Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

system.

Thank you.

Good evening everyone. I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. on November 19th, 2025. Would you care to lead us? Sure. Thank you. I'll rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] Can we have the roll call? Uh, yes. Uh, Commissioner Fresco here. Commissioner Lambert

here. Welcome back, by the way. Uh, Commissioner Landris here. Commissioner Reese present. Commissioner Wasserman as uh absent. Uh, Vice Chair Choco present. and Chair Hamilton absent.

Should we have the director's report?

Uh, yes. So, your next uh regular meeting will be on December 17th. There are no items on the December 3rd meeting, so I believe that's canceled. Um so December 17th you will be uh reviewing uh two recommendations to this to the city council. One is a package of um code amendments uh and cleanups related to um economic opportunity and growth. Um and the second uh set of code amendments is uh state and local implementation of the um SP9 revisions. Um January 7th at this moment has no items as well. So if there are not, you might expect that meeting will also not occur. Um for the architecture review board, um recent actions just this past Monday, there was a housing project at 1320 Pico Boulevard. Um that was continued and they also conducted their annual review as the commission will do tonight. Um at their next meeting will be either December 1st or um December 15th. I think we're still probably sorting out applicant availability and things like that. Um, and it looks like there's two housing projects at 152719th Street, which is in addition to a duplex and 81716 16th Street that is a 8-unit condo. And there is a uh storage facility at 1752 Cloverfield. Um, the Landmarks Commission will be holding their meeting on December the 8th. Um and they will also be conducting their annual boards and commissions review at that meeting. Um city council met last night. Um and item of note, there was an appeal of a structure of merit um designation at 112518 street. The city council voted to deny the appeal and designate um 112518 street. So we have a new structure of

merit um in the city. Um and uh there were otherwise a number of um largely closed session items. They they also uh adopted the local hazard mitigation plan which the planning commission heard I think it was probably two meetings ago. Um December 9th um will be installation of uh new mayor um Carolyn Terosis. Um and then at that meeting we will also be bringing forward um the self-certification uh the first phase of that self-certification program for non-structural commercial TIS. Um and then we will end the year with council on December 16th at that meeting is due to be um the uh ordinance for the digital displays um along with the four development agreements. Um that will also be the be the return of the uh AHPP pilot program um which was following up on council's direction from their uh September I think it was their 30th meeting. Um and there'll be a final map on consent um at that meeting as well. Um and then just news from community development. Uh pleased to share that I've appointed Roxan Tanamorei as acting assistant director of community development. um she will be providing both strategic and operational support to me and oversight of the department. Um so certainly welld deserved in that acting capacity. We have many many moves happening within community development actually um even at uh within the division. So um all of it really um as part of the realignment plan um you know we have major priorities not the least of which is um you know improvements coming to our entire development services process. Um and then finally, um as you may have heard, um City Hall is, uh due to close, so physically closed. So there's a two-eek winter closure, um that is scheduled the week of uh December 22nd and then that last

week of uh December gosh, what is it? I'm looking at my calendar here. December 22nd through like January 2nd. Um so city hall, the city hall campus will be closed during those two weeks. However, um and we will have communications. Um we will have uh staff that are available remote um to still do plan check, permit issuance, answer inquiries, um inspection staff will still be on site, code enforcement and the like. So, um there'll be um information forthcoming, you know, organizationwide on services, you know, that will be shifted or, you know, not available, but the city hall campus, the doors will be closed um even though staff will be available um during that time. So, that's it.

I have a question. Um, just out of curiosity, a morbid curiosity, um, is the 8-unit condo project at 817 1616 16th Street asking for a waiver of AHPP? Uh, no, I believe it's not because it's I believe it's using a density bonus. So, it will have to provide an affordable on-site. Okay. So, that's kind of different, huh? Um, the other question I have is the AHP revisions. That's the offsite allowance for inclusionary. Okay, got it. Thank you. Yeah. Oh, I think one more item I wanted to add is uh just for your um if you're following sort of the single stair discussion um alternative means and methods. So that information bulletin was posted as of yesterday on the building and safety website.

Sorry, just to clarify, we we've approved it but we can't use it, right? No, we can. So it's it's it's an alternative means and methods um process, you know, meaning that um it's just basically part it's an administrative process reviewed by the building official and fire marshall for buildings that are under four stories for buildings over four stories. Um they can still submit through that process, but then it then goes through a peer review panel. So why is Culver City getting all the love if we did it too? They took a different pathway. [laughter] I mean, if Michelle,

we should get I mean, we should it's a significial, but it's a significant advance and we should get some credit for making it a possibility in Santa Monica. Sure. So, um, as our director noted, they sort of took a different approach. We did the alternative means and methods. It was not an official code amendment. Clover City took the route of a code amendment. Um, and that's why they're getting a different sort of press, I believe. But also happy to talk offline about the specifics that were involved in that.

Got it. No, I just want us to get credit where credit is due because this has been a long conversation. I mean, we finally raised uh, didn't we redefine skyscraper as 75 ft? I mean, come on. We're It's 2025. We're making progress. Any [snorts] other questions? Oh, do you have any more questions for Jane? So,

we also wanted to part of the director's report uh welcome Gail Gordon, the housing commission chair, as she wanted to introduce herself and to help better facilitate a connection between the housing commission and the planning commission. So, we invite Gail Gordon up to the podium to uh speak with you all. Nice. as I switch out my glasses. I'm Gail Gordon. Pleased to meet you. Um, I've been share for about a year. I'm finally learning what I'm doing. It's unbelievable how much stuff you have to learn. Just very quickly about me, I was born in Santa Monica Hospital. My grandfather had an office on Rose Avenue in the 1930s. My dad went to SMCC as Jerry and I remember it. Um, and uh, my son grew up through the school system here. So, I've lived here since ' 84. And when I retired from teaching at Santa Monica College, I decided I should do something with my free time. So, here I am. Anyway, I wanted to talk just a little bit about what I believe we have in common as far as our our goals are in regard to the city. Um, how we're hoping to Let me take my jacket off. Sorry. To move forward in regard to housing. um housing commission. One of our biggest focuses and issues has to do with lowincome section 8 people who are have been or could potentially be homeless. Um those are basically our clientele.

Uh we also are concerned about some of the off-site um housing projects that could potentially turn into all low income creating sort of a tenement type feel to uh the housing areas. I know they're supposed to be within a certain distance of the main building and when they're built. We don't know exactly where they're going to be. um and what the clientele will be or the tenants would be. Also, I know that originally in the city code of Santa Monica, we were allowed up to 30% for low income into the buildings. That's never realized. That's never been realized. Um there with all the buildings that have been going up there are very maybe 10% approximately 10% that are being assigned to low um lowincome family not even families because they're mostly singles in onebedrooms low-income people. Um the community that we serve have children have parents have caretakers. We have a lot of disabled and seniors who are also a little over 20% of the population. So we we just want to be certain that that part of the population is recognized and addressed. Um we're trying to adjust the below market housing list in regard to prioritization on the list. It hasn't we haven't given our recommendations and probably at this point in time it won't move on till next year. But um initially when it was created it was for hotel workers that lived in Santa Monica. Um we wanted to be certain that within the hotel the

people who work in Santa Monica that caretakers of seniors and people who work um in Santa Monica I guess the approved hours are 25 hours are also on the list but we also feel that um people who are disabled seniors especially seniors who are disabled or ill should be toward the top of the list. Also people who have been recently that which is also in the beginning of the list people who have um recently been um thrown out of their apartment for non-payment or whatever and they're ready to be re-received into apartments so that they can approve get approved housing. Um I read in and I don't know exactly what's going to happen with this um in the city manager's new plan that Sam Michelle is going to be dismantled. I don't know where these people are going to go. Um I don't know where they're going to go. I don't know how we're going to deal with the people that we have in the city that are homeless who um are transitioning into housing and just making sure that housing will be accessible for people that have been in Santa Monica for many many years um fell on hard times who are mentally or physically disabled. And so those are those are our concerns. Let me just read a few more things as kind of the basis. um basis of what we have and just making sure that our neighborhoods maintain family neighborhoods as this has been the structure of Santa Monica that with all the building that's occurring that is taken in consideration that

there are two and three unit two and threebedroom unit that are being built into the new buildings. Initially, it was a lot of singles, a lot of single uh units and a lot of onebedrooms. And we we voiced that our concern to that to city council and that, you know, we were were able to maintain the feel of of a family and a family community. um as we move on into the future and whatever that tends to look like, we just want to be certain that uh our communities aren't broken up so much so that they're unrecognizable. So, um I think yeah, I think my primary goal was just really was just to reach out. Um I I met with disabled and uh commu uh commission last week. I feel like we've since pandemic, I feel like we've all sort of moved out into the ne Netherlands and I'm hoping that we can sort of rebridgeidge our gaps since our we all have the same common goal. We want people to be in better straits. We want to help them along that way. Um, and I just felt that if I, you know, met you guys and we could sort of communicate and see what's going on with you, see what's going on with us, and hopefully that will help everyone's needs going forward. Um, that's kind of it. I didn't have a lot planned. I just really wanted to introduce myself and I appreciate your time. Any questions? Knock yourself out.

Thank you for coming out. Of course. A couple questions. Go ahead. Um, first of all, has anyone ever told you you bear a striking resemblance to Joan Ddian? Oh my gosh, no. [laughter] Thank you for Yeah, you do. Um, and in terms of bedroom mix, we totally sympathize with you. Um, and you know, the code actually has a bedroom mix prescribed and it um, however, state law that allows density bonuses, which is most of what we're seeing being built. Yes. Lets a developer wave that requirement. So, that's why you're seeing smaller units. Um, and the other point I wanted to make, have you and other commissioners actually toured affordable housing projects in Santa Monica? Yes, I I mean I have. I don't know if

they're about as far from a tenement as I can imagine. In fact, they're a lot often a lot better designed than We were speaking specifically of the new potential off-site units that have not been built yet, but those will be like the ones we're seeing here. It's the same developers basically. Um, they have a tendency to be cheaper with less fabrication. They use cheaper materials. Um they may tend Oh, there was one thing that I forgot. Thank you for reminding me. They may tend to be um here's for instance 17th in Colorado right to us right next to a cement mixing plant. Yeah,

it's a carcinogen just waiting to happen. So, we just want to make sure that everyone is healthy. And I could be way off base because they haven't been built yet per the the discussion of it um just a few months ago. I think in June was the first time we became Let me let me stop you there. My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that the the off sites have to be be built by nonprofits. Isn't that correct? Yes. If some if a Mercury developer wants to offsite their affordable units, they have to partner with a nonprofit in order to uh be eligible for the off-site option. And those are nonprofits who've built the really beautiful affordable housing projects in Santa Monica. So,

well, I'm I absolutely hope that you're correct, but what I what I've seen in other cities, and I could be way off base here in Santa Monica, is that um that the housing that's built offsite tends to be more lowinccome. And if I'm wrong, I that's great. Well, it is low income. That's But I mean low in because our hope was that everybody could mix, right? the low-income family could live among higher income family. Their children would be raised with other people's children. So that there's a the

I understand what you're saying and we have a philosophical difference then because I believe that you get a lot more social services, community space, child space, etc. in a 100% project than you would in a market rate project. They don't provide that stuff. Okay. Thank you. So um thank you. I just a couple just a couple of points. one is historically uh I want to say 20 we did a joint I believe we did a joint meeting once uh with the housing

uh with the housing commission a long time ago around homelessness um and uh and that was pretty productive because it was an effective study session that brought the community got engaged the community where we were looking at common questions so I just want to put into your quiver um you know the potential possibility of that kind of collaboration. If we can identify that would be awesome chair that's you know when when you know chair and vice chair with chair and vice chair to figure it out. Um the other is uh to commissioner Lambert's point I I think some of what I've heard you describing um reflect and and you said at the beginning I mean it's like drinking from a fire hose right when you first get involved in this work. Um there's a whole history here. Um, there's a history of inclusionary housing and off-site housing that goes back to a number of different projects with the kinds of issue with the kinds of considerations back and forth that Commissioner Lambert raised and I would sort of commend them to you. There was a um long and drawn out discussion over I think uh 500 Broadway um which led to the production of the Aoyo uh by uh community corporate. It's a beautiful building. Um what I would what I would suggest to you is that the difference between um typically a diff the difference between an affordable housing uh project and a market rate housing project and I've toured both uh is the brand name of the dishwasher, right? It's that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about we're not talking about uh the the the structural integrity or the design quality of the building. We're talking about um you know whether the whether the kitchen countertop is fancy, right? Or is it serviceable. Uh but they don't they don't want to buy something cheap either because they don't want to have to replace it after every tenant.

No, I understand. Right. So I I it's it doesn't I think it it helps us to have a holistic conversation about some of these issues. And to your point about the 30%, right, um we're required under the charter to aim for that. Yeah. But the way our rules work, as Commission Commissioner Lambert said, um means you get a lot less under um under the under real conditions. And those are the struggles that we all that we all navigate. There other beach cities, Manhattan, Huntington, who have done higher percentages. Huntington Beach. No,

they can't. they they they can't under state law. So, they also are those are those are municipalities, at least one of them, that have been sued for failing to meet their housing mandates. And that's something we've worked really hard to do. So, it's there are there are always trade-offs and I I think the LA the conflicts that we've had here in the last decade um are worth studying because you can see and you know we could you'll land somewhere right you'll you'll you'll form your own opinion but I think we've had a lot of these debates and we're trying to find pathways through is tonight's agenda um kind of is uh evidence of

I think one other thing that I forgot to mention which is also a concern to housing commission are the the units that are going to be built near the freeways with the offging and the fumes and the concern for um the proximity and how that will be addressed in the builds. And we've had those conversations here when we did the housing element. We were actually looking at whether those kinds of properties ought to be on the suitable sites inventory. It is worth noting that I believe it's 500 ft.

Well, no, I was going to say there are a number of vehicles that simply cannot go west of Cloverfield. Um, so when you're talking about when you're talking about environmental impacts, they are very different east of Cloverfield from west because of the constraints of the McLer tunnel and what can actually what what the environmental damage looks like. But we we have talked about the 500 ft. We have encouraged environmental studies. We have standards for how those things can be glazed. your point about 17th in Colorado, that raises a question from me for staff,

which is how much how much of Metro's um housing plans are within our jurisdiction and how much of them are totally outside of our [clears throat] uh influence. It's it's not it's it's u Metro property. Yeah. Um you know, so that's part of their like 10,000 homes initiative. They have consulted with us um in terms of integrating into the city system. um you know and for comments and things like that. Um but we don't have like direct um control over the property. I think you know if it comes into requirement no no we we we would approve it ultimately but um in terms of the planning and the RFP process we don't have oversight over that but in terms of for example environmental issues.

Yeah like an environmental issue relative to the cement plant would that be a state there be state standards county standards our standards? If I could just take I'm happy to answer the question. I think we're probably getting a little bit far field from the agenda item. [laughter] Um, and this is I live in the future and that's a big issue. Absolutely. [laughter] I'm just I it just never occurred to me that we had anything any power over it because when you raised it as something you were working on, it just never jurisdiction

of our cons because it was brought to us as it was probably brought to you. Oh, Bergammont 17th and parking structure 1 were brought to us for our feedback. Um, and that was our biggest issue because obviously it's it's in a good area. Um, it has proximity to Metro, but it sits on top and we don't know what how the groundwater is, what type of an issue would occur in regard to the cement and what when it rains leeching into the groundwater. These are things we worry about at night.

Absolutely. I think we'd be happy to have a offline conversation. Planning staff has actually been to the housing commission before. Um probably with a prior I think there's probably been turnover on the commission. We're always happy to um come and speak with the commission on, you know, issues around policy. Um but again, I I don't want to get too far a field on the agenda item tonight. Of course. Of course. All I'm going to say is thank you very much for coming out for your service and I do believe that conversations with commissioners um a on a lot of your issues I think

as commissioner but we've these are things that have been discussed for a long time and housing the housing field as you know is very complicated so there's a lot of different opinions but I would urge you to kind of reach out to commissioners and have conversations with them about and I guess that's another reason why I'm here is to see what has been discussed that we don't know about price

a lot, right? A lot. So, that would be very advantageous to us. in regard to um cheaper builds and that are managed by companies who are not doing a good job because their pipes break and they're in the city of Santa Monica and the tenants come to us um because of I think that that was in the back of our minds in regard to offsite but you know hearing

have you been following the cost curve of affordable housing? It costs a fortune a great deal more than market rate. These are buildings that have that are have been built prior to this, but just just in the feedback of buildings that may not have been very well constructed, plumbing should not, you know, fall apart in a newer building and tenants shouldn't have to live with mold. So anyway, to be continued. I appreciate your time and I appreciate the relationship that I hope we will continue in the future. Thank you. Thank you again for speaking to us. Any other questions? No. Um, let's move on to item five, which is planning commissioner's announcements.

Commissioner Lambert, do you have a motion? Because of my knee condition and the fact that no one wants to see the scar, I'm I'm asking that 11A be moved up so that I can actually sit through it because I really can't sit for a long period of time. Make a motion. I'll second. And I still move. But to what? You want to move? Move it up above 9A. 9A. Yeah, I'll second that. Great. We do a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. I. I. Passes. Thank you. I have an actual announcement. All right, Commissioner Andrew.

I have an actual announcement. Just something that I thought was really cool. Um, last week I attended um wearing my planning commissioner hat uh LA, which is an annual conference on uh mobility and transportation in in LA. And I saw a presentation I I'm going to get the name of the company wrong and it doesn't matter because I don't want to um shill for any company on the day is I believe they were called systematica. But what was really cool about them was that they were doing user centered design data collection around wayfinding. [snorts] And what they acknowledged was the idea that and and this is in the in honor of your having moved the the agenda item. You'll you'll get it is that if you're trying to get from point A to point B and you are someone who has two working knees. Mhm.

Uh [clears throat] the journey to from point A to point B might be a lot shorter than for someone who has a stroller or someone who is in a wheelchair and or for someone who is um a single woman walking alone at night. uh and they actually are doing mapping work that I thought was very Santa Monicaesque about understanding that distances between two points are not always the same. You said rate or rate. I said rate. Did you say rate study?

Rate. No, it was a it's a data study. Okay. It's a data study. And um and I thought that was I thought that was very interesting data and I wanted to share it in the spirit of how we think about mobility um in the city because we've had lots of conversations around individual projects or around um our uh housing element or our circulation element um uh about how people get around and why some people feel safer here and some people don't. And these folks, I'm sure they're the, you know, one of many, have started to think about recognizing that in fact it is different. And you can you can map that. You can map those differences and then start to plan and say we want to shorten the the distance between A and B for school kids, right? And if particularly if we're thinking about the design of the park or other large um other large projects. So, I just thought I'd share that. It was pretty cool.

[snorts] Yeah, thank you. There there were no there were no flying taxis at this one. I don't think so. [laughter] Thank you, Commissioner Andrew. Any other announcements? Commissioner Fresco.

Um I am going to shill for somebody right now. Myself. Um I just want the world to know that I am about to publish a book, self-publish about the history of the Santa Monica airport. It's called First Around the World. Uh, and this is what it's going to look like. I made the cover myself. It's a watercolor. Um, and if anybody in the world is interested in knowing when it's actually going to be released and available, I have a little website, smhistory company.com, and you can fill out the form and then I'll send you an email and let you know how to get it once I figure out how I'm going to get it to you. So that's it.

Thank you. Congratulations. Congratulations. Any other announcements?

So before we get into the public input, just a quick announcement that if anybody wants to speak on an agenda item, uh you must submit a request form that looks something like this uh to the commission secretary who's over there on my left. and all requests to address the commission on public hearing items must be submitted before the commission considers the item. We have two speakers already on um items that are not on the agenda and uh if you would come up to the podium. Um we have first will be Jerry Rubin and second will be Sean Delgardio.

Go ahead Jerry. Okay. Well, thank you very very much. Uh, all the commissioners, city staff, I think it's great coming to these meetings personally and I just wanted to come just to wish you all a happy Thanksgiving. That was the only reason I wanted to come here today. I was walking here and thinking, what a great city we have. What great city staff. I know most of you and the work you've done over the years and I know the challenges we have. This is a great city. All those challenges will be met and overcome. I'll guarantee it and even get it notorized. That that will be true if we're all working together. [gasps] I know next year is going to be an election year and it seems strange that I wish elections weren't like, oh, negative publicity really works. You have to do it because it leaves wounds. Everybody here and everybody I know on the city council and in the neighborhood groups love Santa Monica and care about it. And I just wish that wouldn't happen. When I see the people putting up banners in the past that said Santa Monica's asylum or

dangerous, you're going to get killed. I I try to talk to them, but I can't reach them. But most everyone that I've talked to, residents and visitors alike from around the country and around the world, when I'm at my sticker table, say they love Santa Monica. I see a prominade that's clean and people working on it and I see it safe and we have a great police department, a fire department, great schools, great commissions. I'd like to see us network more. I invite you to network with the urban forest task force, for instance. I mean, we're the only task force in the city still, but they're doing a great job. And they've been working with the city to help plant more trees downtown and clip the trees. And the plan to reinvigorate Santa Monica and revitalize it is a great thing. And all I want to say is how grateful I am personally to live here and really appreciate all the work that you're doing. That's it.

Happy. Thank you. Happy birthday. December 11th. You're all invited. Sean Delgardio.

Thank you. Yeah, you pronunciated that pretty accurately. Shaond Delgatoio 911 Montana Avenue is the address that I reside at. Um there's a development that's been in the works now for approximately 8 years. Uh it commenced in January, was supposed to be completed in August. It's still going. There is it's a 16-unit building, horseshoe shaped. I think it was built in 1940. It was a malt shop initially. They are expanding it. Of which triggers the DOJ or federallymandated ADA parking spot um of which the first architectural designs on the project show the spot. So Howard Lax who did the fidelity building in the lobster submitted plans um to which showed the correct iteration if you will of the designs. They ran into me and we don't have I don't have enough time to tell you what happened there exactly but they [snorts] if you will found a loophole um technical infeasibility which does not apply to residential buildings. um even if it did, it wouldn't be the the the the extent of the damage to um to exempt them from making the spot. So, there's a lot the FOYA request I did a long time ago, I haven't done one in almost three years. I'm sure it would be a windfall, but the people there are distressed. Other people in his buildings are distressed. Uh the Mills Act is a big part of this developer's modus operandi. So um as far as I'm concerned, it's lipstick on a pig.

So when he when he stepped up to the mic a long time ago and tenants came to because we were never actually addressed um about the demolition and construction that was going to go on. We just got the card and everyone went down there and we had a woman who's now 96 years old who lives there has a pacemaker. She was screaming at, you know, the commission and not knowing what was going on. Another lady was crying about the grass disappearing. Um, I was baffled because 54 square ft of my kitchen and bathroom was about to disappear for this ADA mandated spot. Now, this thing is just convoluted. the city is disorganized and the departments whether it be building safety there's a lot more going on here. Um, I can just submit that uh we would appreciate the planning commission. Yeah. How much time do I got uh to to look at this a forensic audit of sorts um uh the permits everything to do with with uh the whole the whole uh project. Um so it's again it's an

if I might jump in this sounds like a complicated issue and I'm not certain that it falls under the purview of the planning commission right but I would suggest that you do get in touch with staff to make sure that your issue is understood and if it's something that the planning commission can help with uh they can advise you accordingly

right I wasn't quite certain if you guys uh did have any uh power to No, you don't. Right. I was Well, at least it's for the record, I guess. Um, but building safety has a has a meeting as well, correct? Well, look, I don't that's fine. I know when the meetings are I don't particularly, but you guys can't do anything about about what's going I mean, the plan planning. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm not sure that we can and I don't know that we can determine whether that's possible right here, but you've spoken your piece. the staff here and I would suggest you speak with them and find out what the next step is.

Gotcha. Ross, Ray, and Jing, you guys know a little bit about this. I'll just leave you with this. 911 Montana, it's it's all in the uh it's a 911 at 911, if you will. So, thank you, guys. Thank you. Our next item, our next item is item number seven, the consent calendar. Chair, I'd like to pull the minutes of October 29th, 2025. Do we have a second? I don't need a second to pull it. Okay. I'm not moving it. I'm pulling it. All right.

Um All right. Would you like to speak on it? Do you want to vote on the others before we do? How do you want to do that? Do we uh Yeah, if you want to vote on the other minutes, then we can do the one that Commissioner Landers pulled. All right. Uh does anyone else have anyone else to pull or I gave my notes to Ethan in advance, so I believe they were addressed. So I believe we are approving uh August 8. You're just pulling October and 29th, right? So, we are approving August 18th, July 7th, June 16th, June 3rd, and June 2nd of various all 2021. All right. [laughter] Does it matter if I wasn't at October 18th? No. No. No.

Uh, okay. So, we can do a vote. Uh, Commissioner Fresco, yes. Commissioner Lambert, yes. Commissioner Landress, yes. Commissioner Reese, yes. And Vice Chair Choco, yes.

Great. So, on the October 29th minutes, I have um one kind of technical issue where I'm going to be that guy and another more substantive one that I I wanted to bring up on the record. Um the I'm going to be that guy on the what are called expartes. Um these are DAS and I believe it's confusing to the public to call these expartes when they were not legally required. So my suggestion, it's a double suggestion. If the commission wants to make create a requirement that for DAS we have exparte disclosures, we could certainly add that to our rules. It would be legal, but they're not in our rules right now. So I would like to change those to voluntary disclosures or voluntary exparte disclosures to make clear that they were not legally required um and avoid misunderstandings about anybody who didn't volunteer. um and sort of throw into the mix if the commission wants to come back and make those things required we should just do that through a process. So my suggestion is that we just change the language from exparte to voluntary exparte disclosure or something like that. Um [snorts] is that

agree with everybody? I'm sorry to be that guy but I think it's important so that people understand. Um no I'm not [laughter]

clarification. Okay. This is the more this is the this is the this is the bigger one. Um when we talked with the applicants, I asked every applicant to commit on the record to proactively addressing prospective tenant health concerns and each of them on the record said that they would. I could not find in the minutes that those promises and I think it's really important before this goes to council that any commitments such as those or any others that were made by applicants in our hearing show up in the minutes. So if that means we need to like approve these December 17th, um I'm cool with that. But I I just feel that they made some commitments to us and and what I saw in the minutes were just kind of discussion notes rather than in fact my motion to approve was predicated on their commitments being part of the approval.

So I think there could be two options. We could either revise them and bring them back to you at the next hearing for you to see them in approvement at that point or you can state into the record and this approval to add you know the word voluntary to the exparte and that uh promise that all the dev das uh set on the record. So I'll let you decide if you would like to see it or not. Um, others were here, so I don't want to be I'd be comfortable either way. And I'm happy to make the motion, but again, it's you're the one who Yeah. I mean, I I You probably want to see the language.

No, I'm okay not seeing the language. I This is a legal question. is the are the minutes of record the the audio recording or these

I would say these are the minutes that staff has summarized for the meeting. However, the audio would still be part of the record as to what happened at the meeting. So, if you'd like to see that reflected in the minutes, staff can certainly do that. So the suggestion that I was going to make is to is to to move something along the lines and Jim tell me if this is acceptable. um that we would approve the minutes with the correction of expartes to voluntary exparte disclos disclosures with the uh understanding that staff will update the the minutes to reflect commitments made by applicants for each development agreement uh pursuant to the audio recording so that if somebody says well I don't you know like if we come back and and we don't have them that the minutes don't seem to comport with what was on the audio that that we're we're saying in advance whatever's on the audio is what goes. Is that does that work

from a legal perspective? That works. Yep. Cool. Does that work for you? My only question to you is do you want to be more specific that it's any comments they made about that specific issue you brought up or did you have other conditions? Any commitments that they made? So any that that that that any commitments made by the applicants including but not limited to um resolving tenant health concerns related to the lights. I I don't know that there were many other

Yeah. Well, the note that I gave that I think there's a draft somewhere that Ethan corrected which is similar in a way. So, I think it's something to just sort of pair together was that it showed a lot of our discussion, but it didn't clarify what the recommendations we actually were making to council were. And I wanted to make sure the minutes reflected what we wanted council to know after we blabbed about it for hours. I mean, the issue is, isn't council dealing with this on the 16th of December? Correct.

Yeah. So, I mean, I'd love to see these in an ideal world, these would come back to us when we see each other on the 17th, but that will be after council. So my my motion would incorporate Commissioner Fresco's um uh let me add to the motion. So, it's the voluntary exparte disclosures um updating these minutes to reflect commitments all commitments made by applicants including but not limited to uh addressing uh tenant health concerns and um incorporating uh the specific recommendations that were made with respect to each with respect to the um the the ordinance and then each of the development agreements uh such that the audio recording ultimately governs the record. Um, and uh that if there's any doubt that our vice chair uh who was chairing the meeting is perfectly capable to consult with staff to make sure it's it's copathetic. If you don't if you don't mind sharing them with Pier before it goes to council, that would be really helpful.

Yeah, Pier is fine with that. That's fine. Thank you. Great. So moved. So moved. Second. So to uh Oh, sorry. You second it. So to approve the October 9 29th uh 2005 25 minutes with the uh revisions that Commissioner Landris just wrote uh spoke into the record. Uh I'll have to do a roll call. Uh Commissioner Fresco, yes. Commissioner Lambert, yes. Commissioner Landress, yes. Commissioner Reese, yep. Vice Chair Choco. Yes. Thanks, guys. We did four days in one night. You missed it. All right.

So, shall we move Should we move on to item 11? I think that's our next item, right? It's not often we get a presentation from somebody sitting there who walks over to there. [laughter] You know, I'm I'm doing double duty tonight. And I just want to remind Ross, this is the 1123 presentation and not the R1 anti-ansionization presentation.

Correct. You know, [laughter] anything with R1 seems to fall under my umbrella forever. Ross one, let's just

I'm renaming the zone. That's also in this presentation. Um, but that is correct. Uh, tonight we are I'm here to present an ordinance regarding two state laws, uh, SB 684 and SB123, which are largely part of the same government code. Uh, one in the multifamily district and one in the single family districts. Uh so just as a little bit of a background uh on September 19th, 2025, SB1 1123 was signed by the governor uh which became effective on July 1 of this year. On May 13th of this year, city council directed a staff to return with an ordinance allowing ADUs in conjunction with projects utilizing SB123. So on June 10th of this year, uh we brought forth an emergency intim zoning ordinance uh implementing the allowance of ADUs in SP123 projects. And then at that hearing, council also provided additional direction to staff to return with amendments that modified specific requirements and development standards to ensure the feasibility of SP123 projects. So then on July 29th uh we came with the extended emergency zoning ordinance uh with the amended interim uh zoning regulations that councilor specified which I'll go over in the next slide. And then on August 12th, uh, council adopted a resolution of intention directing the planning commission to initiate an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance related to projects utilizing the two government codes that encompass uh, SP123 and 684 and council's direction as stipulated in the ICO uh, that they've did on June 10th and June 29th. Uh, so what was in that? Uh so council's direction was to permit ADUs in all projects using the government codes. So that would be projects on parcels zoned for single unit residential uh which is the SB123 component of it and also on parcels that permit multi that permit multiple unit

dwellings. So that is the SB 684 component of the government code uh that came before 1123. uh they also uh specifically only for SB123 projects. They also uh gave direction to eliminate the affordable housing production program or the HPP in LU fee for projects with five or fewer units and they modified the following development standards. Uh they wanted to permit a maximum F of 1.5, a building height of three stories and 33 feet in height. Uh they wanted they gave direction to reduce the front yard setback by 30% but in no case can it be less than 10 ft. Uh they wanted to eliminate upper story stepbacks. And finally they wanted to eliminate the interior setback and stepbacks between ADUs on newly created parcels except as required by the California building code. So that was what the emergency ordinance that uh adopted um on the 29th or extended on the 29th. So to give a little bit more background just to catch everyone up to speed on what is SP1 1123. So as I mentioned it became effective on July 1 of 2025 and it largely built off of a prior state law the SB684 uh portion of it uh which at that point required local agencies to ministerally approve uh the following on parcels that permit multiple unit dwellings. So, they had to ministerly approve subdivisions resulting in 10 or fewer parcels for certain housing developments and housing projects consisting of 10 or fewer units on parcels that were based off of that subdivision. Uh, and it requires a local jurisdiction to approve or deny project within 60 days. So 1123 is what built off of 684, which really just took that government code and now applied it to single unit residential zones with a handful of tweaks, but

largely the same concept was still there. Uh but it added a couple extra uh requirements. Uh and I just want to note that everything I the overview I'm giving right now is based off of staff's current understanding of SP1 1123. If any future guidance was ever provided by HCD or any other implementing body, we of course would uh change our implementation of SP123. But this is based off of our understanding review of other peer cities like city of LA that this appears to be the implementation as it is today. Uh so a couple things that SB123 added that is specific to single unit zones is it requires the parcel to be vacant uh which is defined as having no permanent structure unless the permanent structure is abandoned or uninhabitable at time of the application submittal. So it doesn't necessarily mean that the the parcel had to be vacant a year ago. You could become vacant tomorrow and therefore eligible for SB123. And as far as habitable and uh abandoned and unhabitable, that would be determined by the building official. Additionally, it added that it could not be applied to any parcel greater than 1.5 acres and it also has to be substantially surrounded by qualify by qualified urban uses, which is all of Santa Monica. Uh it does also include uh displacement and tenant protections uh by not permitting projects that result in the demolition or alteration of the following. Uh these are the kind of the same four protected unit definitions we've had you know in various state laws. So you cannot alter destricted affordable housing housing subject to rent control housing that was occupied by a tenant within 5 years preceding the date of the application. So not necessarily the demo date. It's 5 years from when they file an application. We would look back five years to ensure there was no tenants uh in that structure. And finally, uh, housing that

has been removed, uh, been removed from rent control under the Ellis Act in at least 15 years before the date of application. Uh, additionally, there is a handful of locationational restrictions. Uh, this is not a this is a smaller list than the list in the state law, but these are the ones that are most applicable to Santa Monica. Uh, it is not permitted on parcels that were created using SB9. So, you can't do an SB9 lot split and then do an 1123 lot uh subdivision. Uh it is not allowed on parcels in high or very high fire hazard severity zones. Uh unlike SB9 where they give it's kind of a maybe if you're able to kind of provide certain building standards, SP9 could be applied. This is a hard no for SP123 if you're in the fire zones. And uh we did locally earlier this year adopt uh updated fire maps as well which is predominantly the northern portion of the city. Uh and also parcels uh within a delineated earthquake fault zone uh are not eligible unless they can uh unless the development complies with applicable seismic protections. So largely this is required there they need to provide a fault study at time of application so we can ensure that they are allowed to build there. Uh next, uh the newly created parcels after the subdivision have to be at least 1,200 square feet in size. Uh this is a small, uh tweak from the original state law where in multi-unit districts, uh the minimum size is only 600 square f feet. So that's a small change, uh compared, you know, between the two zones. Um it does allow a local inclusionary ordinance to apply. Uh and it also allows a jurisdiction to decide whether to permit ADUs. And as I said earlier, that was a council policy direction to allow ADUs. I do want to note that if a local agency does choose to permit ADUs or JDUs, the units shall not count as residential units. So they

don't count towards the 10 units that could be created as like a base project. Um it allows for so it ultimately does allow for the ministerial or subdivision of parcels to up to 10 newly created parcels and it may therefore surpass local density limits. uh it defaults to the underlining zoning district to determine what can be built on each newly created parcel. So in the R1 uh except for ADUs, you would only get to build one single unit dwelling. Uh and then this really applies to the most applicable subdivision types would be either fee simple ownership lots or common interest developments would ultimately kind of be like aerospace subdivisions. Uh we are allowed to impose objective standards on developments. uh but does not permit the following. Uh we cannot uh impose a height limit that is less than the underlining zoning district. We cannot require a setback between units. So therefore they can kind of share on the parcel line. Uh the side and rear setback from the original lot line cannot be greater than four feet. Uh parking within one half mile walking distance of high quality transit. We cannot require parking in those instances. And we have to allow a development sizes that would provide for the following. If you are three to seven units, you have we have to allow at least a 1.0 F. If you're eight to 10 units, it's a 1.25. And and cumulatively, the average total floor space of all the units together uh have to equal 1,750 square ft. So the proposed amendments uh ultimately staff has taken council's policy direction through the emergency and in front of you is the proposed amendments that would codify that into the zoning ordinance. Uh we are doing this through a new section uh s uh 9.31.335 small lot subdivisions that as I mentioned implements council's direction

of eliminating the affordable housing production program fee for five or five or fewer units modifying development standards to allow a 1.5 F. So that would go above the state law that requires at maximum 1.25 so it's not more restrictive. um a height of three stories and 33 feet which would be more than the R1 district allows currently uh reducing the front yard setback by 30% but no less than 10 ft and eliminate upper story setbacks and finally allow ADUs in all projects uh that utilize these government codes. I do want to point out that the direction to eliminate the interior setbacks and setbacks for ADUs was not included because it's largely redundant as there are already no setback requirements between units for the state law and by eliminating upper story setbacks already. You don't need to apply those to the ADUs as ADUs for those development standards already uh comply with the underlining zoning district. So, it was unneeded to state that in the amendments. Additionally, on top of council's direction, just to help with implementation and clarity purposes, we also included a handful of standards that the state law overrides of our development standards. For example, uh in the R1 district, we have a minimum parcel size of 5,000. State law allows 1,200. So we included a handful regarding parcel size, parcel dimensions, setbacks, average unit size, and required density just to uh kind of complete the list of what the state law is allowing via council's direction and the state law provisions. Um and we did also include a section uh to acknowledge the ministerial review process of these subdivisions. Uh this is a table that kind of I hope summarizes uh the kind of the differences. So, uh, the far left is the various development standards, not all of them. Uh, the next column is what the R1 zoning district requires. The middle

column is what SP123 requires. And then you can see on the far right, uh, what the proposed modifications would be, uh, kind of how they all kind of build off of each other. So, you'll see, for example, like for the density, uh, R1 allows one unit plus four ADUs. SP 1123 requires us to do up to 10, but with the proposed modification, we would do 10 units pursuant to state law and the ADUs. Uh the FS, you know, between, you know, the original zoning district all the way up to 1.5 if the proposed amendments are adopted. Uh height, uh in the R1 zoning district, we have a twotory and 28T height limit. Um SP 1123 just says we can't go lower. uh council's direction. The proposed amendments include three stories and 33 feet in height. Um and largely it's you know it's just is just a kind of a compare and contrast between what state law requires and what council is re uh is proposing. Uh this is also just to put some numbers to things uh to provide a little analysis of you know what does an F really mean. Uh so I kind of chose three pretty st well two standard parcel sizes. Uh 6,500 is fairly common in the Sunset Park district. 7500 is a little bit more common in let's say the NMA side of the city. And to include kind of a larger parcel that we have other development standards that are based off of, I also include a 10,000 foot parcel. So you'll see density pursuant to SP123 would allow on these parcel sizes either five, six, or eight parcels. The next row is the F that is allowed under the current zoning ordinance. So the range and the range is either a twotory or a onetory. So it kind of depends on what you're proposing. And then the next three columns are an F of 1.0 which is state law required. An F of 1.25 which is state law required. And I it is not a mistake that I didn't fill in those two

boxes or 1.25 is uh you only get 1.25 if you're 8 to 10 units. And in 6,500 or 7500T parcels, you can't get to eight. So that 1.25 25 would not be available but if adopted the council recommendation or proposed policy of 1.5 would apply to all SP123 projects. So I wanted to put some square footages to what FS mean for various parcel sizes I think as I people can wrap their head around that a little bit more. Um, additionally, just as some cleanups so we can implement this, uh, we had to eliminate the prohibition of ADUs that is stated in our in our ADU ordinance for these government codes. So, if we are allowing ADUs now, we needed to kind of get rid of that language. And also just to add a reference to the state law in our uh, land division ordinance. Uh, as of 1 pm, I think we only had 3 We had 34 public comments, 21 letters in support, 12 in opposition, and one I'm calling miscellaneous. It was more commenting on the intricacies of our zoning ordinance coupled with state law, how it's kind of hard to navigate it all. Uh, the letters in opposition, uh, there's a couple points I wanted just to clarify. Uh, some of the letters stated that they didn't want us to, uh, uh, implement SB123. That is not what is before us. 1123 is state law. We are required to implement it. What really is before you is uh reviewing council's policy direction of the modified standards to help these projects be more feasible in their eyes. Um also there was a letter in reference to the local hazard plan and the safety element. You know why are we allowing more density when we still have kind of safety factors to figure out. And I do want to just highlight as I did earlier that state law does already pro fully prohibit you know SP1 1123 developments

in any fire zone or high or very high fire zone and if it's an earthquake fault zone there is an earthquake fault study that has to be done. So we do feel that there is some already acknowledgement via the state law to kind of address some of those kind of local hazard and safety concerns. Uh and so with that uh the recommendation from staff is to you know adopt the resolution that allows for ADUs in all uh projects both 684 and 1123 and modify the development standards as was provided by the city council. Uh but by all means uh this is your opportunity to weigh in and provide a different recommendation than the policy direction that council provided that staff will of course bring forward to council for their consideration uh when we bring that in some I believe late January and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Uh I'm going to alternate on the two sides. So let's let's start with Commissioner Lambert and then um Commission I I just have a procedural question. If we if tonight we decide other than to adopt an ordinance um or that could the council then proceed on its own and do its ICO as a permanent ordinance?

Ultimately you are you are doing a recommendation to the council on how they how you feel like they should proceed in adopting a local ordinance modifying certain development standards. It is ultimately the council's decision to what they want to adopt or not. Uh we are providing you the policy that they provided us through the emergency ordinance and this is the opportunity for the public and the commission to weigh in on those standards that they uh at at the moment have uh modified. By the way, you have done an amazing job. Thanks. And and I have driven him crazy the past couple day with some questions. So hats off to you.

I enjoy it. Um, I guess my I have a lot of I have a lot of discussion, but a few questions. If there were not an ICO, somebody could walk in tomorrow with an SB123 project and get it approved by the city. 100%. Yes, they would to comply with just the state law. Nothing whatsoever to stop that from happening. Absolutely not. Um, and I just have some they're probably kind of out there questions because I'm not sure you would know what what the answers are. How did they come up with a 1.5 F? I mean there must be some rationale here for us to chew on.

You know honestly I I cannot recall. I think they were largely trying to look at you know what would maybe three stories need to provide any amount of flexibility that might be needed for these projects. Um I don't even know if 1.5 could ultimately be achieved on some of these parcels. I mean 1.5 is not a guarantee. It's just a maximum. Um it's not a minimum. Then why set it at 1.5? Um I I guess my my other question is have they done a financial analysis to prove that um AHPP fees don't work for five or less units? Not a recent one. Uh we did one a long time ago in the housing element uh that resulted in kind of essentially no not with the current standards but not an updated one

but there's nothing now nor is there any study that showed that you could do on-site for six or more which is what would happen. There's no recent study. So as their ICO reads, projects with 6 to 10 units would have to do an on-site affordable.

Correct. So it's the the elimination of the HPP requirement is only for a project really an airspace subdivision project that is produc that is only doing five or fewer. The fee, the ENL fee that is a about like $50 times per floor area. So it can be, you know, between 200 and $300,000 depending how big the project was. We similarly did exempt SP9 projects from the HPPP. Those are smaller projects obviously. Um but anything six or more would have to provide an affordable unit in an airspace and the council's um secure that that's feasible or they wouldn't have done it. Right. There is no economic study to say one way or the other.

Um do do ADUs count toward the units for AHPP? They do not. They do not. Do they do the square foot do square footies count as the average of less than 1750? They do not. They're basically kind of a invisible units. They're just they're just an incomeroucing unit on the property. Correct. Okay. Um and then finally, I've seen a project recently that that doesn't abide by the step back requirements, but it has a lot of articulation. Is there any way to substitute articulation for because stepbacks are really not that cool. I mean stepbacks are essentially forced modulation. I mean that is the intent of them. Uh without them I can't guarantee you that someone won't build a box.

You understand? Yeah. But but so so we have no tradeoff between articulation and stepbacks. Correct. They're the same thing in our code. That's what they're meant to be doing. But if for example somebody cut a balcony out of the middle of the side of the building, could that count toward the step back? Yes, very much. We we we encourage you to incorporate stepbacks into the design of the building. That was my that was my question. That's good to know. Okay. Um and then f actually finally finally um if there were 1123 project that came in with um uh fee simple size lots so that basically you had a house and a yard around and each one was an individual fee simple ownership. Would that be a cumulative thing for AHPP? We believe not.

I didn't think so. Yeah. Okay. All right. That's all. Thank you. You're done. Great. Commissioner Reese, couple of quick questions for you. Um I just want to go back to the step back conversation and and she said, you know, it had ariculation, but it didn't meet the spirit of the step back. It seems like we have a process in the city that allows for that type of modification when there's architectural interest. Can that be applied in the situation?

That is a good question. So uh in the R1 you can go to the architecture review board to modify a handful of standards. One of them is if you're not fully complying with upper story stepbacks given that these have to be ministerally approved and that is a discretionary action. I guess we could look at that as a voluntary process that they're choosing to go through. So I think we could provide that if they are choosing to do that. Nobody's going to choose to go through discretionary action in Santa Monica. You uh people will use the ARB for a happens a couple times a year for those type of curious. I remember we had that commercial building where Yes.

And which I was at an event last week where they won awards for that building. By the way, the one on Wilshire, I believe you're talking about uh that was through a minor mod. uh those only the it's in the R1 only do we give discretion to ARB to wave some standards and all other zones they're through other modifications that either are minor mods that go through the zoning administrator or they come to the planning commission. Okay, thank you very clear. Um are you seeing is the city seeing action on the 11 you know on the the initial state law the 1123.

So uh we have one project that has been submitted has not been approved yet. Uh it is proposing eight fe simple lots on a 13,000 plus square foot lot original lot size. I think it's a little over 13. Uh they're they're provide they're proposing eight units and they're not using anything in the emergency interim zoning ordinance. They're complying with state law. I I believe I mean I've uh quickly looked through that. Let me just correct myself. leads me to the next question is why do we need new standards because are we finding out that there is problematic from the state or there's a lack of clarity that I

the state has not weighed in on anything of our local standards that says we are not allowed to do them uh this is very a lot of things going in in Santa Monica why was this of this was you know I think a long-standing kind of trend of council to provide you know greater flexibility to provide diverse housing opportunities in our R1 one neighborhoods starting in the housing element with SP9 going above four units for 10,000 foot parcels. I would imagine this is kind of just the natural trend. Uh but it is, you know, there was no project at the time that was submitted that uh necessitated these standards.

Okay. And I will tell you that I'm having trouble kind of envisioning what these look like in my head. And to bring examples to us when you're presenting code would be really helpful. Like for example, I'm just thinking, okay, so I' I'm dividing a 13,000 square foot lot into eight eight units. I think eight parcels. Does everyone have its own garage and doesn't have a common access point or

This one is providing everyone's having their I don't know if they all have their own garage because state law actually doesn't say we can allow covered parking, but each of them are providing at least one parking space and I think in a garage, but at least one parking space. Um, the plans are posted online if anyone wants to look. They're public record. They're online if anyone wants to look at them. I mean, it may be helpful to think because it was 684 1123. I mean, I think the spirit of it was almost like these like small lot subdivisions if you're familiar with what the city of Los Angeles did and he's kind of, you know, I mean, you

kind of see them through peppered throughout Los Angeles. Um, and you know, in your case, you're thinking about kind of if there's more than typically you see like two of them, but you know, probably in that kind of like walk up skinny town home styleish. I mean, that that that's sort of generally I think in the lastation we have. I will note we actually do have one other that's using 684. It's just a subdivision. Yeah. So, that one is another we have a Yeah, it was in the multif family on Stewart. You can see the approval and it was only doing four uh parcels happened to be a narrow lot.

The interesting part 684 would could have done a lot more was the minimum lot size for subdivision is only 600 square f feet unlike SP 1123 which is 1,200. Okay. Um, again, I don't have huge problems with any of the standards they put in, but it's just hard to visualize to in the in the future if you could try to bring us some. And it doesn't have to be somebody's submitted plans. I'm not saying that it's hard to find examples that that are like this in the city. Uh, there is currently one submitted online that anyone in the public can view if they would like, if you need, but I understand. Okay. Thank you for right now. That's all I have. Thank you. Just checking. Commissioner Fresco, do you have some questions?

Do why don't you go next? And just so you know, um, the next would have been Commissioner Andrew, but I was going to ask you to read Commissioner Wasam's I was going to do that during the discussion just so you can hear what his uh what he wanted to give direction. I wanted to hear your thoughts on his questions. Yes. So, they weren't exactly questions. They were more recommendations. Um, so I believe he uh is Let me let me can I since we're there, can I jump in then? If if Commissioner Wasserman's if Commissioner Wasserman's were more comments than questions, then I think it would be appropriate to do them later. We can pose them as questions. So

you can either way I think we could do them either way. You can either pose them if someone wants to read them out as questions I and ask what I feel about them. I can respond um or I can read them into the record during the discussion portion so you can hear what Commissioner Wasman would have recommended. All right, then let Commissioner Fresco, why don't you go ahead? So, I'm also having a little trouble envisioning and so it's 1,200 in R1. It's 1,200 square feet per lot. That's ground area or is it also airspace area? Uh it's any lot that is created either via through fee simple or an airspace. Each of them have to be at minimum 1,200 square f feet

and maximum 1750 or is that the actual building that that's the unit size not the actual parcel size. So the unit could be two stories and that's how it gets to 17. Okay. So when you said average total floor area, it was the word total that so it's um because that means per new subdivision lot, not per the whole parcel.

Yeah, there are stuff there are a couple state law provisions that kind of make require us to look at the development in a totality and not just an individual lot. So, if someone was providing five units through this or five individual lots with one house on each of those lots, we would have to add up the square footages of each of those houses, divide by five, and make sure there's an the average comes to750. So, you could have one significantly bigger, but then you're going to have to have one smaller. It's just an average. That's what I thought it meant when I read it. And then today, when I was listening to you, I got I suddenly I'm happy to clarify.

I didn't. Um, so the reason they're doing that, I'm just guessing and maybe you know, is because the idea is that these are affordable ownership housing and so they don't want them to get too big because I know condo developers say, "Oh, we can't do it unless it's 2,500 square feet." I'm not sure if the state law specifically states, you know, why that size, but I think one could maybe take the leap in, you know, small lot subdivisions and smaller units by nature are going to, you know, be affordable, you know, or more affordable just given their size. Um, not necessarily like true affordable. Um, and so they didn't want someone, you know, to utilize this probably as mansionization. It's meant to be more units, not big units.

Right. Right. So my other question uh has to do with what a vacant site is? [laughter] So can somebody apply for a demo permit and then scrape the site and then apply for this? Correct. There is no there's nothing in the state law that says you had to be vacant as the date of July 1 when it became effective. So someone could apply tomorrow for a demo permit, go through the normal demo process, demo, and now they're eligible for 1123. But I thought we couldn't demo unless we had our plans approved for what we're going to replace. Not in the single unit district.

Oh, that's everywhere else. Okay, that ex that's interesting. Um, uh, so I mean this gets into the letter that we received, several of the letters we received. Uh, I could not looking at our code and looking at these provisions, I couldn't figure out what they meant by why R1 would have more generous uh provisions than R2. I couldn't

So, well, I think this kind of actually goes to one of Commissioner Wasserman's uh statements. Um, so if you were to adopt or not you, but if council were to adopt their current policy of allowing a 1.5 F and 33 ft in height for R1 SP123 projects, both of those standards are greater than the standards that we currently allow in our multi-unit districts. So an R1 SP1 1123 project will be could be bigger than a code compliant project in the R2 but they would but there's always yeah unfortunately there's it's case by case but yes

but it would be 1.5 floor area ratio to a much much much smaller parcel. So it's not actually a bigger parcel or more parcels potentially. Yes. But the there's still a totality of the building cuz the 1.5 or or if even if it applies to the entire structure I mean even the height alone let's just focus on height 33 feet of height is greater than the 30 feet of height in the R2. Okay.

And I think that is what commissioner was getting at that uh it it was odd that R1 could be essentially bigger than a true multi-unit district. So, and then I just had another AHPP question which I'm basically asking you to repeat things you already said, but go for it. Sometimes I just need that. Um, so we're going to eliminate the requirement or council wishes to eliminate the requirement to require a single affordable unit for between one and

so what it is is uh so how the HPP works of a development between up to five units so five or fewer could either provide an affordable unit or they could fee out and pay an inlue fee which is for uh ownership units it's about $51 per square foot. So pretty it could add up to a big number. Once you hit six units, you have to provide an actual on-site affordable unit. So what the council's policy for the interim zoning or was was to essentially the five and fewer are exempt from the HPP essentially. But if they provide six, they would have to actually provide an affordable unit because they wouldn't even have to pay

that money for affordable housing if we exempt those fees. How if you would if council adopts their policy, you would not get an inloo fee for five or fewer projects. Okay. Um so in this case then if they are if they have to provide an affordable unit when they get to six, they could avoid that by Oh no. Well, in R1 they couldn't they could avoid it by putting in an ADU instead, but that wouldn't work in R1 because you'd still have the same number of parcels.

You're saying ultimately they could they could build four units. So they're exempt from the HPP fee assuming these amendments are adopted. And on each of those do an ADU essentially getting to at least eight units and still getting an 8-unit project but no HPPP requirement I think is what you're asking. I can't remember now if we have moved to that point where we're allowing ADUs to be subdivided and sold. Now we do uh could they do that on these uh yeah any ADUs in this in that's a total workound then

that you can uh create ADU condominiums. It was an it was a state law AB 1033 jurisdictions had to opt into it. We did a couple years ago the second one in the state. San Jose beat us by a couple months but we were the second one to allow it. I've yet to see anyone actually do it though. Right. Right. And they say historic preservation gentrifies. Just saying. Okay. Go on. So, shall I still go ahead with Commissioner Wasman or do you want to go first, Commissioner Andrew? I'll I'll I'll jump in because I want to follow on this. All right. Go ahead. Um,

so let's just start with the four four parcels and four ADUs leading to eight units. Mhm. And now we've sold off the four par we've we've now subdivided into four parcels and we've hived off the ADUs. Have we just taken a parcel that was previously subject to measure SM and chopped it up into little pieces so that no transfer tax is paid uh or owed or paid because suddenly they are each below the threshold? That's interesting.

You know, I don't know the threshold, so I can't Something tells me you're probably correct, but I I don't I'm not sure. Okay. Yeah. I I I mean Okay. Yeah. So, Okay. So, Okay. Um the theme of my questions is what's broken that we're fixing?

You know, I think the development world out there is hard. Yeah. land costs, construction costs, tariffs, you know, everything. We're seeing that, you know, throughout the city in much larger projects. And you know, again, this could be the there is nothing at the moment that I'm aware of that is required to utilize these standards, but again, I think it was council providing flexibility and to help remove any potential barriers to get these projects built so we can, you know, meet our affirmatively furthering fair housing goals of getting 47 units in the R1 zoning district on average every year. It's another feather in the cap along with eight SB9 and the ADUs is you know not to speak for council but that

right I think is the point. So I don't necess I don't it's above our pay grade to assess the urgency of the EIO and I recognize that there's pending litigation so it's way above our pay grade but more to the point the point of an EIO is to say there's a problem and we're going to take a swing at fixing it but now we're not having that conversation council having done what it did then turned around and said you know what we need to go through a process and there was the August 12th ROI that is now before us correct to deliberate.

So following Commissioner Reese's I mean Commissioner Reese's question I think is a really important which one which is how many projects submitted under the EIO standards so far none. Yeah, correct.

I'll ask the followup question which is how many project how many developers have come to you and said we would like to do something but this doesn't work as currently written. We need a better we need something different. None that I'm aware of. But I will say the reason why council uh staff originally brought the policy questions specifically just about ADUs was because we were looking down the barrel of July 1 and we were getting questions. Can we do them? Can we not? So, we needed council to weigh in on that policy question as state law does allow a local jurisdiction to decide that component. Correct.

At that hearing, that is when council expanded upon the staff originally brought just about ADUs. They added the development standards.

Okay. So, and I again not commenting about council's policym on an emergency basis. I'm sort of bringing it to the normal deliberate. I mean, the other thing that Commissioner Wasserman likes to talk about is doing this work through the normal deliberative process. Yes. Right. So then it raises a question for me of my understanding and this is sort of maybe a Michelle question is things that council does in an EIO don't create a floor for a successive housing element. Right? In other words, we can experiment in EIOS and ISOs and if we go back to a previous standard,

it's not like HCD is going to turn around and say you went, you know, we are not ratcheting. Yeah. You're almost it's like downzoning essentially. We're not downzoning. Right. Exactly. Yeah. We haven't evaluated that, but I don't think that that would be the case here. State law requires a certain Yeah, we've gone above and beyond, but we'd have to analyze that further. But on initial thought, we're thinking likely no, but we'd like to look into that a little bit more. So I I mean my understanding is that the EIO process does not create a ratchet from which we would be called. I would agree those are those are not codified into the code the minute we do this.

I I I think to to reiterate the deputy city attorney, you know, that's not a legal analysis we've evaluated yet. Okay? you know, and obviously if that and it would be fact specific and we would look at if that question were raised, we would have to look at that through sure a more detailed and just for the record the EIO expires was the end of next year. So it was not it was a limited term. Okay. Um so yeah, we would need to evaluate that. Totally understood. My point is that anything we do through the regular ROI deliberative process that creates a permanent change to the zoning code, that's fair game, right? Potentially. [laughter] Potentially. Potentially. We want to tread carefully. More likely, right,

on that piece. So, I'm looking at these I'm looking at these proposed modifications. Uh yeah, you can go back to the stand. Well, the table the table is useful and [clears throat] I'm also noting your your kind of recitation in the code of standards that the state is adjusting

and I as much as I am in favor of liberalizing our development standards to try to get um where we're going and this is not discussion there's a question at the end of this I am really concerned about the loss of innovation, trial and error, figuring things out and getting us um being able to like roll back something that just doesn't work. So I'm a my question here is for example, why are we rushing to 1.5? Why are we rushing to three stories in R1? Um we could talk about setbacks. we could right because that's a more technical issue but on the F and the height which is what caused many of us to lose hair follicles over the last you know when we did the R1 mansionization

I I am really hesitant to reopen those and particularly because I'm afraid of what happens in the next housing element so what is the rationale for pushing beyond the state standard Today, council wanted to provide more flexibility and remove barriers to make if if needed to make these projects more feasible. If a little extra more square footage is what they needed, council wanted to provide that beyond state law.

In the absence of evidence that we have people saying, you've only given me 1.0 F and I really need 1.1. There has been no project submitted that has utilized these emergency ordinance uh provisions. Okay, I'm going to stop there for now. And that's an excellent point. Yeah, thank you. Do you have another question? Well, if you don't mind, I'll I'll go first. I actually just have one question and it's sort of related to one that has been asked already but um and I know in a previous presentation you did do some exploration of ADUs on various sites.

I wanted to know specifically if we've looked at the worst case scenario of a 1200 square foot lot with a ADU because it does seem really packing it in there. Sure. And I'm curious about whether anyone has thought about the feasibility of that. You know, ultimately it's for the developer decide if these projects are feasible for them, if they really pencil. Uh the example, the public example that we have submitted, not to utilize them. But, you know, is a 13,000 foot lot and they seem to be only able to squeeze in eight. Um,

but this was to kind of provide some analysis of, well, if you have a 10,000, you could get up to eight. This would be the F you would get, you know, but you would need to now divide that, let's say 1.25 F, that 12,500 ft. You have to divide that by maybe eight units. Is those square footages sellable for you? you know, ultimately that's not something I can weigh in on as far as, you know, does this make sense for developers. All right. Thank you. Let's follow up on another question. Follow up on that. If I'm doing math, and that's always a struggle for me. That's units that are less than 2,000 square feet on the 10,000 square foot parcel.

I'm going to let assume that the math that you did is correct. [laughter] I'm also not, you know, which but remember trying to figure out what the a like. So if I have a 10,000 square foot parcel, I'm allowed 15,000 square feet and I get eight units. That's going to be somewhere less than 2,000 square feet per unit. Can I just interrupt you real quick though? The council's direction though, although to give 1.5 F did not remove the 1750 average unit size. That still currently is not proposed to be amended.

Okay. Okay. But I I guess where I'm my where I was kind of heading with that is that's not an outrageously large build um unit at less than 2,000 square feet and no less than 1750. So I just throw that out there that you know 1.5 does sound big in an R1 lot but when you're looking at mult multiple units you're you're [clears throat] not getting huge units. I know it's an average so I could have one that's sure 12,000 is big. 2,000 is less than the average single family house in I live in a 1500. Yeah. And when was yours built and me too? Me too. But when was it built? Long time ago. 190. And they don't build them that way anymore.

But I understand what you're saying. 15,000 looks big, but when you divide it by eight, that's all I was trying to point out. Yeah. Right. It's it's a little less. I mean, still it's it's 33 feet and 15 It's a lot. It's a lot. Yeah. Um, remind me again how many multif how many multifamily and single family building permits we we kicked out this year. I know I I don't have that number off the top of my head. It's probably less than five. Less than five like new You mean new construction? Yeah, it's I mean I can think one off the top of my head maybe two.

I would say especially in our multif family like those would go through the AA process and right now we're not getting a lot of multi. Yeah, I I I was thinking building permits. Building permits. No, it's it's definitely like less than five. So, I think that also plays into why this council is trying to create flexibility. We have nothing happening in terms of it's hard to build right now. So, but giving away the farm isn't going to change that. I want to get back to a more deliberative process where it where we spend more time looking at things and we recommend up. But I do see some of the value of what the council is trying to to do. But let's discussion. We'll get to that. Do we have do we have Yeah, I do. I do. I do.

Let me start with just very quickly. Um I believe it was in the SP9 an SP9 conversation a couple of years ago where we were tearing by lot size. Mhm.

Was there any thought I'm just trying to organize my thoughts. Um, was there any thought on the part of staff of tiering by lot size to address the micro unit concern? So that to your point, we do have some very large lots that could sustain a quite aggressive subdivision. But we're also we've also heard from a lot of people who are are concerned about the 6,000 and smaller square foot. just to catch everyone up. So in SB9 part of the housing element program was so SB9 at its core is you can you can lot split, you can do a duplex but ultimately you cannot do more than four units collectively. Uh we through our housing element program uh allowed for parcels great 10,000 square feet or greater to go beyond four units through more more ADU development essentially. Um, you could very staff did not consider that as we were directed by council to facilitate their policy, but a recommendation could definitely be from the commission to maybe only allow ADUs again only on certain parcel sizes or square footages only on when you're above a certain size as you said that can maybe handle more development. That could definitely be your recommendation. And SP 1123 does give us the flexibility to

Yes. Do whatever. Use a scalpel rather than an axe. Yes. Okay. I have a question. Yes, Commissioner. Um, now I forgot it. Go ahead.

Um, one of my major concerns and that of a number of people who wrote to us is that there's been zero public participation on this issue. And I don't want to embarrass you because I know you're under a lot of pressure from you know what council did and the timing etc. We never do anything without public participation. It took us months to get a hedge height ordinance and and and months to do the R1 reszoning. I mean this has just been pushed through and I don't really even see the urgency of it given that SB123 already exists and people can build under it and people apparently are. Um, so I would I I I'm not even sure I'm ready to act tonight because of the complete absence of public participation and outreach and explaining what we're doing. I'm very uncomfortable with that and I know you're under an incredible time strain and it's certainly not your fault, but I'm uncomfortable.

You know, I would hope that, you know, this is hopefully some level of publication, but I understand what you're saying. Yeah. Can you What public process has been in place? What would I do without you? There has been, you know, there is various council meetings that kind of led to this point. Uh there has been no formal outreach. Uh I've had meetings with neighborhood or uh entities that have contacted me. Um and then ultimately it's led us to here uh which is also, you know, a public forum.

I had one more question. Sorry. What would what would happen if we um did an ordinance that may not look like the ICO but only covered certain sections of it like the ADUs and the um So your recommendation would be we like some of this but not the other parts of it. That could very much be your recommendation. You could only do the ADUs and nothing else or or the F and the whatever. Your recommendation could also be we don't recommend any of this but the AHPP we could put on hold. If you want to recommend to council to not do the APPP elimination you could recommend well until we know what we're doing. It would be a good idea. Then I you can make that recommendation to not include that in the adoption. Commissioner Fresco,

I don't question. No questions. All right. So let's Yeah, let's move to public comment. Um, and hopefully I'm not mangling the name, but I'm going to try my best. The first speaker would be John Alli. Yes.

U, and then the next one, Mark Brenstein, and then finally, Richard Milani. So, we'll start with John Alli. Thanks. Good to be here. I believe an emergency evacuation route capacity analysis is needed to ensure the safe evacuation of people in Santa Monica before any of this moves forward. The safe evacuation of people in Santa Monica at any given time of day or night in the event of a firestorm or emergency is needed. I lost multiple properties in the Palisades. I have multiple properties in Santa Monica, residential and commercial, some occupied by family. What we saw in the Palisades were long lines of people, fire trucks, firefighters, police unable to get in and people trying to exit and abandoning cars. And what makes Santa Monica different is that here there are 37 miles of curbed bike lanes and 40 to 60 miles more planned making streets narrow lines and delays. Speed bumps are here as well that delays firet trucks. Trying to evacuate old people and disabled is going to be very hard when you add 25 people to a single lot. And that's what we're doing. We're increasing the population. I believe you to be caring and reasonable. All of you. And as decision makers recommending, approving, I don't recommend. I'm asking you not to recommend. Excuse me. Can you wait until I'm finished? I waited here. Thanks. I'm asking you to delay recommending approving or making a decision tonight until this analysis is

figured out as far as an evacuation. No one here has talked about that. Thanks. Appreciate your time. Thank you. You're welcome. The next speaker is Mark Borenstein. Did I pronounce that right? Borenstein. Borenstein. Yes. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Uh my name is Mark Borenstein. I live on Stanford Street and I was um quite interested in the comments that uh or the questions that uh the commissioners asked. But let me first give you my uh what I wanted to come here and then maybe also weigh in on some of the things that Ross said and some of the questions that you asked. Uh first the obvious. The proposed SB123 ordinance before you is exactly the same as the emergency ordinance. It's cut and paste from the emergency ordinance. Um staff included no uh analysis of the expected benefits or detriments of the emergency ordinance. When I went before the council, it was a direction from one council member that was adopted by all of the other by five of the other four of the other council members. But at the time when several of us pointed out that there was no analysis of the impacts that uh these things uh would do, staff and the council said, "Well, we're going to try it for a while. We're going to come back. We're going to show you what works and what doesn't work. We're going to do an analysis that the planning department regularly does for you and for us and for the city council. Well, um guess what? The second obvious point is no one no one has vetted these standards. No one has vetted whether, as some of you have said, you can fit ADUs on on these parcels or whether you can actually build to a 1.5 F or whether

three stories in an R1 zone makes sense to the people of Santa Monica. For those of you who are on the commission in 2022 when you were doing that housing element, you remember that when SP9 the portion of SB9 came to you, you had a study session, you had recommendations, you had different options that were presented. None of that exists with the with the uh proposed ordinance because it's just the emergency ordinance. And I submit although uh Ross I agree has done an admirable job he believes that he has direction from the council that these are the things that need to be in an ordinance and he doesn't he doesn't. In fact, the council allowed for the possibility that they would come to you when they sent the resolution of intent and you would come up with something different or you would defer your decision until the planning department did the analysis that we do not yet have. Um there there is no direction from the city council right now. we're on a blank slate and the planning department should come to you and say this is what makes sense for Santa Monica. These are the benefits. These are the detriments. Maybe we should just live with the state ordinance for the state statute which every other city in the state is relying on. Every other city in the state is relying on. Um, of course, I would love to have one more.

Is there other speakers question? I'm gonna ask him a question. Go ahead. Is there one thing that you're dying to tell me? Yes. The one plan, the one submitted application that's uh that was submitted to the planning department is on Stanford Street. It's the exact property that they came to you with connection with SB9. And you want to know where the 1.5 comes from or the three stories comes from? It comes from the developer who proposed to Jesse Zwick this in an email uh in December and January of 2025. They, you know, so there's been no vetting. I got I got your point.

Okay. Thank you. My understanding is that the Stanford project is in compliance with SB123. It's not in compliance yet. They just submitted the application, but it in terms of F and there no ADUs. No, there are no ADUs and it's in it it's in compliance with the state law. But that's what that's what I meant. But but we don't really know if it's in compliance with the state law because they haven't submitted they haven't submitted a housing plan yet. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Richard Milani. Thank you. And you have three minutes.

What's really on my mind really? Uh thank you very much. I appreciate all of your questions that you're asking uh um Ross and Ross as usual masterful job even though we kind of disagree on a lot of things but I certainly do appreciate your effort. Anyway, my name is Richard Milanazy. I live on Stanford Street also uh not too far from the 1121 1101 Stanford project that we all object to. But um let me just read a short paragraph. I'm struggling to understand why the zoning ordinance needs to be changed. Has a thorough analysis been conducted to show that these changes make sense for Santa Monica? From your questions, I see no. From the outside, it appears as though this commission is simply accommodating the city council or perhaps maybe the planning department. Whatever decisions you make regarding changing or frankly dismantling zoning protections, this radical city council will likely ignore you and especially the concerns of single family homeowners. That's that's their their thrust and you know that as well as I do. So, you are the planning commission and I have always had the utmost respect for you. I've come to meetings occasionally and rarely speak, but uh I appreciate your efforts very much and I know that you give your time and you only get paid like what $40 a meeting or something. Okay. So, but anyway, what is happening here? We'd like to know what's happening. I know you you all have your doubts about this and I'm so gratified to see that. Um so, whose interests are you prioritizing? those of an outofcontrol city bureaucracy or those of a sincere Santa Monica homeowner. And by the way, I do appreciate you. So, again, I appre appreciate your service on this commission, but really look at this. Is it necessary? It's it's just excess. It's excess. And what about the

uh the uh what do we call the u the zoning ordinances? I mean, why do you want to just throw everything out? Why do are any of you R1 homeowners? I've lived in my house for 33 years on Stanford Street. Before that, I've been in Santa Monica for 40 years. I raised my family here and we love our home. And I don't know why the city and you all blame the state. The state nobody sticks up for the city. Why do you want to destroy R1 neighborhoods? Why? Because you don't have one. That's why you want to destroy it. I mean, I I don't get it. I just don't get it. It's I trust you're gonna vote against this. I trust that you're going to do that because I see your wisdom. That's what's in my heart. Okay. Thank you so much.

We do have uh one late chit. Uh I'm going to suggest we go ahead and hear it to hear it. Yeah. Um for two for the regular time. All right. Yes. For three minutes. Um apologize. I can't read the handwriting very well. Hurt Thomas. Is that right? Heather Thomas. Heather, I've never had great handwriting. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Thank you so much. Um, sorry, I was expecting uh comments before the presentation for some reason. So, um, good evening, commissioners. Um, my name is Heather Thomasson and first I just want to thank you for your dedication to our city. I've attended several commission meetings in the past year and have been genuinely [clears throat] impressed by the thoughtfulness and expertise you bring to these decisions. Um, and that's one of a number of reasons why I'm disappointed to see the city council essentially erasing your careful work on R1 standards through these rushed ordinances. Um, this ordinance matters enormously because SP1 1123 projects seem likely to become a dominant framework for development in our R1 neighborhoods. Um, as currently [clears throat] proposed, our city council is opening the door to huge swats of Santa Monica suddenly becoming as much as theoretically 25 unit developments um that are three stories high with minimal setbacks. And even if it's half that, 12 units on a 6,000 foot lot on every other lot even, it's so much so fast. Um, state law requires only that we allow lot splits with one dwelling unit per parcel. This ordinance permits four ADUs per parcel, meaning state law requires five units total. Meaning this law, we're allowing state law requires five units total where our city council is asking us to permit 25 on a 6,000 foot lot potentially if we want to go above and beyond state requirements and allow ADUs on these lot splits. Let's allow one, not four on each new parcel. And why are we in the same breath allowing those to go to three stories? These are radical changes that were not imagined or embraced by the community. This state law was passed to expand affordable home ownership. Yet, this ordinance eliminates affordable housing fees and seems designed to create small rental units. What are we doing here? From what I understand, our R1 standards were created through months and months of hard work by this planning commission. Um, people who are sitting here right

now and through a lot of community engagement around it, we are seeing none of that now as this is being rushed through for reasons that are totally unclear. Very few people outside a small handful of very engaged residents have had any idea about what is about to happen. I urge you to the extent that you go along with this process at all given how unconventional it has been to recommend limiting ADUs to one to one per parcel if at all retain our twotory maximums and please insist on genuine community engagement. And as to the question of whether affordable housing fees should apply to projects like this, which it seems like they should, um, given that we're essentially creating apartment buildings with this ordinance, I see no justification for waving them. Thank you so much for your time and thank you for hearing me after the fact. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't have any questions. Suggestion, a process suggestion. Okay. Not a question for the speaker. No, no, no. I don't have a question. No, I have a process suggestion. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Comm. Yeah. Go ahead, please. I'm going to go out on a limb here and offer a process suggestion that the we if we make if we take a vote tonight, our thoughts will go on the record. This will go to council. Council will act. The only tool we have, we've used this before. The only tool we have to encourage more public engagement on this issue is to continue the matter.

That's right. um respect to Ross and Jing and the staff. Um they have a lot on their plate and we can't ask them to do the analyses. I mean like we can say we ought to have these analyses but ultimately they're on a work plan. They are they aren't going to do it. It's not up to us. We're not going to we can't tell them to. But we can slow this process down and we have done that in the past. That having been said, I do think it's helpful to have to get to a place on some straw polling um to get a sense of this group on where we think we might land with a recommendation so that at the end of the night if we do continue this and reopen the public hearing to get a chance to hear from more stakeholders in the conversation on December 17th, at least there's a sense of where we are. And you know, commenters alluded to our questions. We didn't even get to specific points. So, the process suggestion that I'd like to make is I think we should sort of take some straw polls on where we stand so that there there's a record on how we're feeling, the five of us. Hopefully, we'll be seven on the 17th. Um, and then continue this to the 17th with encouraging the public to really communicate with planning staff and come back on the 17th and participate in that meeting. I do want to say one other thing. Uh, quoting Anna Corinina, happy families are all alike and every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. I ran the public comment through claude.ai. There were 18 identical letters.

Yeah. In favor of this, happy families are all alike. But Claude observed that each of the opposition letters was unique. And that tells me we need more conversation in order to get to a place that is respectful of the work that this uh this team has done so well over the last few years and we have pushed housing when council has tried to slow the roll and now it's our time to slow the roll and make sure we're getting this right. Thanks. Um I I just I just have a couple comments to make. Okay.

Yes. So, I was actually just going to suggest I like the suggestion that you made regarding a straw pool, but I think it'll be helpful if we can get a brief comment from each person first. So, should we start at that end? Commissioner Fresco. Um, I'm very uncomfortable with waving the AHPP uh uh

fees and uh you know, I feel like the affordable part is is core to what we should be doing with all of these things. And I mean, we're supposed to be making affordable home ownership housing, but we're not collecting fees for affordable housing. So, in that light, I would not be comfortable waving those fees. And I'm also a little perturbed about the possibility of an ADU workaround to providing that unit. So, I would feel more comfortable if we didn't permit ADUs unless there were six or more units, regular units being developed. and then we can allow whatever ADUs because we're getting our affordable unit. So, those are the kind of things. Um, and as far as the uh 331.5 issue, I really feel like the community I'm sorry, Ross, but we really need pictures, diagrams. You made such beautiful diagrams for R1. They were so great. And I feel like I really I mean I understand you know that overall that's more than R2 and all that but I want to see what that looks like really and that I think would be really helpful if we just asked that one thing of you for if we continue this to see that.

Great. Thank you. Okay. I'm Go ahead.

Um I'm totally in favor of continuing this. Um, but I also want to say that um I live on Ashland. I own own a house on Ashland. Um, I totally support L SB 1123 because I think it's a way to bring affordable home ownership into R1 which we need. Um, people cannot young people can't afford to buy a house in Santa Monica and I'm willing to share my neighborhood with them. Um, and so that's my position, but we need to make it compatible and workable for everybody and that's what we're that's our job. Um, I am not I don't know where I stand on the H AHP because I don't think anybody else does either. Um, I think it was the fees were waved without any factual information whatsoever and and we're we're imposing on site AHPP for six or more units. We have no idea if that works or not. Um, and until I'm more comfortable with a the project and AHPP's relationship, I don't even want to mention AHP. What I do want to do is, if possible, take the exclusion of it out of the ICO. Um, I also really, um, support Sean's idea that if we upzone here to three stories and 33 feet and a 1.5 F and then we find down the road that that doesn't work or it's not needed and we want to downzone, we're going to get smashed by the state. So, we really should start out small and that small would be the language of 1123. Uh, we don't want to go in big because again, if we if we reduce that, the state's going to be all over us and we don't want to do that. And I think that was a mistake of the ICO. Um I don't support three stories in R1. Uh I know what three stories look like because I live next door to a 30-foot house. Um and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to know the impact of that on a one-story single family house. I don't really need a picture to show me that. I think three stories is not okay um in an R1 neighborhood. So we should not do that. I And that's where the 33 feet comes from. So I mean that's my opinion. I'm willing to be swayed one way or the other, but that's where I stand on it. Um, so I think we should incorporate or

suggest I'm not I guess we're putting it over. We're not really doing anything. Just basically the language of SB123 from the standpoint of F. And in terms of ADUs, I think we really need to think about that. I don't think we can allow one ADU per unit. Maybe one ADU per three units or four units or two units. We really need to look at that in site capacity. And I'm not ready to do that tonight. I'll jump in and just say number one, meaningful public process. We need more of it. If if if staff is not in a position to um convene or um or or or do more of it, I respect that. So, I'll just issue a call here to the public and whoever's listening to please get involved and and and communicate whether you are, you know, whether whether you are a a resident or someone who's looking to develop or someone who's who's can thinking about this pros and cons. We need to hear from more people. Um I I echo I I see no reason to go beyond SB123 provisions on height and F. And in fact, I want to be more specific. I want to make sure that we are allowing our standards to be overridden by the state. I do not want to create new standards that could cause us to end up in a downzoning problem on our next housing cycle. We went through hell last time. Uh it's why we had a builder's remedy. We need to keep all the tools in our toolkit. We need to follow the law. We need to move slowly and respond when we see that what we are doing is insufficient to meet our goals because that we don't want to do. But I don't want to I I don't want to get out over our skis. Um I am very uncomfortable having a theoretical conversation about HPP without a feasibility study. Full stop. Just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Uh I will say that I love the idea of moderate rate units in the in the larger subdivisions. I think that's

great. The more moderate rate we can get in Santa Monica, the better. Um but I think this has to be on the basis of a real economic analysis in the current tariff environment in the current labor environment in the current all of all of the constraints that have emerged around construction um postcoid post tariffs post everything else um I would like to defer to staff uh I mean we can have this we can workshop this next time but I would like to tier the ADU rules I'd like I think it's a really interesting idea to look at one for every two to look at ADUs on the larger lot sizes, ADUs on the larger parcel subdivisions. I don't I'm happy to workshop that, but I would really like to in like offer staff the chance to do that first and to think it through with us and give us some models to play with, but I don't think it's appropriate to um I I think we should follow the model we established with the SB9 and the housing element, build from there and really respect the people who are concerned about massive subdivisions on the 6,000 or you know, I think we had conversation around 7,500 square feet. I think I don't you had you had a cool map with the breakdowns and where housing where lot sizes tended to ratchet up and down. Um and then lastly, I I do want to flag um I just looked up measure, you know, measure GS. I guess it was GS. Um I want to flag my concern about using this to completely undermine the transfer tax. I have my own thoughts about the transfer tax, but I also believe that um right as we're seeing it play out here and in LA and it's really complicated. Um but I do believe that the law is a law and I don't want to do something that's going to create a pathway for people to just immediately eviscerate the point of that uh of that

law. We can debate its its finer points, but we need money for affordable housing and uh we need money for our schools, which is what we all voted for. And I don't like the idea of passing uh uh develop new development standards that make it possible to to to not spend that money. Right. Thank you, Commissioner Ree.

Frustrating. It's the first thing that comes to mind. I don't like really having ordinances, you know, created and then come to us and say, "Here, comment on them." So, I'd like to see a different process going forward on projects. I know some cases that has to happen. And I do think that, you know, taking time and kind of reviewing these things makes a lot of sense. But I gotta tell you, I'm a little scared by what I'm hearing is it's I I hear some nimism coming out from us. And I hear a fear of some of the of some of the tools in the toolbox that we're excited to have and now we have them and we're saying, "Yeah, we maybe shouldn't we shouldn't use those maybe." So, I'm hoping that I'm miser misunderstanding that. And I understand the value for outreach and public process, but I want to ask, do [clears throat] you really think that the R1 folks are going to come out and say, "Yeah, you should definitely divide up our land." It's not the point, but you're going to sit here and listen to a you know, you're going to take you're going to put whoever has to listen to that is going to listen to a lot of grief about it. And we know that their griefs there and they're not they're not excited about that. And I'm concerned about the city of Santa Monica that if we don't find ways to build housing again. We had less than five permits issued this year, we're going to be back at builder's remedy land. And that's a horrible place to be. So, I just want us to be careful and thoughtful. And I think you all want to do we all want to do that. And I look forward to, you know, that discussion moving forward. Um, and I look forward to, you know, discussing more about the affordability in AHP. But when I hear $50 a square foot for for affordable, it doesn't surprise me. We don't see a lot of developers, right? I mean, these are the kind of the ornaments on the tree that every one of them by themselves makes perfect sense.

But when we add all the ornaments on the tree, it's it's problematic and we're just not seeing the results of of our hard work. Again, I like the direction you guys are were talking about, but those are my initial thoughts. Sure. Go ahead. Just want to because I don't I don't

um I want to re be really clear that it's not coming from any kind of nimism and there's a lot in the letters of opposition that I really strongly disagree with. The point is I remember during the SP9 conversation there was a present there was a really thoughtful presentation which said look in the R1 envelope you can build a really cool triplex or quadplex and from a from a neighborhood standpoint you wouldn't even know that it was a triplex or a quadplex within that development envelope and I supported that 100% even though there were people who were saying no no no we we can't I mean I live on a block that has everything um and I'm all for it What scares me and it's not a it's not a R1 fear. It's we need innovation and we need creativity and we need to be able to try stuff out and we live in an environment where the ratchet only moves in one direction and then the hammer of HCD comes down. If we had the ability to if we had true opportunity under state law to try stuff out and roll it back, then I'd be, you know, I'd say, let's give it a shot. Let's let's find some places where we could do this. Let's see if a three-story R1 building is so terrible because maybe it's not. But I'm just worried about getting stuck and then chewed up by the ratchet. Um,

incredibly valid and that's what I'm really worried about. So that's why I'm expressing myself that way. All right, Andrews. Um, I'd like to just briefly express my thoughts and I see you guys have some more to say. I just have one comment.

All right. Um, I'd like to just say that my primary concern is about the process. And I guess I'm reiterating what some of you have said and for me it's worth reiterating. Um, but I also want to say that I'm supportive of the concepts behind SP 1123. But when we are going above and beyond, which we should certainly consider doing, I worry about a very top- down process that is very explicit that speaks to very specific numbers. As a professional planner, I think I have a pretty above average understanding of what that is, and it worries me when that happens. I've also seen in the past staff do uh very good very thoughtful presentations that analyze provisions and give us background on it and I it would appear that in this circumstances there wasn't room provided for that and that worries me further. So for me just on the matter of principle I would be comfortable with one of two things either not supporting this entirely or seeking a continuence but I do I would like personally to to send a message that as a plan commissioner I don't feel that my role is being used adequately.

Um we might as well not be part of the process rather than be in a process where a proposal is is spelled out in great detail top down without any room for discussion or analysis. So with that uh I just want to clarify something Ross. How many um units and how many projects have come in for permits since we did the offsite? Thousands, isn't it? So, right now the offsite is only available to up to a thousand units. I think six projects um around a thousand units.

So, we have a lot moving right now because of the offsite and that will continue. So, it's not like we're down to dribbling four or five permits a year. Um, the other thing I want to say and and I mean I there only a couple people in my life who've ever insinuated that I'm a nimi. I know that's not true what you were doing because I'm certainly not a nimi. Um, but I I think we we we need to consider that there are people impacted by what we're doing and we can't not consider them and I think that's the fault of some people in certain positions in this city. R1 people have an interest whether we for me you know provision of affordable home ownership in R1 is more frankly more important but you also have to consider their their point of view and you may not accept it but you have to listen to it and I think that's not happened um and that's what I want to do and if it comes down to being too I know what it's like living next to a three-story building in a 12- foot tall apartment you a house you have no sunlight in your backyard you have no sunlight in your rooms I mean it impacts you and that's important um so I just want point that out.

Um, I had two things or a couple things. Well, first of all, as the only person probably in this room, uh, who actually lived in a 20story building, I can tell you I'm not scared of that. Um, so that's where I grew up. Um, and I am also very uncomfortable with the top down thing because, you know, I remember Jing used to tell us, well, we're discussing that and the staff is back there discussing these things and we're still working out our our recommendations and it's like, are do you guys get to discuss stuff anymore? So, you know, I would I would also like to benefit from our fine staff's ideas as well. Our com our city council members have lots of ideas and that's great, but they shouldn't replace everybody else's ideas. We should all be working together more. But another really curious thing that I'm not qualified to answer is we have so we have tried so hard to adopt the spirit of the state laws that are coming down to us as liberally and as enthusiastically as we can and we're still not getting what we want. And is it really that our laws are too restrictive? Or is it all those other things and the tariffs and the people who are afraid to come out on the street and work and all of those other things that are actually not the problem? And should we keep breaking our structures down and giving away the things that represent our values? For me, giving away, you know, affordable housing fees is really painful because, you know, we're not helping anybody by doing that.

And, you know, that breaks our systems and it breaks our values. So, how can we know that change? You know, it's like what you were saying, we start small. We don't really know if breaking things. We just um sorry I'm jumping around but you know we just did the thing where you know that special experiment where you know the six projects rushed into uh and that reduced the amount or delayed and reduced the amount of affordable housing they would overall in the end be providing for us. Have they broke ground? Did that make a difference? Did that change anything or did they just put in new applications to do that? Yeah, I think for for for clarity, all they submitted was applications. Um, you know, no permits or you know, no no permits have been issued as a result of that program yet. Um, it's still very early, you know, so certainly I think even for that pilot program, it remains to be seen. I think all you can say is that there was interest. So, it seems to me that that was a pretty big move that we made to make that choice and that's a pilot program. Maybe we should wait and see how that pans out and see if breaking down all of these rules or any of these rules will really make a difference in us actually getting shovels in the ground and that kind of thing.

Yes, Commissioner Andrew. I'm I I think we've all given that I think we've all expressed ourselves on the points and and and I think maybe next time we'll have uh commissioners Hamilton and Wasserman here to weigh in as well. Um, I'm going to move that we continue this to the meeting of December 17th. And for clarity, I would welcome additional thoughts from staff, particularly on the ADU tiering.

Um, and welcome Commissioner Lambert to do what Commissioner Washman did for tonight and let us know how you feel. Um but uh I I do want to be clear that we want to reopen the public hearing on the 17th as well so that um we can take public comment and work from there and get council our thoughts by the end of the year. But let's buy a month to hear from more folks. And I again reiterate my call to anyone who has a stake in this conversation. architects, developers, builders, um residents, uh business owners, whoever you are. People concerned about mobility, people concerned about uh all the things. Um tell us what you think. We will read your comments and take them seriously, all of them. Even if we disagree with them.

Great. Commissioner Lambert, do you have something? No, I'm just the 17th, but I'll do a I'll do a Jacob thing. I'll write you. Will you second my motion? a second that too. Sorry, could you clarify a motion briefly? [laughter] Does it continue to the 17th? It is continued to the 17th with hopes for more staff input, but clarity that we are reopening the hearing because when we continue stuff, we have to be really clear that we'll take public comment next time, too. All right, great. Do you have a second? Yeah. So, the motion's to continue to December 17th to provide more public input and some additional recommendations from staff. Uh, okay. The, uh, Commissioner Fresco, yes. Commissioner Lambert, yes.

Commissioner Landris, yes. Commissioner Reese, yes. Vice Chair Choco, I guess I just want to say because I'm not going to be here on the 17th, I am deeply concerned about the lack of public input that's gone into the ICO. Deeply concerned.

Right. So, uh, I think that concludes item 11. And so we now go back to item nine. Is that right? Okay. So we have a staff presentation.

It's not exactly it's not exactly presentation just kind of a overview of what this is. Uh so this is the required annual questionnaire uh which is meant to state the planning commission's mission statement responsibilities jurisdictions and the authority as stipulated in the charter. Uh but mainly it is meant to commemorate all of the accomplishments of the commission over the last fiscal year and lay out the commissioners commission's future work plan goals. Um I would like to note that the work plan of course is subject to change and not all items may be accomplished. I think we have a lengthy at the moment 16 plus a couple more. Um and we're already you know four months into the fiscal year. Um so it is subject to change. uh and not all these may be accomplished. Uh also much of the work plan is ultimately at the discretion of council policy and city manager prioritization. Uh but this is really an overview of what you guys did last fiscal year and staff's kind of ideas of things we already know about that are already current work plans or could be future work plans that you know we have a lot of things kind of on the back burner whenever we find time to get to them. So, uh, we would love to hear you weigh in if you feel like additional items could be added. Um, and that's really the staff presentation.

Thank you.

I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna agree with Commissioner Wasserman uh that it would be Sorry, my mic is off. I'm going to jump in. I I agree with Commissioner Wasserman and so in his name want to um to ask uh planning, you know, piece the community development and the clerk to look at the remote participation requirement. I my county commission figured it out. Uh to be honest, I recognize that it is a burden. Um and the recommendation that I would make is that we should have it and commissions that are like us should have it whether it's charter or quasi judicial I think it's very important to facilitate full participation

already state law regarding that so we are starting to look into that I don't think it necessarily needs to be a work plan item as it's not a work plan of you all it's you know the city looking into this is going to be something that the city clerk because all board all brown act boards and commissions are subject to these new rules that require the teleconferencing. Oh, it's now 707 now requires it. Oh, yeah. Yeah, it it is. So, so this is going to have to be figured out across the board. Um, obviously council has that capability already and we'll have to make it available.

Terrific. I do agree. I understand the nuance of of being reactive versus being proactive. I think one way to address Commissioner Wasserman's recommendation for proactive engagement on the zoning piece is in item 14 where we say annual comprehensive zoning ordinance cleanup. We could add and um you know planning commission recommendations for future action or something that's you know broad enough to allow for that input. My two other items that I would like to put on the work plan are we usually get a bike action plan update once every 18 months. haven't had one. And okay, this is this is a thing and I was in touch with staff about it. Um, the last two projects that I saw up close, public works projects that I saw up close were the Steuart Street light at Olympic, which is amazing. Now, I'm just going to say the out the outcome is fantastic. The process of getting there in terms of wayfinding was dreadful. And then the PICO repaving went it didn't finish timely and the notifications weren't great. I've had exchanges with staff about this, but the work plan that I would like to propose is a conversation at some point about communications during um planned city construction, communications planning. We do have oversight of infrastructure and I think it would be really helpful to have an [snorts] opportunity to talk about who's notified when and whether or not there might be changes to the notification plans that other commissioners think might be useful that are not just based on a 500 foot radius or a thousand square foot radius 1,000 foot radius but maybe in terms of who drives through this area on their commute and maybe we expand our thoughts on part partnerships that's getting into the actual stuff, but I'd like to add

construct, you know, sort of communications around um mobility impacting projects.

Great. Any other comments? I have one comment, Commissioner Fresco. Um every year when we look at this and I look at our mission statement, I feel very pleased and proud. And then [laughter] when I look at our responsibilities, jurisdiction and authority, I cringe and feel ashamed and because of the last sentence which says the commission will also make recommendations concerning proposed public larks. That's okay. And for the clearance and rebuilding of blighted or substandard standard areas within the city, which is what we don't do anymore. And it's a good point.

Very troubling to me that those words are still in our uh documents here. So, it's largely the charter language that probably has not been updated for a long time. Um but right, but we're supposed to be looking at that and clearing out biased terrible things from our laws. And I'm flagging that one. The blight is in the language. It sure is. I also Well, that's what I'm saying. I'm related to this

some context. There was yeah there there was we actually had a planning commission retreat gosh some years ago and that's when that um mission state that's why actually the mission statement is different than what the charter it was an update on it because although the the charter has that statement you know what what the the commission at the time came up with was a more modernized version of it recognizing you know a charter amendment was obviously a big move. [laughter] Um but I think just to I think for those maybe that not might not remember that process um you know it was recognized at the time it was outdated. Were you here when we did that? You recall who was Yeah. I I don't remember if any

it was brand new and I thought to myself, I have thoughts but I'm going to keep them minimal because there was so much work done to get this beautiful mission statement done that I'm going to just endorse it. I think I asked for wellbe. It was really hard for me. No, you know what? I got the word well-being added to the mission statement. That was that was the thing that I got added. Make a contribution. That was what I had in my application to be on the planning commission. I wanted to bring well-being to it. So, we're in there. Yeah. Well, I like the part where it says open and civil discourse informed by public input, impartial analysis, and best practices. [laughter]

All right. Are there any other comments? No, I think it's a beautiful report. I'm sorry. And the same thing I've was thrown in there for 15 years that I've done this is code enforcement always seems to be a problem and that's maybe not our work proa but the city work process is having more code code enforcement because we have tons of rules especially for hedges. Aren't you getting more code enforcement folks through the realignment?

That's what that's within the community development umbrella. Um, and as part of the realignment plan, there were two additional code officers were added. In terms of position, we're also restoring the neighborhood preservation coordinator position, which is a really critical position um to deal with tenant protections during construction. Um and we're I am working closely with our code enforcement team and looking at kind of prioritization of calls and operations. Obviously, you know, we in order to enforce every rule, you'd need like 70 of them. Um and we don't have 70, you know. So um we were also authorized to have contract services um you know to augment

um the team you know so to sort of we're imagining address sort of lower level but higher high high impact quality of life issues to free up the officers to deal with you know habitability um issues that are very very tricky and take a really long time um to resolve. So you know making best use of the resources and I think you know what is um refreshing is in this realignment plan. Um you know we will be iterating and you know making sure that we have the available resources to address these high priority um areas such as crime prevention through environmental design. Sorry, I'm just making my pitch. [laughter]

I'm glad to hear you're getting some help there. So if if that's all the comments, I think the ones that I have heard that could definitely be added to the work plan is discussion regarding regarding the bike action plan um adding to 14 uh including uh providing you know recommendations to council to look into future items. Um as far as the uh the code enforcement, I think that is you just answered that. I think the the uh city construction plans at mobility impacts I'm not sure if that is exactly a work plan but definitely something that we can forward on to our mobility and public works colleagues to look at how better to communicate construction projects throughout the city uh not just to people within 100 ft but also commuters that utilize these uh lines. Uh so I think we could definitely bring that forward but I'm not exactly sure what the work plan would be of the commission but it's definitely an item we can forward on to our colleagues. I think the work plan would be a presentation on how

okay different I mean whether it's it's it may be community development and public works like how do we talk to the public about what's happening and what the impacts are and because even the public comment we had today about 911 Montana right like there's it's good to just open that safety valve and get the and get the input similar to like 15 16 where it's discuss you know we could add essentially like mobility discuss, you know, periodically discuss mobility impacts without the city type of thing.

And if I might add to that, I think um I I I like the bike action plan idea, but maybe broaden it a little to just include any complete street type improvements. I I really enjoyed and appreciated the update we got from public works regarding Santa Monica Boulevard. Mhm. Um but besides project specific, I think maybe once or twice during the year having kind of an overall update on the implementation of complete streets initiatives I think would be helpful.

That's great. We used to get paid action plan updates to Yeah. Um is the sorry one last one. um how so it's if there is if we are an appropriate venue for updates on the pure bridge reconstruction which I think relates to the construction impacts and the communication of construction impacts but then more broadly um what is the address for infrastructure impacts related to LA28 If it's council, fine. I mean, I'd love to be copied on the information items, but it

is it's, you know, the LA28 efforts being coordinated through the city manager's office. Um, you know, that's an organization. Why, you know, and I it it's really centralized, I think, there at this point. Um, and I'm not sure what the role of the commission would be in that, you know, honestly. Um there's our our staff are engaged uh with the LA28 group in terms of the regional understanding sort of like regional transportation logistics and things like that. Of course, we're not a host city, you know, so we have our own plan to develop in terms of some activations, you know, that are

that are being sought um in Santa Monica itself. Um I think as part of the realignment plan um there's you know as you saw a general uh there was direction to proceed with um activations in Santa Monica you know easier ways to produce events um you know and the like and uh you know that was kicked off with a signature event the thing right oh yeah right

right which is you know fee wavers for these signature events but um we're working across you know the city manager 's office, the recreation arts department really is actually the lead on events. They will be the lead on events. Um CDD does support um you know those events activations um uh you know and what's coming forward next is sort of like a large scale event resolution. So we're working with them on like events permitting um and and and that kind of thing you know to sort of streamline that very challenging events process creating tiers and and and things like that. Um but I think related to that is thinking comprehensively you know we want to hold major events you know at the beach and pier throughout the city and you know the these designated venues um you know how do people get to and from there um you know that's really part of that like overall effort.

Okay. Yeah. Again it might just be knowing where to look for and and on the pure bridge there actually is a pretty robust communications strategy around that. Public works is the lead on that project. They work very closely with our communications office. There will be very broad I don't I don't think it's not known like no right there'll be very broad uh communication because obviously it will have pretty significant impacts you know around the pure and and beyond. I think we'll notice when it happens we will we will notice everybody will notice. [laughter] Thanks. Thank you. I think just to acknowledge the additions and you guys agreeing on the work plan, it might be just safe to have a motion so we can get that in the minutes.

Sure. Before I make I'm happy to make a motion. Can I just ask you what what is seven? Uh digital sign ordinance. So look, some of the things if you some of those things actually have already happened. So it's not that it's old, it's the fiscal year is from 25 to 26. It includes things that you've already done given that we're November. Okay. I was just curious. Yes, that's if we had a slew more of those coming our way. No, that that is what already happened last month. I took credit for things that you already did. Somebody tell former planning commissioner uh Rascin about number 10. A future Ellis act. Yeah. One we can get behind. Understood.

All right. So, I move the work plan with the additions we had tonight by Yes, you might want to repeat for us for the record.

My name is Jim, not Mike. Uh, sorry. I would move that we move the work plan and the additions that we we as a commission added tonight. And I'd actually ask you to repeat them. uh which include uh PC's recommendations to council for future potential zoning ordinance updates from commissioner was uh updates on bike action plan updates on complete streets and a conversation regard uh also discussion and conversation regarding city construction plans whether that be the mobility division or the public works division communications around those plans. Great. Yes. So move second. [snorts] Uh, Commissioner Fresco, hi. Uh, Commissioner Landress, I. Commissioner Ree, I.

And Vice Choco, hi. Thank you very much. We got a busy year. All right. So, I think that's was our last item and so we can conclude. The meeting is adjourned as of 8:34 p.m. on November 19th. Thank you. Good job. All may