Remarks by Martin Pyne
165 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 7
- Play at 3:32:50
“Thank you. Thank you. No further questions for now.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 3:48:37
“Thank you, Chair. I would just say that I would be very open to hearing an argument from the applicant why the undergrounding versus overgrounding would have a specific impact on unit count that is different than the argument that was presented in the appeal letter. The argument presented in the attachment Seven was simply that without being able to overground the transformers, it would be impossible to build any units whatsoever. That was the argument presented. As I've said before, I view it to be somewhat creative. If applicant wants to present an alternative argument, and again, I'm not…”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 3:58:13
“Thank you. OK. I had a few questions regarding waivers. And I'm going to start with actually number 12. This is undergrounding exception requirements. As I just brought up, the issue I'm, well, I have a couple of questions. But the first one, frankly, is, Regarding the L6 sheet issue that I just brought up, what's going on with the transformer screening? Because I'm not sure I actually understand right now.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 3:58:57
“Yeah, the flow here is basically commissioner asks a question and applicant responds. I'm bringing up all these documents up here.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:00:44
“I'd like to ask you a follow-up question on that. Sure.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:00:51
“Before we get there, I need to ask you a follow-up question. Okay, go for it. Okay, so density bonus law 65915 states, and I quote, In no case may a city county or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting certain criteria at the densities or what the consensus has permitted by the section, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What effect, you've made a strong argument that applying this development standard would have the effect of precluding the construction. What effect do you believe is…”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:01:41
“Can you give me an example of a project that would be of a development where the construction would be precluded in a way that is not physically? It is a principle of statutory construction that one should assume that all words in a statutory sentence have an effect. I'm asking what would be, I'm concerned that you're asking me to treat the word physically as surplusage. Can you give me an example of something that would preclude but not physically and therefore not be able to be waived under E1?”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:02:28
“I'm asking the word physically exists in the statute. The statute does not say the effect of precluding. It is the effect of physically precluding. I'm concerned that you're asking us to read the word physically out of the statute.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:02:54
“I'm sorry, what's your question? I am concerned. I want to understand what the existence of the word physically implies that the statute would have a different effect if the word physically was not in the statute. My concern is that I get why it would be believe me, I get why it would be impractical. There's a reason I was trying to find alternatives to, I was looking for alternatives that didn't involve having to go down this road. But my concern is that I get that would be economically infeasible. I get that would be impractical. I am concerned that we are being asked to treat PG&E as a…”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:04:18
“That strikes me as fundamentally economic and not physical.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:05:01
“Right. Which is why I'm going down this road. Because if it's typically a concession, then it should be a concession.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:06:30
“This is all fine, but what's the deal with the L6 language?”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:07:08
“Okay, that makes sense, although I think it would have been clearer if... There had been a diagram somewhere that's actually saying here are the transformers.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:07:20
“Question. Would the footprint of the undergrounded transformers be larger than the footprint of the non-undergrounded transformers? It is.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:07:37
“So to be clear, for the record, you are saying that if the transformers were undergrounded, the footprint would be larger, and it would like, and it would, can't be likely. It would result in a unit reduction if it was undergrounded.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:08:03
“But what I am saying is that in the alternative to the design today, if it was undergrounded due to the larger footprint, you would lose units.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:08:18
“OK. One other way. OK. So for just one other thing, waiver 14, internal pathway landscaping. I had an issue with this question on this one. So there are under 755 on the objective design standards. And for anyone following along, that's page 50. There are three bullet points. How big are you contemplating that waiver? Because I understand how the second bullet point impacts the unit count. I really cannot understand how bullets one and three would.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:09:24
“I flagged to staff that this might be worth, the next time there's a general cleanup pass, this might be worth looking at because I don't want people trying to waive the ground surface material requirement. But no, that is what I was hoping you were going to say. I just wanted to clarify that because... Obviously, the second bullet point is something that very reasonably a waiver applies to, just the other two don't. That's actually all I had, I know, though I think you had some other answers, but there are other commissioners with their hands up, but I know you also had some other answers.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:22:51
“Thank you, Chair. I don't see anybody else's hand up so I'm just going to go with motion for alternative one, determine the plan is consistent with the Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR and LSEP updates subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15162 and 15182 and approve the special development term investing tentative parcel map based on recommended findings in attachment three and recommended conditions of approval in attachment four.”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 4:23:28
“Thank you. Okay. So first of all, I'll just note for the record that I'm making this motion consistent with the discussion in which we noted that undergrounding of transformers would have provided a specific unit reduction if proposed. In my view, this meets the requirements of E1 regarding physical preclusion. I will also say on that point that if we that the I don't want to see a lot of these waivers coming before us. If we do, the very first question I am going to be asking staff is, why did the Director of Community Development not waive the underground requirements under Municipal Code…”
Planning Commission · Aug 31, 2026
- Play at 29:56
“Thank you, Chair. I move the consent calendar is submitted.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 42:24
“Thank you, Chair. Thank you, staff, for the presentation. Just one question. This project involves an ADU. Does state ADU law pay any bearing onto this?”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 1:14:54
“Thank you. This is actually a question to staff that was prompted by something that was mentioned by applicant. Does staff have any idea of just offhand of when the other two story homes on Bedford were approved? Like was it before or after the current single family home design guidelines?”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 1:15:26
“Okay, yeah. I didn't expect you to have that off the top of your head, but you couldn't hurt to ask. I had some questions about, How SF6 interacts here, just because it's talking, there's language in there about transitional massing, and I'm not really sure how there'd be transitional massing here, given that it's one story, have homes on both sides rather than one side. But I think that's a matter for later on in this proceeding. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 1:23:28
“Point of order. I was watching the clock closely and I believe that appellant was only given three minutes.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026