City - Regular Meeting

20 Recording in progress.

It's Wednesday, December 17th, 2025 at 6 p.m. We're here with Pacific Grove City Council Council Chambers at 300 Forest Avenue in Pacific Grove, California. And this is our special meeting tonight. And I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. And uh I'll note that all council members are present with the exception of council member Paduri. And I'll ask mayor prom to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

Um This time I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda as stated. I'll make a motion to move the agenda as stated. Okay. A motion by Amelia, second by Ralph. Uh I'll take a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Seeing none. Passes unanimously. We will take this agenda in order. Um presentations. We don't have any tonight. And we now council and staff announcements. I think we have a couple of staff announcements. Uh any council members wishing to make an announcement? U Mr. Mogson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh we'll start with our city clerk first.

We've extended the date to receive uh boards and commissions and committee applications for our annual uh recruiting time. And so we will be accepting applications through January 2nd, 2026. Um, just a reminder for all the current boards uh and committee members that have upcoming expiring terms to please reapply if you are desiring to continue serving. Um, and uh if you need uh any information on any of our boards and commissions, please contact the city clerk's office and I'd be glad to give you a list of all of our openings. Thank you. And uh one other thing, so Amy Colony, who's works in our public works department, well known, uh has now uh participated in this her fifth year in leading us through the Salvation Army Angel Tree program. So I just want to give you a little information on what that consisted of this year. So these are these this is a collection of presidents presents that go to Monterey County families that needed assistance. So this year we we we feel that we had enough gifts for 26 children and probably about a total of a hundred gifts. So it was another successful one. Just wanted to share that with the council and community.

Thank you very much. Any further announcements, Mr. Madison? Uh, okay. We'll go ahead and uh move it to the consent agenda. It deals with routine and non-controversial matters um and may include resolutions and ordinances. And do I does anyone wish to pull an item off consent agenda? Anyone up here wants to pull an item? Anyone online wish to pull an item off the consent agenda? It does not appear we have any hands raised. millions.

Correct. Okay. Um, do I have a motion already consent? Do I have a motion from the council regarding consent? So moved. All right. Thank you very much. Motion and a second on consent. Uh, we'll take a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Seeing none, passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Those of you that came for consent, appreciate you. Um, we're moving right along. Do we have our monitors? Are we up and running on the Yeah, we're in the process of trying to get those turned back on. It could have been the power that went out for that on the item itself because we're going to need that.

Yes. Yeah. get ready for the louder that y'all came for tonight. We had a lot of people in the house tonight. So, we didn't have it on the agenda, but could she?

Yeah. Okay. You know, he'll one thing general public comment. Uh we didn't take a general public comment which doesn't deal with the housing element. So if you come up and talk about that, I'm not going to let you talk until we get to the housing element. But we have a few people that want to make general public. Please come forward now.

Is it on? It's good. You can hear me? Yes. I'll speak right into that.

Okay. Good evening, mayor, council members. I'm here to give a big thank you to our public works have been amazing. Our events they've done all year, especially the parade at this most recent one. Um, but the chamber just wants to thank everybody. I forgot to introduce myself. I'm Christy Metsner, president, CEO of the Pacific Grove Chamber. I'm so excited to thank them. Um, we can't do it without our public works. They're amazing. And um I want to give a shout out to John Go um John Goss Martin Gonzalez Chad who does our downtown talk to him every day. He's amazing. And I wish I knew all their names because I want to recognize all of them. But um let me see what else. And I missed the last meeting to tell you about all of our events coming up. So right now we only have one more this year. Shop, Stip, and Stroll tomorrow night. do your last minute shopping downtown 4 to 7 and shop local. We have wonderful uh businesses, restaurants. Come on down and have a merry Christmas, happy holidays, happy new year.

Thank you. Please note you

good evening, Mayor Smith and council members. Genie Anton. I'm here to invite all of you to dine with the Heritage Society at Passion Fish on Tuesday, January 13th, starting at 5:00. And this will be another fundraiser for our renovation of Chicago Hall. I want to thank the owner for allowing this and the kind offering and uh certainly thank all of the community members that will end up joining us. Um, I also want to thank the local community for donations this month through the Monterey County Gives program. Right now, as of tonight, we've raised $13,000. And this is for um the upgraded sound system in Chicago Hall. So, I'm sure all of you that will, if you've been in there, you know that's well needed. um our overall fundraising continues to do well and I look forward to really getting the work going here in 2026. So, thank you for your support and happy holidays to all of you.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone online wishing to make general public comment? Thank you, mayor. I do not see any hands raised. All right, we'll go ahead and bring it back to the item itself. And so we're going to introduce we're the regular agenda and we have one item item 10A Pacific Grove uh 2023 to 2031 housing element update. And this item is going to be parsed out into two u large parts. And I'm going to turn to my attorneys to help uh guide us through the process that we're going to follow tonight. So at this time I'll recognize uh Mary Wagner, I believe.

Yeah. Thank you, Mayor Smith, members of the city council. Um, if someone can please start the presentation. We have a couple of slides to share with you on how this item will proceed this evening. And I can't see if the presentation's up and I'm happy to to just continue if you would like me to, mayor, or to wait until that presentation has begun.

That's fine. We're just going to wait a second and try to get you set up here. Great. Okay, great. Yeah, I can see the screen and I believe all of you can as well. Um, so the item before you tonight is obviously the Pacific Grove housing element update which includes zoning ordinance amendments and general plan amendments. The process that we're going to follow tonight is to break this project into two pieces. Um, if I could have the next slide, please. Um, due to a potential conflict of interest for council member Ralph based on ownership of both her personal residence and other property that she owns at 215 Forest Avenue. So first the council will receive the presentation take public comment deliberate and take action on the certification of the environmental impact report or EIR adoption of the housing element amendment of the safety element and then zoning text and zoning map amendments except for the amendments to chapter 23.31 related to the commercial zoning districts. Next slide please. After that item has been completed, uh the council we would recommend taking a brief break or recess due to the conflict of interest. Uh, council member Ralph will then um leave the room and the council will then receive the presentation, take public comment, deliberate and take action on the amendments to the land use element and land use map and the zoning text amendments to chapter 23.31 regarding the commercial zoning districts.

And with that, I'm happy to turn it back to you, mayor, and or hand it off to um your community development director. Okay, we'll go ahead and go to Mr. Biggs now. Thank you.

Uh, thank you very much, uh, Attorney Wagner, members of the city council, Mr. Mayor Smith, John Biggs with your community development department. Uh, we are pleased to bring forward this evening the housing element project, which includes not just the housing element, but also amendments to our land use plan, our health and safety amendment, uh, or excuse me, health and safety element along with some amendments to our zoning code. Um, we have what's called a regional housing allocation, which are a number of units that the city of Pacific Grove is required to provide for in what's known as the sixth housing cycle, which we are in right now, which runs from 2023 to 2031. Uh, there are a lot of new state laws that have been um part and parcel with this housing element update. a lot of state laws that the city must comply with and the state's taking a very careful look at how we go about making sure that we comply with the laws. Um this is the product of many years work and many um the efforts of many people including our consultant team Cassandra Gail, Erin Knight, Megan Jones, uh Kaylee Limbach with Ren Rencon, uh Mary Wagner and Steven Velivis with the city attorney's office along with Aaron Campbell and Joe Cedar who are members of the staff here in comm in the community development department of city of Pacific Grove coupled with the work of a lot of different departments including the city manager's office and our public works department. So, what we have before you this evening is a housing element that has been recommended for approval by you by your planning commission and also a housing element that has been evaluated by the state department of housing and community development. It has been found compliant with all of the state's housing and development laws. So, we have that letter from the state that came in in July of 2025 that basically indicates that the housing element you are considering this evening does comply

with all of the state housing element laws. Any any changes to that would require review again by HCD or housing and community development. So with that, I would like to hand it over to Cassandra Gail with Rencon Development and she will be going over the various elements of the housing element along with the changes to the health and safety element. Uh and then they'll hand it off to Kylie Limbbach for a review of the environmental impact report that has been prepared for this project. So with that, Cassandra. Thank you, Mr. Biggs. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yes.

Okay. Wonderful. Good evening, Mayor Smith, council members, and those of us uh from the public who are there tonight. Um let's go to just the next slide after the introduction. Perfect. So, uh as mentioned for segment A of this presentation, we'll be presenting four components of the city's six cycle housing program. These components for this portion are going to include the housing element update, the associated safety element update, amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning map, and the environmental impact report prepared for those actions. Uh, next slide. And just as a refresher, the housing element update covers the 2023 to 2031 planning cycle and the regional h regional housing needs allocation is 1,125 units. That allocation represents the amount of housing the city must plan for across all income levels to address the projected regional housing needs. The housing element includes a sites inventory that identifies locations that could accommodate the required rate policies and programs to support the development of housing and the associated analysis and justification for why the specific inventory sites and programs were included. As mentioned on July 10th, 2025, the city received a letter of conditional compliance from HCD and the element will be eligible for substantial compliance and certification once the required reasonzoning actions identified in the document are completed and the housing element is adopted. Next slide. The site's inventory specifically was developed using an HCD approved methodology which evaluates site capacity or how many houses or units can be built on a site based on allowable density, feasibility, infrastructure availability and sight specific constraints. The analysis reviews vacant parcel vacant parcels, underutilized sites, and select non- vacant properties consistent with state guidance. The

inventory in front of you today also accounts for units already in the development pipeline, approved projects, and anticipated accessory dwelling units as documented in the housing element analysis. Next slide. Under Senate Bill 1035, the housing element update does also trigger a requirement for the city to review and update their safety element. This update is to ensure the document reflects current state requirements and local hazard conditions. The revisions incorporate current hazard information, updated maps, and updated program language. The amendments also add details regarding fire protection, emergency access, and evacuation routes. And these updates were supported by technical analyses, including a climate vulnerability assessment and an evacuation analysis. The updated safety element must also be reviewed and approved by the state board of forestry and fire protection. The city has completed the required submission and the board accepted the safety element with no required changes at their December 9th resource protection committee meeting. Next slide. So, moving on to the zoning ordinance and zoning map. Uh several amendments are proposed to implement the housing element programs, namely programs 5 and 13. The ordinance updates for this portion of the presentation include program specific changes intended to reduce barriers to housing and cleanup updates to reflect recent legislation related to permitted uses, density bonuses, and other housing related requirements such as supportive housing and emergency shelters. Altogether, these changes bring the zoning ordinance into consistency with the housing element document and current state housing law. Next slide. For the resonings, there are two map changes proposed. Uh the map on this slide shows the two areas proposed for reszoning to R3. So first we have the Dennis Cynics and Grove Acre area currently zoned R2B3 and a second area,

the first United Methodist Church site currently zoned R2. These resonings reflect the sites identified in the sites inventory and are required for the housing element to be eligible for full certification from HCD. Uh next slide. And with that, I am going to pass it to my colleague to discuss the environmental impact report.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Kaylee Limbbach and I am a project manager with Rencon and myself and Megan Jones joining the audience oversaw the preparation of the environmental impact report or the EIR for the project. Um, as discussed in the ER, the project in and of itself does not develop housing. It is a plan to provide for the possibility of housing supported by consistent zoning standards and land use designations. So, while there are no specific development projects currently proposed, the EI analyzes the potential impacts of pos possible future housing and commercial projects that could be made possible by the project. And to provide a conservative estimation of potential environmental impacts, the EI considers a maximum buildout scenario in which every housing site is developed with the maximum amount of housing possible. This is a very conservative estimate given actual development trends in Pacific Grove, but that's the uh level of what the ER analyzed. Next slide, please. I just said that we can go to the next slide. Um, efforts for the environmental impact report began in January of 2024, at which time a notice of preparation was published and the draft EIR was available for public review and comment from June 30th to August 15th of this year. The city received 11 comment letters on the draft EIR. Written responses were prepared for every comment letter received which are compiled into the responses to comments document. So together the draft EIR and the responses to comments comprise the final EIR that the council would uh consider approving and certifying this evening. Next slide. This slide presents a summary of all 20 environmental topic areas that were considered in the E. topics shown in gray were determined to have uh no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts and no

mitigation measures for these topic areas were required. The EI determined for the topics shown in orange, which is air quality, biological resources, geology and soils and utilities and service systems that these would have uh potentially significant environmental impacts, but these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. For example, the ER identified that construction of new development made possible by the project could generate a significant amount of air emissions, but these emissions would be reduced by mitigation measure AQ3, which would require construction equipment to use alternative fuel or to have more efficient engines. Finally, the EI determined that the project would have significant and unavoidable environmental impacts for the resources shown in red, which are cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. Impacts would be significant despite compliance with existing regulations and implementation of feasible mitigation measures. And for one point of clarity, these resources listed here encompass multiple uh potential impacts. So noise covers construction noise, operational noise, transportation and vibration. So not every single subtopic under these broad categories has significant impacts, but I will discuss the particular significant impacts here. Um for cultural resources, the ER identified that future development has the potential to cause adverse impacts to historic resources. For example, future development may be proposed adjacent to historic buildings or may propose to partially or fully replace a historic building. Um, compliance with the city's guidelines for historic assessments and applicable state regulations would reduce the potential for these resources to be impacted, but these guidelines and other regulations do not wholly prevent uh historic buildings from being altered. So, while it's unlikely that

future development would alter historic buildings, it's possible. And because the city's guidelines and policies currently represent the full extent of feasible mitigation, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable for greenhouse gas emissions. Future development in Pacific Grove would potentially be inconsistent with the state of California's air resources board's 2022 scoping plan, which encourages future development to provide uh electric vehicle charging infrastructure and for buildings to be fully electric, as in to not use natural gas connections. And because this can't be uh guaranteed for future development, uh this would be inconsistent with the scoping plan and would result in significant impacts. For noise, the construction of new development would be approximate to existing residences residences and businesses and could exceed acceptable sound levels established by the city's noise ordinance and general plan. Further vehicles driven by the additional future population facilitated by the project could increase roadway noise levels and the ER includes mitigation measures to reduce this noise. But even with implementation of these measures, it's possible that noise would still exceed acceptable levels. So overall, these are the environmental uh significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified for the project. And in order to proceed with approval of the project, the city must also approve a statement of overriding considerations. The statement of overriding considerations for this EIR um the purpose of this is that the lead agency must consider the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of a project and weigh these against the other benefits of the project. And if the city determines that these other benefits outweigh the potential environmental impacts, these impacts may be considered acceptable. And this is disclosed in this statement of overriding considerations. And uh the

California Environmental Quality Act or SQA permits a broad range of economic, legal, social, technological or other project benefits as permissible re uh reasons to proceed with the project. And in the statement for this EIR, um, some of the benefits identified for adopting the project include, but aren't limited to, bringing the city's housing element and health and safety element into compliance with state law and avoiding enforcement actions and financial penalties associated with non-compliance, ensuring consistency between the updated housing element and other elements of the general plan, enabling the city to maintain local control over land use, and creating expanded economic opportunities. And the statement of overriding considerations concludes that any one of these reasons are sufficient to support adoption of the project and that they outweigh potential environmental impacts. This concludes the portion of the presentation for the EIR and we'll now summarize the recommended action. I'll go ahead and um relay the recommended actions. As I mentioned earlier, on November the 13th of this year, uh staff recommended that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending the environmental impact report, adoption, uh certification of the EIR, and approval of all the various project components, including the changes to the zoning code to the uh city council. The planning commission did approve that. And so our recommendation this evening is that the council adopt the resolution of the city council sering certifying the final envi final environmental impact report. Adopt the resolution of the city council approving the project which includes amending the text policies, figures, and maps of the

Pacific Grove General Plan to adopt the 2023 2031 housing element, amending the health and safety element, obtaining uh adopting the secret findings of fact, including a statement of overriding considerations and adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. I'll request that the city attorney read the title of the ordinance, motion to wave further reading of the ordinance, and then introduce and hold the first reading of the ordinance amending the uh city zoning regulations chap uh title 23 the the zoning code. Um and then direct the publication ordinance will be satisfied by publication of summary approved by the city council. And then there's one final thing I would like to go over with the city council. Could you hold that up? Um, we've had a lot of eyes going back and forth all the over all the the various documents and there was a few u minor corrections that we wanted to make the city council aware of and um request you include these corrections in any motion to approve the various elements of the the housing element project this evening. The first is regarding land use element. Uh, page three, we're recommending that there be some corrections to the language to reflect that measure E was approved by voters in 1994 that resone the home building site in the downtown to C1T. Uh, the second, it's a table, table 1-6 on page 1-14, uh, changing the title to two of the columns to number of owner units occupied and percent percentage of total units. And then the third correction is the on uh for the housing element age 1-36. It's a reference to the R3 zone district. Um there is a sentence fragment that got inadvertently left in there that states Grove Avenue west of George Washington Park. That'll be deleted. So with that, that concludes staff's presentation. We're available for questions by the city council. Okay. Okay. And so can you

put up the your own recommendations again for on the screen for everybody to look at, please? Do you have any additional comment, Mr. Morgansson? Okay. We're going to go to public comment, but I'd like to reflect the recommendations that you had up there about three slides ago, please. Okay, thank you very much. So, just showing everybody on online and in the chambers, this is what we're going to be commenting on tonight for this particular portion of the event. This is probably why most of you are here. If you would like to comment, this is the housing element itself. And this this is the actual housing element. the the second part of the presentation is related to only the land use element and land use maps and the commercial and industrial zoning district changes. So this first uh portion is all covered in this recommendation here and that's so anyone who wishes to make a comment on these items now is your time to speak. So how many people in the audience are by a show of hands would like to speak on this topic? Raise them high please. Okay. All right. So, we're going to have two minutes on this because we have a bunch of callers online as well. So, um we're going to put the time at two minutes and I'll ask uh people to come forward and line up please. And we're not going to time in between minutes. So, come on up. State your name and then go ahead and two minutes. We're going to take Chambers first. Uh we'll take online second. Go ahead. Come on.

You're in front of the line.

Oh, okay. Yeah, you're good.

Awesome. Um, okay. I'm Laura Davis giving comment on behalf of Landwatch. Uh, LandWatch joins the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership and other housing advocates in supporting the city's adoption of the housing element. We asked the city council to approve staff's recommendation. The draft housing element currently before the council has been a multi-year process involving extensive public participation. It provides a blueprint for how the city will meet its arena requirements. It will enable the production of muchneeded affordable housing for those who work in Pacific Grove but cannot afford to live here. By amending the land use element and updating zoning codes to allow for higher density in designated areas, the city will facilitate more efficient and sustainable land use while also ensuring housing that is more affordable by design. Similarly, by allowing for mixed-use development in areas that have previously been designated only for commercial use, the city will enable development that promotes walkability and creates rental units and housing that is within reach for those seeking to buy an entry-level home. When people can live, work, and walk in the same community, the benefits are substantial, extending to the environment and all members of the community. Reducing commutes reduces greenhouse gases and improves quality of life. People living and working in proximity to one another creates real community. Each day that the city delays in adopting its housing element means vulnerability to the builder's remedy and stalled progress in alleviating our community's housing crisis. Delaying the housing element tonight won't prevent development in places like the Cynics neighborhood. It will just facilitate it in a more halfaphazard and potentially undesirable way under the builder's remedy. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Patrick NeAs. I'm your former chair of your former economic development commission. Um there's been a tremendous amount of good work put in by the consultants and city staff and everyone on this and I want to endorse the housing element. the I want to speak to mostly kind of the overriding considerations of economic uh development that this would be a positive for the community. There would be additional construction. There'd be homes. There'd be it could make our community more vibrant and uh exciting place to live. uh but certainly would have a positive benefit to the businesses here in terms of providing food uh dry goods and to the construction firms in terms of hardware stores, paint stores, things like that. So I endorse your the work and I endorse the housing element and uh thank you.

Thank you. Hi, welcome. Uh, it's good to be here. And my name is Michael Null. I live on the 500 block of Dennit. So, Dennit and 17 Mile. This time of year, we're known as the Christmas House, if you've seen it. Um, yeah, I want to comment on the reasonzoning. So, I keep hearing about how if we change something, it has to go back to committee or how it will extend some blah blah thing. I got it. But I've also heard that there was extensive community input. And to be honest with you, up until a few weeks ago, this is the first I've heard of it. And I live a block away. My understanding is that it was posted 200 feet of within the cynics location. We're outside that. Uh so I'm not even asking for like don't change it. I'm asking for the the 29 unit density that's on the current map or the proposed map rather. Um we live across the street from 17 Mile Village and that's that's excellent. and their current building is 17 per acre if I understand and 29 is just way too dense for that little block surrounded by houses. So again, not a no. I just think that we should rethink that density and uh save that neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Please look to notify no police. Please try to keep order here so we could hear up here. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matt Werta, vice president of community development with the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership. Mbeck represents the tri county region's major public and private employers. Our key initiatives include creating higher paying jobs with health care benefits, expanding broadband, increasing child care opportunities, and building more housing for all. We provided a support letter reflecting our support for staff recommendations to approve your housing element update and submit it to the state for final approval. Housing element compliance is critical to avoid loss of local control, loss of grant funding opportunities, and potentially also avoid incurring penalties. PG has the opportunity this evening to take a major step forward in meeting its obligations to plan for needed infill housing development. We're here to help the city implement the plan once certified by the state. Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Andrew Miller. I live at 510 Evergreen, which is about a half a block away from the um the parcel that's within Dennet Sinx and and Grove. Um I'm I'm a sir cross talk. I'm hearing a lot of cost talk so we're not going to have that. We're going to you have a chance to talk and that's when you talk tonight. Okay. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Why don't you start over?

So I'm a 30 I'm a 36 year resident of PG 30 years down there in and and the the PG Grove community and um I understand that what we're trying to accomplish with the regional housing needs allocation and the housing element itself. However, it's difficult to understand uh why the parcels bordered by Dennis and X and Grove were included in the in the housing element. The reasons why they shouldn't have been included are many. And the biggest reason is is that density issue that was just brought up by speaker two speakers ago. I mean, we're going from um roughly nine units per acre up to 29. So, it's it's a huge increase. And so um there's that's the main reason, but there's also no infrastructure, no few services, minimal public transportation. Parking is minimal on Danet and Grovere and the streets are narrow. Um and emergency service access will be impacted there. um it borders on a wildlife corridor that that that parcel and and it will have a ne negative impact on that on that wildlife access from Pebble Beach and and it's not close to schools, commercial business businesses or jobs and and also as as previously commented on um not everybody was was informed about this project. there was notification within with to the um property owners within those streets but not around those those uh streets. So um they're going to be impacted heavily by by this including construction and um the increased um density. So the big question is how how did this area make it into the housing element? It just it just doesn't add up and it makes no sense. So, um, there more than there must be more than meets the eye. When you look at the the map and you see this 29 unit requirement in in the middle of

a residential area, it just makes no sense. So, I strongly urge the council to remove the Dennit Sinx Grove parcel from the housing element. Um, we also understand the pre-approval with the state and but it's over. Okay. So, you get your letter. You get my letter. I didn't get any. And that's the other thing. I don't know of anybody who got any responses to any letters that were written. So, I just urge you to Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Melissa Walker and I live at 520 Evergreen, right next door to Mr. Miller. I've been in the neighborhood since 1996. My main question is why choose this particular block in the O isar neighborhood when there are much better locations. For example, the Mission property at at the Mission Laundry property at 801 Sunset Drive. It's three acres on a wide street with open space around it. The city owns the Rip Randwinkle Park. So there's open space right next door. The building there has been empty for a number of years. It's near shopping and schools. Wouldn't this be a much better location to be identified for for highdensity housing? Another property is a Leaport Tarantine property at 10:30 Lightenhouse Avenue. It's one and threequarters acres on another ma main wide street. The house burned down. The property is currently empty. It seems to me that would be another good spot. There's another property down at the other end of Grove Acres uh at 254 Grove Acres. It's 1.6 acres. It's a big property with only one house on it. The house is pretty much in disrepair. Uh it's near Lighthouse. There's lots of open space around it. It backs up to the recck trail. In our neighborhood, the streets are narrow. They're very narrow. Basically, one line, one lane if there's parking on either side. So, it's it's not ideal. There's no street lights. It's pitch black at night. Uh putting 29 units per acre in our neighborhood makes no sense. The streets are parked out a few times a year for events that happen at Ayamar. And during that time, there's like one barely one lane down the middle of Dennett or down the middle of some of the other streets. If you're driving one way and somebody's somebody's coming the other, you have to back up. I just don't understand how we could accommodate that. I wanted to try and get an idea of what the this kind of density would or buildout would look like. So, I went to the motel that's two doors down from my house. It's the Best Western. It was originally built by uh I think it was Bill Brady back in 1981 as 10 condos. It

didn't sell, so it was converted into a motel. Well, there's 10 basically 10 condo units on an acre of land, and they each have two-car parking. It's great. 10 10 units on an acre, that's fine. But triple that, I don't think so. I ask you not to call, please.

Uh, hi. I live at 520 Evergreen next door to the Millers for 29 years. And uh the Leaport property is at a four-way stop on Lighthouse and 17 mile drive. It's one and 3/4 acres. The place burned down years ago. There's a motel to the west of it, apartments across the street, condominiums or apartments to the east of it, and on the kitty corner side is a is a is a lodge, a a a bed and breakfast. Why wasn't that considered? We had no input into this. We saw small signs go up near the subject properties that had already been decided on, Mr. Biggs, by you and your consultants, which we paid for. My grandchildren and my children are paying for this. This state's running huge deficits. Wait till the next recession. And then and then we'll find out more about this that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Pacific Gross Tax dollars at work. The city council approved a $141,000 political consulting form to figure out how to tax.

That's not on the agenda either. So continue time. I hope I have that sec those seconds back. Actually, no.

I I have no problem with increasing the density and picking parcels with which to do it. We had no input. I've lived there 29 years. Okay. I We had no input. We had no notice of this. You claim we did. I don't think you want any. The easiest thing for the political class to do is in a state, and this is shameful, of 40 million people with a coastline to pass a dictate that applies to thousands of communities and threaten to sue you or t or fine you if you don't comply, Mr. Bigs. And you have a defined benefit pension plan. Mine is wherever I save and whatever I get from it. I invest it.

Sorry. You need you need I'm done. Okay. Listen, can we have shut off his mic for me? No. You can't you can't do that. Here we take Go back to Thank you, Mayor. What's up? Yes, Mr. Per. Mayor, may I just cover the state of California?

Mayor, can I say something? Yeah. Um, I think that at this point it's important for to acknowledge that you're certainly allowed to speak um, shouting at the council. If you choose to do that, we're not going to stop you, but it's not really productive to the process. Um, and the comments that are being made should be directed to the council. Um, and you can certainly be as critical as you want um, of the matter that's before you, but I think that those are some ground rules that we should all be aware of.

I'm a lifelong resident of Pacific Grove over 50 years. I have three quick questions I'd like to be entered in the record. First one is water. Where is that going to come from? Second one is um, [clears throat] the butterfly impact. Has there been a California analysis of the of a onem radius of the butterfly impact? The butterfly is an animal. It's considered an animal. Okay. So, it's it's not an endangered species on the federal list, but California recognizes it as an as a an endangered species. And um [clears throat] the third question Wow.

There was um [laughter] stop. Oh, I can throw I can throw in one. I can throw in one. The uh the quick rush for the pro was was kind of cool, too, where they had people made sure they got up here for the let's go, let's go. But oh, I'm I'm anti anti-development. We we've got enough here. Thank you. Appreciate it. house.

Thank you, council. Uh Steve Tucker, 508 Grove, so four houses down from the proposed development. Uh my family's been in the house for 56 57 years. Um we've watched successive overreaches by the council in terms of approving new development. When 17 Mile Drive Village was developed, the initial proposal was for 250. It was clawed back down to 2 200. It was then finally agreed on at the current 84. That is a development that kind of makes sense for the neighborhood. It's lowrise. It's two-story. It's not dense. There are setbacks. With the current proposal of 29 for a much much smaller pot uh plot. Um I agree with everything that's been said about the the the Dat Sinex um Grovereaker parcel. It makes absolutely no sense for that neighborhood. Um I agree with previous speakers that you know there is a housing man you know we need to build affordable housing. Um I find it very very odd that that particular site was chosen over other approp more appropriate sites. Um, I also find it extremely odd that the council is proposing essentially to abdicate its role as representative citizens of Pacific Grove to allow to under the under the provision for for objective standards and then as yet undefined zoning changes on density on on surface area, on height, on parking, on all of the other things that affect the character of individual neighborhoods. And you're essentially you're saying well you know we want to avoid having the state come in but what you're essentially doing is transferring your responsibility to individual developers who will make decisions on a basis which is quite different from what a council should be doing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor Council My name is Doug Filick. I live on 606 Dennit, so directly across the street from the proposed resoning area. I have a [clears throat] two and a half minute statement, which I'll attempt to give in two minutes. Objectively, I think it's fair to say that the process of updating the general plan has been mismanaged. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here tonight discussing a plan that was nominally supposed to take effect nearly three years ago. As many have stated tonight, inadequate public notice has contributed to this and has made the ent process more chaotic and much less transparent than it should have been. While there are nevertheless many useful components of the proposed updates that we're here discussing tonight and which have elicited little discussion or controversy from the community, those related to the uh upzoning of sites 38 to 41 are not among them. These changes which account for only 67 of the 1125 additional housing units or a little less than 6% and which have elicited hundreds of petition signatures and the presence in this meeting of many of the people that you see here before you are illconceived, ill- advised and quite possibly illegal as the full commission uh planning commission and at least some council members are well aware. Moreover, there are many viable alternatives which have none of these drawbacks. For examples of these, I refer you to an email directed to the council and the planning commission on 1 December 202 2025 by Drew Miller who is here tonight and who I'm sure would be happy to discuss these options with you after the meeting. I understand that managing a city is a difficult and complicated process, no doubt made more difficult by everchanging requirements imposed by the state. Reading between the lines, it seems clear to me that some of those making these decisions know that these proposed updates, specifically as they relate to sites 38 to 41, are a bad idea. But, as the planning commission demonstrated on 13 November of this year, feel pressured to approve it

anyway. Lack of due diligence, failure to effectively seek public input and to consider viable alternatives is the very definition of bad governance. That's that's true. And is a breach of public trust. It's never too late to do the right thing. Thank you. That's

good evening, council. I'll try and get past my stage fright here, but basically ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto. Um even even Larry's very impassion plea. Uh my name is Buddy Sharp. I live at 846 Grove Acre. Um, I've been there since 1992. Married there, raised my twin daughters there, and I'm a very active member of our local community. Um, I learned a new acronym at the Planet Commission meeting the last time I was here, NIMID, not in my backyard. I didn't know that one. Um, I'm not really a not in my backyard guy because I live backed up to Hayward Lumber. I think I know the definition of not wanting to have something like seven forklifts in my backyard with backup beepers, but I do. What I am concerned about is having lived there and walked my dogs in that neighborhood up and down those streets every day and I know every single one of the people um on the on the parcel that's in question here this evening on bordered by Groveacre and Synex is that none of us had any idea that this process was going on over the last few years. Not a bit. I pay attention. I'm on your mailing list. You can check for city council notifications and such. And I would have spoken up. I would have been happy to get involved. I would have been happy to help guide the process. I'm happy to put any one of you in my car and drive you around the neighborhood and show you a lot more appropriate properties than the one that we're mentioning for the level of density that we're talking about. I think that you owe it to us as the folks that you have chosen, and we do appreciate you serving to take a second look at this before you uh put your stamp on it this evening and allow this level of development and this intensity. There are things that concern me. Not only the parcel that's owned by, you know, three parcels that are owned by a single individual just happen to be the ones that were chosen. That something seems wrong about that. And the uh disruptance of of all of our bus lines. MST has pulled all of the benches and the signs and bus lines and yet the ER says that transportation is sufficient for people of low income. Makes no sense

to me. So, I hope you guys would take some more time to consider this before putting a stamp of approval on it this evening and making or allowing for potential changes to a neighborhood that I don't think would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Thank you, council. Thank you.

Hi, thank you for being here. Um, my name is Colleen Ingram. I live on uh Willow and Unipo and I didn't plan on making a comment today, but I hear all these um applause, which I didn't think we were supposed to do here in council chambers. Um I'm for the changes that we need to get this housing element going forward. I was at the table um for at least two of the uh workshops that we had over the last two years. I was helping to draw the maps with people at my table from the Monterey Bay Aquarium that were very concerned about not having housing for their employees. We're losing a lot of what we have here. And I understand the the urge to keep this the way they are and to keep your um your neighborhood to where you know everybody. But if you just understand that we are a growing city, we're a growing state, we're a growing country, people are populating the world all over. This is not unique to California. But we have well over a thousand units that we need because we have been kicking this down the road. And on 17 mile there where we had more density that was reduced, that was a mistake. We could have had more more housing there. And we do need this this parcel. We also need the parcel that's on lighthouse. We also need the parcel that is where the mission laundry is. It's not just one. We need all of this to get this this done. Um so I I really hope you can move this forward. And I know there are other people that are sitting here that are hoping that you approve this too, that are um with me. You can raise your hands. If you don't

want to stand up and you're for the the housing element, please raise your hand. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing besides these two gentlemen to come up, please line up. Otherwise, we're going to go to online.

Um Kevin Carter, 353 Grove Baker Avenue. So the um representatives of Ringcon said that this doesn't pass the EI doesn't really pass the items that were in black, I believe. But if you can find a benefit, then you can override it. And so the benefit appears to be that the state is demanding that we meet our obligations. Um this is a burden to us and as other people have said there's many other properties that can share this burden and why the heavy focus on the uh Dennet Sinx growaker property is an extra burden to us when you're not spreading through all the other properties that were mentioned and all we ask is that you do stick up for us and don't let them just do a real quick Oh, here it is. Let's throw all the apples into one basket, you know, because that is a heavy burden on just a small area. And please consider adding all the other properties that are available so that we can lower that density to something similar to the 17 mile uh apartment complex there, which everyone likes. It's not a burden to us. They don't spill out and clog traffic. Thank you. Good evening. My name's Michael Bear. I live on Locust Avenue, which is about a half a mile away from the parcel. So, I'm not as directly impacted as these other speakers. Uh, I'm concerned about what I've heard about the people in the neighborhood that didn't know about this till very recently, even though it's been going on for a year and a half. was also concerned about um you know I've just learned about it too so I haven't had a chance to read the EIR but some of the things that concern me about that

EIR report um you know um there's no discussion about water you know for those units and I know water is a big issue and maybe that's just we'll figure that out when we get to it or maybe it's been accounted for but one thing that wasn't on there traffic impacts just the general traffic of you know increasing that density the number of cars you got the hotel going in downtown and just the overall traffic um is a consideration that I didn't even hear mentioned in the EIR uh review. Uh I also walked walked that parcel this week and there are a number of trees you know no talk about the you know if those trees are coming down what that impact is and then this woman who talked about the lighting the street width the parking all those issues. I maybe this is not the time for that but I do um be nice to know how much time I have here. Oh here it is. Um, so I do have concerns about all of those things not making it into the review of the EIR. And I'll go read it and find out more. Um, yeah. So, and the main thing is that these people that live in this neighborhood for decades are just finding out about it in the last couple weeks. And that that is not right. Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Drew Miller. I was raised at 510 Evergreen Road. I'm a 29year-old who is far from owning property in PG. So, I uniquely understand the problems we face as well as the potential impacts of builder's remedy. The proposed reszoning of sites 38 through 41 is not close to jobs or retail, negatively impacts our wildlife and environment, lacks infrastructure, increases VMTs and

greenhouse gas emissions, and removes the public and city from decision-m among many other concerns already mentioned tonight. Legally, if you look at RHNA, HCD, Amag, and the general plan, there are inconsistencies between these proposed sites and um those those mandates as well. I won't go through them. I had some quotes here, but I won't have time to get to them. Um, at their core, these sites don't make sense for affordable housing or follow the guidelines laid out in those documents. So, why were they chosen? When asked, staff said that they didn't know. Simultaneously, we heard an owner of Target Parcels from out of town is ready to propose a plan to build. I want to pose a question to you. What president does this type of reasonzoning set for future development in our city? With my concerns expressed, I'm not all doom and gloom, and I do want to provide solutions, which I've sent via email. very detailed to you all. Um, I'm not going to cover most of my proposals today, but I think some different policies along with other sites would be reducing density to match the neighborhood, approving objective standards before voting, requiring inclusionary principles for affordability, establishing infrastructure and evacuation plans before resoning, and looking to cities like Aspen or Carmel who've implemented vacancy taxes, wealth taxes, corporate ownership laws, expanded office conversion, and hotel conversion programs to deal with this issue. To close, I've reached out to you all, but have received no response. My appeal to you isn't a no to housing. It's a yes to housing done the right way, to building up an urban areas, not out, and to putting Pacific Grove on a path to thrive into the future. In the 80s and 90s, PG leaders crafted a general plan that enabled development while protecting the community. You can continue that legacy while meeting state requirements. My ask to you all is continue the vote until January, improve the element, and approve an amended version that optimizes benefit to our community, our homeowners, low-income citizens, the environment, local businesses, and our city character. Thank you.

My name is Al Sax. I'm a 84 year old disabled veteran. um four blocked arteries standing here. I I shouldn't be here. So, I remember reading a children's book, The Giving Tree, where the line was, "Who speaks for the trees?" And as a writer for the Pacific Grove Bulletin, when the deer were getting impaled by the the the stakes, I wrote an article that said, "Who speaks?" And now I'm asking who speaks for Pacific Grove. I want to think that you have my interests and every part of town's interests in our city, our neighborhoods, and our life. I don't like to see these jargon of it's a housing issue. Of course, everybody's for housing. You know, it's a job issue. Sure, everybody's for jobs, but it's also a space issue that people also need space and that's very important. Now in you know a celomar was led down during the co thing when all of a sudden Governor Nuslam I like to call him Trump light was trying to or brought 27 people to a celmar even though there were people with medical conditions around it devastated the celmar it hasn't come back yet laid off a lot of jobs and low-income people for 27 people and the mayor and the council didn't know about it. They were not speaking for the people. Right now, I'm saying you need to speak for the people. You need to know the different ambiances of each community. Levers Point has a certain

feeling. So does Celomar. So does downtown. Uh so you need to know and walk each of those areas to see what that is. out the jobs situation for the building. We had a lot more to go, I could tell, but okay. Well, I'm telling you, I'm if I'm standing here ready to have a heart attack, I'm going to finish with 20 seconds. And that is look at Los Angeles. Look at that. We got to move to the next person. Fine. I'm You can throw me out and let me have a heart attack in the in the hallway. But what the people of LA built and look what they have Kolkata India housing housing what do you do please

what do you the next person let's get to the next person San Jose it's unlivable Santa Cruz is unlivable you want to make Pacific grow unlivable sir Mr. city. Can I do I have the power to tell you go? I I I think we can keep moving forward. Okay. Go ahead.

Good. I live within 200 feet of the Danit block proposed for upzoning and as a practicing county approved field biologist. I'd like to give a voice to the biological sources specific to this block as the EIR determined a number of and incular conclusions related to the biological significance thresholds. There are minimal deficiencies in EIR, any one of which could trigger a SQA suit, but it's my understanding that the recent bill SB131 and AB130 may exempt local governments from SQA review for reszoning actions related to the adopted housing element. However, EIR provisions would remain, which is why I requested to add the Den block to the EROical survey protocols as it does for sites 4950, 55, A3, and A4. We need a preservation not combined and a continued um fragmentation and degradation of our ecological resources. Pacific Grove acres area resides in environmentally sensitive and biological diverse areas of the city second only to aar conference grounds located across the street where local state federal species occur. The proximity alone to the den block to a syllar should have been called to include field surveys to the block. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife notified the city on two occasions that the draft EIR need to include measures requiring that each project implemented within to be surveyed by qualified biologists to determine potential impact to listed species. The letters also noted potential conflicts for the Federal Endangered Species Act as the project of zoning would include significant habitat impacts to federally listed species. There were no fluid surveys conducted

for the development of the ELR only desktop database analysis which was resulted in the low significance threshold for the site. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Nicolas Sanchez. I live on David Avenue and I am a renter. Um, so I live in an apartment building, live with many other folks all around, and I support this housing uh plan to help bring more of a variety of incomes into the Pacific Grove and allow for a controlled and steady flow of density increase into the city. So, I support the element and thank you for your time. Thank you.

S. Hi, my name is Robert Watson. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Uh, yeah, I live uh right across the street from uh the Methodist church and oh god, I just I came to the last meeting and this meetings first once because I saw the small sign with the tiny tiny print over there and I said I better walk across the street and try to read that sign and that's what got me here. It's the first thing I heard about. Uh my mom and dad, you know, grew up in PG. They had a bakery down in Lighthouse. Uh, I play in my backyard, you know, with my two little kids every day. And, uh, I said something the last meeting also, but I just feel like I need to because it's just such a beautiful spot. I can't think of a better use of that, you know, lot. And I've seen the the kind of recent clearing of the trees and things like that. There's deer over there all the time and it's beautiful [clears throat] area. It kind of slows things down. I think it's so quiet and peaceful. So, I think it's a perfect use of that property. Uh, I don't know what you can do. I don't have any solutions. But I I moved down to LA and Orange County when there was just orange grove trees there and uh uh for school, you know, and I stayed too long. I'm sorry to say, but when I come back here, I appreciate it so much. I used to call it a concrete zoo down there, you know. I just don't want to see that happen here. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, city council. My name is Brian Shields. I'm a senior field rep with Carpenters Local 646. And uh I wanted to come up here and ask that a small piece of language that would be impactful be added to the housing element. Uh it's encouragement language, so it is not binding to developers or contractors. But what it does allow is it allows the city council to provide a moment of pause to the city to any developer that comes through uh asking what are you going to do for our local workforce? Okay. Um other other municipalities that have this uh language are San Bonito County. It's in the land use Marina general plan. Capola housing element. Santa Clara housing element. Menlo Park housing element. Daily City Housing Element, uh, Santa Cruz downtown expansion plan, Foster City Housing Element, Redwood City Housing Element, Sonteo County Housing Element, and Monterey County Housing Element. I'll have this piece of language, and the piece of language is local labor. Encourage developers and contractors to evaluate hiring local labor, hiring from and contributing to apprenticeship programs, increasing resources for labor compliance, and providing living wages. And along with allowing for that moment of pause uh for it to be able to ask the question and I've seen it happen where that would be postponed for at least a month to allow for them to come back with an appropriate response of what are you going to do not only for the number of units of housing that we want on the back end but also for our workforce that's going to be building it sometimes for years at a time. Um but uh it also uh it's a it's part of the guiding

document for Pacific Grove and uh when a developer does approach and and a contractor does approach then they would see that in the housing element and know that hey workers are valued in this town. So I ask that it be applied. Thanks one more.

Hello council. Um, I know this is a really difficult issue. I appreciate all your work and patience and and effort on this. Obviously, for an effort this big, I really think there should have been additional notifications. I'm at 895 Cynics. So, I'm outside the 200 feet, but um there we are going to get hit with traffic on Cynics. There's going to be anywhere from 500 to a,000 more vehicle trips up per day. So, I don't understand how that was not addressed in the EIR. Um, I'm also concerned that there were um whether it's miscounting or just a lack of understanding where units could be put. Um, there were other uh locations that people have mentioned where we certainly could have absorbed some of the additional needed housing in the city. Um, I'm also concerned that the 17-M drive uh village was mis uh identified as a motel on the um on the map. So maybe not counting those as residences. There was just a lot of these issues as we dive into this that that really had um me asking a lot of questions. So, I'm really concerned how this has gone. Um and I would ask for a delay to relook at this. Thank um I'm specifically concerned about the Dennit Synix Grove location. Thanks.

Hello, my name is Susan Gbeck. Um, first I'd like I've lived in Pacific Grove for 30 years and I'm on I was on the planning commission and the city council and I am a little concerned about the notification issue which I wasn't aware of until now. I would like to comment that we do need housing, not just affordable housing but housing that will bring young people into Pacific Grove. We old people we or this is a town of old people and we need to have young people and they can't afford to buy a million dollar house. So that's something we have to address for sure and this housing element does to a certain extent. I'd like to ask the question and many people have brought up which is why are these other sites weren't considered in this plan such you know I think that's very important to a lot of people whether or not these the ones that were selected are the ones only ones that should be here and I think that the public needs to know a lot of people have asked me about this the public needs to know that the state mandate is only a mandate for a plan and what a plan does is simply enhance the ability of people to develop housing. So a lot of the things that people have said may prevent housing in this area that they're so concerned with. So it doesn't mandate that the housing be built by the state only that we plan make plans so that in case we want to build it there is it's easier for people to build that's all. But I do think that the public was not and this is happening all too much in Pacific Grove is not given enough notice. So thank you very much and thank you for your service.

Thank you. Okay, we'll go to line please. Thank you, Mayor. Sharon Miller,

can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Um, I lived in in uh on Pico in the Oyamar area for a number of years, but for the past 30 I've been here closer to the downtown area. And I have um five questions and two suggestions. There were some things that either I didn't hear or I I missed. and one was the impact on forestry because the EIR I think any

but I wonder if um there's an estimate on how many trees might be removed and implementing the um housing element and how they'd be replaced. I also didn't catch if wildlife were was considered in the EIR probably was and if that there would be any effect on deers and foxes things like that. And then um um I didn't hear exactly how Pacific Bros ability to maintain local control will be negatively impacted if the housing element is not passed. I think that will happen but I don't know how. And what was is the last the absolute last date the housing element must be approved by the state before the builder's remedy kicks in. That's probably in the um the documents somewhere but I just didn't see it. And then the the fifth question is, is it too late to consider the other sites that have been recommended and suggested tonight? It could be that they're wonderful um suggestions, but it's just too late to look into them. And then my suggestions are maybe in the future rather than just posting a um a sign during the summer when a lot of people are on vacation.

Okay. Oh, time's up. Okay. So, I was thinking that maybe you could put something in next door that Thank you. Okay. Charles Alvarez. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. Yes. My name is Charles Alvarez and I'm a resident of PG. I'm also an advocate for affordable housing in PG. And the first draft of this housing element being considered again tonight first came before council over two years ago in October of 2023. Sadly, the housing problems to be solved were never discussed and they weren't discussed again tonight. PG has a serious housing affordability problem. It's well documented in the housing need section of the housing element. Among the low lightss are that in 2020 nearly half the PG population was suffering housing affordability affordability challenges. Fast forward five years and housing costs are up over 40% while local household income and social security up are only up about 20%. Things have only become worse and the data shows that we have an aging population, many of whom are seniors and on and long-term residents who are being squeezed by these economics and forced to leave. And these are these are or at least were our neighbors. The 2020 census data in the housing element also shows that vacant housing units were up by nearly 600 to almost 1,600 units or 18 and a.5% of the total available units from less than 12% in the 20 uh 10 census. With no change in policy, this is likely over 20%. For context, the number of reported vacant housing units is 40% more than the 1125 unit target assessed at PG. General plans adopted in the9s have failed to prevent affordability issues. Doing things the same way won't change that result. Corrective affordable housing action will require adopting this housing element and applying community and public private resources to understand and solve the affordability problems. We've lost over two years so far. It's time to approve the housing element and engage community

to use it to find solutions and find and and build plans. With likely a majority of your constituents suffering housing affordability challenges, you can demonstrate your your support to them tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Tyler Settle. Greetings, [clears throat] mayor and council. My name is Tyler. Can you hear me?

Okay. Greetings, mayor and council. My name is Tyler Suttle. I'm a Pacific Grove resident on Dette Street within site 39 that is specifically targeted as an opportunity area within this housing element. I'm speaking to oppose the extreme highdensity reszoning of the Dut Synex and Grovere area that is so out of touch with the values of our neighborhood and really to the community of Pacific Grove as a whole. I want to ask that you please take more time on this decision and postpone it to a future meeting in order to truly receive and consider more important community input on such an impactful decision and evaluate other appropriate solutions. As other speakers have said, the noticing was not adequate as part of the development of this housing element. For myself and most of our neighborhood, uh, everyone I know actually, we only found out about the reasonzoning when a notice of public hearing was staked in front of our house for the recent planning commission meeting. Site 39, in which my family's home is located, is currently occupied by uh, two small cottages and a duplex. Under this housing element, this area would be reszoned for 31 housing units. It's really hard to imagine, but I want to point out that three of the contiguous largest parcels uh within this neighborhood uh area 38, 39, and 40 are owned by the same individual who has an interest in development. So, this is not abstract. Uh this resoning is a serious threat um is from our perspective and raises questions about why this area was targeted so specifically in the housing plan. Um [clears throat] and um I I also want to say that the EIR's analysis uh is incorrect in saying that highdensity development here would not have a substantial adverse effect on the visual character or historical integrity of the area. It also failed to uh identify this as a known area of controversy. the

reszoning of this neighborhood. Um, also the um, [clears throat] uh, impacts on Thank you. Next, please. M. Crystal Taliano Thomas.

Hi, I'm Christie Thomas. I, uh, was one of those that was at the very first housing element meeting and attended every single one and the workshops. And so I really kind of take issue with the Dennet people neighborhood that think they can just pull the sites of Mission Linen and the Leaports out of the thin air like those are those aren't owned by the cities. Those were mentioned before and it was very clear that the Mission Linen is a private owner. Not only is there a huge environmental cleanup there, but uh he's not interested or you know never popped up to say, "Oh, I want to build housing there." Nor has Mr. Leaport. So, you can't just tell somebody what they're going to build. And in these two and a half years, um, every single spot that has been, um, picked, I've had to hear, as most of us that are huge proponents of lowincome senior have to hear, that um, it's sacred land or there's um, endangered species or blah blah blah. And you know it it gets old. So everybody that's where the nimi comes from because everybody knows how desperate for housing. The worker bees are here but nobody wants it in their neighborhood. And also with respect to these Dennit people, you know, the town crier doesn't come to everybody's yard. I realize everybody can't sit on these uh meetings like me like a retired person, but uh you have anything you're interested in. The city has the website with this housing element every step that if you care, you can take the time to read. So, this wasn't some just popup up thing and you know, kind of like late to the party. But anyway, this has got to be passed uh if our h if our planning

commission um thought it was uh good enough after this much time. And can I mention paying two uh consultants? Thank you, Christine. Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes.

Yes. So, um I I spoke last time, so try to um I live at 608 Dennit, which is right across the street from some of these parcels. And so, try not to be too repetitive and just add I am I think I did share last time though that I am not a not in my backyard person. I actually choose to live next to um uh affordable housing. I I think it's very important. I think what's not being heard is and and I'll just share this story. I cannot back out of my driveway. I cannot back out of my driveway without hitting cars that are on the other side. I drive a Ford Expedition. I don't drive that big of a car. What I feel is not being heard is there's no room there. If if if I was hearing I wouldn't be opposed to it being across the street. If I was hearing we're going to widen the roads, we're going to add lights. I can't add an extra bathroom. I can't to my house. I can't even have good plumbing. I I can't even use my kitchen sink half the time because of the water pressure. Right? So, if I heard these things being taken care of, I would understand how we could put all those houses there. Right? Just last weekend, there was a teachers conference. There was parking all the way up Denn all the way up Cynics. So, I just share that because I someone said, should we drive people around? I think that would be really important. I don't think I mean, there's probably some nimbies here, but I just don't think it's that. I think it's that it's not just feasible. It just it's hard to imagine. I also mentioned I think Doug spoke earlier one of my neighbors next door. We've been trying to take care of a tree that's dangerous and we can't get the city council to help us with a simple tree. So, it's hard to imagine how we're going to fit this all in. The other thing I'll say is we keep calling it a discussion, but I heard all these questions asked last time. I've been looking for answers. I've not seen the answers. I heard concerns about legality. Um, no answers. Last week I made sure to be there for the meeting. The meeting was cancelled like five

minutes before it was supposed to happen. So, it feels like something's fishy when we're not just answering the questions. Some of us would be calmer if we had these answers. Thank you.

Mark, thank you. Um so my name is Carol Marort and I live in Pacific Grove for the last what many years. Um so I I really do feel for the Dinet Synex Avenue people. Um I have been aware of workshops for the last two years and I attended at least one or two and they weren't well attended. I don't know whether the word didn't get out. Um, but I also I you know this is a very blue state, right? And this is a very blue city. And next time you decide to vote blue, remember the assembly, the legislature voted all this in. The the um the builder's remedy. They're going to come in here and and and they think they're going to take over a property if we don't approve this. I mean, we've had our head to the to the axe on this. We have no choice. So, next election, why don't you think about whether you're going to vote blue? Because we have nothing but blue up in Sacramento. Thank you,

Burnham Knight.

Hi there. Uh, good evening, mayor and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, I'd like to start by thanking the planning commission and everyone who participated in the community workshops and helped identify the two parcels of interest. Um, I think that that process is really important and uh participation in it is appreciated. Um, I am a renter in Pacific Grove on Evergreen Road uh within 200 feet of the uh Dennit Synex parcel. Um, and I'm here to support the housing element. Um, housing shapes who is able to live and raise a family in this community. And as a new mom, I think it's really important. Uh, Pacific Grove is a really special place and that's because of its people and the strong sense of care that we have for one another and without planning for new housing, especially homes that are more attainable for families and individuals at different stages of life or in jobs that really matter but aren't always financially compensated as they should be like teachers, nurses, um, and local professionals. We really risk limiting who stay and who can put down roots. Um, it's my belief that supporting the housing element is one way to plan responsibly for the future while making while protecting what makes Pacific Grove special and I urge you to support it. Thank you,

Chris Mac.

Press Mac, you have the floor.

Oh, yeah. Okay. Um, yeah. Uh, I have been a longtime resident of Pacific Grove since the early 80s. Um, I heard something really interesting that the mission laundry site isn't being considered uh for any housing and that was because the current owner doesn't want it. So that my question to you is how did these three parcels on the Dennet Senate Synex uh site um come into being? Did the developer come and approach the city and go, I voluntarily want to raise the um density on these for the housing element? I thought that was really kind of an interesting observation. Pardon me. Um and um let's see. I don't know enough about all the other sites to comment on them, but uh we do need housing. And the other thing I would say is is there a way that these all these new units that are going to be built in the future go to worker housing uh and not just be sold off as vacation condos or living residents for second home owners type thing. Thank you very much.

Thank you Kyle.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes. Awesome. Um, good evening everyone. My name's Kyle Miller. I also grew up on on Evergreen Road and have lived in Pacific Grove most of my life. Um, you know, this area is right next to uh the Dennis Synx Grove Acre location that's been selected. And I just want to start off by saying I [clears throat] understand the the challenge that you're facing as mandated by the state. Um, and I appreciate that there's been a lot of work when it comes to the housing element. Um, obviously I'm I'm all for higher density housing when it is done correctly and would love to support a plan um if correct um to build more affordable housing in Pacific Grove. But that being said, this this parcel isn't it. Um the proposition to reszone up to 29 dwelling units per acre, which is a it's it's 3x increase over the current zoning of of 8.7. It's an extreme change and frankly it it poses some serious risks and and issues for the neighborhood and I think really starts you know echoing what everyone else has said from an infrastructure standpoint. This area just isn't prepared for that level of density and traffic. There's no sidewalks there. There's extremely limited parking. Most of these streets are narrow and I'm really concerned about access for emergency services as well as evacuation routes during an emergency. um you know, not to mention limited services, few jobs nearby, no public transportation, many other things to take into account such as the nature corridor and and the unavoidable effects outlined in the EIR. Um that being said, got to say the lack of communication has been concerning. And you know, lastly, does anyone really believe that whatever property is built here is is going to fall into the affordable housing category? I don't. um there doesn't seem to be a requirement or inclusionary principles in this as well. So taken together it feels pretty

difficult to understand. My proposition would be to remove the site but if that's not possible let's reduce the the zoning number. Thanks.

Hi Eugene Low. I'm Eugene Low and I live near sites 38 to 41. I am a big fan of the environment and I really like our neighborhood. But it also seems like the only two types of people who can afford the housing here in many cases multi-million dollar homes are well there people like me who moved here decades ago and we still pay low Proposition 13 property taxes. And then there are also people often from out of town who pay cash for houses but then don't even live here full-time. For me, one symbol of Pacific Grove is the butterfly parade, but it feels like the expense of housing from low density zoning is driving that family oriented character of our town away. We do need higher density zoning to provide housing for younger, less wealthy families in order to retrieve Pacific Grove's hometown feel. And so I welcome higher density zoning even yes in my backyard. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Mayo. Our hands.

Okay. Go ahead and close up with a comment um on the item bring it back to the council for discussion. Um I'll just lead off with a couple of comments that I have. Um, so I don't want to talk too long because I don't give other people the chance, but I'm just going to hit four points that I think are important to this discussion. And, uh, we appreciate all the input tonight, but this was not even a close percentage of the of the amount of input we've received over the last three years doing this item. Um, we received input from people that from all parts of the community that either opposed or favored or supported different areas, different sites, all the research that's gone into this, all the comments to the EIR, uh, all the comments that staff has correlated and all the comments that our consultants have correlated because it's been a lot. Um, so this is probably the biggest project that since I've been on the council, so 10 years. Uh, maybe the LCP was I I don't think it was as big as this. This is this is bigger. It's uh it's impactful. And why are we here? We're here because there's a mandate for housing for increased housing. Not for any type specific type of housing, but for an increased amount of housing over a thousand units. We are going to have to do this and if we don't do it, we're going to get penalized and it's going to be it would be really really draconian. You could have people come in and put a 50story highrise in in in locations and you wouldn't be able to stop it. So um we are here doing the best we can using the best consultants and we have great staff working on this um and this is what this is the resultant you know what we have in our recommendation is the result of years of work on this literally years of work um and also going back and forth with the state with the with the department that handles this going back and forth with them to make sure that we're hey is this going to work is this going to work because we want to we want to get this thing done. So, um, we're already behind schedule on

it. So, we need we're we're kicking it now to try to get back on schedule and this is what our experts have told us are that we that we need to do to make this work to get ourselves into a position with the state that will be approved. Do we know if it's going to result in over a thousand units? I don't we don't know that. But this is the we're taking our best shot. Like with many things in life, we we can't we have no guarantees, right? We we come up here, we take our best shot at it, and we hope that it goes well. Um, but we have, it's not like we haven't done the homework. I mean, this is this is years of work. Literally years of work. And I heard a lot about the process not being flawed. But I mean, I'm a lawyer, so at work I hear this all the time, too. Process is flawed. You know, you didn't do this, you didn't do that, or or, you know, I don't even make those arguments myself. But the but at the end of the day, this is the best process we have. The the noticing and all that stuff, that's all just basic state law. That stuff's been around forever. um these that's the best process that we have. It probably is I would say probably one of the best processes available for passing plans like this for trying to get the notice out and it may not always reach everybody. That's a it's it's flawed and because government in general is flawed. You know, it's not perfect. We like I said, we take the best shot we can at things. We do the best we can with the information we have in front of us. And I think tonight because it's been so long, we've done so much work on this. We've taken so much comment on this. tonight. I'm gonna support approving this and um with with the information I have in front of me, I think there's enough information that I have to know that this is our best shot. And we've we've spent the money on the experts. We've spent the money on our staff members. We've spent the time in our meetings with our volunteers in the lower commissions and now us. So, we we've spent the time and this is where we're at and so I'm supportive of it. I think it has a positive chance to to increase our housing. Will it I don't

it'll get 1129. I don't know. But it'll help. And um there there were one last point. There were other sites too that were considered. So like it's not like I think I heard a lot of like this wasn't considered. This was considered. Actually was considered like almost everything was considered. But you just have to look at our little town that we love to see that, you know, a lot of them every there's already things right on top of each other and then there's different uh areas like the golf course. So, you know, it's our golf course and then there's there's, you know, it's just a lot there's a lot going on here on this little map, right? So, it's why we love this place. It's beautiful. It's very diverse. So, um in any event, that's my thoughts for now. Mr. Mayor Proto,

thank you, Mayor. you've um summarized it very well. I just um we've spent a lot of time on it and Mr. Biggs, I appreciate you and your staff on working on this for many years and I've been on the council for going on seven now and I and I've heard this the past few years. I truly believe and I'm going to ditto with the mayor here, but um we're at a point where we need to be in control. The city of Pacific Grove needs to be in control. That's the key. We don't want the state of California to come down on us and tell us what to do, but we need to be in control. That's the key. I'm in support of this plan.

Thank you, Council Garfield.

Thank you. I want to give some answers or what I see as being some answers to some of the questions that have been raised. Um, uh, Sandra, is it possible to put up the photographs I sent you? I want to show you what's in the back of my mind. Um, so we talk about builder's remedy. What does builder's remedy look like in the city of of Menllo Park? Um, they didn't get their uh housing element approved and a developer put in this. This is a drawing of what the city had to take from a builder who put in the plans before their housing element was approved. That's on a 15acre site in the middle of a residential area in Menllo Park, which is, as you can see, pretty much flat as a pancake. Um, it's three towers, a hotel, office buildings, not so much in the way of affordable housing, a school, and all of that the city could not say no to because they lost control. So, that's in the back of my head. Um, thank you. I appreciate you showing me that. Um, this is our third cycle. So, some of the places that y'all had recommended as possibilities have already been through cycles to be chosen. Mission Linen was reszoned when it was um annexed by the city to provide for dense housing. There's, as someone said, no interest in doing that. The Leaport mansion was zoned through a citizens initiative and citizens initiatives have secured to all of our enjoyment open spaces, the golf course, the parks, um the trails, all of that is by citizens initiative. And when they were proposed as being part of

sites that could be used, the state said, "Well, going to pl pass another citizens initiative to overcome that." And we didn't think that we would. So those ideas went out the window there. Um I am very concerned as I think all of us are about the importance of outreach. Every project we do outreach is hard. It's how do we reach people? How do we talk to people who are busy with their own lives? And that is a huge issue. I would recommend if you can get get on the list and read the city manager's uh newsletter. It tells you what's going on. It mentions when there's a meeting. And if anybody has another suggestion about what could work, a marquee on the corner, um an ad in the weekly when something's happening. Although these things have been noticed in the newspapers, how could we do better? We want to. So, please let us know if you've got a brilliant idea that could make outreach um something that we're not so concerned about anymore because it's working. Um there were 19 meetings, just so you know. Um the things that I've heard people be concerned about, water pressure, traffic flow, sidewalks, lights, affordability asurances, these are things that get worked into specific projects. This is this program is about how do we make things possible not about specific projects that will come up. So issues about trees, wildlife, where's a where's a uh the the driveway, how what's the traffic flow, all of those get settled if we have local control. And if we don't have local control, a developer can do what they did in Midlo Park. So, um I would hope that I've been

able to give you some of the things that are in the three binders like this um that that do talk about some of these issues and how we will go forward from this once we maintain local control. So, I appreciate your concerns. Everywhere we live, each of us has a part of Pacific Grove that we're very attached to that we think is the best possible place to live. And I think Pacific Grove is um so this is this is the worst kind of change. It's the change that gets put on you instead of something you step into. Um I appreciate that and I'm I'm sympathetic. I really am. But this is something we've got to do to keep it our town mostly the way we want it to be. Thank you.

Council Maro. Thank you, your honor. Um, thank you, Council Member Garfield, for uh the 19 meetings were just the city council and planning commission. There were additional community meetings that went along with that. And I'll tell you, in all of this, there's a couple of things that scare the beebies out of me. One is the builder's element. And just so you know, we're in the builder's committee. We're there because we're late. However, the one thing that's kind of saved our bacon, sorry about the vegans in the room, but one thing that's saved our bacon is the temporary restraining order that the state put on us because we over use the Caramel River. Once that goes away and we think that probably according to the the water districts we think maybe in the first quarter the state is going to lift that and if our housing element is not approved by the time they start releasing we could see I mean mission linen could say today yeah I don't want to do it but then some LA developer shows up and offers them a big w of sweaty cash and now all of a sudden there's a 10 12 14 story highrise right next to the high school. So, I understand that people are frustrated. They feel that they're being forced into this. There have been cities all over the state that have spent millions, and I'm talking about 10, 20, $40 million to fight this housing element on a wide variety of issues. Um, and they've all lost in court. And in fact, Beverly Hills got slapped with a you can't build anything and you can't even repair anything in your town until you get your housing element in. So the fine could be, if Mr. Biggs, correct me if I'm

wrong, but the fine could be up to $100,000 a month until we get this in starting in January. I mean, we are at the deadline and uh that's a challenge. Um, staying out of the builder's remedy, I think, is is the it's the most important thing to do for us because we do ma maintain control. And if there's a, you know, if there's a a project that comes up and it needs to have sidewalks and street lights and parking and all of those other things, we can address that in the planning process. We can't address it if we're in a builder's remedy. So, we need to be careful about where we're going. Um, we've already spent about three times as much money as most of the other cities on the peninsula to get our housing. We've spent about 1.3 million just in consultants. And that is not even the amount of money that we've spent um through staff time, attorneys fees, and everything else. So I I am not unsympathetic to the folks in the areas. I think the best way to address it is to maintain control so that we can control the projects that come to us. Um and again just because it gets resoned doesn't mean that it will be built. It is expensive. Infrastructure is expensive to upgrade. Um and so I think you know all of those things will have to be taken into consideration as well. Um after all of that is said and done. I mean, this has been going on since 2018, 2023. Um, we're we're at the 11th hour of the

11th day of the 11th minute. And um, you know, it's it's midnight, folks. And in order for us to maintain control and get out of the builder's remedy and to stay away from the $100,000 a month in fines, uh, I'll be a yes. Council Council McDonald.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah. Um, thank you everyone for your comments. You know, keep in mind, we are all citizens of Pacific Grove, too. We aren't doing this because we want to see a lot of these things happen. But, as the other council members have spoken to, we kind of are put in a position where if we don't do this, the consequences could be much worse. And I've been reading article after article lately of towns that are being forced to put in really huge out of what we're even zoning for projects because their housing element isn't approved. We we jumped the hurdle of getting the state to approve the um the inventory that was already put forward. I believe that was selected sometime in 2024. So the ones that we're considering now have actually been on the housing element during that time. Um, and those were selected again through the process of HCD saying, "No, you can't use that property because it's open space. We would have to take it to the ballots." And they we're not allowed to include something that's not likely to be approved by the public. So, partly is that we have so few options in our city of places to be able to put density of housing. Um, I very much support maintaining our wildlife. That's huge for me. So I if given the option would also want to make sure that we're protecting that but we have a balance that we have to create between providing housing which is very important to our communities. We have over 50% renters in this community and people are getting squeezed out more and more. Um people who work here often can't afford to live here. um part of somebody asked a question about um oh a few things that I think might be helpful to have context for because I've asked a lot of questions during this process so I wanted to be able to share it with the community

within the EIR unfortunately we're not allowed to consider traffic um is that correct am I remembering that correctly that we're not allowed to use traffic impacts in the EI determination traffic in and of itself is not considered an environmental issue where you know related issues such as emergency vehicle access um evacuation capacity that sort of thing is considered but you know the inconvenience of traffic is not an environmental concern.

Yeah. And to the comment about it being a narrow street I asked a lot of questions about that as well. So, so the advantage that we have is even though we're zoning to enable this density, it doesn't mitigate, it doesn't um eliminate I should say the zoning regulations we already have there. So, for example, 50% lot coverage that would still apply. Height requirements that would still apply. So, there um Oh, and it would require building the infrastructure. So, in order to be able to do it, the streets would have to meet those legal requirements. So, as it is now, absolutely right. it it couldn't accommodate what we're talking about. And this is where it gets into the idea that as individual projects are approved, it will determine whether things would ever get to that density. So, if the street needs to be wider to be safe, that wideness of the street and sidewalks presumably would come off of that property that is the one being reszoned. A and we don't as a city build properties. The housing element [clears throat] can't force anyone. We're not going to take people's properties. It would require people making the choice to try and develop on the properties they do own. And and I am hearing that there are, you know, three parcels, but that would be three parcels that would still have to have the individual biological, cultural, and all of the other requirements. And by cultural, that could be um whether it be archaeological, whether it be historic. Um so it would include things like having to do an individual review of any impacts to wildlife. um for example, um I heard that brought up in that area. So, so right now being in builder's remedy for a while now and and as um council member Ralph pointed out, it's something that we've all been holding our breath on, making sure that we get the housing element approved. This is the last thing we have to do to make it go into effect. And that prevents us from having the kinds of developments we're seeing in other cities when the

water comes on board next year. We already had um a an agenda item probably two three meetings ago where we're allocating new water that's coming on from Monterey One Water. So we already know some's coming. We've allocated that to some of our low-income housing coming forward. Um and additionally when the water meters come on board, that's when development will have room to begin. And so it's really important that we adopt our housing element before that happens as as council member Ralph pointed out. So, I think it's really important and and and we as council, I think, are put in a really um uncomfortable position. We know there are people who don't like all the decisions we have to make. We get it. We don't always like them either, but it's actually our obligation as council and our responsibility to do the things that keep us in compliance with state law. And the important thing to recognize is by being in compliance with state law, that is actually how we protect our community. because while we're not on it, um, not only do we have the possibility of the fines that council member Ralph talked about, we also lose access to grant money. So, there are a lot of things that it actually will cost the whole city more and we'll get less of our needs met because we no longer qualify for grants because our housing element isn't approved. So, there's just kind of a whole cascade of issues. And so, um, my understanding is is that part of the reason the higher density ones were selected is because we had to find properties that actually had the size to be able to accommodate some higher density um, areas. Do I understand that correctly as well?

Yes, you have that correct.

Okay, thanks. And so as much as there are parts of this that that none of us if we had our own way obviously we'd try and do things maybe a little bit differently than we're required to to be able to to get within state compliance. Um, but the goal here looking at the agenda item is we're tasked with determining whether the benefits outweigh the potentially avoidable environmental impacts because I heard somebody mention that too. And the idea is that um it is true that it brings us into compliance with the housing element and that's an important benefit and for some of the other reasons stated, but but it can't be overstated how much getting local control back is really critical to us being able to apply our own design standards and our own zoning to anything new that's going to be built. So as as much as um we feel for people who might be impacted, the reality is that we are unlikely to see the impacts as they are. I don't know um if you noticed in the statement about the EIR, they actually showed it for the maximum possible buildout. rare that things get built to maximum possible buildout, but it it helps us be in compliance and you will um there will be review of every project that's brought before. And so I think that's really important that the cost of not approving it really hurts our community more um overall than the cost of approving it. And so we as council, it becomes our responsibility then to to get us into compliance so we can protect our community. Do more to keep it the neighborhoods we value. Do more to make it the kind of community that is inclusive to people who don't have as much means. Um somebody mentioned that the elderly often getting squeezed out of their homes. We want to try and prevent that as well. Um as well as making it affordable for families. a city kind of dies out when there's no families and so being able to make the

city accessible for all that really um is on us to make sure that we're supporting for the community at large. Thank you. You have any comments? Actually, uh yes. Yes. Thank you.

All right. Kind of lost in my thoughts there and listening to you. Thank you, Lori. I think first of all, thank you to the city council as well for covering uh as much territory as you did in addressing people's questions and laying down the groundwork for why we are being forced to approve um uh this housing element. Um we as a city are not in a position to say no. We have been given we've been graced with a certain amount of uh time um to by HCD to get this put together. We have gone through multiple steps with them where they have reviewed our housing our draft housing element provided feedback and here we are yet again with more feedback from them uh with tacid approvals on what's come before and then recommendations on what they want to see in order to approve it. So what you're seeing before you today is what basically they told us they need to see in order to approve this document. So here we are going through putting this together, making sure we do our reviews of it um to provide it back to them. It's it's an unfair and u u uh probably unproductive position for us to be in, but it's one that we've been forced into since 1969. Um the concept of the housing element is to infill perpetually more and more housing into the same basic area and provide it at an affordable rate so that you increase perpetually more and more pressure on the community.

Um and then over time as we have less and less room to build out they demand that we build more and more units. Every time we go through this cycle we have less space to deal with and we have increased demands placed on our community and not just our community. There's over 500 municipalities in the state of California that are going through this exact same thing right now. 10% of our municipalities like us have not gotten their housing elements approved yet. They haven't got them in. They're not done. That's over 50 municipalities that are in violation of this deadline. Um our our our problem that we're having here today uh is is not singular. It's not unique. We're one of hundreds of communities facing this exact same problem right now. We're one of over 50 that are probably meeting this month much like this to try and put this together at the last minute so that we don't get that 36 was it 36 or 33 story 37tory tall development like what they have in Menllo Park because we could not stop them. So I heard one comment and it resonated with me. Um, first of all, I heard all of your comments. One of the the comments that resonate resonated with me is us uh abdicating our role to developers. If uh if we do approve this, and I'm telling you, it's the exact opposite. If we don't approve this, we are absolutely abdicating our role and our our u um uh agency over our community to developers, not at some random point in the future, in January. So, do I like this? No. Hate its guts. Do I think it's effective? No, not at all. Matter of fact, um from the 40s,

50s, 60s, all the way up to 1969, housing was becoming more and more and more affordable. But why what I mean by that is the median price of a home was reaching what was reaching parody or or getting closer to the median income of wage earners here in California. the 40s, the 50s, the 60s. You can see the graph. More and more and more affordable. Decade after decade after decade. 1969, we get the Affordable Housing Act here in California. And on a dime, it stopped flatlined. Decades of the graph going towards more affordability, it stopped, flatlined. 1974, there were a number of other uh uh acts of measures that were implemented. Um, at the time the thing they were trying to address were discriminatory uh practices. They wanted to address fair uh access to housing, fair access to um to financing. And so they put tools in place much like the uh uh the housing element um to to address that and it was effective to a large degree towards that end. But this this measure this act along with other laws that were implemented over the following years uh through like 1974 uh saw housing start becoming less and less affordable and now that graph line has continued unobstructed since then. Do I think the housing element is going to fix affordable housing or more make housing more affordable? No. It is sat. It is overseen. It's overseen. It stood by housing becoming less and less and less affordable in our state.

Unmitigated. I stopped short of blaming the housing element for housing being less affordable, but I can definitely say it hasn't helped it. So, what are we doing here? We talk a lot about affordable housing. I'm not expecting it to actually just magically materialize uh in the long run. In the short term, we do have some options. But what we're doing here is we're playing defense. We're trying to protect our community in a very hostile and very aggressive environment. And we're a small town, but we're a smart town. And we're making moves as best we can to make sure that we serve and protect the people of our community. from those outside of our community, maybe within, but people who would want to violently and radically develop our community. And the best thing we can do to try and protect our small town, keep it a small town, is implement measures within the housing element as best we can that harm our community the least and allow us once approved. Allow us to continue uh uh uh uh governing and and mitigating these impacts with our laws and ordinances, which we still have control over. are still in place with our review of the processes which are still in place and they still have to go through the steps. We still have to approve it for addressing affordability specifically. Um we can contractually obligate and bind developers to offer uh uh to to provide affordable housing within within a development. Right? we can enter into an affordable housing agreement so that we know they will

provide x number of units at this this level. Um and and we now have a binding contract that will guarantee that we get that. What happens within the uh uh within the housing market, the speculative housing market after that is is no longer in our control unless we have something like a community land trust or something like that. I would love it if we got a community to land trust and they came forward to help do a a project within our community. And yes, that's a pitch if anyone's listening out there. Um but but so much of it goes out of our hands again. Uh which I think is why in a speculative market like what we have in America, why it's been so difficult to change the direction on that graph for housing affordability. once it's out in the real estate market, someone wants to sell their home at a profit. And that's going to continue to happen. And as much as I would like to influence affordability by uh uh uh by changing the fact that I would want people to only be able to sell to single family single to to families in single family homes. I would want owner occupants. Those things are constitutional violations. those are that that violates someone's constitutional right to do with their property what they want to do with their property. Uh we will be talking later in uh uh in following meetings and I hope to see you there where we will go over some potential legal u u options for how we can make our housing more affordable at least influence affordable housing within our our community. Um, I don't I don't think this is the whole thing that's going to do it for us, but there are some options that are out on the table that we'll discuss. Uh, the vacancy tax that got brought up by a number of people is an excellent tool.

Okay. Yeah, please. All right. Sorry. Awful. All right. All right. All right. Bringing it back home. Uh, we'll discuss those other matters later on. I hope to see you there. Uh, they are being considered. Um, but as far as this document here, uh, we we're in a position where we have to approve and and has my support on those grounds. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Yeah. Okay. I'd like to make a motion. Let me make a suggestion. U want to move a recommendation one and and then two and then we can do five because it's one's an ordinance of so I kind of thought we should do one, two, and five. Is that okay with you?

U Mr. City Attorney, Mr. Perrick, is that the uh Well, we got some work to do before we get to five. So, I figured we could do should we just go with adopt the resolution certify the environmental impact report? I I think um what you could do um would be to say that you're uh making a motion to approve recommendation number one. Okay. and start with that and then go to two and then and then after um that um those votes go to three. Okay. So move one motion to move. Okay. Motion move.

This is the Yeah, the Okay, we have a motion by Amelia, second by Ralph. Any further discussion? Yes. Thank you, mayor. There was um a public comment about um if we could add some language encouraging a pause for local labor. Is that something we want to consider? Just it's a language thing. So I don't know that that would fit. So I'm going to go ahead and start that discussion on the Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Patilio. Yes. Council member Ralph I. Council members Monkinstick

I. McDonald I. Garfield I. Motion carries 601. Council member Pedari absent. Okay. And then we'll go to two. You're going to make a motion. Yeah. Make a motion on to adopt a resolution adopting the housing element health and safety element environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act SQA in a statement of the overriding considerations.

Okay, I have a motion by me and second on recommendation number two and discussion. I'm going to we've heard the discussion point and I'm going to recognize Mr. Blakes. that motion include the corrections that we brought up earlier for the uh you know that yes

corrections is the land you saw on the correct that's the two corrections also I mean um the labor point do um I don't know how that would be done we haven't it's not on the current document where would it go would it affect the HCD outcome I don't know all any of that so I'd be lerary of doing Well, it wasn't in the staff report or gender report and it's not in any of the resolutions. So, yeah, my advice would be that maybe you revisit that at a future date. Not in favor of that. Yeah, go ahead. Something that we might be able to handle through ordinance as opposed to the uh the actual housing element.

I don't know that either at this point. I haven't researched that. It's it's like all brand new information. I think it's sufficient to say that that's a request that's going to require some further review. Okay. Okay. You ready for a vote? Yeah. Okay. Let's take a call on to Mayor Patilio. Yes. Council member Scarfield. I walking stick and Mayor Smith I. Mayor, sorry. Motion carries 601. Council member Paduri absent. So now three and four. Mr. uh

do you want to go ahead do you want me to go ahead and have you read the ordinance?

Yeah, I'll be glad to do that. Um this is an ordinance of the city council of the city of Pacific Grove amending chapters 23.08 definitions 23.24 R3 districts 23.26 R3 PGR district 23.28 28 R4 district 23.52 R3M districts 23.64 General provisions and exceptions 23.70 community development permit review authorities and procedures 23.79 density bonus regulations and 23.81 81 reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities of title 23 zoning of the Pacific Grove municipal code and amending the Pacific Grove zoning map. So now that I've read the title um what you can do now is make a motion um to approve recommendations four, five, and six. I'll go ahead and approve uh I'll make a motion to approve four, five, and six. Second.

All right. Any further discussion? I guess I think we can take I'm think anyway. We did them all that way. Okay. Uh Mayor Promillio, yes. Mayor Smith, yes. Council members Garfield, McDonald. Hi. R and Walking Stick. Hi. Uh motion carries 601. Council member Duri absent.

Thank you very much. Thank you everyone for participating tonight. Uh we've just passed the housing element and approved the resolution for the housing element and the EIR. We've approved the zoning amendments and at this time we're going to take a break, but before we do, I'm going to allow my colleague to uh state a recusal so that we can start the second half of the program which she will not be participating in. Council to Thank you. So, she's accused of this second second portion of the housing element presentation tonight. We'll take a break. Mr. Robson,

Mr. Mayor, I think also just for the audience's sake, just to let you know, so the residential zoning has just been um completed. The next step will just be commercial, which is downtown or commercial corridors. Oh, yes. Focus on commercial. So, we're going to take a break and come back at 8:25. Recording stopped.

recording in progress. Did you like my notes? [laughter]

We're ready. Are we ready? Okay. One, two, three, five. Okay, we're five now. Okay. Five strong. All right. Are we uh [snorts] streaming? Yes, sir.

Okay, here we go. Uh good evening everyone. We're back from our break here. It is uh 8:27 p.m. and we're taking on the second part of the the item, the housing element update. And this is going to be limited to only the land use element and land use maps and the commercial and industrial zoning districts. So, primarily focus on commercial. we've already done the residential side and taken a lot of comment on that side. So the any comments will be limited to the only the items before us for the rest of the evening. Um and at that point at this time I will recognize staff again

and I'll hand it over to uh Cassandra Gail our consultant to wrap up the presentation. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much. So for the sake of not repeating anything we can go ahead and go to the next slide. Perfect. Thank you. So for or one one slide back, please. Thank you. Uh so for the land use element and map, uh we're proposing a set of updates to keep the general plan internally consistent with the housing element. The map on this slide shows where these updates occur geographically across the city. Broadly, the amendments Okay. Broadly, the amendments update allowable residential uses and densities in the downtown, Forest Hill, and identified commercial areas as well as in portions of the former medium density residential designation. These density changes are necessary to ensure the general plan reflects the housing capacity identified in the housing element site inventory. In addition to those updates, the amendments also include several related cleanup items and these clarify policies related to allowable uses in commercial areas to allow residential update the land use diagram and tables to match the proposed changes and ensure the land use element remains internally consistent with the housing element policies. For the ordinance amendments, commercial zoning districts in chapter 23.31 were revised to align with the assumptions analyzed in the housing element. So these changes include identifying allowed residential uses and the appropriate densities in the CD, CFHC1 and C2 zones and including the associated development standards for housing. Next slide. So again just to summarize uh the planning commission recommendation from November 13th after public comment and deliberation the planning commission re recommended adoption of the project resolution for the Pacific Grove 2023 to 202031 housing element update along with these

land use element and zoning ordinance changes leads us to our recommendation tonight on the next slide. So we have a five a five-parter here. So, first adopt the resolution of the city council approving the project, which includes amending the text, policies, figures, and maps of the land use element and the land use map. Uh second, request the city attorney read the title of the ordinance, followed by a motion to wave further reading of the ordinance, introduce and hold the first reading of an ordinance of the city council adopting amendments to title 23 zoning of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code, and finally direct that the publication of the ordinance be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the city attorney. That concludes the uh this portion of the presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Do you have any further presentation? Nothing else. That's it. Okay. We go ahead and go to the public comment on this section of the event here relating to only the items uh on the screen if there's any. I see none in chambers online. Is there any? I see none online, mayor. All right. There probably shouldn't be because we took we took quite quite a bit earlier. So, um I'll go ahead and close public comment on this section. Bring it back to the council for action. Council Garfield

just feel like I should say something about this. Um, somebody should say something about this. So, this is an example of how the chosen sites were distributed throughout the city. This is where we looked across a city for diversity of um spots that could be increased in density and intensity to create a variety of housing options um in this program. And so I think it's pretty self-explanatory that this is an area that was ripe for intensification and these changes allow that to happen and I'm in favor of it.

Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and move resolution one recommendation one at this time. This move approval of the land use element and land use maps. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Alio. Any discussion on item one? Seeing none, we'll take a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. All right. Looking at passes unanimously with O2. I think we can skip that recommendation. Yeah, I'm going to skip number two. It's it's it's redundant with with number five. Sure. So, if you wanted me to read the title. Yes.

Yes. This is an ordinance of the city council of the city of Pacific Grove amending chapter 23.31 commercial and industrial zoning districts of title 23 zoning of the Pacific Grove municipal code. And what you can do now is make a motion to approve recommendations 4 through six. Move the balance. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and take a voice vote on items four, five, and six to introduce the ordinance uh the commercial and industrial zoning districts. So, okay. My advice is to do a roll call. Yeah, we'll take a roll call. You got it. Okay. Mayor Smith I, Mayor Promio,

I. Council member Scarfield, I. McDonald and walking stick I 50 511 right that council member Ral recused and council member Padori absent I think it's 502 but okay absence is not a no vote what I would say is rather than worry about the numbers is just recite that there's five in favor one abstaining and one absent

you got it all All right, and that takes us to the end of the event tonight. Thank you everybody for joining us tonight online, everyone who's still here, the die hards that are still here in the back. And um we appreciate you. Happy holidays to everybody. Happy New Year, and we'll see you in the next year. Thank you so much.