Remarks by Martin Pyne
165 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 5 of 7
- Play at 4:27:42
“mean i guess then i get back to my other question which would be a non-physical preclusion financial infeasibility would be the non-physical so typically undergrounding is dealt with as a concession so right right that i which is why i'm going down this road because yes if it's typically a concession then it should be a concession”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:29:26
“This is all fine. But what's the deal with the L6 language?”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:30:04
“Okay. That makes sense. Although I think it would have been clearer if There had been a diagram somewhere just actually saying, here are the transformers. Here's how we're screening it. Question. Would the footprint of the undergrounded transformers be larger than the footprint of the non-undergrounded transformers? It is.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:30:34
“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 be likely that it would result in a unit reduction if it was underground.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:30:59
“But what I am what I am saying is that in the alternative, if in the alternative to the design today, if it was undergrounded, due to the larger footprint, you would lose units.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:31:11
“Thank you so much for saying that. Okay. One other way. Okay. So just one other thing. Waiver 14, internal pathway landscaping. I had an issue with this. There are impacts that we cannot understand how bullets one and three would.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:31:59
“i flagged the 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 the but no that's that is the 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…”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:45:25
“City Council Chambers, Thank you chair I don't see anybody else's hand up so i'm just going to go with a motion for alternative one determine the plan is consistent with Lawrence station area plan air and else have updates equal. City Council Chambers, seek subsequent er pursuant to sequel guidelines sections 15162 and 15182 and approve the special development tournament. City Council Chambers, Investing tentative personal map based on recommended findings and attachment three and recommended conditions of approval and attachment for.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:46:03
“Thank you. okay so first of all i'll just note for the record that i'm making this motion that i'm making this motion consistent with the discussion in which we noted that undergrounding of transformers would have provided a sub a note a specific uh unit reduction unit reduction uh in my 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 wafers coming back coming before us uh if we do the very first question i am going to be asking staff is why did the director of…”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:57:10
“Okay. Commissioner Pai. I just need the extra additional sheets. That's all I need as well.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 5:43
“Thank you, chairman of the consent Congress of measured, uh, commissioner and glaciers.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 7:25
“Thank you, Chair. Just quickly, just in the spirit of trying to save paper, are we expecting a resubmittal of the, whatchamacallit, the plan sheets, or should we just keep the current ones?”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 10:48
“I'm ready with a motion, but I saw Commissioner Glacius's hand pop up, so I'd be prepared to yield him if he had something you wanted to say before the motion.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 12:19
“I'm still ready with the question. Yeah. To note, I think the reason we ran into meeting count issues with the one previous with the item previously is because it also had to go to heritage preservation, which chewed up and may have even got which chewed up a meeting, but which is not something you would expect to see on a regular basis. Anyway, I move which what I believe to be alternative a non-listed alternative, so-called alternative four, which is to continue the item until September 14th per staff recommendation.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 13:06
“Yeah, I don't see a point in trying to proceed with the item against everybody's recommendation. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 27:04
“Thank you chair, thank you staff for the presentation. So there was a previous application on the site back in 2011. Does staff have any clarity on to which of which if and obviously multiple are possible of the three findings it was able to make for the removal of the one tree back in 2011.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 27:37
“Okay. Thought it was worth asking. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 37:30
“Thank you, Chair. A couple questions for the applicant. In the record, we have that there was a previous tree, tree removal permit action on this property in 2011. And the application to approve this removal of this tree specifically was denied. Can you speak to what has changed since 2011?”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 38:11
“We had a decision on this site in 2011 that was that was to deny removal of the tree. We are being asked today in 2026 to essentially over to make the opposite decision. Basically, what are the factors we should consider in saying, and respect i i would like to respect the 2011 president but i also want to be open to saying hi that was 15 years ago so basically what i'm looking at looking for is what's like what fat what has changed in the past 15 years that would have led to an alteration in the factors to approve this so one thing that i did mention on that we had those crazy storms a…”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 39:48
“Thank you. And the other question I had is there's been discussion about native species versus non-native species. Would the trees you're proposing to replace this with be native species?”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 40:28
“Yeah, I was just asking because the list of recommended trees from the city includes a large number of non-native species. This is something I have been complaining about for several years.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 52:57
“Before you close the public hearing, I see Commissioner Glacius has his hand up.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 55:00
“Thank you. Yeah, kind of further to that question. What is there an actual required cool down period between apple tree removal permits for a on a given tree?”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 1:05:20
“was prepared to make a motion. I suspect the motion I have made is unlikely to pass, so I'm tempted to withhold it because I'm, but I will, because I feel like we've done a lot of discussing without a motion, I'd frankly prefer we actually discuss with a motion on the floor. So, I'm actually going to put my hand down, mostly because I think the motion I make does not have four votes at the moment. And I'll defer to somebody who would. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 1:08:09
“um commissioner pine to your second sure uh i seconded for per mostly for discussion i was curious if someone was going to jump in with any friendly amendments on alternative three i did for on the conditions of approval given some comments from other commissioners but uh and i will say that i'd be amenable to supporting them however i'm actually not inclined to support this motion because i I am unable to make the finding under 19.94.060 because I think the words relative to the existing structures on the property have weight in that clause. And I will also note that in 20 and I think what's…”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026