we will close that item. Next, we have reports and announcements. I actually have a few um things that I wanted to bring up because it's been a while since we've met. Um but perhaps we should go to staff first for any reports or announcements. Good evening. Uh Zach Doll, community development director. My apologies for not being there in person, but I I'm under the weather, so I didn't want to share what I had with anyone else. Um, do want to note looking ahead, we do anticipate cancelling our second meeting in May for lack of any agenda items and we are still looking at our June meetings. Um, we we know we've got a lot of projects on the longer term horizon, but we have a smaller workload for the planning commission near term. Um, so

there's there's potential that we will be cancelling our first meeting in June as well, but we're still assessing where everything is at and then probably holding our second meeting in June. So, um if um you do have conflicts or will be unable to attend your June meetings, either of the June meeting dates, please reach out to staff. Um also, um wanted to acknowledge that um tonight is um administrative assistant Ashley Snodgrass's last night with the community development department and and supporting the planning commission. She has been promoted to a role um with the parks and recck department. And so, um want to acknowledge her present over the years and supporting the planning commission. um staying ahead of the various tech gremlins and everything else that's gone on in Chambers. I know it's a lot um to keep everything up and running and keep everything streaming. So, wanted to acknowledge her um and thank her for her work over these past three years and wish her all the best um moving forward um with our parks and recck department here in San Mo. Um, also since we um won't be having a second meeting in May, um this will be um the last um meetings for Commissioner Abnetta and Commissioner Nent um so wanted to also acknowledge that and provide an opportunity for any of the other commissioners to weigh in or um share their thoughts, but um wanted to um recognize their contributions. um Commissioner Abner for two terms and um also um for um Commissioner Nent for um this past term. Um a lot of work has gone in, a lot of consequential projects and so have appreciated um working with you, hearing your input and and guiding many important projects and policy efforts um through the process and getting them ultimately adopted, implemented and constructed. So, um I'll I'll end it at that, but um wanted to recognize those. Um and wish I could be there in person for tonight's meeting. Um I I have some comments planned. Um I think before we start heaping accolades

on all of these people, there are a few things that I wanted to bring up during notes and announcements and get let's get the dry stuff out of the way. Um, one I wanted to acknowledge that four of us went to the planning commissioners academy in March and um, it was a really great experience. Uh, I participated in a panel, the planning commissioners 101 panel that was uh, a really great opportunity um that place works invited me to do and and I really enjoyed doing that. Um, I did want to call out and just for the record, let make staff aware of Oh, am I not allowed to do this? Oh, okay. Sorry. When you're done with your comments, could we send it back to the director? Sorry. Yes. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Um, I just wanted to relay some feedback of my experience at the planning commissioners academy for the past two times I've gone. putting this out there for staff to do what you will with it. Um, so the Plan Casters Academy is hosted by the League of California Cities, which is a organization um whose goal is to defend and expand local control per their website. And so they do a lot of lobbying to the state legislature. They also host workshops. They also host things like the planning commissioners academy. They also do trainings. Um, cities, jurisdictions pay to be a member. I believe that based on our population, we are likely paying $32,000 a year about to be a member. The last item on the agenda um the two years I've went is a legislative roundup where a representative of the League of California Cities goes through uh potentially interesting bills that are before the legislature that session and provides an overview of those bills and then typically provides information

about whether the league is recommending that those bills be um where the league is recommending a support position for those bills or an opposed position for those bills or a no position for those bills. I will say it feels in my two times at the planning commissioners academy, they have always recommended an opposed position or a no position on any housing related bills. It's it's um they're they're well known for being opposed to housing legislation and it feels a little awkward to be attending an event in an official capacity when the organizers of the event and when the information in the event is expressing a bias towards one side or another on these issues. Um, I know there's a lot of concerns about um potentially attending events that have biases and I and I realize that this one might be a little bit different because we're a member of the League of California Cities, but I just want to put it out there. It feels very awkward in that session. It particularly feels awkward because the language used in that session is uh not professional this year. there. The person leading the session made a lot of disparaging comments about state legislators, including our own um state senator Josh Becker. And the ones about Senator Becker were not as bad as the ones about others. Um but it felt really weird to be attending an event in a professional capacity where someone was expressing really strongly disparaging comments about state state legislators. So I will put that out there as some feedback. Um I I there were four three other people who were there. I don't know if anybody else wants to add to that, but it's I think it's just something to consider moving forward as we are attending that event in an official

capacity. All right, we'll leave it there. Um I think also one thing I wanted to bring up to staff is that I believe it would be beneficial especially as we are welcoming two new commissioners into this dis if we could get some more clarification on what types of participation in advocacy is permitted. Um, I think we do a really good job as a city of conducting trainings about laws. Like we get the Brown Act training, there's a state ethics training. Um, we also have a city training, a chair and vice chair training which is really helpful. Um, but we don't really provide a lot of guidance around norms. And I would say in my experience, it is really natural as a new commissioner when you're joining um to look at established commissioners and to look at council members as like an example of how to conduct yourselves in a meeting of what types of events it's appropriate to attend. Um how to navigate the balance between supporting causes you believe in while maintaining um due process rights. And I know that there was some discussion about adopting new ethics rules at a special city council meeting over the weekend. There was a quote in the Sanato Daily Journal today about commissioners needing to set aside their own political goals and stances in order to evaluate policies, memos, and practices. And as I am consuming this information, I am left confused about what exactly those things mean. Um, does that mean that it's not acceptable for commissioners to attend events or to accept speaking engagements because that could be construed as furthering a political goal or stance? Does that mean it's not okay to walk a picket line? Um, those are all things that our council members do. And I think

I'm a little bit confused about like what behavior is acceptable for a council member versus what behavior is acceptable for a commissioner. And it would be really great to have that kind of guidance clearly laid out in writing, especially if the rules and norms for commissioners are more restrictive than they are for council members. And I just want to make sure that we um are setting up our new commissioners for success. I know one of them is very active in local politics and one of them is very active in their union. And so I think it would be great if we could have some guidance not just for them but for us too about what is um permissible when it comes to advocacy. May I just um for the public clarify that there are not officially appointed new planning commission members. Sorry. Thank you. No problem. Um there have been recommendations made for two new commissioners that I believe goes to the council at their next meeting to formally be appointed. Yeah. Okay. But yeah, if it's I know we can't discuss it, but if we we could put a request out there for some guidance, I think that would be helpful. Um staff has noted that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. And then I think we wanted to turn it back to um Director D. Thank you for letting me interrupt. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Um Oh, sorry. Um I think Commissioner Williams wanted to say something. I don't know what's the appropriate time to add this in about the planning commission academy. I just wanted if this is okay. Um there were this is not related to what you were saying but there were questions and comments uh from people commissioners from other cities about um that don't have approved housing elements and about the number of builder remedy projects that they are facing or not facing that that are taking place. So I just wanted to say kudos to city of San Monteo including us I guess I guess that

includes us for having completed our housing element on time and successfully and um I was kind of shocked by that to know how many um you know cities there are out there that haven't gotten the process completed and it's it's a difficult process but yeah so anyway kudos to city of Sano folks. Thank you. Sorry, one other announcement that I wanted to eject and and got lost in the shuffle was that I want to introduce um CDD's new deputy director, Sun Juan. Um it feels like he's been with us a long time now. He started beginning of April, but we haven't had a planning commission meeting since then. Um he will be stepping in to support planning commission as staff lays on until we have a new planning manager um appointed um to fill that role. And so this is Sun's first meeting. So, I do want to introduce him to the commission and welcome aboard. It's it's been great and yeah, it feels like he's already jumped in. I mean, a month and a half later, he doesn't feel new at all, but um for the commission, this is the first meeting tonight. So, I want to welcome Sun to the team and um in his role to support the planning commission moving forward. Welcome. Great. Thank you. Happy to be here. That's everything that I have. I'll turn it over to the commissioner. Any other announcements or comments? All right. I think we have um some last meetings for some folks. Um I want to start by thanking Ashley for all of your work with um the planning commission. You have been a total lifesaver in so many situations. I don't know how many times I've been like, Ashley, a meeting is about to start and my Zoom's not working or my password's been locked out. Like what do I do? um you have you're so good at problem solving under pressure and doing it while being completely calm. Um so I I want just want to congratulate you on

your promotion and say that parks and wreck is so lucky to have you and um I just wish you well and I don't know if anybody else wanted to say anything through the chair. Yes, I do. It's been a pleasure working with you. you've been very professional and it has we've had um lots of interesting things that have happened over the course of your tenure with us and uh you've handled it so well and uh you're deserving of of whatever you do in the future. Yeah, I just the three words that came to mind, you used one of them, but calm, cool, and collected like under pressure for sure. So, um, it seems like there's complicated stuff going on sometimes over there when we're trying to just, you know, do our part over here. You're doing a lot of stuff over there. So, thank you. And hopefully I'll see you around town like I have in the past. So, yeah. Um, yeah. So, yeah, I'm the relative newcomer here. And, um, I just want to say thank you. Um, congratulations of course on the on the promotion and uh thank you for helping make me comfortable here as I settled into this position and I think you know I'm still learning things but you've been very very helpful and I've appreciated seeing all of your emails uh over the last year or so you know just uh saying you know here's what's going on and and uh here's what you need to know and it's it's all been uh very welcome. So thank you through the chair. Mhm. Um Ashley, it really has been a lot of fun watching you from the first meeting to now. Um you've really become an extremely polished administrator. Um you you've done a great job. U Mary did a wonderful job um shephering you through um quite a few um issues that I think we ran into when you first started. There was a lot going on. So, it's really been a pleasure to see you progress to the point where you are and congratulations

on your um um moving into park and wrecks. Um through the chair, could I have a minute or two also? You can, but first I want to give Ashley a little thank you on behalf of the commission. [Music] Thanks. So, so through the chair and in honor of this being my last meeting, um I wanted to start by thanking city staff members who have been influential in helping me navigate the eb and flows of this position for the last 10 years. Larry Patterson, Patrice Olds, Ron Munala, the fantastic community development administrative staff, too many excellent planners to name here, and past city attorney Gabrielle Whan were all very helpful for me. All and of course, I am indebted to past city council members Joe Goals, Rick Benia, and David Lib who encouraged me to apply for this position originally. I have a great app I have a great appreh appreciation for the engagement and in collaboration of the fellow planning commissioners who inspired me to truly represent the residents of Sanonteo for the commission's handbook. We are directed to make decisions based on what is best for all the city's residents and I have seen that guideline followed by most of the commissioners I've I've served with. The current set of commissioners have substantially elevated the level of dedication, expertise, and desire to help this city grow in the most sustainable and equitable manner p possible. I am extremely proud of what we have accomplished together. Charlie Drestler taught me

early on to pay close attention to the public comments and that was truly a blessing. I feel I feel that listening to the public is just as important if not more so than the applicants or staff reports. I've advocated for policies that are part of the city charter and goals and visions our of our general plan. At times this position was deemed to be counterproductive. Yet in fact it was done to further the shared goals of the city. As a member of this advi advisory board, my obligation was to relay to the city council my independent ideas on what was best for everyone in the city. Knowing that knowing that I was aligning with resident driven goals, my decision-making processes was process was very easy. In year two of my term, a city police captain told me that the department heads will routinely lie to you and then laugh in your face. I found this hard to believe. Unfortunately, I experienced exactly what he had described, and the outcomes of those digressions that will negatively impact this city for decades to come are my biggest regret in not being able to write those wrongs. The city's stated values of promoting diversity and inclusivity inclusivity are trampled on by those in the public and by city leaders elected and staff who routinely villainize anyone with alternative views. We promote an open and affirming dialogue. Yet we have we've done nothing to protect the voices of reason resonating for those who have been and continue to be marginalized. The political politicalization of the volunteer positions by city council has the eerie film eerie familiar feeling of the distorted allegiance demanded by the

current president of the United States. I have gladly given 10 years of my life to this city and it has actually been an honor. Playing a small part in shaping policy and moving projects forward leaves me with a sense of accomplishment. I have great concerns that all the boards and commissions are rapidly losing the ability to have open and diverse viewpoints and this will leave us with much le much much less able to meet any of our shared goals. I leave this position fully knowing that this city can be diverse, balanced, inclusive, prosperous, and resilient. Yet, it will take monumental shifts and priorities to reach these shared goals. It truly has been an honor to sit here for 10 years and to see the efforts of so many people make us a better place to live and I hope that it that we can continue to grow and prosper as a vibrant city as that we all want. Thank you. I don't have anything prepared. Um, but I do want to thank uh the my fellow commissioners for giving me a lovely time over the past four years. Um, it is been uh truly an honor to to debate and figure out policy directions and um you know recommendations for projects. Uh it it was an amazing uh accomplishment to get the general plan um passed and adopted. Same thing for the housing element. Um I think that we did a lot. It we it's been rather slow the past few months, but uh uh we we did a lot and

I'm very proud to have done that with you. Um I also want to thank staff. Um there's been new faces. Uh it's it's constantly churning and everything that I've done with staff has been towards uh great goals that we've accomplished. And I hope uh for a brighter future for Sonteo based on what we've done and what can be done in the future uh as a body and uh as a city. Um, you like to go first? It's okay. Oh, well, I just want Yeah, I just want to say, you know, um, I think I'll I'll have been on the commission for maybe just under, you know, just about a year, you know, here at this point. Um, obviously, you know, it's been a very quiet year. Uh, so I, you know, I regret that, uh, we did not have more meetings and more opportunities to converse. Uh, I think it's, um, uh, been wonderful to, um, uh, work with, uh, both of you. Uh, and to I've been learning a lot. Um, I really appreciate uh your uh expertise, your experience on the commission, uh all of the hard work uh that went into the general plan and the housing element and all these things which uh you know your work uh with the staff you know um has has laid the foundation for for you know things that um I'm sure I'll be you know seeing uh in the next few years and um uh so uh I definitely have a lot to to think about, you know, uh moving forward. Um based on your examples, uh a lot to live up to. So, thank you so much, uh and and thank you for your service to the city. um in particular uh John who's you know as you said you know 10 years I'm I'm sure that you know as I've gone about my daily life uh you know I've already interacted with

projects which uh you played a role in and uh um you know didn't fully appreciate uh the contributions of the the commission and yourself in particular. Thank you. Thank you. Um, one thing that came to mind related to my sort of, you know, planning commission academy, uh, realization of how, you know, how we're we do a really great job here in city of Santo was, um, there was I, I think at either this planning commission academy or some other planning commissioner training, there's um, a class for, you know, how to get along with your fellow planning commissioners and and uh, you know, to come to consens consensus or or not necessarily consensus but to work through the issues. And you know I I just find that to be sort of funny because we always have had such a good working relationship with you with both of you in particular um and and in general as a commission as well. But um but in particular I would say you know John you always brought up have always brought up uh you know a different point of view um uh a compassionate point of view um you know really sort of thoughtprovoking questions that um have just really been you know benefited the discussion and added to the discussion of the issues that we that we talk that we look at here. Um, and Adam, I learned something from you all the time. And, you know, the detail and the the knowledge that you brought to projects, I just just glombmed on to and really, you know, really appreciated uh hearing your point of view. Um, you know, as a group, whether we all agreed or not, we certainly don't really need training on how to get along. We all enjoy each other's company here as well. Um, I

think, um, yeah, I I just thank you for the 10 years. I wish you were going to be here longer. Um, but yeah, I really appreciate both of you, uh, all the work that you've, um, given to the city of Santo. Thank you. Thank you. I have a few notes. Um, I will try to do this without crying. I've I've had to do three tributes this week, so I'm a little a little emotional already. Um, Adam, I'm going to start with you. I think your lifelong commitment to public service is really evident in the dedication and work ethic that you've brought to the planning commission. One of the public commenters um noted, "Are there any two other commissioners who take their job so seriously?" And I think the answer is no. It it is always so apparent how much time you invested into thoroughly preparing for every agenda item. How you've taken it upon yourself to familiarize yourself with local regulations, with state regulations, like you've taken every state training on everything. Um I remember one time very early on in serving with you where we were talking about affirm furthering fair housing and you casually mentioned like, "Oh yeah, I've read AB686." And I was like, "What?" you've read an entire state bill and then I learned you read them all. Um, and it's that level of research is so evident in the solutions that you brought to the dis and in the information that you shared with us that you shared with the public that you shared with staff. I think we were all more informed and better for it. Um, I think as as we serve together as a commission, we all bring different expertises and backgrounds to the table. And I think we all kind of got used to what to expect from each other. And I

know I could always count on you for really detailed feedback on landscape and architectural detail. So, I know like I don't have to read every tree species on this plan because I know Adam is going to and he's going to come to the table with like more facts than I could ever known about like salt tolerant trees or something. Um, I think you also won the award for best examples from the local region. Like every time we were giving feedback on a study session, you would be like, "You should look at this building at this address or this other building at this address." And I noticed that all of us commissioners are like frantically writing down the address and like looking them up on street view. So, um I I definitely ended up using that as a crutch as well. I was like, I know Adam's going to come to the table with some great examples so I don't have to do that research. You are such a thoughtful listener and you're so good at navigating complex issues and detailed conversations. you're really willing to ask the tough out questions and prioritize long-term outcomes with the greatest benefit to the community over short-term or popular fixes. I think I often saw you and John 2 routinely advocating for the right decision for San Mato and not necessarily the easy decision. Um, I think there's no other person who tries harder than you to find and implement the best solutions for San Mateo. As an example, I think about when we were doing the objective design standards and you took Santa Barbara's standards, which are like kind of a really good watermark and example in the state, and you created this detailed guide demonstrating how they could be adapted for San Mateo. And that effort became the impetus for our downtown plan area objective design standards. Like, we weren't going to have a Spanish colonial requirement until you did that research and brought it to the table. Um, and I think now in the future, I hope that when you walk around downtown

San Mateo and you see all the new Spanish colonial developments, um, you feel pride in that very tangible positive impact that you had on our city. Um, you also served on the general plan subcommittee, not just the planning commission, and I think your guidance and your ideas and your suggestions have immeasurably benefited all of the documents and deliverables that those two organizations have produced. I also want to highlight that every single one of your FL fellow planning commissioners sent a letter to the city council encouraging your reappoint. I think three of the four of us have been serving with you for your entire term. And the fact that we all supported you just demonstrates that we saw serving alongside you all of the hard work, all of the dedication, all of the deep subject matter expertise, all of the research and the immeasurable value that you brought to the planning commission. And I hope that you remember that we saw that your departure is a really keen loss for the city of San Mo, but uh I fully expect you to go on to bigger and better things and um have a much broader impact beyond this city. I can't wait to see what you do next. John, how do we even start to summarize 10 years of service to the city? I mean, you have served longer than many council members. You have been here longer than many residents. You've in some cases served longer than um staff. I mean, you have this institutional memory that is incredible. Uh I have to tell the story of how I met you. So, I met John because he wrote an op-ed in the Daily Journal and I thought it was so good and I was like, who is this guy? And I Googled you and I found your LinkedIn. and it was the only thing that came up and I sent

you a message on LinkedIn and I said, "Commissioner Abnett, I really enjoyed your oped. I would love to get coffee sometime and talk about land use in San Mato. Would you be willing to chat?" You never responded. I didn't. You told me that later. The first time I met you was the morning after I was appointed because I was appointed the night before a planning commission meeting where the first item I ever reviewed was a uh spar amendment for Bay Meadows and the packet was over a thousand pages long and you called me the next morning and uh you said hey welcome to the planning commission. would you like some help in getting up to speed for the meeting that's in six hours? And I said yes. And you spent several hours with me on the phone just helping me to even understand like what is the history behind this project? What is it that we're looking at today? What of the thousand pages in the packet should I even pay attention to in the six hours I had to prep? And I think that is such the epitome of who you are, that you always go out of your way to help someone, even people that you've never met or just meeting for the first time. You were one of my first mentors in public service and you've been a huge inspiration to me. You never hesitate to do the work. You never hesitate to help on anything. You've been tireless in advocating for a more equitable and climate resilient Sanonteo over the last 10 years. You've pushed the city to think about the impact of the housing crisis and how to measure it, including considering service worker jobs in in the impact. You've built a relationship with One Shoreline. You've kept us honest on our efforts to affirmally further fair housing. You have always put the needs of our disadvantaged community members at the forefront.

We've previously talked about how there are beliefs and policy practices that are widely accepted today that would have been controversial to talk about 10 years ago. For example, talking about the history of redlinining and encouraging the city to take active steps to mitigate the harm it caused. We all acknowledge that today, but 10 years ago that would have been a very controversial thing to say. and you had the courage to bring this perspective to the dis when raising those topics did not make you popular. It could not have been easy to do this for a decade to spend so many years as the one in the 4:1 votes. You were a vanguard that helped to usher in a more inclusive and just San Mato. And I really hope that you are proud of the impact you had. Those of us that you've mentored, we are your legacy and I hope that we in turn will make you proud. Thank you for your service. Any other comments? I think we should close the meeting before I start crying. I know. I think we should, too. There may be some cake, so why don't we party? Um, and with that, we will adjourn this meeting. Thank you so much.