Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

City's website. Members of the public using the hybrid format will be able to provide comments using the Zoom webinar platform. Members of the public who wish to provide testimony remotely must enter the virtual queue by clicking on the raised hand icon before the queue closes. The virtual queue will close five minutes after in-person testimony ends. Also, per Section 2.6.2 of the Rules of Counsel, speakers participating virtually may not allocate their time to other speakers. Time can only be ceded by speakers who are in the hearing room. Michael Prince will now go over the specifics of how the public can participate and give their public testimony.

Thank you, Chair Modane. If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip if you wish to speak. In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins. Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the Planning Commission's webpage, or you may dial 1-669-254-5252. The webinar ID is 160. nine four four zero three six seven please note that if you are watching online there may be a 30 second delay please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your tv or computer when it is your turn to speak thank you i would now like to take roll call as i call your name please indicate if you are present commissioner mazari president commissioner marlborough president commissioner miyahara president commissioner reeves

Present.

Commissioner Renger. Present. Vice Chair Boomhauer. Present. Chair Modane is present. The staff members present with us today are Michael Prince, Assistant Deputy Director from Development Services, Tate Galloway, Deputy Director of City Planning, Corinne Neufer, Senior Chief Deputy City Attorney, Eric Masalgo, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Division, and our legislative staff. We will now start our agenda with public comment for non agenda items this portion of the agenda is an opportunity for the public to make comments on planning related items that are not on today's agenda. Any person wishing to speak will have three minutes maximum to provide testimony, if you would like to speak, please click on the raised hand icon on your screen. Jeffrey huter. Could you please turn on your mic? Thank you.

Green light, I guess. So thank you commissioners. Um, you know, first of all, you know, I think there were some dismissive comments last week from, uh, commissioners regarding the public participation in these meetings. Um, we put a lot of effort into these meetings analysis of what goes on in our communities and we know what's, um, the local conditions are and. Look, you may disagree with that information, but you should at least respect it when the public comes forward with those comments. And one of the big things is, and we need to keep emphasizing this, is we keep thinking that the challenges we have for housing are that we haven't zoned for enough capacity to build that housing. But let me remind you, and we had a slide that was put up last week that showed that With our community plan update, we've added 140,000 potential new units. That was on top of 170,000 at the beginning of our housing element. And our housing need is projected to be 100,000. So just with zone capacity alone, we have the capacity to build three times as many homes as we're projected to need by housing and community development. And then if you add on all the bonus density programs that we have in San Diego, that's much more than our zone capacity. And that gets us to about 2 million units. That's 20 times our projected need. Getting to 21 times or 22 times our projected need obviously is just pushing on a string and at some point we should be asking what is it that we really, what is really stopping development and is it just market forces because we know that we've run ahead of our housing estimates for above market rate units. And when that happens, developers just start developing. The market is telling us how much housing we need at the top of the market. And we're not listening to what the market is telling us in that regard. We need different solutions for creating more affordable and particularly preserving more affordability. One of the things that's really frustrating to us is that our housing annual housing reports don't track things like demolitions of existing housing. We, we hear a lot of people talking about naturally and occurring affordable housing. What that mostly consists of is depreciated older housing stock. And whenever we build a project, what we do first is we tear down that existing housing, to build which may have you know 10 40 whatever units of naturally occurring affordable housing and then we replace it with a few deeded affordable housing units we're losing on this proposition most of the time and so rather than thinking we just need to keep up zoning up zoning up zoning we need to think more holistically about how we plan our cities thank you thank you david modey

Thank you, commissioners. My message is very simple. A public meeting facility should have a drinking fountain or water cooler that is available to the public. Same message as last week. Same message I'll tell you every time I come back until you actually put water that's available for the public. Thank you.

We have two online speakers. Danielle Lehman, please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. Hopefully you can hear me. I also would like to comment on last week's meeting with the college area. One thing I would like to point out to all the commissioners is that scraping city blocks has happened in the past in San Diego. Most recently it was in City Heights, a giant recreation center pool. Joint use fields were put in because of scraping city blocks. Also, San Diego Unified School District has scraped city blocks to put in both Fay and Ibarra schools just south of my neighborhood with Prop MM money. And also, Highway 15, Highway 805 in the more distant past have scraped partial neighborhoods to put in those public amenities. And before most of our lifetimes, Highway 5 went through both Little Italy and Barrio Logan. So scraping city blocks does encourage public infrastructure and good. And so I would also, the other point that I would like to make is that at the Park and Rec Board, we only get to see these draft plans at the very last minute. We do not have the opportunity to do workshops that the Planning Commission does. so i would like to encourage the planning department to have workshops with the parks and rec board on the park and rec element months before it comes to planning commission so we can give meaningful public input we did not have that opportunity at the college area thank you for your time chandra yellamon chili you have three minutes please unmute yourself

You are unmuted. You can begin. We'll give you a couple more seconds, Chandra, if you can speak into your microphone. We see that you are unmuted online. Given that we cannot hear the speaker that concludes online on agenda comment.

Thank you i'm assuming there are no items to be continued or withdrawn. Okay, is there a request to place any items on consent. No okay. Are there any directors reports.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

The last Planning Commission hearing was held on October 9th. At that hearing, the Commission heard two items. The first was the Saleen development, a site development permit for the substantial alteration of a historical resource and construction of an eight-story, 91-foot-tall mixed-use development comprised of 52 dwelling units, including seven affordable dwelling units, and 6,232 square feet of commercial space. The site is located at 1620 State Street in the Little Italy neighborhood of the downtown community plan area. The Commission approved the project by a vote of 5 to 0 to 2 with Commissioner Reeves recused and Commissioner Renger absent. The Commission also recommended approval of the college area Community plan update to replace the 1989 college area Community plan for the approximately 2000 acre Community. The plan update provides a comprehensive policy framework for future growth and development over the next 20 to 30 years, the Commission voted six to zero to one with Commissioner ranger absent and I conclude steps report.

Good morning, Tate Galloway, Deputy Director, City Planning Department. A few announcements this morning. I did want to mention that we are anticipating bringing the report on homes to your next Commission meeting later this month. And that will be a workshop for your information. Also, we are just to give you an update on the land development code update. We are currently working on that and we have put out a list of the proposed amendments. We're currently preparing language for that and we will be working to bring the language forward once we release it for public review to the commission for a workshop to get your involvement. So more to come on that in terms of uh, the timing, but did want to make you aware of that. And we appreciate, uh, everybody's from the public's input and comments as well. And, uh, um, certainly we'll be looking forward to have more discussion on that. Um, finally, I did want to announce that, uh, earlier this week, we did, um, make an announcement in terms of the city planning department's reorganization, um, just to make the commission aware that, uh, we have a reorganized, uh, divisions, including the Climate Preservation and Public Spaces Division, which is led by Deputy Director Kelly Stanko. That division will include now our Climate Sustainability section within that. Also, in terms of reorganization in my division, It is now the community planning and mobility planning division in which I will now be overseeing our mobility planning section. And then lastly, Seth Lichney has been promoted to deputy director and will be overseeing a new division, which is our housing policy and environmental analysis division. So with that, we'll continue the work that we're doing. And that concludes city planning department's report for this morning. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there any non-agenda commission comment? No? Okay. Then we can start with item number one. Staff, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Sean McGee, principal planner and project manager for the Claremont Community Plan Update. I'm joined today by several representatives of the City Planning Department who have been involved in the Claremont Community Plan Update as well. Today, we'll provide an overview of the hearings draft for the Claremont Community Plan Update and describe the project schedule moving forward. We would like to thank the Commission and the community for providing feedback at the prior Planning Commission workshops, which were held in 2017, 2019, 2021, and August of this year. Today, staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve the Claremont Community Plan update. I will provide a brief presentation that includes an overview of why the Community Plan is being updated, the process thus far, key feedback received, and the main changes that are being proposed for your consideration today. We will begin with why the community plan is being updated. The Claremont Community Plan was last updated in 1989. Since then, the city has experienced a growing housing crisis and a changing climate, requiring additional planning to increase housing opportunities and enhance access and use of transit to help meet city housing and climate goals. The Community Plan update is part of a citywide program to update community plans in locations served by high-frequency transit, including three trolley stations consistent with the General Plan's City of Villages strategy. The General Plan's Village Climate Goal Propensity Map identifies where additional homes and jobs could have the best opportunities to increase the number of trips taken by transit, bicycling, or walking. It shows that Claremont has higher propensities for mixed-use residential development within identified villages and along transit corridors. The Claremont Community Plan has been revised to align with the Village Climate Goal Propensity Map. The draft Community Plan increases residential densities around the three trolley stations and along existing and planned bus rapid transit corridors and cycle tracks. This strategy of providing more homes and jobs in mixed-use villages and along transit-served corridors is consistent with both the City of Villages Land Use Strategy and the Climate Action Plan. By allowing for both home and job growth opportunities within mixed-use villages and along corridors served by existing and planned transit as identified in the SANDAG Regional Plan, The community plan update aims to shift people away from single occupancy vehicles towards walking, biking, and transit, which in turn helps the city achieve its goal of reducing citywide per capita vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. State law requires all cities to affirmatively further fair housing, meaning that the city needs to take proactive steps to expand access to opportunity and overcome historic patterns of segregation. Planning for fair housing is approached citywide where each community plan update contributes to a collective effort to distribute housing capacity equitably across all neighborhoods. This ensures San Diego's long range plans meet both state law and local goals for equitable and sustainable growth. Each community plan update and citywide initiative contributes to distributing housing opportunities more equitably across San Diego. Recent planning efforts are collectively increasing housing capacity in areas across the city. It's important to note that the existing 1989 community plan already includes about 6,000 homes of unrealized capacity. The updated community plan takes a strategic approach by concentrating new capacity in areas that can support redevelopment near transit and services, which in Claremont is in high and highest resource areas. The Claremont Community Plan update aims to increase opportunities for homes for people of all incomes and family types, particularly within the community's high and highest resource areas. Claremont includes a range of residential densities to expand housing choices, including diverse home types, sizes, and price points across all opportunity areas with strong access to services, jobs, and transit. This approach aligns with the general plan's goals for sustainable and equitable growth. According to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee's 2025 Opportunity Area Map, approximately 73% of the Claremont plan area is considered high or highest resource, compared to 62% citywide. The updated land use plan provides for density in predominantly high and highest resource areas. Now that we know why we are updating the plan, I will move on to the process. The City Planning Department initiated the update in 2016, and the Claremont Community Plan update process began in 2017 with an ad hoc subcommittee which held at least 32 public meetings and two community workshops to gather input on various topics like land use, urban design, and mobility. From February to March of 2019, the Planning Department utilized both an online engagement tool and an in-person workshop to collect feedback from the community on potential land use scenarios. Along the way, an existing conditions atlas was published. From January to March of 2020, the planning department developed a discussion draft of the community plan to solicit input on draft CPU policies. Comments received from the discussion draft later informed the development of the first draft, which was released in May of 2021 in a more published format along with the proposed land use map. Between 2017 and 2021, three planning commission workshops were held. following the adoption of blueprint sd in the summer of 2024 the city planning department developed the second draft community plan which was released this past july and public public feedback was received on the second draft plan until mid-september the second draft was also presented at a fourth planning commission workshop at the end of this past august I would like to take a moment to express my sincerest thanks to current and prior community planning group members and all of their efforts on the draft community plans. In particular, I would like to thank Glenn, Matt, Susan, Nick, as well as the project review subcommittee for their thoughtful and very prompt insight on the second draft. They have dedicated a significant amount of their time to this plan update. I believe they've held at least eight meetings since release of the second draft, and that is truly appreciated. So what were the key pieces of feedback we heard during the engagement process? We received a mix of positive comments and some concerns, some of which conflicted with one another. Regardless, several clear themes emerged. The planning commission recommended significantly increasing the proposed density and raising height limits, noting how well connected Claremont is to regional transit, particularly access to the MTS trolley. We heard that the community generally supported the proposed land use pattern, but not the level of density increases that came with it in all areas. There was also support for the targeted approach to increasing building heights in select areas and encouragement to expand where supplemental development regulations would apply. There were concerns raised about wildfire risk, park and recreation facilities, and the need to protect open space in canyon areas. The updated plan works to respond to many of these concerns and reflects much of the feedback. I'll review how we have addressed key feedback throughout the presentation today. The CPU is guided by principles which envision Claremont as focused on protecting its natural spaces, such as canyons and creeks, while also enhancing parks, recreation facilities, and public infrastructure to meet current and future needs. The community also prioritizes development that comprehends neighborhood scale, improves safety through environmental design, and enhances connectivity for all modes of transportation. Ultimately, these efforts aim to foster a sustainable community that celebrates its unique identity, history, and diversity. Now that we've discussed the reason for the plan update, the process, milestones, and key themes of feedback received so far, the following slides address the different community plan elements. We'll begin with land use. The location of villages, corridors, and nodes illustrated on this figure are largely consistent with previous drafts. The draft community plan continues to strike a balance between feedback received and aligning with Blueprint SD's recommended framework for growth, planning for additional homes and jobs within villages and corridors. The draft community plan focuses new home opportunities in village areas and along corridors. This draft increases capacity for additional homes. Specifically, the community plan now provides for approximately 14,000 new homes over the adopted land use plan. The draft plan now features additional housing capacity at the trolley stations and the community core village area based upon feedback received. The land use framework for the draft plan provides an opportunity for an additional 14,000 homes beyond the current adopted plan, primarily located within identified village areas and along transit corridors. Currently, Claremont has approximately 33,000 homes, and the plan would allow for an additional 19,800 homes to be built over its horizon. This update accommodates a variety of housing types to meet the diverse needs of the community. By acknowledging the demand for housing, the plan provides a comprehensive framework for development in Claremont and across the city. It's important to note that the plan does not mandate new construction. Development will only occur as demand and economic conditions allow. The Claremont Mesa height limit overlay zone currently limits building height to a maximum of 30 feet throughout most of the community. As part of the Claremont Community Plan update, an amendment is proposed to increase these limits in designated village areas. In response to feedback and to better align with proposed density increases, the height limit has accordingly been increased and now aligns with the values shown here. These height increases are necessary to achieve the plan's vision for new home opportunities and commercial development. The height limits in the overlay zone would supersede those of the base zone, meaning the overlay's specified limit would apply regardless of the base zone's height restriction. It's important to note that if a base zone's height limit is less than 30 feet, that the lower height limit would still prevail. Moving now to urban design. The proposed urban design framework provides a comprehensive vision for the community by establishing the design relationships among villages, nodes, and corridors through an integrated circulation system. Key features include the identification of community gateways to enhance a sense of place and pride, and the consideration of the SDG&E utility easement as a potential open space connection requiring future coordination. The framework aligns with the revised land use figure and incorporates policies for public view sheds and corridors, sensitive interfaces between neighborhoods and canyons, and sustainable building design. Moving next to economic prosperity. The community plan establishes policies to support opportunities for retail, office, and commercial uses that contribute to the well-being of the community, providing job opportunities as well as places to buy goods and services. The element aims to support a diversity of businesses and job opportunities. A large portion of the Rose Creek Canyon Industrial Corridor is designated as prime industrial land, which supports export-oriented base sector activities. Moving to the mobility element. The draft plan envisions an accessible, balanced and efficient mobility system that connects people to jobs, schools, shops and homes. Streets are the foundation of this transportation network and by making them safer and more inclusive for everyone, whether walking, rolling, biking, taking transit or driving, the draft plan supports sustainable and convenient travel options. The draft plan also envisions Claremont as a more walkable and connected community centered on mixed use villages and vibrant pedestrian friendly corridors that make walking safe and enjoyable. In response to community input, the draft plan now incorporates into plan maps and mobility element policies, areas to evaluate for shared use connections, such as multi-use paths, active transportation bridges, and aerial skyways to strengthen links between Claremont, Pacific Beach, and Mission Bay. Key changes based on feedback received include adding potential shared use connections over the I-5 to Mission Bay, new bicycle facilities along Claremont Drive, and extending the Morena Boulevard bike route from Knoxville Street to Tekeloti Road. Biking is a sustainable, healthy, and affordable way to get around, and the draft plan expands access to low-stress bikeways like multi-use paths and cycle tracks that separate cyclists from fast-moving vehicles and connect directly to shopping centers, parks, and transit. To enhance safety and comfort, the draft plan also recommends traffic calming measures, bike signals, and brightly painted conflict zones. With regional investments like the mid-coast trolley and rapid bus services, the draft plan builds on such infrastructure to improve transit access, reliability, service, and convenience. Based on recent community feedback, more detail has been added on coordination with SANDAG, MTS, and Future Development to expand and improve transit service and access in key areas of the community, including exploring options like a potential light rail station at Jutland Drive and Morena Boulevard. Overall, the investments in transit and implementation of supporting multimodal infrastructure will expand transportation options and improve connectivity within the community and beyond in a manner that strengthens Claremont's land use and mobility vision. Moving now to recreation. The updated community plan addresses the needs of current and future residents with new planned parks and recreation facilities. The newly planned parks range from traditional neighborhood parks to trailhead pocket parks that enhance access to open spaces and trails. Since release of the second draft, two additional park opportunities have been identified, the Ogallala Trailhead Pocket Park and the Ute Drive Linear Park. With a projected population of 119,000 people using the citywide standard of 100 recreation value-based points per 1,000 residents, there is a goal of 11,900 recreation value points at planned build-out. The community plan identifies approximately 6,887 existing and planned recreation value points and a potential 4,999 recreation value points coming from new development and other future park opportunities as detailed in the plan's park and recreation inventory. Additionally, to meet the park's master plan standards, there's a goal of approximately one additional aquatic complex at full plan build out and three additional recreation centers, each size at 17,000 square feet or greater. Next is open space. Prioritizing sustainable development and resource conservation, the draft plan establishes policies to enhance climate resiliency, reduce the ecological footprint, and minimize greenhouse gas emissions while supporting sustainable growth for homes and jobs. The plan specifically contributes to the city's conservation goals by identifying 78 acres of open space in Claremont to be added to the multi-habitat planning area, or MHPA, preserve. Additionally, in response to community feedback, the plan identifies approximately 231 acres of privately designated open space, which will help preserve Claremont's Finger Canyonland system. We're also planning for additional public facilities to serve the community. A variety of city departments and partner agencies provide public, semi-public, and community facilities. In particular, the city provides police protection and fire rescue services and has multiple facilities nearby to serve the community. As the community grows, new opportunities include construction of a new fire station and schools alongside associated staffing and operational strategies, depending on the amount of future development that occurs, which would require future technical analysis. We have been working with city departments, including the Fire Rescue Department, as well as the San Diego Unified School District, to address the need for public facilities as development occurs over the life of the community plan. For fire safety specifically, the community plan supports lower densities and high fire severity zones, policies to support a new fire station in the community, and supports the undergrounding of overhead power lines. Historic preservation is guided by the general plan for the preservation, protection, restoration, and rehabilitation of historical and cultural resources throughout the city. The historic preservation element of the Claremont Community Plan provides a summary of the prehistory and history of the community and establishes policies to support the identification and preservation of its historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources. Detailed historical narratives are also provided within a historic context statement and a cultural resources report, which were prepared to assist property owners, developers, consultants, community members, and city staff in the identification and preservation of historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources within the Claremont Planning Area. Moving now to noise. The noise element of the draft community plan identifies sources of noise in Claremont and includes policies related to noise attenuation measures and reducing noise generation. Next is implementation and methods of implementation include the rezone map, which applies community wide, the community enhancement overlay zone and the Claremont height limit overlay zone. The draft rezone map, if adopted, would comprehensively rezone the Claremont Community Planning Area. The rezone map would align citywide base zones with the community plan land use designations. As part of the CPU, the city proposes to amend the San Diego municipal code to include the community enhancement overlay zone to establish supplemental development regulations for site specific locations. The first draft Claremont community plan update had supplemental development regulations for certain village areas, which had been proposed to be implemented with the community plan implementation overlay zone. rather than having supplemental development regulations for village areas within the community plan document itself these regulations would be within the community enhancement overlay zone providing more certainty for their application as part of the claremont community plan update the community enhancement overlay zone will be applied adding supplemental development regulations to village areas within claremont as shown here Regulations in the overlay zone will supplement underlying base zone regulations to ensure that new development in the planned mixed-use villages and corridors would be supported by community enhancements, including pedestrian access, public spaces, and connectivity improvements. The public space requirements will be required by development exceeding 10,000 square feet. These regulations will apply specifically to village areas in Claremont where increased density is proposed. Developments can fulfill this requirement by providing a greenway, paseo, plaza, urban green, or podium. To provide some flexibility, a development can choose to pay an in-lieu fee for up to 25% of the public space or amenity requirement. However, developments are exempt from these requirements if they are smaller than 10,000 square feet or if they provide a recognized city park that aligns with council policy. In addition to the public space requirements, certain community-specific requirements are provided in the plan to ensure the plan's vision is realized, including larger sidewalks and connections along Claremont Drive, Balboa Arms Drive, Mount Oliphant Drive, and the Tennis and Racquet Club Center along Tekeloti Creek. The provision of these public spaces counts towards the overall public space requirement for development. Moving on to next steps and timeline. The following boards have provided a recommendation for the draft plan. On September 25th, the Parks and Recreation Board did not provide a motion on the proposed CPU. Also on September 25th, the Historic Resources Board voted to recommend approval of the plan on the consent agenda with one abstention. On October 1st, the Mobility Board recommended to approve the plan with one opposed and one abstention. On October 8th, the planning group voted unanimously to provide a recommendation letter, which has been included with the materials for today's meeting. The next steps would be to present the Claremont Community Plan Update to the Land Use and Housing Committee in November. Following the Land Use and Housing Committee, the Claremont Community Plan Update would be presented to City Council for potential adoption in December. I would also like to note that the City Planning Department is currently evaluating SB 79 to determine how to implement it in a manner that is best tailored to San Diego's needs and in compliance with state law. This could include considering a local alternative plan. The bill will not apply to the City of San Diego until July 1st of 2026. The Claremont and College Area Community Plan Updates are proceeding on their current timelines. The City Planning Department will continue to share additional information on the City Planning Department webpage, sandiego.gov backslash planning. City staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Community Plan Update and the associated actions listed on this slide. This concludes staff's presentation and we're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the Commission? No? Okay. We can go on to public comment. Glenn Schmidt. Looks like you have some people ceding time to you for a presentation. Suzanne Smith. Carol Reed. Jim Elko. You'll have 12 minutes.

Thank you. I don't need that much, but I appreciate it. I'm Glenn Schmidt. I am the vice chair of the Claremont Community Planning Group. For the record, my comments today are documented in a letter that I distributed to you this morning. Since the beginning of August, we've held eight publicly noticed meetings to gather feedback from our community. On September 22nd, we sent a draft comment letter to staff. Then on October 8th, we unanimously approved the 20 page letter that's included in your package under attachment 27. Reviewing the new draft and 28 attachments in less than a week has been a significant undertaking. That's a lot to ask of you as volunteers, especially knowing this is the second plan you've acted upon in as many weeks. Thank you for your public service. We very much appreciate it. We also want to recognize and thank planning staff for listening and responding to many of our comments. The current draft includes a number of our suggestions, such as recognizing an additional 231 acres of private canyons in Claremont as open space, which really addresses one of our primary concerns. Other examples include maintaining base height limitations in single family neighborhoods, allowing our plan, not the state, to demonstrate where taller development is most appropriate. And addressing fire safety concerns, including proposing a new fire station to reduce emergency response times. This is just to name a few. This has obviously been a tremendous effort from staff. We want to recognize their dedication and hard work. We do have three additional areas of concern that we'd like for you to consider this morning. The first is we request you refine the Marina Corridor recommendations. During your August 28th Planning Commission workshop, Vice Chair Boomhauer stated they did not want to create a wall of development along the Marina Corridor. We agree and have proposed a strategy to create more building height articulation along the corridor. This included raising building height limits in key development opportunity locations, knowing that we are very familiar with this space. We saw opportunities along the corridor that are really more shovel ready, so to speak. Staff responded to our suggestions with raising building height limits in six key locations along the corridor and increasing density at the south end of the corridor adjacent to Teklodi Trolley Station from 73 dwelling units per acre to 109. It's likely that our planning group would agree with this change. However, it's less likely that our planning group would agree to the suggestion in the new plan to increase density at the Rose Canyon Gateway Village from 109 dwelling units per acre to 145. That includes a zone change to RMX-2, which would allow an FAR of 3.0 and a maximum structural height of 240 feet. That is high rise development. This is particularly inappropriate at the Baobao station itself, which is located across the street and only approximately 200 feet from single family neighborhoods. This does not comply with a key guiding principle, number four, which is, quote, development that complements neighborhood scale. We respectfully request that the commission return the Rose Canyon Gateway Village sites back to 109 units per acre. This request, though, to return the density at the Rose Canyon Gateway Village to 109 dwelling units per acre is more than offset by our suggestion to pursue the fourth trolley station and more immediate bus route and stop at the foot of Jutland Drive at the north end of Arena near Costco. This area is currently underutilized prime industrial land that could include the job center hub and significant residential development opportunities. Number two, we request more visionary and comprehensive community connections. We appreciate that staff implemented our suggestion to up zone the community core from 54 units per acre to 73, but they did not graphically identify on maps the related recommendation to include more effective pedestrian and bicycle community connections to the community core. For example, we've been asking to include an aerial skyway tram to connect this village to the Balboa Station in Mission Bay since 2018. Other community plan updates have included skyway trams. We do not understand why Claremont can't have some visionary solutions like this. Currently, with missing sidewalks, a pedestrian cannot walk from the Balboa Trolley Station to the community core. Let me repeat that. You cannot walk from the Balboa Station to the community core. There's more than a half mile of missing sidewalks. So we would like to have much better community connections. Please add the aerial skyway we've suggested in mobility maps, along with that continuous sidewalk to the important community core village. And lastly, We'd like to resolve deficiencies in critical infrastructure. The development potential, the new draft has increased the planet horizon unit count to around 20,000 units and a total population of 119,000 people. This further intensifies the greatest gap in the community plan, in our view, which is the lack of infrastructure improvements. Most importantly, as Commissioner Renger pointed out in your August 28th workshop, our community needs, quote, relief from increased density through open spaces, park land, and park amenities. The analysis in the current committee plan now shows a shortfall by my calculation of 5,000 recreation value points. It's simply not possible to get that. Point of reference, we know that 11 existing parks that have been analyzed in Linda Vista total 90 acres add up to a little over 2,000 points. That's not even half of this gap. And you cannot make that up with greenways, pocket parks, and urban plazas. We respectfully request that the plan be updated with more thorough and realistic parks and open space planning to meet the intent of the master plan, the parks master plan, and the future needs of our residents. Thank you so much. Appreciate your consideration.

Thank you. Jake Poshok.

Good morning, commissioners and staff members. I'm Jake Posnock with Garden Communities. Garden owns a property in Claremont called the Pacific Bay Club. We support the community plan, but request one small change on the Pacific Bay Club site. The current draft proposes residential medium two. We feel residential medium three is the minimum level necessary for a redevelopment project of a 1970s build. The property is located a 15 minute walk from the Balboa Avenue trolley station and in a high resource area. It's the right place for more housing. This small change will add 80 units and make a new project feasible. submitted a letter stating the same points and a few others for your review we appreciate your consideration of this issue as you make recommendations to the city council we'd also like to thank city planning staff for the great work on the plan update and look forward to approval of the plan thank you thank you thomas reed good morning

My name is Tom Reed and I live in Claremont along with 85,000 other people. And for the record, my wife and I built a house in Bay Park with a view of the Bay. And I know that these changes may block part of my view. And I am still for this plan. We highly approve of the work Mr. Schmidt has done on this plan to make it even better. We live in Claremont because we like it there. I know we need more housing. Before you is a very well thought out plan. It has the future of Claremont in mind and it makes room for 20,000 more units. Much higher density at the trolley stops. It includes nine high density, high height density villages throughout Claremont. It's a really good plan, especially with the amendments that Mr. Schmidt suggested. More people will be hurt than will benefit if this is done badly. Insane density with no parking is foolish and unreasonable. There are 85,000 people like me who have invested their life savings to live in Claremont. It's a nice neighborhood. I beg you, don't ruin Claremont with insanely high density. The people who recommend that don't live here, and I guarantee you they wouldn't want it near their homes, and I don't think you would either. If we follow this community plan, we can make a positive change, we can keep the backbone of Claremont intact, and we can add tens of thousands of units. I know we're not supposed to mention protecting views or private canyons or complain about traffic or parking, but those are all very important things that make Claremont, Claremont. We need to protect the Finger Canyons. We need some control over the rampant building of ADUs, and we need to make sure all this development makes Claremont a better place to live. This plan does that. It is reasonable and well thought out. So please, on behalf of all the people who invested their life savings to live in Claremont, don't ruin one neighborhood while trying to create another. We support this plan, so please approve it. Thank you.

Thank you, Margaret Schmidt.

Good morning. My name is Margaret Schmidt and I am also a resident of Claremont and I want to appreciate the collaboration of the city staff with the community and the incorporation of many of our recommendations and concerns in this updated community plan. You know Claremont is celebrating its 75th anniversary this Saturday. Perhaps you'll all come out and join us on Saturday afternoon. Two items though that I request be reconsidered. First is the RMX2 zoning designation of the Balboa Avenue Transit Station Village. A potential maximum height of 240 feet in that location is inappropriate. The second is reconsideration of the suggestion of placing a recreation center on the small site on Mount Abernathy. This site is less than a half a mile from a recreation center planned at Olive Grove Park. This site is also adjacent to the Balboa Library and one of our fire stations, number 36, both of which require modernization and expansion. This site should be utilized for those needs and a different location to the west, ideally within the redeveloped and dense community core village or somewhere adjacent should be identified. We also have requests that an aquatic facility in the northeastern portion of Claremont be identified. And it recently came to my awareness that an additional village in our southeastern corner adjacent to Linda Vista is another high resource area and would serve the Mesa College student population as well as the Sharp and Children's Hospitals employees. Thank you for considering these recommendations and appreciate your attention.

Ian Grooms.

Thank you, everybody. Good morning. My name is Ian Grooms. I'm a Claremont resident, and I'm also a member of the San Diego Yemi Democrats Club. I would encourage this commission to adopt the Claremont Community Plan update. The Claremont Community Plan Update benefits the community by providing more home opportunities to our neighbors. Earlier this week, two new affordable housing complexes opened at Mount Etna Drive. This project not only alleviates our housing shortage by adding more units, but it also gave 228 people a chance to live in Claremont, where home prices exceed $1 million. Although 228 people just received housing, thousands more are still suffering on our streets. To ensure that homeless individuals have a safe place to call home, we need to build more housing and pass the Claremont Community Plan update. Thank you. I'd also, speaking in a personal capacity, I'd like to encourage this commission to prioritize the construction of a fourth library in Claremont. The city council approved the construction of the fourth library as part of the library master plan 2.0, and all three of our libraries in Claremont do not meet the city's square footage requirements. So as our community continues to grow, I think it's important that we provide more space at our libraries to accommodate the growing community. And so as we're rezoning Claremont, I would encourage you to find a space for that fourth library and fulfill the objectives of the library master plan. Thank you all.

Thank you, Jeff Huter.

Uh, thank you commissioners. Um, you know, first of all, I'm not going to get into the nuances of the Moreno corridor and the details. I think Mr Schmidt covered that. But what I would like to emphasize with this plan is that if you look at the sort of areas where. increased density as proposed. They're in very concentrated areas that are within the various centers of Claremont. And this is a very positive way to do this community plan. You know, don't take it from me. There's Bill Fulton, who's a very respected urban planner. has came out with a blog this week that talked about the things that create walkable functional cities. And I know we focus on the transit part of things a lot and the housing part of things a lot, but what really makes things work is that you have other resources within those walkable areas. If, if, if you don't have a, a connected walkable community, you're not gonna have a transit-oriented community either because you need to create destinations for commercial, office, healthcare. And one of the things, you know, it doesn't even have to be transit that connects these. It can just be what he calls park wants, right? There's what? You know, if you can go somewhere and you can fulfill multiple activities without having to get back into your car, repark or even get on a bus, that's the most effective way to plan our communities. And I think this plan has done a good job of identifying the best areas within Claremont. in order to do that densification. So it's just, again, a very positive thing. The other thing that happens, and we saw this in City Heights, for example, when we redeveloped at University in Fairmont, is we often think about the affordable housing component of this, and we should because that's the biggest challenge for most residents, but we don't often think about the local business component in these things, and there's a whole... Not as much work is done around displacement of small businesses, and it's not part of this plan, but I think it's just something to keep in mind as we go forward. We don't want to kick out what makes our communities you know familiar and livable to us and replace it with you know national change when we go through these plans anyway i think uh overall i i think the design of this plan kind of shapes how we should be thinking about a lot of other community plans and i hope we go forward from here thank you thank you mary angles

Good morning, good morning, Mary Ingalls, a ordinary Claremont resident. And I've been following the Claremont Community Plan through the Claremont Planning Committee, and I've learned a lot about what the city is thinking of for the Claremont area. I live very close to transit stops at the major intersection of Balboa and Claremont Drive, and this area is now a prime target for developers. because of the recent state law passages and the proximity to really a barely accessible Balboa trolley stop. If you're familiar with that area, you know that there's really no pedestrian access for walking from Claremont Drive to that station. There's a large grade. There's no there's no really no path. Well, you could walk along the on ramp if you want to, but it's not safe. And of course, there's a large grade in that area. So really, and also very nearby to that intersection, there is a high school and a grammar school, a middle school. There are very, with the recent narrowing of Claremont Drive in this area to one lane each way, and the preexisting structural barrier between the lanes on Balboa Avenue, This area is very heavily trafficked and will become more dangerous with the addition of a proposed 440 unit structure at that corner. And that would be with a recent height recommendation revision. That would be a five story apartment building. This area is already very impacted by multi-unit development south on Claremont Drive, at the intersection of Claremont Drive and Claremont Mesa Drive, and the senior complex on Genesee north of Balboa. And none of these are even fully opened or occupied, and already there's huge traffic impact at that Balboa and Claremont Drive intersection. which is already dangerous and is just going to become more dangerous. Further, there's another multi-story unit proposed on Comstock just off Claremont Drive, again, making this intersection a lot more dangerous. And I'm just, I'm opposing the height, additional height permit for that area from four stories to five stories, and just ask you to be very careful about your planning for that Claremont area. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Kelly Tremeling.

Good morning. I'm Kelly Tremelling. I'm someone who's called Claremont home for more than 50 years. I want to begin by acknowledging Glenn and the entire Claremont Community Planning Group for their tireless, exceptional work and the thoughtful recommendations. Their vision of Claremont embraces both growth and modernization, while remaining deeply considerate of the community's character and needs. Claremont is at a pivotal moment. We need intentional investment in housing and retail to revitalize our neighborhood and support the people who live there or hope to live there. Like many communities, we face the challenge of up zoning with the looming complete communities and SB 79. We must prioritize solutions that benefit the current and future residents. and preserve neighborhood integrity while promoting livability and sustainability. That's why I fully support the Claremont height limit overlay as recommended by the Claremont Community Planning Group. A continuous wall along Morena Boulevard or unrestricted building heights throughout the area serve developers more than the community. As we plan for an additional 14,000 homes in Claremont, it's essential that ADUs are included in that count. In their own ADU handbook, the city of San Diego defines ADUs as, and I quote, accessory dwelling units with complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. I also quote, ADUs are a valuable form of housing. Therefore, based on this definition, they should be included. Thriving, vibrant, well-functioning communities aren't built through density-driven planning models. They're built through thoughtful planning, balanced community scale growth and infrastructure, and a genuine commitment to everyone who calls Claremont home or who would like to call Claremont home. Thank you.

Thank you. Ken Dunn.

Hi, my name is Ken Dunn. I'm also a longtime Claremont resident. And I live there because it is a low height, low density, lots of grass, lots of trees, community, lots of schools, lots of people not walking. That's the people who are not riding their bicycles. I believe that the 3% growth that's projected for the next 20 years is completely being overkilled by the increase in density that is being planned for. I don't think that the ADUs that have proliferated lately are doing the job they're supposed to be doing for low-income people. It's completely been perverted. I also think that bikes are not, every time these people talk, we tell you about bicycles, nobody's riding a bike. Anybody ride a bike here today? Down the hill, maybe from Claremont? No way, and you're not gonna ride it back either. And as far as people talking about walking to the trial, the trial is a long ways from anybody in Claremont unless you live on Marino Boulevard. So I'm really opposed to a good portion of this plan. I agree with what Greg and his group with the climate planners have done and to try to modify the plan itself because the basis for the plan is increased density like double and basically riding around on bicycles. I don't think this is gonna happen, even no matter what. You've shrunk the roads down on Columbine Drive and Columbine Islet Boulevard to one lane each way, and there's no bikes. Nobody rides a bike. I'm gonna leave it at that. I'm not exactly happy with the proposal because I don't think the people who developed the proposal live there and will have to be under those signs of limitations, not to mention the high buildings. If I wanted to live downtown, I would. I don't, thank you.

Thank you. That concludes our in-person move to virtual speakers.

We currently have four speakers in the queue. Melanie Cohen, you have three minutes. Please unmute yourself.

Good morning, I'm Melanie Conan. I'm speaking today as a resident of Claremont, not related to any official capacity. Claremont is the ideal neighborhood for additional housing density. It's centrally located and attractive to young families as many homes are going through generational transitions. Its proximity to UC San Diego and the area's biotech industry makes it a good place for recent graduates and young professionals as well. I purchased my home in 2020, and since then, it has increased 41% in value. I would not be able to afford to purchase my home today. I want Claremont to be attainable for people of all backgrounds to realize the dream of home ownership. I would be happy to welcome additional neighbors to my street and neighborhood. We all know this city is in a housing crisis. We've been doing good things to build additional housing for middle-income residents by updating our ADU policy and taking advantage of density bonuses, but we can do more through community plan updates. I encourage this body to support additional housing density and clear. Thank you.

Evan Straw, you may unmute yourself.

Good morning, Chair Modane and Commissioners. My name is Evan Straughan and I'm speaking on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, whose mission is to make the San Diego region the best place to live and work. We encourage you to support the Claremont Community Plan update today. One of the greatest challenges our member businesses face as they seek to attract and retain talent is the lack of available housing in our city. The Claremont Community Plan update takes an important step toward remedying this by providing the capacity for thousands of new homes in a central location of the city near several important job centers. This update locates homes in existing commercial corridors and near the recently constructed Blue Line Trolley, excellent locations for housing that will provide access to jobs and transit. We ask you to support the plan today and move forward thousands of new homes for San Diegans. Thank you.

Tom Mullaney, you have three minutes.

You may unmute yourself.

Tom Mullaney.

We can come back to Tom in a minute. We'll move to Chandra. Chandra Yellowman, Chile. You have three minutes.

Good morning, Planning Commissioner. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. I agree that we need to preserve the public land for open space, but I request you to remove my private own parcel from the open space land, which is same as the neighboring adjacent lots in page 2425. That's all I have commissioners. Thank you.

That concludes a online public comment.

Okay, we can move on to Commission comment. Vice Chair Boomhallen?

Can I just, I apologize, make a brief comment in response to public comment? Yeah. I did want to mention, acknowledge Glenn Schmitt's comments in terms of the aerial skyways and additional policies. We can look at making those changes based upon that and have that for when we go to lane use and housing. Also, in terms of additional comments as it relates to looking at opportunities for public facilities, such as a rec center or other facilities as part of mixed use villages. We do have language in there in the plan, but we feel that we could further support that and strengthen that language to further encourage that should there be an opportunity to cite public facilities in the mixed use village areas. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice chair boomer.

uh thank you chairman dan i think deputy director galloway was reading my notes over my shoulder um and and maybe his too um so great work by staff i want to echo what i said last time i the the level of quality of these draft community plans as they go through the process the number of workshops we're doing, the close contact and coordination with the planning groups really works. I get that the planning groups don't always agree with where we end up, see last week's meeting, but I do think that speaks a lot to what the team is doing and the work that you guys are doing as planning professionals. um the one thing that tape missed on my notes that i do want to ask about when you guys are going back and looking at the skyway and some of that can you also either address now or including that um looking and trying to flesh out a little bit more on that future trolley coaster station

yes i think that's something we we've had some discussions and we probably plan to have some additional discussions with uh san diego and mts on that and and possibly look at uh just conceptually identifying a location on the map to further strengthen that but yes that's something we can do there's a parking lot at the bottom of the hotel we're great um okay so

As my colleagues Commissioner Renger and Commissioner Mazzari have said at previous meetings, transit-oriented development only works if the transit's in place. I firmly agree with this. Once again, this is another of the most transit-connected neighborhoods in San Diego. We've heavily invested in transit here with the Blue Line expansion, and that transit is heavily used. And before anybody questions it, yes, the data backs it up. I always check these things. So I'm super glad to see housing densification, especially along the main corridors and adjacent to current or proposed transit. um with regard to height limits i'm still in opposition to claremont mesa being the only neighborhood outside the coastal zone that has a artificial height limit on it i still just for the record would support eliminating that height limit everywhere and allowing the city-wide zoning height limits to control but i think i'm the only commissioner that feels this strongly about that issue and it's not worth derailing what is otherwise a great plan over I really do appreciate that you took the feedback from the last workshop with the Planning Commission that you've increased the height limits and increased the zone density at the areas around the current trolley stations. And while I hear the CPG's concern and request for reducing the current draft density at the Rose Canyon Station back down, and frankly, you may get that from City Council, I personally don't support making that change because that density just makes too much sense at that transit station. And even though part of it is proximate to single-family housing, a lot of it isn't. And especially with the Rose Canyon, the city yard there, that's already basically 100 to 120 feet below the closest single-family housing up the ridge. even if that worst case scenario max density 240 foot development was built it's it's still going to be hard to make that out of scale with that particular location um so with all that being said i'm sure other commissioners are going to have um things that they want to add to this and good questions they always do but i'm going to go ahead and at least make the motion to support staff's recommendations that the planning commission recommend approval of this plan as presented thank you chair thank you commissioner mazzari um

I totally agree with the Vice Chair's comments, but I just have one question about the trolley station at Balboa. Is it really not accessible to pedestrians and everything that lady said about that?

Commissioner, I feel Trump program manager city planning department. Um, that's correct. Uh, in the plan, though, as a plan improvement, we have a class 1, a pedestrian facility that would connect the station to Claremont drive and additional facilities from there to Genesee.

Okay, is it going to be a sidewalk that's going to. Connect the 2 areas.

Yeah, at the project review stage, there would be multiple alternatives. Right now, it's a class one facility, which would be pedestrians and bicycles, as envisioned in the plan.

And what about the grade difference? Is that possible for pedestrians to navigate it?

I think the question is related to the adjacent community or the neighborhood upslope. Is that what your question is? Yes. So I think there is I get asked planning staff, either Kobe or Sean to address it. But I believe that there is policy language that does talk about looking at a pedestrian connection to the adjacent neighborhood.

Yeah, there is a policy.

So that's something that can be addressed. It's in the plan in terms of looking at future CIP improvements that could be looked at and prioritized for pedestrian connection to the adjacent neighborhood.

So if the housing development happens before that CIP improvement, then is it possible that we're putting more people there who cannot access the

So what we're referencing is without a map, I apologize, but there is an existing neighborhood that's upslope from the Balboa station and the their plan does acknowledge that there could be a potential pedestrian connection to that. Your question is related to future development on the station site. So any future development on the station site or on the adjacent Rose Canyon site. would have pedestrian connections built in there. There is currently a pedestrian bridge that does cross over Balboa, which would be then utilized should any future development happen at the Rose Canyon Station.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Rabes.

Thank you, Chair Modane. Sky Tram is a popular one, I think. I zeroed in on that too, guys. So I'm glad we're going to take a look at that before it goes to council committee. Curious, we read the letter regarding the Pacific Bay Club. We got a comment today. I'm just curious if there's any thoughts on the request to obzone that particular parcel so that more units could go in there. Was that considered or is that something that was considered and decided against?

I believe we received the letter yesterday, so we would look at that after today's meeting.

I do want to comment that we did, as part of this plan, did increase it one density range from the current based upon previous comments. we're looking at focusing additional housing opportunities within the village areas so one of the reasons that we were not looking to further increase that was it was outside of village area but certainly happy to take uh comments from the planning commission related to that yeah i thank you for that i understand um you know it it does depart to some degree from from the intention of keeping things within these these nodes um

at the same time. If a single property owner is looking to invest and build more units, it'd be good to consider allowing that, obviously within the right areas. So leave it to the experts to look at that and consider it and bring it back to council. echo Vice Chair Buhmeier's comments on the height limit. You're not the only one, Vice Chair, who feels that way about the artificial height limits. I'm right there with you. I heard my colleagues express this at the workshop. Can you maybe just help me better understand the thinking behind the overlay zone in this particular community plan? And while, yes, you bumped those heights up, which I think is a good move, what's the thinking in keeping those height limits in place versus what the city has done in other communities?

So one of the things when we started this plan update was looking at the framework of the village node concept and understanding the current zoning that was in place, including the overlay. And it's been a long process in terms of working with the community. And what we had started the process was saying we were going to be looking at planning within villages consistent with the strategic framework element, city of villages, excuse me, city of villages in the general plan. As part of that, we increase the densities in those village and node areas and looked at then increasing heights, which we proposed with this plan. We didn't go further to remove it because areas outside of that we did not make significant changes in terms of increasing lane use density. We feel that this still allows for a balance in terms of maintaining what the vision the community had going through this process with allowing for additional development consistent with the general plan focusing on near transit.

And so, not to distract from the topic at hand here, What do we do in the next community plan update when the community says Claremont has height limits and we want to have an overlay zone that artificially limits height in our neighborhoods?

So I think this is perhaps unique in the sense that this was existing, we are not looking at this point to establish any further citywide or community wide overlay zones, specific to other areas. Again, I think this is a unique issue in terms of where we started and where we are right now, but not looking to create new overlay zones for future plan updates. related to reducing hiring limits.

Understood. And my final comment. I'm very much happy with the added density, even beyond what was presented two months ago. So thank you for considering those comments and bringing back some additional changes. I still think the community core has an opportunity to go bigger. That area is all parking lots. There's very little concern with parking. overshadowing existing development there. It's such a prime location for additional density, but thank you for bumping it up to what it is. I always want to acknowledge the community for coming out and making your voices heard, being part of the process, for years and years and years, you all have been working on this. So thank you for putting your time and effort into this as well. And of course, the staff for being available and really working with everyone trying to make this the best plan it can be for the city. I will... um offered a second was there a second already okay then i will offer a second to the motion and uh feedback thanks thank you we have a motion and a second uh commissioner marlborough thank you chair and staff thank you for your hard work uh was it four five years they're making for this yeah it's been a minute

It's been a while, but thank you for the hard work. And I also want to thank the public for their input on this. It's very much appreciated. And I was listening on that. It's funny. I think Director Galloway saw us all typing when the Skyway came up. I do have one question. because you know i i maybe some of the other uh commissioners have seen this but i don't hardly see a public comment when someone's asking for more uh density and related to the gardens community and the uh pacific bay club uh i don't know what the pros and cons on that but i would ask if you would look at that and see if that's something that is doable yeah okay thank you um I'm very happy with the density and so I'm actually in support of this and anyway that's pretty much all I have to add to that.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Miyahara.

Special thanks to staff. Appreciate you listening and was happy to see that this came back. I think that the plan proposes thoughtful increase to density and height in key areas, making an efficient use of limited land resources that this community has. Smart growth means putting height and density where it makes sense, near transit, near jobs, near amenities and services. Community plan updates are long range planning efforts that set the vision and framework for future growth. The update is meant to guide growth, not predict exactly how it will unfold. I think we need to be mindful of that. Development takes time and change in this community will happen gradually. I imagine this will happen over the next decade or two. So I'll be supporting the plan. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I want to echo my fellow commissioners about staff and how the effort that you've put into this and the refinements that you've made recently. I appreciate it. I also want to thank the CPG and the community for its involvement in working collaboratively with the city on this. I do have a question on the height limits. I appreciate that they've been modified since last workshop, but I'm still a little confused about the Bayview and the Ticcalote areas and why it seems like there is an arbitrary height limit on certain properties and lower heights on others. Can I get an explanation surrounding that?

Yeah, we increase densities on certain sites and by the same token, increase height on those same areas. We increase the density. So that was the approach taken.

And I would also add to working again with the community closely on raising height limits.

I still have issues with those two areas of the community and the height. I heard comments today about wanting walkable neighborhoods and having retail and commercial uses. having an arbitrary height limit of 35 or 40 feet will preclude that. It's prescriptively going to prevent any kind of mixed use. Because when you look at land values, you have to look at it on price per door, if you're looking at a mixed use project, for example. the smaller the site typically the higher the cost per square foot that's economics i didn't make that rule so when you are limiting the height on those smaller sites you're making them infeasible for development this is consistently what we see in the coastal areas do we see a lot of you know movement and redevelopment in those areas no because there's a height limit that precludes that it also precludes adding commercial where you have to have additional parking um because maybe the city doesn't require it but your tenants are going to require it so i still have significant issues for the height limits in those areas and i'd like to see if the commission would be or the the motion maker in the second if they would um entertain a condition to our approval for raising the height limits to 65 feet in the bay view on the tecal loading

Can I ask staff if we can show a map of that first and what those height limits are? I think that might be helpful for the commission.

Apologize for interrupting.

is possible to zoom in i think you were at that yeah if it's possible i don't know if you can zoom in there or not that's slide 19. And if I could just ask to the chairs. Comments of staff could perhaps just clarify what the height limits are for those two and related to the lane use. yeah so we did increase density from the last draft um at both trolley stations to 65 feet um directly um so it'd be good to get clarity on where um you're talking about and i just wouldn't acknowledge that the the areas that show it at 35 and 40 feet that corresponds to just a residential multi-family and then transitioning into a townhome zone at the 35 foot

From what I'm looking at the underlying land use, these are community commercial zones and neighborhood commercial zones.

Where the neighborhood and community commercial are in Kobe or Sean, can you clarify that 65 feet as shown on that map? Is there a portion of Moreno that's not within the 65 there?

There is a significant portion of Moreno that is not.

I think just to help staff understand, because what we're referring to is that area in that triangle where it's brown on that map. We're trying to understand, I think, where you're referencing.

Sure. So you have another slide that shows the, I guess, the neighborhood names. It's called Bayview and Tecalote. So Bayview, there's two sites. Those are the large car dealership sites that are, you know, multiple acres and those ones are 65 feet, but everything else along Marina and that South corridor is 40 feet or 35 feet. And those are also zoned community commercial and neighborhood commercial.

Thank you. I appreciate that helps clarify where you're talking about.

So I'd like to ask the motion maker in the second if they would be okay or amenable to conditioning their motion to raising the height limits in both the Bayview Village area and the Tuckaloodeh Gateway area to 65 feet.

I mean I'm open to it and I think it does send a message if Planning Commission is City Council Chambers, Making that as our recommendation before it goes to Council, I don't know if it will get support at Council so. City Council Chambers, Are you asking to just straight up say our motion is we recommend this with those areas all being rate elevated to 65 feet, yes. sure i i mean look i i'm i'm good with increased density i just i'm trying to think of also about what's realistic so we can't have increased density without the height i agree so all right i'm i'm willing to accept that friendly amendment as am i i thought you were going to say condition it to removing the height limits altogether so this i think is totally reasonable and i know you know we have there um

political considerations when it goes to council that we have the luxury of not thinking about. So we'll see where they take it from here, but I would fully support that amendment.

Yeah, I mean, we're not the ultimate decision maker, right? But I think from this body, we should encourage not having height limits around transit stations. I think that would be myopic.

Well, and I'm just, if you would, Give me the pleasure of saying this out loud. I think that also what we're doing with this is saying it's not just the density around the transit stations. It's also putting the density in areas that are very easily connectable to those transit stations for pedestrians, for bicyclists. You know, it's putting the density in an area that doesn't require a car.

True, and if we want walkable neighborhoods and have commercial and retail uses, we have to raise the height limits. We can do that through state law on residential projects. We cannot do that for commercial projects. So how can we have walkable communities near transit stations if we have artificial height limits? Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second. Commissioner Miyahara.

I just want to clarify. So you're talking about areas south of Claremont Drive and north of Tuckaloodie? in that little teeny corner that when you're coming up marina for the first trolley stop okay so looking at the claremont mesa height limit overlay zone the area is currently shaded in for 40 feet slated for 40 feet you're proposing to go 65. correct and there's a couple that are still 35 feet okay and that like yellow yep thanks for clarifying okay

And again, that area that's in yellow on near Tekeloti, that's a townhome zone, there would not be commercial there.

And that's consistent with the base zone, then we can certainly modify it to the community commercial and the neighborhood commercial underlying land use designations, if that is a more appropriate way to delineate the high limit.

commissioners if i can just weigh in uh we're happy to take your recommendation and the technical nuances of it um we can take into consideration as we bring the item forward to city council okay can i just double check and make sure the city attorney is happy with where this motion is yes um i think that we would also ask staff to look at any additional sequel analysis that would need to be conducted um with that modification

Do you need that to be part of the motion?

No.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. We can go to a vote. That passes unanimously. That concludes our hearing for today. Thank you.

Thank you.