Remarks by Martin Pyne
165 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 7
- Play at 18:58
“right thank you now uh point of order uh on the vote slide I thought I it said commissioner cigar absent oh no it had a parentheses absent after his name that was uh just technicality uh commissioner cigar is present thank you for the record”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 29:00
“you for the presentation uh i will now ask for questions from my colleagues uh commissioner pine thank you chair thank you staff for the presentation two questions both of which are pretty are i think pretty just technical uh in the uh recitation of the waivers in the staff report and the requested waivers in attachment 8. I just note a slight discrepancy in that there's a requested waiver from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit on page 3 of attachment 8 that I didn't see in the recitation of waivers in the staff report. But it would appear to still be applicable given the proposed lot…”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 30:15
“I guess I'm not understanding how it's not required. I'm looking at the municipal code table and it says lot area per dwelling unit square feet are dashed to 3,600. I feel like we do need to waive it. Maybe I'm completely off basis here, but I feel like we need to have that waiver.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 31:09
“Okay. I'm still not sure I 100% follow, but as long as it's not going to cause any problems, I'm fine with it. Second, Second, this is, should the alternative one be modified for when we get to motion time? Would that be subject to the recommended conditions of approval in attachment 12, which would be the corrected version that was posted earlier today?”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 46:24
“Thank you. This is actually, I believe, a question for staff, but I think it would be appropriate to ask it now. Am I correct in understanding that condition of approval BP-30 would basically says that the acoustical consultant reviews all the final plans and make sure that all of the exterior noise requirements and the municipal code, et cetera, are being met before the project gets built, basically? For reference, this is page 11 of attachment 12.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 47:21
“Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure that was clear in the record.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 49:11
“I'm ready with a motion, but I saw a hand from staff.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 50:02
“At this point, I would normally make a point of order that this would require reopening the public hearing, but I also think this is important enough that we should reopen the public hearing to handle it.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 51:28
“I would suggest to the chair that it would be in order to both reopen. I would suggest to the chair that it is A, in order to reopen the public hearing if the applicant had something like 10 minutes of time that they didn't use.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 53:26
“Yeah, would it be helpful if we took like a brief recess for everybody to do math there?”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 54:10
“Chair, would it be in order to move for like a 10 minute recess to just make sure we have everything figured out?”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 58:19
“I have a question for applicant after I hear what staff says. So I would like to hear staff's proposed language and then ask a question for applicant.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 59:09
“Yeah, thank you. So insert the word vesting, reference to attachment 12, and modify GC-6, which is on page 2 of attachment 12, to reference 1.05, was it? I'm actually a little confused because I don't see where that number is actually cleanly replacing in GC-6. There's a 12.5% number and a 0.2 number. Oh, it's a 0.2, right? Sorry, just sanity checking. Payment of a fractional in lieu fee of 1.05 units in compliance with BMR requirements. Did I read that back correctly? Yes. Okay, cool. Question for...”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:00:24
“Yes. So it would be GC6 with the final sentence amended to read for the subject product that equals one below market rate dwelling units for sale and payment of a fractional in lieu fee of 0.05 units in compliance with the BMR requirements, et cetera. Question for applicant. Is this the language you're looking for?”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:00:48
“Cool. Thank you. Chair, I have no further questions for applicant.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:01:31
“so then we should 0.05 it is um and um we will correct the conditions of approval to say 15 okay thank you sorry i had a follow-up question to commissioner davis's question which is that i'm not sure i actually understand i agree with that uh my read of that is that it's is that language was that was the project shall provide 12.5% of the total units in the project. And there are eight total units in the project. So I thought that condition of approval was just to require that one of the units was a BMR unit.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:03:02
“Okay. I understand that for the ENLU fee. What I actually don't understand, however, is Just reading the entire language of GC6, it says, as written, the project shall provide 12.5% of the total units in the project for sale of home ownership unit for the subject project that equals one below market rate dwelling units for sale and payment of the in lieu fee. So agree with all of the in lieu fee logic. My issue is that we're saying is that there are, eight units total in the project, and we're saying the project shall provide one of them as a BMR unit. If we're removing BMR dwelling units…”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:04:26
“So my understanding is that the language that's currently there, that is just the project shall provide 12.5% of the total units, which is eight units in the project for sales BMR units, 12.5% of eight being one.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:05:33
“Okay. I think we're torturing the English language a little, but the math checks out, so I'm fine with it.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:06:09
“Thank you. Okay. We'll take a stab at this. I move alternative 2, adopt the addendum to the previously adopted negative declaration and make the findings in accordance with CEQA guidelines section 15164 as noted in attachment 3 and approve the special development permit and vesting tentative map with the recommended findings in attachment 3 and subject to the conditions of approval in attachment 12 with modifications to condition of approval gc6 for these final two sentences to read as follows when dwelling units in the project are made available for sale the project shall provide 15 percent…”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:07:28
“all right commissioner pine to your motion thank you chair uh we've seen this project and at least i've seen this project all the way from when it was a general plan amendment to now and i I'm kind of starting to run out of things to say about it, as I think many of us have. But it's a good project. It fits the neighborhood well. It adds a nice bit of extra density to what's currently just one kind of giant single-family dwelling lot. I think it's been improved significantly over the process. I think having the extra pedestrian, extra... that old pedestrian path there is great i mentioned at…”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:36:01
“uh i noticed that uh on the uh in calendar 2025 per the housing element update that came through in march there had been a grand total of three sb9 projects in calendar 2025 is that typical”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:37:05
“Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to kind of put some perspective in how frequently these laws are actually used. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:56:08
“With the understanding that the motion also included the required SQL findings second. Yes, it does. Yeah, just like having that in the record from the maker of the motion.”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 1:56:59
“Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thank you, staff, for all of your hard work in putting this together. I agree. I think this is just mostly clarifying cleanup with another round of amendments to state laws. I do actually have some more significant thoughts on on the fee stuff but i'll save that for when we bring a broader look at the fees back uh in in concordance with our housing element promises uh so i'd urge and i vote tonight thank you all right uh seeing no other hands i will be also supporting the motion i think i agree staff that are”
Planning Commission · Sep 14, 2026