Remarks by Mark Abbe
50 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 2
- Play at 31:37
“Yes, I was curious, the lawsuit, did it, so apparently it required the building to go down from 69 feet to 63, four feet, four inches, 63, four inches, at least that was the settlement, correct?”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 32:06
“Okay, did the lawsuit require this to go from apartment to condo?”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 32:15
“Okay. Going down to 63.4 inches, that Was the impetus for reducing the number of units from 94 units to 75 units I Would defer to the applicant in the decision-making and their settlement agreement Those were not particularities that I have all the details for okay, and then one of the things when this came through the Planning Commission and the City Council that was of great interest to some of the planning commissioners and city council members was the fact that there were going to be 13 very low income units. That was a big selling point in the argument to approve this project, and now we…”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 33:46
“Okay, yeah, that was the IHO ordinance. I remember that went through the inclusionary housing ordinance.”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 40:58
“And then the other concession that you had was there was the requirement for the affordable that they, maybe not the same surfaces and so forth, but have generally the same Similar layouts being throughout, maybe some on the fifth floor, the first floor, the second, third, fourth, a mixture. And I understand under density law, density bonus law, you've elected at this point to invoke that concession. And so I just wanted to note that.”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 49:59
“I just want to ask the city attorney. So the developer or the applicant has invoked bonus law. And so the applicant is taking advantage of state laws that are mandated upon cities that we have to follow. And if we like them or not, it is law. It is legal. And so those changes that I was asking were asked about. are legally appropriate changes that the applicant can ask for.”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 57:15
“So trying to make the best out of the situation. It is lower in height. It responds to what the group that was looking at that and was concerned about. And there's an agreement. So that speaks for itself. There's an agreement. There are things that I could point out that I've already pointed out in question form that I won't repeat now that are disappointing. But I understand that the applicant is taking advantage of the law, state density bonus law. And for Venturans who aren't happy with the fact that sometimes we have to approve projects that even we or at least me recognize aren't…”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:10:38
“I enthusiastically move that we approve this resolution. I would like to second that. For naming the alleyway Ivor Davis Alley.”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:30:32
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:38:58
“Thank you, Vice Chair Boussa. I wanted to ask... staff. Rather than disbanding the DRC altogether, was there any discussion at the Committee on Committees or at Council regarding a suggestion that I saw in the letters to us for this meeting? Did the Council consider at all a compromise of limiting the DRC to one meeting? I know they're concerned about too many meetings. but did they have any discussion about possibly limiting them to one meeting?”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 2:13:52
“I understand we're here tonight because city council wants to move ahead with their recommendation and we did not have, we weren't asked to provide an opinion prior and that's of course city council's prerogative so I understand that. It would have been good if we could have had that chance to provide input, so it's a little awkward to provide feedback when you know this is coming from the city council, but I think We're being asked for our recommendations, so I'm gonna give my honest opinions on this and then I'll be glad to hear what my colleagues think. And I know we'll take these in a…”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 2:45:00
“I'm generally in favor of that. I wish the DRC weren't limited to just one meeting. I would want it to be with the caveat that the applicant is ready. for the DRC meeting. I saw a, I'm not going to name a specific project and so I'm not going to identify which one I'm thinking about, but within the last few months there was a project that came out and they went to DRC and there were too many variables left. There wasn't a defined project. There were a lot of suggestions, a lot of maybe we do this, but there weren't a lot of specifics. And I would hate to think that the one meeting that we…”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 2:46:50
“Right. The other thing that I'm concerned about is right now with DRC, you have the opportunity, it's optional, and I don't, tell me a state law would or our current city ordinance would rule this out, but if an applicant wants to come to the DRC for a conceptual review, is that allowed? Does that account against the five meeting rule? Is that something that the applicant pays for that so city staff's reimbursed so that's not a cost to the city?”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 2:47:50
“well that was the last part of the question it was basically is conceptual review still allowed yes okay and uh and and then who who pays for is there a fee to the app there is an application fee for the conceptual review yes and does that pay for the city staff time”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 2:48:21
“Does staff find that useful or helpful to the process?”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 2:50:12
“Go ahead, Commissioner Abbey. I had another comment. It hasn't been brought up yet. It's related to the process, but it's not something that's been discussed, so I won't spend much time on it. I always thought the process was sort of out of order. It used to be that Design Review did all the designing and basically the The big stuff that the Planning Commission votes on heights, setbacks, all that, that waited to the very end. So you had all this work done and then finally Planning Commission is at the point where it's really hard to say no because everything else happened. And it just seemed…”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 2:52:39
“And that wording, HPC, would continue to review.”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 2:55:02
“I didn't ‑‑ Commissioner Winnegar, I didn't catch the full gist of what you were suggesting just now.”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 3:00:30
“It probably is too late. Is it appropriate, or is it totally out of order at this stage of the game to ask someone who's in the room to ask a question, or have we gone beyond that point?”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 3:01:39
“I don't mean to quibble. Let's see. Nominating counsel. Okay. Okay. Okay, so if we retain the DRC, I'm just trying to think, it would be a seven member, if we keep it, it would be a seven member body decided by, I just, I think that's interesting. I don't know if, I would personally would rather see the ARC make those decisions. And I don't expect that I will prevail, but I'll at least voice what my opinion is. Let's see, DRC, HPC duties, we're not changing qualifications if we keep them as we've described. Naming all advisory bodies as commissions. I always thought a commission is you're…”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 3:04:25
“I agree with most of the governance, but because I have some difference of opinion on a few points, I will be voting no on this, even though I'm totally for this. We're adding CEQA, right? For CEQA, I'm adding for most of the governance, but I'm just explaining why I'm going to have a no vote. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 18:40
“Thank you, Chair Boussa. Thank you, staff, for the presentation. So there's a lot of upsides to the pro-housing designation, so that's good to see. My first question though is, does it require anything more of us other than simply applying? Does the pro-housing designation application require us to promise more than what we have already promised in the housing element or any other commitments we've made as a city?”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 19:50
“Okay. And you did make the comment in your presentation that the deliverables of this are identical to those already identified in the city's certified housing element.”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 20:03
“I did have a question because I was trying to go through the different items and it wasn't clear. I did put in a call this afternoon, middle of this afternoon. And so there was on page, well, there was item nine, there was something about item 2M. And is that something we can put on the screen?”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 21:31
“Okay, so that's not something, okay, I just wanted to confirm that, so that's helpful. I'll stop right there, thank you.”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026