[0:00] >>>

[0:03] and welcome to

[0:06] the regular

[0:08] planning commission meeting of the

[0:09] city of beverly

[0:11] hills, december 11, 2025 and I do

[0:12] call

[0:15] this meeting to order.

[0:20] 1st of all I would like to remind

[0:20] everybody,

[0:21] including my fellow commissioners

[0:22] to silence your cell phones. Members

[0:23] of

[0:26] the public may listen to

[0:29] the meeting by calling 310-

[0:30] 288-2288 and selecting option 2 ,

[0:33] the meeting is

[0:36] airing live on channel 10 streaming

[0:38] live on the city website at beverly hills

[0:41] on the city website@beverlyhills.org.

[0:44] written public comment can be submitted

[0:48] by sending an email to comment

[0:51] pc at beverly hills

[0:53] and oral public comment

[0:56] can be heard by calling 310, 228, 2288

[0:59] selecting option 1

[1:02] or by video at beverly hills/

[1:05] bev public

[1:09] passcode of 90210.

[1:12] at this point I would like to invite

[1:13] our

[1:14] newly named and almost all official

[1:18] city planner

[1:19] cindy gordon, congratulations, by

[1:21] the way to lead us

[1:24] in the pledge of allegiance.

[1:26] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag

[1:26] of the united

[1:27] states of america and to the republic

[1:31] for which it stands, one nation under god

[1:34] , indivisible with liberty and justice

[1:38] for all.

[1:42] >> thank you, cindy.

[1:45] karen would you please call the roll.

[1:46] >>

[1:47] commissioner kaplan here commissioner

[1:48] ross here,

[1:51] commissioner demeter is absent, vice

[1:54] chair milkowski here , chair

[1:59] wolfe here.

[2:00] >> at this time whether any

[2:00] communications from

[2:01] the audience for items not on the

[2:02] agenda ? Seeing none in the room

[2:04] are there any email, video or written comments

[2:05] for

[2:08] items not on the agenda?

[2:09] >> no non-agenda comments.

[2:13] >> therefore please read the legislative

[2:15] applicant registration.

[2:17] >> thank you, the city has ordinance

[2:18] requiring registration of

[2:21] lobbyists or advocates prepaid

[2:23] or expect to be paid $50 or more to

[2:24] represent a

[2:25] project or influence city officials, professionals

[2:27] such as attorneys architects

[2:30] permit expediters, design professionals

[2:34] those engaged with public relations

[2:35] or research should register online

[2:36] by visiting the

[2:38] city website.

[2:40] additional information is available

[2:41] on the same webpage.

[2:44] >> thank you, karen

[2:48] next is the approval of the

[2:49] agenda. Any questions or comments

[2:50] or suggested changes to today's agenda?

[2:53] seeing none by order of the chair

[2:54] the agenda is approved

[2:57] as presented. We want to

[2:59] move on to the consent calendar which

[3:00] we will do

[3:02] in 2 sections because of various absences.

[3:05] the 1st section will be consideration

[3:06] of minutes

[3:07] of our special meeting on october

[3:11] 21, 2025 as well as

[3:12] the regular meeting of october 23

[3:14] as well as the regular meeting of

[3:15] october

[3:16] 23, 2025. Are there any questions

[3:17] or comments on

[3:21] those minutes?

[3:24] I do not believe

[3:27] I see any. May I have a motion

[3:30] to adopt?

[3:31] >> so moved. >> 2nd.

[3:33] >> separately or altogether?

[3:36] >> the 2 together.

[3:39] >> seconded.

[3:41] >> we

[3:43] can do a voice vote for that, all

[3:44] in favor,

[3:47] all opposed? It passes.

[3:50] the next item

[3:53] is the consideration of minutes of

[3:54] the regular meeting

[3:57] of november

[4:00] 13, 2025 .

[4:03] again, any questions or comments on

[4:06] that item?

[4:12] seeing that there are

[4:14] not any revisions, may we have a motion

[4:15] to

[4:17] adopt?

[4:18] >>

[4:19] I move that we approve minutes as presented.

[4:23] >> 2nd.

[4:27] >> on this one may we have a

[4:30] rollcall vote?

[4:31] >>

[4:33] kaplan yes, commissioner ross, yes,

[4:36] >> I believe you were absent.

[4:39] november 13.

[4:42] >> my apologies.

[4:44] >> thank you, vice chair milkowski.

[4:45] yes chair

[4:47] wolfe yes.

[4:50] >> motion passes.

[4:53] no reports from any party agencies

[4:54] that

[4:56] I can see. Which will

[4:58] move us to the 1st item of continued

[5:00] business, 410

[5:03] 410 dabney ln. This is one permit

[5:06] item continued from

[5:08] may 22, 2025 planning commission meeting

[5:10] and afterward

[5:13] was drawn by the applicant on

[5:16] december 2 of 2025.

[5:19] due to its withdrawal

[5:20] by the applicant, there is no action needed

[5:21] by the commission

[5:24] at this time. Any other action we

[5:27] need to take on this?

[5:29] >> chair I want to note we did receive

[5:30] 2 comments from

[5:31] members of the public not aware the

[5:34] item had been withdrawn.

[5:37] so we will

[5:38] make sure they are aware, the commission

[5:39] is not hearing the item today and

[5:40] it

[5:42] will remain for the record.

[5:43] >> thank

[5:44] you, that completes

[5:45] any discussion on item number 4 on

[5:46] the agenda

[5:49] which will move us to

[5:52] new business item number 5. 499,

[5:53] n. Canon dr. Request for conditional

[5:54] use

[5:56] permit to allow vehicle sales used occupy

[5:59] a ground floor tenant space within

[6:00] an

[6:02] existing multitenant building for

[6:03] the establishment of

[6:07] a vehicle. At

[6:09] this time I will open up the public

[6:10] hearing and ask

[6:13] if any fellow commissioners

[6:16] have communication.

[6:17] >> no.

[6:19] >> none, nor have I

[6:22] may we have a staff reporter?

[6:25] >> thank you and good afternoon.

[6:27] the item is a request for conditional use

[6:30] permit at 499 north permit at

[6:31] 499 north canon dr. Permit at 499

[6:33] north canon dr.

[6:34] project site is shown outlined in

[6:36] the red.

[6:38] specific tenant space shown in yellow.

[6:42] product is developed with 4 story

[6:43] commercial

[6:46] building including a mix of

[6:49] tenant spaces and development in the

[6:50] immediate

[6:52] vicinity includes commercial use

[6:53] . Single-family development located

[6:55] further north of

[6:58] the project site separated by n. Santa

[7:00] monica blvd. And beverly gardens park.

[7:05] again the proposed project includes

[7:06] request for conditional

[7:08] use permit to allow the establishment

[7:09] of vehicle

[7:13] sales and showroom for

[7:16] , project rendering shown here

[7:19] on the screen.

[7:22] as

[7:23] far as project operations. Electrical

[7:24] vehicle sales would be allowed at

[7:25] the site

[7:28] and it would include a show room

[7:30] as well. No vehicle servicing would occur.

[7:35] project site includes a total of 65

[7:36] parking spaces and

[7:39] proposed project

[7:40] would have dedicated parking, 3 for

[7:41] employees and 2 protester vehicles,

[7:43] customer parking would be accommodated

[7:48] be of the existing ballet operation.

[7:49] no

[7:52] on-site inventory would be on

[7:53] site with no customer deliveries to

[7:55] occur of vehicles.

[7:58] 35 total vehicles on-site,

[8:02] 3 for the display vehicles in the

[8:04] show room and 2 for the

[8:06] test drives . Showroom vehicle rotations

[8:07] would occur twice per month during

[8:09] off peak

[8:12] nighttime hours.

[8:13] traffic control plan was submitted

[8:15] by the applicant and includes

[8:18] a safety measures and personnel to manage

[8:22] pedestrian and vehicle activity.

[8:25] proposed test drive route is outlined

[8:28] on the screen and does comply with

[8:29] the

[8:30] city requirements essentially from

[8:31] the project site turning

[8:34] right to north canon n. Canon dr.

[8:37] on s. Santa monica blvd. Toward

[8:40] century city and then back

[8:42] to n. Santa monica blvd. And right

[8:43] to

[8:44] north canon back to the project site.

[8:48] conditional use permit

[8:50] outlined here on the screen in the

[8:51] staff

[8:55] report including detailed analysis

[8:56] based

[8:58] off of these findings.

[9:00] proposed project was assessed and according

[9:04] it does appear to qualify

[9:07] for chemical exemption for existing

[9:10] facilities.

[9:13] project was notice pursuant to

[9:15] the cities public notice requirements

[9:16] with no

[9:18] comments received.

[9:21] staff would like to point out we did discover

[9:24] a few typographical errors in the resolution.

[9:28] one has been to correct

[9:31] the date of adopted resolution

[9:36] number 2022, that should be a very

[9:37] 7th, 1961. Also to correct the

[9:40] building street frontage description.

[9:46] so with that, staff recommends

[9:48] the planning commission conduct a

[9:49] public hearing,

[9:51] adopt resolution with conditions approving

[9:52] conditional

[9:54] use permit and find the project exempt

[9:55] from for

[9:57] the review thank you.

[10:00] >> thank you for the staff report.

[10:01] I

[10:03] would like to invite the applicant

[10:07] to make a presentation.

[10:10] you have 15 minutes and

[10:13] please, anyone who speaks identify yourself

[10:14] and

[10:15] your relationship to the project.

[10:21] >> do not

[10:24] count my time. 1st of all

[10:26] I would like to congratulate cindy

[10:27] gordon, on the record for

[10:30] her promotion

[10:34] and I was one of the 1st people

[10:36] who sent an email this morning to

[10:37] congratulate her. 2nd of all I'm glad

[10:38] to

[10:39] see michael forbes here. I have not

[10:40] seen him recently that it's great

[10:41] to

[10:43] see you are here.

[10:46] now I can

[10:47] start. Honorable chair, members of

[10:49] the commission my name is, I am here

[10:50] this

[10:51] afternoon representing sony honda

[10:53] mobility.

[10:55] sony honda is a joint

[10:56] venture between 2 international entities

[10:58] that

[10:59] have come together to manufacture

[11:01] and sell

[11:04] a new luxury electric vehicle

[11:07] , the entity has chosen beverly hills for

[11:10] the purposes of opening up a show room

[11:11] and dealership where they

[11:12] will be selling and taking orders

[11:14] for this particular vehicle.

[11:16] currently I have a pop-up showroom

[11:17] in century city

[11:19] and his vehicle has received good

[11:22] responses however it is our desire

[11:23] and goal

[11:26] to make 499 in

[11:27] beverly hills our flagship studio.

[11:28] at this location we

[11:30] will only be taking orders and displaying vehicles

[11:33] and it should be noted there will

[11:34] be no delivery

[11:37] of vehicles in beverly hills.

[11:40] all vehicles will be delivered either

[11:41] in

[11:43] torrance or fremont, california. Furthermore

[11:44] there will be

[11:45] no vehicle repairs for service at

[11:47] this everly hills location.

[11:49] as far as test drives, we follow the

[11:50] approved test route

[11:52] program that the city has and a copy

[11:56] of that and judy has been kind enough

[11:59] to show you our test drive route

[12:00] and we don't go through any residential areas,

[12:01] we

[12:02] follow only the business streets.

[12:06] both from entering and exiting. We

[12:07] will not

[12:08] have any impact on pedestrian safety

[12:10] or traffic as vehicles will

[12:11] be parked within the parking garage

[12:14] adjacent to

[12:17] the show room.

[12:18] as far as loading or removal of the

[12:20] vehicles from the showroom they

[12:21] will use the same procedures we have

[12:23] previously approved and you have

[12:26] approved for car dealerships

[12:29] at 9777 wilshire ,

[12:30] those procedures will require not

[12:32] only traffic control and signage

[12:34] but if I request a public works

[12:35] to move the vehicles in and out of

[12:37] the showroom. Our

[12:39] hours of operation are consistent

[12:40] with retail

[12:41] merchants within the triangle area.

[12:44] we will be located on the ground level

[12:47] of the building

[12:48] and will not interfere with any other

[12:50] businesses within the building.

[12:52] the parking garage has its own private

[12:53] entrance off of

[12:55] canon and as indicated , the building has

[12:59] a valley operator

[13:00] which will handle our customer parking

[13:02] , today I have

[13:05] with me

[13:07] who can answer any

[13:09] operational questions you may want

[13:10] to ask about

[13:13] this location for the vehicle. We

[13:16] hope that after you hear all of

[13:18] our presentation , that you will approve

[13:23] our cup , so we can start

[13:26] to operate out of this location.

[13:29] we

[13:31] have a deck we would like to present.

[13:36] and have an opportunity to go through

[13:38] the deck

[13:39] so you can understand a little more

[13:40] about the vehicle itself and what

[13:41] we

[13:43] are doing.

[13:46] stop the clock.

[13:56] pulling it up.

[14:11] okay?

[14:14] there

[14:16] we go.

[14:19] >> perfect, thank you

[14:20] very much. And the senior director

[14:21] of marketing at sony honda mobility

[14:24] of america. The presentation we have

[14:25] is to give a little bit

[14:28] of background on the company and what we're planning

[14:29] on doing and the product we

[14:32] are providing. On the next page

[14:34] sony honda mobility has mentioned

[14:35] it is a

[14:36] joint venture between parent companies

[14:38] sony and honda

[14:41] where our own entity,

[14:44] sony honda mobility and

[14:46] the 1st brand to bring to market is

[14:47] afeela. Trenton is meant to

[14:48] bring together 2 brands with backgrounds

[14:51] in intelligence and mobility but also adding

[14:55] entertainment as we would expect from

[14:56] the

[14:58] sony side of things. Excited

[15:00] to be opening up this location in

[15:02] beverly hills. Considering

[15:04] the flagship and we understand the

[15:05] fortunes of being a good

[15:07] citizen and also to make sure our experience

[15:11] meets that

[15:13] it what you expect for a location

[15:14] in the beverly hills location. On

[15:15] the

[15:16] following slide you will see again

[15:17] a quick rendering of

[15:20] the location. The following page

[15:22] want to quickly talk over what exactly

[15:23] is

[15:25] afeela. Afeela is the brand and

[15:28] our 1st product is called the

[15:31] afeela 1. It is

[15:34] a sedan as seen in the picture. The

[15:35] goal is to bring

[15:37] people closer to the things they love

[15:38] which includes things

[15:40] such as movies and sports and video

[15:41] games

[15:43] and music. All things we feel are

[15:44] quite important in the beverly

[15:47] hills landscape. Our retail experience

[15:50] is meant to be able

[15:53] to be just as vibrant and as exciting as

[15:55] the city is going to be in. Some of

[15:56] the most called out

[15:57] features of the car really feature

[15:58] around innovation

[16:01] such as self driving and a lot of customizable

[16:04] interfaces we will be providing

[16:07] them expenses from honda and sony.

[16:11] we are also really big on

[16:13] self-expression as you can tell from

[16:14] the artwork outside of the mural

[16:16] and the car itself allowing customers

[16:17] to be able to express themselves

[16:20] through moods and themes

[16:22] and things such as the media bar in

[16:23] front of the car and

[16:26] on the exterior side.

[16:28] on the next side as much in california

[16:29] is going to be

[16:30] our home. We currently have one retail

[16:31] studio in westfield

[16:33] valleyfair in san jose and another

[16:36] we are hoping to be able to move forward

[16:37] with of course is for

[16:42] 99 north on canon

[16:44] and we have a few pop-ups, one of

[16:45] which in

[16:47] century city down the street and another

[16:48] in

[16:50] san diego currently. As mentioned

[16:51] our

[16:53] delivery hubs are where all the customer actual

[16:57] final delivery will occur .

[17:00] those are located at larger hubs

[17:01] where service and other things will

[17:02] be occurring in torrance

[17:03] and fremont. On the next slide here,

[17:05] a quick showcase

[17:08] , we did have an event.

[17:10] thank you for everyone's assistance

[17:11] getting this through.

[17:14] we do not want to miss out on the

[17:15] los angeles auto

[17:16] show that happened so we were able

[17:18] to bring the press

[17:20] that were here for the time to come

[17:21] to a soft

[17:23] opening of our studio. We were excited

[17:24] to

[17:26] be able to welcome 80 plus members

[17:27] of the

[17:28] press as well as some executives to

[17:30] be able to meet with

[17:33] the press so it was

[17:34] our way of at least indicating to them we

[17:35] are very serious and

[17:36] excited to be here in the beverly

[17:38] hills area and be able to bring

[17:40] some of the press over here. On the

[17:41] last slide here just wanted

[17:44] to show some of

[17:45] the activities we have done in other

[17:47] locations I previously mentioned .

[17:48] a

[17:50] lot of what you can see are reservation

[17:51] holders. Members of

[17:54] our community that have placed a

[17:56] deposit and are ready to start taking orders.

[17:58] when we are ready for that time we

[18:00] help many customers

[18:02] will convert and become an actual

[18:03] owner of

[18:04] the car. Of course that is something

[18:06] we're hoping to continue to build

[18:07] and nurture a relationship with them

[18:10] at the retail locations such as the

[18:11] one in

[18:13] beverly hills. Thank you very much.

[18:16] >> that concludes the presentation,

[18:17] other than answering

[18:21] any questions. Or

[18:24] anything else.

[18:27] >> thank you.

[18:30] return to your seats for now

[18:32] and, very possible we might be inviting

[18:36] you back up any minute.

[18:39] at this time we will open

[18:41] public comment. Each speaker

[18:42] will be provided 3 minutes, public

[18:44] comment will be closed

[18:49] before the commission begins deliberations. Those

[18:50] wishing

[18:51] to provide comment should do so now,

[18:53] the applicant may provide rebuttal,

[18:54] the public will

[18:55] have an opportunity to provide rebuttal

[18:57] to the applicant's 1st rebuttal so

[18:58] the order speaking will be as follows

[19:00] for public comment. Commissioner questions,

[19:02] applicant additional comments and rebuttal,

[19:06] public rebuttal to the applicant and

[19:07] applicant

[19:09] final rebuttal and comment.

[19:12] at this point

[19:14] I will call for comment from those

[19:14] in the room.

[19:16] I currently have one speaker card

[19:19] and that is the speaker so will you

[19:20] please

[19:23] come up?

[19:27] welcome.

[19:30] >>

[19:31] chair and honorable commissioners,

[19:35] thank you for allowing me to speak.

[19:38] the problem I have with this application

[19:39] is only on

[19:40] process, nothing else. I reviewed

[19:42] the last 10 applications

[19:45] for dealerships . The way it went,

[19:46] it

[19:47] can be for you and then before

[19:50] the commission.

[19:52] the reason, in addition if tenant

[19:53] improvements had

[19:55] been done prior to the approval they

[19:56] received

[20:00] a letter enforcement such as

[20:03] and 9737 wilshire , the tbf

[20:06] tf w exotic car dealership.

[20:09] as well as wires and they

[20:12] did unpermitted tenant

[20:15] permits. What happened here

[20:17] is they wanted to have an event. And

[20:18] the city manager

[20:21] approved and what was shown

[20:21] an architectural commission agenda report

[20:25] it states last, lastly the established

[20:26] auto dealership requires

[20:28] issuance of conditional use permit

[20:33] by the planning commission. Property

[20:36] owner submitted cup under review by

[20:37] the city

[20:38] but is not approved as of the writing

[20:39] of the report.

[20:42] condition of approval has been included

[20:43] in the draft

[20:44] resolution indicating no permits for

[20:45] the business

[20:48] identification side issued until

[20:49] the applicant has submitted a building

[20:51] permit application and paid all

[20:53] application fees for the improvement project

[20:54] consistent with

[20:56] city policy.

[20:58] is not consistent with city policy

[20:59] based on the previous dealerships.

[21:02] in addition it was not only

[21:05] for business sign identification

[21:08] which itself is not a big deal, the

[21:09] big deal is there is a

[21:12] mural there and it is supposed to

[21:14] be or should be also reviewed the

[21:15] architectural commission

[21:17] because effectively this is a form

[21:18] of art which

[21:21] is presented

[21:23] on property and there should be additional

[21:24] review. Originally

[21:27] the logo was incorporated

[21:29] in the upper portion

[21:31] of the mural functioning as both an

[21:32] artistic composition and

[21:35] business identification sign

[21:37] as again was in the architectural commission

[21:42] . So the question

[21:45] is again, I was shocked when I

[21:48] saw the mural and I was shocked

[21:51] when I saw the dealership. This is

[21:54] an on my dealership, all the applications

[21:55] for order

[21:57] to buy has to be online . The

[22:00] question is what does the city receive

[22:01] out

[22:02] of this? There is a sculpture

[22:04] in front, in the railway portion.

[22:11] half $1 million was spent on that sculpture

[22:13] and

[22:14] will this mural detract from that?

[22:15] that

[22:17] was not covered within the architectural

[22:18] commission. I understand

[22:21] the need for why they wanted to go forward

[22:24] , but again there is a process. Thank

[22:27] you.

[22:28] >> thank you very much for your comment.

[22:29] I don't see any other comments in

[22:30] the room.

[22:33] karen

[22:34] do we have additional comments on this

[22:35] item from phone video or email?

[22:36] >>

[22:38] no additional public comment.

[22:39] >> thank

[22:40] you, at

[22:41] this time we will move on

[22:44] to commissioner questions. Anyone

[22:45] volunteer to

[22:48] go 1st? Commissioner ross start

[22:51] us off.

[22:52] >>

[22:54] thank you very much and thank you staff

[22:57] for the presentation. And

[23:01] the applicant

[23:02] in yours as well. Why don't we have

[23:04] the applicant come

[23:05] up? I did not catch her last name

[23:07] so I will call you jay until

[23:09] and unless I get it.

[23:10] and your colleague pulled a chair

[23:12] up if you want.

[23:17] what is your last name again? What

[23:21] is your role? Are you with sony or

[23:22] are

[23:25] you with

[23:28] honda ?

[23:29] >>

[23:30] it is one comedy, sony honda mobility

[23:33] is one company.

[23:34] >> what is your role

[23:35] at

[23:36] the company?

[23:37] >> senior director of marketing.

[23:40] >> who was the collie?

[23:41] >> I work for the creative agency

[23:44] that designed the studio and we are

[23:45] partners

[23:48] of sony honda in

[23:49] bringing their retail expense to life.

[23:51] >> very good.

[23:55] in terms of the public comment

[23:58] we heard I was not there and I don't

[24:00] know how it happened. I think in my mind

[24:01] there

[24:03] is a distinction between what happened here

[24:07] and with wires only where the

[24:08] city manager approved it and that

[24:10] makes it

[24:11] maybe unusual but at least there was

[24:13] a process.

[24:15] >> 100% correct.

[24:20] we went to the city manager 1st, we

[24:22] asked the city manager because the

[24:23] la automotive show was coming here

[24:24] and we needed to

[24:25] be able to invite all the press to

[24:28] come see it.'s we went to

[24:29] the city manager, city manager approved

[24:31] the fact

[24:34] we could have the special event at

[24:37] the location, he put us in touch with

[24:38] patty betancourt from special events department

[24:40] in beverly hills

[24:43] and we walked through every part of

[24:45] her application in order to fill it out.

[24:46] it was

[24:48] approved, we were allowed to have

[24:48] for 30

[24:49] days a special event at the location

[24:51] which we did.

[24:54] just for edification, the

[24:57] interior site

[25:00] is not finished, we do not have all

[25:01] of

[25:02] our improvements. Went to go back

[25:04] to the building and safety department

[25:05] in

[25:06] order to do that but we have paid

[25:07] all along,

[25:10] every fee requested of us. We

[25:12] have paid all of those fees and work

[25:13] closely

[25:16] with not only planning, but

[25:21] we have worked closely with building

[25:21] and safety with respect to

[25:22] what we have done.

[25:23] >> significantly,

[25:24] you understand that if this

[25:27] is approved by this body to

[25:28] go to the architectural review committee

[25:30] for their approval.

[25:34] >> we have already been to

[25:35] the architectural review committee.

[25:37] we have already gotten approval

[25:40] from the architectural committee

[25:43] . As to the mural, to the signs come

[25:44] to

[25:45] the locations of the signs and we

[25:46] went to that because we could not

[25:47] have put

[25:48] up any of the stuff without their approval.

[25:50] so we have done everything they asked

[25:52] us to do with respect to what we

[25:54] needed to do.

[25:55] >> better yet

[25:56] I thought I saw a condition in here

[25:57] that said

[26:00] this is subject to the approval of

[26:01] the architectural review commission.

[26:03] am I making that up?

[26:10] I could be, I thought I read that condition.

[26:13] issuance

[26:16] of building permits.

[26:19] the project shall be

[26:21] subject to city architectural review.

[26:22] >> that is a

[26:25] standard condition on 99

[26:28] if not 100% of all resolutions

[26:30] considered by the

[26:31] commission. Arguably if the resolution

[26:33] is adopted that condition has been satisfied.

[26:36] >> okay thank you, I

[26:37] wanted to understand the interplay

[26:40] between that condition.

[26:43] okay very good. Can I

[26:46] ask the applicants

[26:49] some questions that

[26:52] are related to the product?

[26:55] and this

[26:57] will be your 1st model year I assume

[26:58] with no vehicles on the

[26:59] road yet.

[27:00] >> that is correct. We have

[27:01] prototypes on display

[27:06] but none have been sold.

[27:07] >>

[27:08] 1st model you will be 2027 or 2026?

[27:09] >> 2026. That will be the sedan. >>

[27:13] hopefully coming out with a sub type

[27:16] model?

[27:17] >> we have not disclosed. >>

[27:18] okay

[27:19] that's confidential. What if I sign a

[27:22] nda. What is the price point of the

[27:25] sedan?

[27:26] >>

[27:27] the pastry was 89,900 and the higher

[27:28] signature trim

[27:31] is 102,900.

[27:32] >> luxury vehicles to

[27:34] compete with like

[27:36] lucid.

[27:37] >>

[27:39] lucid, tesla model x, the

[27:42] higher end.

[27:43] >> a much as a

[27:45] deposit?

[27:47] >> 200. It is a reservation

[27:49] so customers are 100% refunded

[27:52] if they don't.

[27:53] >> deposit is $200?

[27:55] and refundable. Okay.

[28:01] >>

[28:04] the application seems to suggest

[28:07] there will be full-time valley

[28:09] during hours of

[28:12] operation. Correct?

[28:14] >> that's correct. >> provided by

[28:15] the landlord if I

[28:17] understood correctly.

[28:18] >> the parking

[28:20] structure is

[28:22] leased out to another company, the

[28:23] company is operating at

[28:25] the same hours as the hours we indicated.

[28:28] >> what happened of the landlord defaults

[28:29] or fails

[28:31] to provide the ballet? That's a

[28:35] question for our staff.

[28:36] >> we

[28:37] have no knowledge of that all we know

[28:39] is the operator of that particular

[28:41] location has an agreement with

[28:43] the landlord and as far as we

[28:44] are concerned, that has been there,

[28:46] for years.

[28:49] you may know because

[28:53] he represented before. And

[28:56] they have been there

[28:59] and if he terminates it,

[29:02] we will work with him to find another

[29:03] valley operator.

[29:04] >> okay, thank you.

[29:05] if

[29:07] I'm not mistaken the space is currently

[29:08] empty correct?

[29:10] occupied by you guys?

[29:11] >> empty other

[29:13] than the fact that we have a car in

[29:15] the location and we have done some

[29:16] construction but

[29:18] we have not finished.

[29:19] >> okay very

[29:20] good, no

[29:22] other questions.

[29:23] >> thank you

[29:24] commissioner ross. Commissioner kaplan.

[29:25] >>

[29:29] hi. Thank

[29:30] you for now giving me contextual understanding

[29:32] of the mural which is

[29:35] hard to miss.

[29:38] this sounds like an

[29:40] exciting product. I just have a couple

[29:41] of

[29:43] questions about how the space will

[29:44] be utilized.

[29:47] maybe we can pull up

[29:49] sheet a 2.1 , the floorplan

[29:52] of this space.

[29:55] :

[30:25] >>

[30:28] give me one

[30:31] moment here.

[30:47] >> it is in the staff .

[31:05] >> we are working on bringing up the

[31:08] floor plans

[31:10] and we can proceed with questions.

[31:11] >>

[31:14] 2 questions. One

[31:15] has to do with the upper right-hand

[31:17] corner of the space. Which

[31:19] on one of the sheets is labeled as an

[31:23] exit.

[31:26] and it exits toward santa monica

[31:28] . I think that is a

[31:31] pedestrian exit. Just asking.

[31:33] that's why the plans are helpful.

[31:34] the 2nd question

[31:37] I have has to

[31:40] do with I believe I read that initially

[31:45] and long-term, you anticipate having

[31:47] 3 cars in the showroom.

[31:50] I can see where 2

[31:53] of them would be positioned.

[31:55] I think I know where the 3rd one would

[31:56] be

[31:58] positioned, but I don't want to assume

[31:59] so

[32:01] I would like you to help me understand that.

[32:02] and I would like a little explanation

[32:04] of the notes that are on

[32:07] this sheet on a 2.1.

[32:10] it says additional automobile to

[32:14] be shown in 2026 . One car to

[32:17] be displayed

[32:18] for the year 2025 which is almost

[32:20] over already.

[32:22] and you said there is one car now

[32:23] in

[32:25] the space. And then calendar year 2026

[32:26] , you

[32:29] anticipate displaying 2 cars

[32:32] thereafter, at some point maximum

[32:33] 3 cars.

[32:35] >> correct.

[32:37] >> we are getting there.

[32:47] >> and

[32:50] what page?

[32:51] >> a

[32:53] 2.1.

[32:54] >>

[32:56] thank you.

[33:20] >> that is a survey.

[33:23] >> I'm

[33:26] getting that.

[33:35] that is it I think. Yeah,

[33:38] so the exit that I have a question about

[33:41] is in the very upper

[33:43] right, parallel to santa monica

[33:46] . On one of the

[33:49] prior sheets labeled as a exit.

[33:50] >>

[33:51] correct, both

[33:53] of those are existing doors,

[33:55] we do not plan on using them for customers

[33:56] but rear labeling for

[33:59] fire reasons that they are doors people

[34:00] can

[34:02] use to exit.

[34:03] >> they would be strictly

[34:05] emergency exits.

[34:06] >> that's correct.

[34:11] >>

[34:14] could you tell me where the 3rd car

[34:16] will be? It seems to me it would be

[34:17] at the

[34:19] upper portion. Next to the outdoor patio.

[34:20] >> that

[34:23] is correct.

[34:24] >>

[34:25] okay for now that's all the questions

[34:27] I have. Thank you.

[34:28] >>

[34:29] thank you, commissioner kaplan, vice

[34:30] chair

[34:33] milkowski.

[34:34] >>

[34:36] thank you.

[34:39] could

[34:42] you please

[34:43] explain how customers will access

[34:45] the cars? For

[34:48] test drive?

[34:48] >> yes, so we

[34:50] are planning on using the lobby

[34:51] exit and entrance at the bottom of

[34:53] the plan that you can

[34:55] see here. That takes you to the outside

[34:57] location where the vehicles will have

[35:03] spots reserved.

[35:04] >> reserved

[35:06] spots in the parking garage.

[35:09] in our parking plan we have the

[35:10] car inside which will not be used

[35:12] for test drive

[35:14] and 2 spots in the parking garage

[35:17] that there will be 2 vehicles on site

[35:18] that

[35:21] they can use for test drives.

[35:23] as said , those

[35:26] cars will be pulled out and

[35:29] they will follow the

[35:33] test route.

[35:35] so, nothing from the dealership will

[35:36] be pulled out for

[35:38] test drives. Only from the parking garage.

[35:41] >> understood, thank you. You have

[35:42] a contract

[35:45] for 2 fixed spaces or its varying?

[35:48] >> with a contract for 2 spaces

[35:51] and 3

[35:52] spaces for employees. Customer parking

[35:54] will be handled by the valet people.

[35:58] you will driving, the valley will

[35:59] take it and park the car.

[36:02] >> thank you. Question .

[36:05] how

[36:08] is sales tax impacted or allocated?

[36:09] >>

[36:10] sales

[36:12] tax is under the

[36:14] city's licensing bureau. It will be

[36:15] paid in

[36:18] accordance with , I think you

[36:20] pay the estimated amount or whatever

[36:21] and it goes into the

[36:22] finance department because the cars

[36:22] are sold here

[36:23] the orders are taken in

[36:25] the city of beverly hills. It has the

[36:26] nexus of allowing

[36:29] that.

[36:30] >> okay. That is good to

[36:31] know that we'll get our bite of the

[36:32] sales tax.

[36:33] >> a big bite.

[36:44] those are my questions. Thank

[36:46] you.

[36:47] >> thanks. I'm going to follow

[36:48] up on

[36:49] that question. I think the question you

[36:50] were answering

[36:53] had to do with the beverly hills business tax.

[36:56] >> also the sales tax. We pay a business

[36:58] license tax based upon the gross revenue.

[37:02] and then sales tax, which

[37:04] is a state amount of money that is

[37:05] collected.

[37:07] because the orders are taken in the city

[37:08] of beverly

[37:11] hills, the state rehits to the city

[37:12] of

[37:13] beverly hills. Don't hold me. I don't

[37:14] know the exact number.

[37:16] but I think it is 1% of the sale.

[37:19] >> right. But the more significant

[37:20] portion of

[37:23] revenue, if I'm not mistaken,

[37:24] that come to the city is in the form

[37:26] of business tax paid directly to

[37:28] the city as opposed to the allocation of

[37:29] the sales

[37:31] tax.

[37:32] >> that's my understanding. >>

[37:33] okay.

[37:35] let focus on the business tax. The

[37:38] sales, if they're taking place online,

[37:40] and they're not taking place in the

[37:44] showroom, and the delivery is

[37:47] being done

[37:49] in torrance, what determines where

[37:50] the business tax --

[37:53] when you fill out that estimate

[37:56] on the beverly hills tax form, what

[37:57] revenue are

[37:58] you including. In if the sale is online and

[37:59] the

[38:01] delivery is taken outside of the city of beverly

[38:02] hills.

[38:04] >> we had this question come up once

[38:05] before from

[38:08] another auto

[38:11] dealership. And now mr. Muir, who is

[38:14] the city's treasurer? Finance director.

[38:17] okay. Has determined that any

[38:20] order that is written in beverly

[38:23] hills, all right?

[38:25] my understanding is that any order

[38:26] written

[38:29] in beverly hills incurs taxes. Okay?

[38:32] >> but if it's placed online -->> it

[38:33] doesn't

[38:34] matter if it is placed online or not.

[38:35] it is

[38:37] where it is written and where it is written

[38:39] the street city of beverly hills.

[38:41] >> anyone who places an

[38:44] order online with

[38:47] sony mobility of america, even if

[38:48] they

[38:50] live in san francisco or las vegas

[38:51] or

[38:53] phoenix --

[38:54] >> if the order is written

[38:56] in beverly hills --

[38:57] >>

[38:58] so what will determine if it was written

[38:59] in beverly hills if the order is

[39:02] placed online? You have a couple

[39:05] locations, right?

[39:06] >> we have a couple

[39:07] locations.

[39:08] our intention is to do all the

[39:11] paperwork online. So I think it

[39:13] is something we have to discuss further.

[39:14] I'm not

[39:16] aware of us saying specifically it would

[39:17] be to beverly hills or not.

[39:20] it is meant to be all done online.

[39:21] >>

[39:23] all done online. But again,

[39:26] under whose city's jurisdiction?

[39:27] >> if you're

[39:29] going to order the car in san diego, that

[39:31] is not going to be considered beverly

[39:32] hills.

[39:35] if it is ordered through the showroom in

[39:37] the city of beverly hills, according

[39:38] to what has

[39:41] happened in the past, that is considered to

[39:42] be

[39:43] a taxable event in beverly hills.

[39:44] >> and again, I

[39:47] don't mean to be repeating myself.

[39:48] what determines whether or

[39:49] not it is ordered through the showroom

[39:50] in beverly hills if someone is doing

[39:53] it at their home online and

[39:54] they do not live in beverly hills.

[39:56] >> we reach out to our

[39:58] finance department as well and I'll

[39:59] turn it over to miss gutierrez

[40:02] to provide some, hopefully some clarification.

[40:05] >> great. Looking for clarification.

[40:08] >> it really depends on the way that

[40:09] afeela

[40:10] has basically structured their business.

[40:11] in

[40:14] this case, it sounds like he's saying they have

[40:16] set up their business in a way that

[40:17] they have determined

[40:20] their cell's desk to be the city of

[40:21] beverly hills.

[40:23] >> that's not what jay just

[40:25] that.

[40:26] >> I cannot confirm that is

[40:27] how our

[40:29] business model is.

[40:30] >> so I think it

[40:31] depends on

[40:32] where that ultimate sales desk is

[40:33] located.

[40:35] if that sales desk is located in the

[40:36] city

[40:38] of beverly hills, then

[40:41] this theory, the city receives

[40:45] the portion of the sales tax.

[40:46] >>

[40:47] if the sales desk is located in another

[40:48] location,

[40:50] perhaps as part of a corporate office in

[40:51] a

[40:53] different city, the sales tax would

[40:54] be allocated to

[40:55] that location.

[40:56] >> the sales tax and

[40:57] will the business

[40:58] tax.

[40:59] >> I think the information that

[41:00] I have

[41:02] is specific to sales tax.

[41:03] >> I think

[41:04] since

[41:06] the business tax is based on the

[41:07] grocery seats if the sales are not

[41:09] being booked

[41:10] here, presumably there would be some in-person

[41:12] sales. So there would be --

[41:14] >> it sounds like there are no in-person

[41:15] sales.

[41:17] >> that's not correct. >> so any online

[41:18] sales,

[41:19] if they're being booked outside of

[41:21] the city, the sales

[41:23] tax would not count toward the gross

[41:24] revenue --

[41:26] >> I'll give you an opportunity to you answer in

[41:27] a

[41:28] second. I want to tell you what I'm

[41:30] hearing. I'm hearing that there

[41:32] is no commitment yet as to where the

[41:34] sales will be booked. They may be

[41:36] in beverly hills. They may

[41:38] not be in beverly hills. It's entirely

[41:39] possible

[41:41] that 100% of the sales online for

[41:42] the

[41:44] afeela cars will be booked in a location

[41:45] outside beverly

[41:47] hills. In which case, if what I'm

[41:48] hearing is correct, the

[41:51] city will not

[41:53] get anyany benefit out of the revenue

[41:54] associated

[41:57] with this location.

[42:00] now I'll let you

[42:02] comment.

[42:03] >> let me comment first of

[42:04] all.

[42:06] there will be

[42:09] onsite people coming in to buy.

[42:11] once you come in, you will use, you

[42:12] might

[42:14] want to correct me if I say something wrong.

[42:15] there will

[42:18] be a

[42:20] computer. You will order off the computer

[42:21] but that

[42:24] computer is related to beverly hills.

[42:27] those are definite whether

[42:29] you walk in or you order through the

[42:30] beverly hills location.

[42:32] if you live in let's say san fernando

[42:33] valley, and you

[42:34] order, that order come through beverly

[42:36] hills. There

[42:38] is no location at that particular, in

[42:39] the

[42:42] valley. It come to the beverly hills

[42:43] hills online. In addition to that, we

[42:45] have a finance person in the

[42:48] city of beverly hills. So unless you're

[42:51] paying all cash, I would say, is that

[42:53] correct? The people come into the

[42:54] finance department.

[42:56] the finance people will write write

[42:57] their particular

[42:59] part of it. It will be determined to

[43:02] be a beverly hills sale on that basis.

[43:05] if you're in san diego, all right?

[43:06] then you wouldn't

[43:08] be there. You would be going down

[43:09] to there. If you're

[43:12] in san jose, the san jose store

[43:14] is already open. Then that would go

[43:15] out of san

[43:18] jose. But the intent is to bring

[43:20] people into the showroom so that they

[43:21] can see

[43:24] the car. They can order on our computer.

[43:27] and at the computer, then what would

[43:28] happen is that would be booked as

[43:30] a beverly hills sale.

[43:31] >> I'm

[43:33] going to ask the same question of

[43:35] you. You were the one who just said

[43:36] you had no commitment

[43:38] yet that online sales would be booked

[43:39] out of beverly hills. Can

[43:41] you comment on what mr. Fisher just

[43:42] said about the

[43:45] process?

[43:46] >> yes, yes. What I can say

[43:47] is at

[43:48] this moment, we are currently taking

[43:49] reservations, throws are

[43:50] booked on ipads or personal computers

[43:51] at home.

[43:53] the actual ordering process itself

[43:54] is still yet to

[43:56] be determined. We are not at the phase

[43:58] of finalizing all that information.

[44:00] but that is something

[44:02] that we can discuss. I have to discuss

[44:03] with our lawyers

[44:04] back in the office as well. Right

[44:06] now, what we are hoping to

[44:09] do, at left a for the year of 2025, we

[44:12] are primarily taking reservations

[44:15] at those locations.

[44:16] >> so you may

[44:18] or may not have people ordering on

[44:19] computers in

[44:21] the store.

[44:22] >> that's

[44:24] correct.

[44:25] >> that's different --

[44:27] >> it would be dependent on inventory

[44:29] and how we are, how reservations are

[44:30] going.

[44:32] as of right now, our plan is to be able to have

[44:34] a reservation attached with every

[44:36] vehicle that we sell.

[44:39] which would be an advance. But we

[44:42] don't plan on having as mentioned,

[44:43] inventory in

[44:44] the store for customers to be able

[44:45] to purchase. So that

[44:47] is something we would have to discuss in terms of

[44:48] ordering

[44:50] itself.

[44:51] >> I'm not questioning the

[44:52] model. It it is

[44:54] a perfectly fine model. But if

[44:56] I'm one of your car buyers, I think

[44:57] what I'm likely

[45:00] to do is come into the showroom. Do

[45:01] the

[45:02] test drive. Do all the research that

[45:03] I want. Say, all

[45:06] right. Terrific. And then go home and

[45:07] then in

[45:08] the next day or two decide at home

[45:09] what I'm

[45:12] going to buy. You may have people

[45:15] who are willing to sit at a computer in

[45:16] the

[45:17] showroom and buy it at that moment.

[45:18] may

[45:21] guess, and I'm only doing it

[45:22] based on what I would like to do, the

[45:24] majority of people probably wouldn't

[45:27] be actually doing the ordering in

[45:29] the store. Assuming you even provide

[45:30] that capability.

[45:33] >> but there will be salespeople in

[45:35] there. The salespeople in the store to

[45:36] entice the

[45:39] people to buy in the store.

[45:42] >> I'm just reiterating what it

[45:45] I'm hearing.

[45:47] >> in the other studios that we have

[45:48] in san

[45:50] jose, we do have salespeople with

[45:51] ipads had a

[45:53] take reservations and a lot of people

[45:54] are comfortable

[45:57] making reservations.

[45:59] >> look. I love the idea of the car

[46:00] and all that.

[46:02] I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm

[46:03] trying to get to

[46:06] the facts. And at this point,

[46:09] from what I'm hearing, there is, let's

[46:10] say,

[46:11] no guarantee, maybe some probability

[46:12] but no

[46:15] guarantee that any of the sales are

[46:18] going to be generated in a

[46:21] manner to

[46:24] provide to the city

[46:27] of beverly hills.

[46:28] >> I understand.

[46:29] >> the

[46:30] next, the only other question I had,

[46:32] it some of the other commissioners

[46:33] asked the questions.

[46:36] maybe this is more for staff

[46:39] than for you.

[46:42] so this went to the architectural

[46:43] design commission

[46:45] first in support of the city

[46:48] manager's approval for this event.

[46:51] >> that's correct. >> I think, I may not

[46:55] be --if I'm wrong, I'll ask mr.

[46:57] mayor to come up, I think that may

[46:58] be

[47:00] one of the process elements that would seem

[47:01] unusual in this case.

[47:03] typically we see thing come before

[47:04] the planning

[47:07] commission first and then the

[47:08] architectural design commission. In

[47:10] this case, it sound

[47:12] like it went to the architectural

[47:15] design commission first and then the

[47:16] planning commission. I don't have

[47:18] a stake in which goes first but I

[47:22] wonder if you would comment on how

[47:25] unusual that is, and why

[47:27] that might be aa more common brass

[47:28] than we

[47:30] think.

[47:31] >> our typical process is an

[47:32] applicant would

[47:33] first receive their land use entitlement,

[47:34] either by

[47:37] the director, depending on the scale,

[47:39] or the planning commission. Then they

[47:40] move

[47:42] forward through the architectural

[47:43] review process.

[47:46] that's a standard procedure

[47:49] that's followed.

[47:52] there are times on a variety of

[47:54] factors, on a case by case basis,

[47:55] we make a decision

[47:58] to take it to the

[48:00] architectural commission first. When

[48:01] that happens,

[48:03] we always have a condition that they get

[48:06] their approval from the planning commission.

[48:08] if there are certain elements of that

[48:10] approval that

[48:12] are contingent upon planning commissioner

[48:14] approval, that they obtain those.

[48:16] so it is something that

[48:19] we see on occasion.

[48:22] it is not common but not

[48:25] unheard of for that to happen.

[48:27] I don't think anything was out of the

[48:28] ordinary in this

[48:31] case.

[48:32] >> so it was a not

[48:33] common process but certainly was not

[48:34] completely out of

[48:36] the ordinary for it to go through

[48:39] the architectural review process first.

[48:40] it did go will you

[48:42] the process, they did review the signs and

[48:43] the mural and

[48:45] did approve all that'll in conjunction

[48:46] with the

[48:49] event.

[48:50] >> that's correct. >> and

[48:52] then you mentioned this event for

[48:55] 30 days. What 30 days were those?

[48:58] >> november 19th

[49:01] to december --november the 19th?

[49:02] >>

[49:03] right. That was in conjunction with

[49:04] the auto

[49:06] show that started then. The only reason I

[49:07] ask that, I

[49:10] did drive by the location

[49:13] the other day and I mean, if

[49:14] I didn't know better, I would think

[49:15] that this business was operating.

[49:16] there were people

[49:18] in. There desks, cars. There was a

[49:19] car in the

[49:21] showroom. There was a desk set up.

[49:25] a reception desk set up.

[49:27] there were people milling around inside

[49:30] the showroom, and look, I don't know what they

[49:31] were

[49:32] doing. Maybe you can explain to me what

[49:34] they were doing. If

[49:36] I were just a random person walking

[49:37] by,

[49:38] I would have looked and said, there

[49:40] is a new

[49:41] dealership opened and operating. Maybe you

[49:43] can comment on what I

[49:46] saw people doing in the showroom just this

[49:47] week.

[49:48] >> yeah. Myself included, I have been

[49:49] there for

[49:52] the past few days.

[49:54] we have had planning sessions inside

[49:55] the showroom. We've

[49:58] had people, we had finished --not

[49:59] finished.

[50:00] we had done some additional finishing

[50:01] touches

[50:03] and construction on the outside that

[50:04] were not complete due to the

[50:05] rain that occurred right during that

[50:07] time.

[50:09] we also identified the press at that

[50:10] time for

[50:11] those not willing to attend during

[50:13] that time that they can

[50:14] schedule other times with us and stop

[50:16] by and visit and hence,

[50:18] the request for the 30 days just to

[50:19] allow time

[50:22] for other members to be there as

[50:24] well. So it was to make sure that we

[50:25] were

[50:28] open for press members and then for

[50:29] our planning purposes to be operational in

[50:31] the future.

[50:32] >> so then

[50:34] I'll go back to

[50:36] cindy again. So with whatever approval was

[50:37] granted by the city

[50:40] manager, everything that

[50:42] he just described is consistent with

[50:43] that

[50:45] approval provided that they weren't

[50:48] actually processing anyany of cars.

[50:49] it is the

[50:52] sale of the car that requires the

[50:55] condition of use permit. But all the

[50:57] other activity that's were just described

[50:58] were covered under the

[51:00] 30-day window of the city manager.

[51:04] >> that's

[51:07] correct.

[51:13] >> those are may questions.

[51:16] >> are the tax issues

[51:19] we've been discussing relevant

[51:22] or

[51:24] germane to the decision we are being

[51:25] asked to make?

[51:26] >> I think the

[51:27] finding for a conditional use permit

[51:28] are generally

[51:30] related to, is it compatible to the

[51:31] area and

[51:34] will there befully

[51:36] unintended impacts, particularly with

[51:37] traffic,

[51:40] vehicle conflicts. I think the focus.

[51:42] conversation and if there are any

[51:43] conditions imposed should be

[51:45] based on those and less having to do

[51:46] with the tax issue.

[51:47] >>

[51:48] the tax issue is somebody else's problem.

[51:49] a big problem.

[51:51] >> I think it is an informational

[51:52] peace for the

[51:54] commission.

[51:55] >> thank you. >> I brought

[51:56] it up,

[51:58] one, because I

[52:01] wanted to know. It was also listed

[52:02] as

[52:04] one of the land use elements. It

[52:07] was in the packet as one of the elements.

[52:09] economic stability is part of the

[52:10] analysis

[52:12] for approvalapproval of project. But

[52:16] anyway, any other questions at the

[52:18] moment from commissioners?

[52:19] >> the

[52:20] cars will be delivered

[52:21] in torrance. Am I understanding that

[52:27] correctly?

[52:28] >> or fraemt.emont. >>

[52:29] what if somebody

[52:30] wants it delivered to their home?

[52:31] >> we are

[52:33] looking at options for home delivery.

[52:34] right now we are

[52:37] only looking at those two options.

[52:40] >> thank you. Great. Thank you.

[52:43] so at this time before we move on,

[52:45] the applicant has an opportunity,

[52:46] if

[52:48] you choose to avail yourself ofof

[52:49] that, to provide

[52:52] any additional comments or rebuttal

[52:53] to the

[52:54] comments and questions that you've heard at

[52:55] this time.

[52:58] >> the only comment

[53:00] we would make is the fact that we

[53:01] look forward to making

[53:04] this as our flagship location.

[53:07] we believe that by providing this

[53:08] car, there will be

[53:09] a lot of interest in this car. It

[53:10] will drive

[53:12] people to the city of beverly hills.

[53:19] people will order in the city of beverly

[53:20] hills.

[53:22] even though jay is not 100% sure.

[53:24] in talking to the legal department, the

[53:25] legal department has indicate

[53:28] to me that the purpose,

[53:31] they wouldn't be signing a ease

[53:34] and having us here if they didn't

[53:35] expect

[53:36] to get orders here. The population

[53:38] here, the surrounding areas, I

[53:39] can tell you in century city, we've

[53:41] had a tremendous

[53:44] amount of people. They ask

[53:45] where, is this where your location will

[53:47] be? We

[53:50] tell them no. The flagship is

[53:52] in beverly hills. We'll take your

[53:53] reservation but

[53:55] we're doing business in beverly hills.

[53:56] that's

[53:57] come directly from the corporate attorneys

[53:59] that I've been dealing

[54:00] with and that's what our goal is.

[54:02] >>

[54:03] okay. Thank you. I will invite you

[54:05] then to return

[54:08] to your seats.

[54:10] and is there anyone from the public had a

[54:11] would like

[54:14] to provide rebuttal to the

[54:17] applicants' comments? I see mr.

[54:20] mayor, thank you for coming up.

[54:22] you will also as the normal guidelines,

[54:26] have three minutes.

[54:29] >> in previous dealerships

[54:30] before you, you've, what you've been

[54:32] told here about sales

[54:33] tax, business tax and everything else

[54:35] is not the same as

[54:36] what you've been presented before.

[54:38] before, a dealer

[54:41] was actually saying, well, the sales

[54:43] tax is dependent upon where the delivery is.

[54:44] that's

[54:47] a very important

[54:49] component. In the world of financing,

[54:50] it depends on

[54:51] where the finance headquarters or

[54:53] offices are. So for

[54:56] example, if you buy

[54:58] a lexus in beverly hills, but you

[54:59] finance it

[55:02] through bmw finance, which is

[55:04] located on wilshirewilshire mid city,

[55:08] you don't get

[55:11] that benefit. Relative to the

[55:14] city manager, you

[55:17] a prove a special permit. Did he really

[55:19] say it was okay toto issue building

[55:20] permits for

[55:21] the interiors? Those were done on

[55:26] november 3rd. As to whether this

[55:29] is out of sync, try maybe 1

[55:32] out of 100. It's not a normal

[55:34] course. And then finally, do you like

[55:35] that

[55:37] mural? If you don't like it, send

[55:38] it back to

[55:39] the planning commission. Thank you.

[55:41] >> thank you very much. >>>

[55:43] because by the way, they were very

[55:44] conflicted when

[55:47] you actually review

[55:49] both the transcript as well as the

[55:50] tape. Thank you.

[55:52] >> thank you for your comments. Well

[55:53] that,

[55:55] the applicant will have one final

[55:56] opportunity for rebuttal if

[55:58] you would lake the take advantage

[55:59] of that. I

[56:02] satisfy them shaking their head

[56:05] no. So before we close the public

[56:08] hearing, I will ask the commissioners if you

[56:09] have

[56:10] any further questions of the applicant

[56:11] as opposed

[56:12] to of state of california seeing none, I

[56:14] will move to close the

[56:17] public hearing now. And move on

[56:20] to commissioner deliberations and/or

[56:23] questions of staff. Mr. Kaplan?

[56:26] would you like to start us off?

[56:29] >> I can make the findings

[56:32] on this.

[56:35] and I think that whether I like the mural or

[56:38] not

[56:41] is sort of irrelevant to me in terms

[56:43] of the decision I make today. It is

[56:44] hard to miss the mural.

[56:47] so from a marketing

[56:49] standpoint, it's probably pretty brilliant.

[56:53] you're getting attention

[56:55] in advance of the time that you'll

[56:56] actually be open open business at

[56:59] this location. So I would

[57:02] make the findings andand vote

[57:04] in support.

[57:05] >> commissioner ross?

[57:06] >> yeah.

[57:07] I can also make the findings and will vote in

[57:08] favor of this

[57:09] project. I really do appreciate mr.

[57:11] mayor,

[57:13] when you come to us. We're always

[57:14] smarter and better off for

[57:17] the input that you provide. The

[57:19] tax issues are important but I think

[57:20] that's for another

[57:23] body and another group to

[57:26] evaluate.

[57:29] the mural is also in the eye of the

[57:32] beholder. For the architectural

[57:34] commission, they still have jurisdiction

[57:35] over

[57:38] that, I believe.

[57:41] but for me, in terms of land

[57:44] use, in terms of economic viability, this

[57:47] is a de sishl

[57:50] tenant with a desirable

[57:52] product at a desirable location. For that

[57:53] reason, I

[57:56] vote in

[57:58] favor.

[57:59] >> commissioner milkowski?

[58:00] >>

[58:02] I look forward to seeing the new models

[58:05] coming out. I think it is beneficial

[58:08] to our state. To our

[58:10] country, to our environment. I can

[58:11] make

[58:14] the findings.

[58:15] >> thank you. I

[58:17] agree with pretty much everything that's

[58:18] said.

[58:20] I want to reiterate and thank

[58:23] mr. Mayor for coming

[58:26] in and his

[58:28] comments point an light on thing that

[58:29] need to be resolved. In terms of

[58:32] the issues raised, I'm at left a confident

[58:33] with the

[58:34] answers I got from staff. While the

[58:35] process may have been unusual,

[58:38] for me my concern was whether it was

[58:39] legal.

[58:41] whether it was approved. Whether

[58:44] someone within the city

[58:46] approved what was taking place and whether or

[58:47] not the applicant

[58:50] was doing something withoutwithout

[58:52] appropriate approval independent of whether or

[58:53] not it was

[58:55] unusual. I thank you for bringing that

[58:56] up. We always

[58:58] appreciate your comments. With almost to

[58:59] the financial

[59:02] piece, I just

[59:05] wanted clarity. I'm perfectly

[59:08] comfortable is that righting

[59:11] this project

[59:14] as designed independent or whether

[59:15] or

[59:17] not the city gets revenue. On these

[59:18] situations,

[59:19] I just like to know what the answer

[59:20] is. With that, I would

[59:23] also be able to make the findings

[59:26] and support this. So with

[59:29] that --

[59:30] >> chair? >> could I say one

[59:31] more thing?

[59:32] >> absolutely. >> I would like to

[59:33] acknowledge

[59:35] the applicant and thank you for playing

[59:38] by the rules. Coming to the

[59:41] city for a special

[59:44] event permit as on opposed

[59:46] to just showing up and doing what

[59:47] you want to do. Thank you.

[59:50] I hope you set an example for others.

[59:53] >> thank you, commissioner kaplan.

[59:54] I agree with

[59:56] that. That was what I was mostly concerned

[59:59] about

[1:00:00] and I was happy to hear that everything

[1:00:02] was done by the book. With that, I

[1:00:06] will entertain a

[1:00:07] motion.

[1:00:08] >> I would like to make a

[1:00:09] motion

[1:00:11] to approve a resolution of the planning

[1:00:12] commission of the

[1:00:14] city of beverly hills, conditionally

[1:00:15] approving a

[1:00:16] conditional use permit to allow a

[1:00:18] vehicle sale use

[1:00:21] to occupy a ground floor tenant

[1:00:23] space within an existing multiten

[1:00:24] an

[1:00:27] building on the property located

[1:00:30] at

[1:00:32] 499 north canon drive. As amended.

[1:00:33] >> second.

[1:00:36] >> will you call the

[1:00:39] roll?

[1:00:40] >> commissioner kaplan?

[1:00:41] >> commissioner ross? Chair wolfe?

[1:00:45] >> yes. >>> I believe there is

[1:00:47] a --

[1:00:48] >> one second. I believe there

[1:00:49] is a city

[1:00:50] attorney statement? We don't want

[1:00:51] to preempt the city

[1:00:54] attorney.

[1:00:55] >> thank you, chair wolfe.

[1:00:57] this is a

[1:00:59] final. The city clerk office has the

[1:01:02] appeals form and an appeals fee will be required.

[1:01:03] >> thank you.

[1:01:09] >> okay.

[1:01:15] so before we get

[1:01:18] into the next item, some of

[1:01:20] the commissioners have some statements

[1:01:21] to make

[1:01:24] and we will begin with commissioner

[1:01:27] kaplan.

[1:01:28] >> I have

[1:01:30] an interest in real property

[1:01:33] located at knee 50 wilshire

[1:01:34] boulevard, suite 402, which is less

[1:01:36] than one quarter mile

[1:01:39] from the metro d line rail

[1:01:42] station at

[1:01:44] wilshire boulevard. And directly impacted

[1:01:45] by sb 79.

[1:01:48] this matter has the potential to impact

[1:01:51] the rental value of the property and to

[1:01:53] change the actual or legally allowed

[1:01:54] uses

[1:01:56] of the property. In addition, I also

[1:01:57] have

[1:01:59] a financial interest in real property

[1:02:00] located

[1:02:03] at 136 el camino drive which is less

[1:02:05] than one quarter mile from the metro

[1:02:06] d

[1:02:09] line rail station at wilshire

[1:02:11] boulevard. And is also directly impacted by

[1:02:15] sb 79.

[1:02:17] due to these direct impacts, I will

[1:02:18] need

[1:02:20] to recuse from the discussion on this

[1:02:21] matter.

[1:02:23] >> thank you, commissioner kaplan.

[1:02:24] >> I

[1:02:25] have a statement that I would like

[1:02:27] to read. I have a financial interest

[1:02:28] in

[1:02:30] real property located 234 south tower

[1:02:32] drive, unit number 10, which is less

[1:02:33] than one quarter mile

[1:02:36] from the metro d line railrail at

[1:02:37] wilshire

[1:02:39] and la cienega boulevard. And is directly

[1:02:40] magtd

[1:02:42] by sb 79. In addition, my primary

[1:02:44] residence is located less than one

[1:02:45] quarter mile from

[1:02:48] the metro d line rail station.

[1:02:51] and is also directly impacted by sb

[1:02:52] 79.

[1:02:54] due to these direct

[1:02:57] impacts,

[1:03:03] I will need to recuse on discussions in

[1:03:06] this matter. Thank

[1:03:09] you. In commissioner

[1:03:12] demeter's absent, I will discuss her

[1:03:13] conflicts.

[1:03:14] her primary residence is located more

[1:03:15] than 500 but

[1:03:18] less than 1,000 feet from

[1:03:20] properties directly impacts by sb

[1:03:21] 79.

[1:03:24] these markts impacted properties are

[1:03:27] within one quarter mile

[1:03:33] at wish wilshire boulevard.

[1:03:36] it could market

[1:03:39] her real properties' development

[1:03:42] potential, highest andand

[1:03:45] use, altering traffic level, intense

[1:03:46] at this of

[1:03:48] use, privacy, noise level or air

[1:03:50] quality or market value. Commissioner demeter

[1:03:51] has

[1:03:53] determined that any of the proposed

[1:03:54] sb

[1:03:56] 79 alternative plans do have the potential

[1:03:57] to

[1:04:00] impact the

[1:04:05] income-producing income. It could

[1:04:06] crease the

[1:04:08] intensity of use and increase for

[1:04:09] marking in the area.

[1:04:11] she believes any of the alternative

[1:04:12] plans could impact the market

[1:04:14] value of her property. Due to these

[1:04:17] stated factors, commissioner demeter

[1:04:19] will also recuse from the discussion of

[1:04:21] this matter.

[1:04:27] >> at this time, the city attorney, mr.

[1:04:30] snow, will sort of describe the process

[1:04:31] that we're going to have to go through at

[1:04:33] this time.

[1:04:34] >> for those

[1:04:35] keeping track of the math, we do not

[1:04:36] have a

[1:04:39] quorum for this matter in light of

[1:04:40] the

[1:04:42] conflicts. The fair political

[1:04:44] practicespractices has articulated some

[1:04:45] rules on what

[1:04:48] can happen in this circumstance. It is

[1:04:50] called legally required participation.

[1:04:51] and that is

[1:04:54] when there is no other alternative

[1:04:57] wayway a decision can be made without

[1:05:00] the involvement of an

[1:05:02] otherwise conflicted official. In

[1:05:03] this

[1:05:06] case, we've met that

[1:05:09] criteria as it goes with the planning commission.

[1:05:11] making recommendations to the city council

[1:05:12] as to general plan

[1:05:15] amendments and zoning map and

[1:05:18] text amendments. There is no

[1:05:21] other agency who is able to fulfill

[1:05:22] that

[1:05:24] function. Since there is no other

[1:05:25] way

[1:05:27] to

[1:05:30] accomplish that, in this circumstance, with

[1:05:31] a we

[1:05:33] will do is have a random

[1:05:36] selection process. One of the three

[1:05:38] commissioners will be selected to

[1:05:39] participate in the proceedings.

[1:05:42] obviously, if it is either chair

[1:05:45] wolfe or commissioner kaplan, we would proceed

[1:05:48] today. If it is commissioner demeter,

[1:05:50] the meeting would be continued to

[1:05:51] allow her participation on

[1:05:54] the matter. At this point, it looks

[1:05:55] like that would

[1:05:58] be 9:00 on monday morning. So

[1:06:01] with that, I'll turn it

[1:06:02] over to miss minor who will describe

[1:06:04] the

[1:06:07] random selection process

[1:06:08] and conduct those proceedings.

[1:06:09] >> thank

[1:06:10] you. We have

[1:06:12] three straws that look identical except for

[1:06:13] the length.

[1:06:15] so what will happen is I will take

[1:06:16] these

[1:06:19] straws to the dais. Chair

[1:06:20] wolfe, and commissioner kaplan will each draw

[1:06:24] a straw. The length will be concealed.

[1:06:28] the remaining straw will

[1:06:31] be considered commissioner

[1:06:32] demeter's straw. We will lay them out so we can

[1:06:34] see who picked the longest

[1:06:35] straw. That is the person who will

[1:06:37] participate in the discussion.

[1:07:31] I'm not sure if you can see on the camera.

[1:07:34] this is chair wolfe's.

[1:07:36] commissioner wolfe will be the one to

[1:07:37] participate in thethe

[1:07:40] discussion. Oh. There were

[1:07:41] three different lengths. Whichever is the

[1:07:42] longest is the one who participates.

[1:07:43] so that's you.

[1:07:49] >> all right then. Lovely.

[1:08:58] all right. I'll give us

[1:09:01] a minute or two for

[1:09:03] our recused commissioner to say goodbye.

[1:09:07] and the others to come back.

[1:09:30] okay then. Moving on to our next item.

[1:09:31] a general

[1:09:34] plan amendment and zone change to amen the

[1:09:35] land

[1:09:36] use map and zoning map and a draft

[1:09:37] ordinance of the city of beverly hills

[1:09:40] amenning various

[1:09:42] sections of the beverly hills municipal

[1:09:43] code to

[1:09:46] document an alternative plan pursuant

[1:09:47] to

[1:09:49] senate bill 79. Government

[1:09:52] code section

[1:09:55] 65192. 161 a. I

[1:09:58] will first ask my remaining fellow

[1:10:01] commissioners if anyone has any ex

[1:10:03] parte communication.

[1:10:04] >> nor have I.

[1:10:05] may we have

[1:10:06] a staff report?

[1:10:07] >> yes. Thank you.

[1:10:08] and good

[1:10:09] afternoon, commissioners. This item is

[1:10:10] a

[1:10:13] review of aa transit oriented development

[1:10:14] alternative plan per sb 79.

[1:10:19] sb 79 is a state law that

[1:10:21] was recently adopted in october of

[1:10:24] this year and becomes effective in

[1:10:25] july of next

[1:10:28] year. And it mandates

[1:10:30] increased density, floor area, and

[1:10:31] height

[1:10:34] on

[1:10:40] cels. The bill does not apply to parcels

[1:10:41] with

[1:10:43] rent stabilized units. And there are

[1:10:45] different zoning regulations set for

[1:10:46] various distances from

[1:10:49] transit and by the time of transit

[1:10:50] stop known

[1:10:52] as tiers. The tier 1 standards for

[1:10:55] the quarter mile apply to the

[1:10:58] radius, the quarter-mile radius

[1:11:00] from following metro stations which

[1:11:03] are coughed as tier 11 metro stops.

[1:11:07] they are at la cienega and

[1:11:10] wilshire boulevard, reaves drive and wilshire

[1:11:13] boulevard, and constellation

[1:11:15] boulevard and avenue of the stars.

[1:11:16] the last one is

[1:11:19] in century city in

[1:11:21] the city of los angeles. There are also

[1:11:22] tier 1 standards

[1:11:24] for the quarter to half mile radius.

[1:11:25] however, these only apply

[1:11:28] to cities with populations of 35,000

[1:11:29] or

[1:11:31] more and so they do not apply to the

[1:11:32] city

[1:11:33] of beverly hills. However, the half

[1:11:34] mail radius is

[1:11:37] considered the transit oriented development

[1:11:39] zone and therefore, it is eligible

[1:11:40] for use within the alternative

[1:11:43] plan as confirmed. And then there

[1:11:45] are tier 2 standards also in the state

[1:11:46] law

[1:11:48] that do not apply to beverly hills as

[1:11:49] we do not

[1:11:52] have any tier 2 stops within the city.

[1:11:55] and staff has repaired a map

[1:11:57] showing the quarter mile radius from

[1:11:58] the

[1:12:00] transit stops and it is measured in

[1:12:01] a straight line distance

[1:12:04] from the pedestrian access point on

[1:12:05] those stops

[1:12:07] per state law. However, the state

[1:12:08] law

[1:12:11] also says that scag,

[1:12:12] the metropolitan planning organization,

[1:12:14] that includes

[1:12:16] the city of beverly hills, is required

[1:12:19] to produce the official map and we've been

[1:12:20] following

[1:12:22] up to ensure our map is consistent

[1:12:23] with the map that they will eventually produce.

[1:12:29] shown here in

[1:12:32] this table are the new zoning

[1:12:34] regulations that would apply to the

[1:12:38] quarter mile radii.

[1:12:41] it super seedsseeds

[1:12:42] zoning regulations. It sets a knew

[1:12:44] minimum density

[1:12:46] of 30 dwelling units per acre. We must

[1:12:47] also allow

[1:12:49] at least 120 dwelling units per acre.

[1:12:53] a new florida area ratio of 3.5.

[1:12:56] at least 75 feet

[1:12:59] of height. And there must be a maximum

[1:13:00] average unit size in the projects of 1750 square feet.

[1:13:05] and then

[1:13:08] the state lawlaw allows sites within

[1:13:10] 200 feet of the transit stops to get

[1:13:13] an additional 20 feet in height for

[1:13:14] a total

[1:13:16] of 95 feet, an additional 40 dwelling

[1:13:17] units

[1:13:20] per acre for a total of 160

[1:13:23] dwelling units per acre density.

[1:13:26] and an additional

[1:13:29] increase of 1 far. It would be a total

[1:13:32] of 4. 5 far. And shown

[1:13:34] here are all three radii from sb 79.

[1:13:38] there is the 200 foot radius

[1:13:41] with the increase

[1:13:43] density. And then the quarter mile

[1:13:44] radius showing

[1:13:46] with the green dash line, and then

[1:13:47] the

[1:13:49] larger outer circle which is the entire

[1:13:50] half

[1:13:52] mile radius. Just as a note, there

[1:13:53] are

[1:13:55] no parcels in the quarter mile from

[1:13:56] the

[1:13:59] century city station that are

[1:14:02] upzoned for

[1:14:05] sb 79. In order for a

[1:14:08] project to utilize sb 79

[1:14:11] regulations, it must neat following

[1:14:13] criteria. It must have at least five

[1:14:14] dwelling

[1:14:17] units, ago minimum 30 dwelling units

[1:14:19] per acre. And it must be residential

[1:14:20] only.

[1:14:23] two-thirds residential, or half

[1:14:26] residential and a minimum of 500

[1:14:29] net new units, or it can be

[1:14:32] farm worker or transitional or

[1:14:35] support housing. It

[1:14:38] may not include hotels,

[1:14:41] motels, bed and breakfast or

[1:14:44] transient lodging. The

[1:14:46] project must provide affordable units

[1:14:47] at one of

[1:14:49] the following percentages. Either

[1:14:50] 7%, extremely

[1:14:53] low, 10% very low, or 13% low

[1:14:55] income. And then if the project is

[1:14:56] greater than

[1:14:59] 85 feet in height, it must

[1:15:02] also meet labor standards set

[1:15:05] in state law.

[1:15:08] in addition, an sb 79

[1:15:10] project may utilize the bonus if it

[1:15:11] qualifies.

[1:15:14] if it has more than ten units,

[1:15:17] it is automatically eligible

[1:15:20] based on

[1:15:23] the affordability

[1:15:24] requirement. It would be considered the new

[1:15:26] base density for purposes of

[1:15:29] the density bonus calculation. However, the city is

[1:15:30] not

[1:15:32] required to approve a waiver

[1:15:34] for additional height above what is

[1:15:35] already granted

[1:15:38] by sb 79. And projects with at least

[1:15:40] 90 dwelling units per acre are also

[1:15:41] eligible

[1:15:44] for additional concessions based on

[1:15:47] the time of low income housing they

[1:15:48] provide.

[1:15:50] as

[1:15:53] shown in the chart. So sb 79 does

[1:15:56] not require that

[1:15:58] the project's proposed under the state

[1:15:59] law

[1:16:02] are ministerial. They

[1:16:04] will still require that it is approved

[1:16:05] and

[1:16:07] reviewed. Most likely this would be

[1:16:08] a planning review

[1:16:11] and a density

[1:16:14] bonus request. If state

[1:16:17] law ministerial

[1:16:19] streamlining applies, it may require that

[1:16:20] processing.

[1:16:23] the state law states that denial of

[1:16:24] the project would be considered a

[1:16:25] violation of the housing accountability act.

[1:16:32] sb 79 also allows cities to

[1:16:35] adopt what is called a

[1:16:36] transit-oriented development alternative

[1:16:38] plan, or alternative plan.

[1:16:41] and will this allows the

[1:16:44] cities

[1:16:47] to applyapply plan. The

[1:16:49] plan allows cities to reallocate up

[1:16:50] to 50% of the

[1:16:53] density of a satan within the applicable

[1:16:54] quarter

[1:16:55] mail radius to other sites within

[1:16:56] the entire

[1:16:59] half mile radius, as long as it

[1:17:02] meets these conditions, it must

[1:17:05] maintain the same net zoned capacity for

[1:17:06] total

[1:17:08] units and floor area

[1:17:11] across the zones. It may not

[1:17:13] reduce density on any site by more than

[1:17:14] 50%. And there

[1:17:17] is a maximum calculation of

[1:17:20] 200 density for

[1:17:23] any individual site. And staff

[1:17:26] has repaired three

[1:17:29] different alternative plan scenarios.

[1:17:31] from single family sites within the quarter

[1:17:32] mail radius,

[1:17:35] known as our export sites. It

[1:17:38] reallocates

[1:17:41] that to mixed use sites within the

[1:17:44] quarter mile or half mile radius.

[1:17:46] each scenario distributes it in different ways

[1:17:47] but no

[1:17:49] scenario distributes any density to

[1:17:50] the century

[1:17:53] city station radius. And

[1:17:56] this is because mixed use sites have

[1:17:57] already been

[1:17:58] identified as areas for additional

[1:17:59] density and housing.

[1:18:02] so in compliance with state law,

[1:18:05] the scenarios maintain the zoning

[1:18:08] capacity of 17,548 units, depending

[1:18:10] on the scenario, either the quarter or

[1:18:11] the half

[1:18:13] mile. It maintains the net floor area.

[1:18:17] so even though the

[1:18:20] far on single family sites has been

[1:18:23] reduced, all others

[1:18:26] are a positive increase. And they

[1:18:27] all

[1:18:29] allow at least 75 feet of height

[1:18:32] on the import sites, onner 95 feet

[1:18:35] for

[1:18:38] the adjacent

[1:18:41] intensifier. And staff has created

[1:18:43] these scenarios within an overlay

[1:18:44] zone. And in addition to

[1:18:47] that, it will add other

[1:18:48] provisions and modifications to the code.

[1:18:53] so in each alternative

[1:18:55] plan, there are three different sub

[1:18:57] areas. And the

[1:18:58] density for those sub areas are shown

[1:19:00] here. They

[1:19:02] remain constant across the different

[1:19:06] scenarios. Area a is the

[1:19:09] area that is

[1:19:12] upzoned in the quarter

[1:19:13] mile radius and is not involved in

[1:19:15] the

[1:19:18] import/export activity.

[1:19:21] area b is single

[1:19:24] family export sites. It has

[1:19:26] been reduced to 50% density. And area

[1:19:30] c are within the 200 foot

[1:19:33] radius and only upzoned. They're

[1:19:34] not involved in the import/export activity.

[1:19:39] and

[1:19:41] then our first scenario is the pancake

[1:19:42] scenario. And we're

[1:19:43] calling it the pancake scenario because

[1:19:45] it

[1:19:46] distributes the units evenly across

[1:19:48] the

[1:19:50] entire half mile radius from both

[1:19:51] stations. So

[1:19:54] it creates three new sub areas

[1:19:57] where there are import sites in the

[1:19:59] mixed use overlay zone. Area d are

[1:20:00] within

[1:20:03] the 200-foot radius. Not

[1:20:05] adjacent to single family. Area e

[1:20:06] are

[1:20:08] from the 200 to the quarter mile radius.

[1:20:09] also

[1:20:10] not adjacent to the single family.

[1:20:12] and

[1:20:14] area f, from the quarter to the half

[1:20:15] mile,

[1:20:17] not adjacent to single family. And

[1:20:18] the new

[1:20:20] dense business that would accommodate

[1:20:21] the

[1:20:22] distributed units are shown in the blue chart here.

[1:20:30] and these maps show

[1:20:33] an overview

[1:20:34] of the distribution in a simplified

[1:20:36] way. The light green are

[1:20:39] the base sb 79 sites that are upzoenld

[1:20:42] but they are not importing or

[1:20:44] exporting density. The teal sites

[1:20:45] are the

[1:20:48] single family export sites

[1:20:51] where we are

[1:20:53] removing density. And the pink are in

[1:20:54] the mixed

[1:20:56] use overlay zone which are receiving

[1:20:57] density. And

[1:20:59] as you can see here, this scenario

[1:21:02] has the pink sites extend into the

[1:21:03] quarter mile. Which is

[1:21:06] the only scenario that has that condition.

[1:21:09] and the density on the

[1:21:12] pink import sites ranges

[1:21:15] from 121 to 202 dwelling units

[1:21:18] per acre. And then this map

[1:21:20] shows a little more detail with each of

[1:21:21] the

[1:21:24] new areas created. D, e, and f. And

[1:21:26] they're shown in the light, medium,

[1:21:27] and

[1:21:30] dark blue around the

[1:21:33] stations.

[1:21:36] the second

[1:21:39] scenario is the tent pole scenario.

[1:21:40] this maximizes distribution in the 200 foot

[1:21:42] and the quarter mile radius

[1:21:45] from both stations.

[1:21:48] there are

[1:21:50] there is a sharper density. There are

[1:21:51] two areas

[1:21:53] created with this scenario. Area d,

[1:21:57] within the 200 foot

[1:22:00] radius, not ajason ento single family.

[1:22:03] and area e, 200 foot to quarter

[1:22:06] mile, not adjacent to

[1:22:09] single family. And as you can

[1:22:12] see here, the import sites

[1:22:13] are concentrated around the stations.

[1:22:15] it

[1:22:18] does not extend into the outer ring.

[1:22:21] the quarter mail to thethe mile radius.

[1:22:24] the density ranges from the import sites

[1:22:27] from 165 to 320 dwelling units

[1:22:30] per acre in this scenario.

[1:22:33] and

[1:22:36] then this map shows more detail with

[1:22:37] the specific

[1:22:39] areas, d and e, shown around the

[1:22:42] stations.

[1:22:45] and finally, our

[1:22:48] scenario 3 is the la cienega focused

[1:22:49] scenario

[1:22:50] which maximizes the distribution of units in

[1:22:51] the

[1:22:54] 200 andand mile radius around only

[1:22:57] the la cienega subway station. That's

[1:23:00] because the majority of single family

[1:23:02] sites from whichwhich there units

[1:23:05] being exported are located around

[1:23:06] the la

[1:23:09] cienega station. So this

[1:23:10] concentrates the units in that area.

[1:23:12] and it creates two additional sub

[1:23:15] areas. Area d are the mix use sites

[1:23:18] within the 200 foot,

[1:23:21] not adjacent to single family, and

[1:23:22] area

[1:23:24] e, from the 200 to quarter mail area

[1:23:27] from the la

[1:23:30] cienega station, not adjacent to single

[1:23:31] family. The they are shown in the

[1:23:33] blue chart. And in the

[1:23:35] overview, you can see that there are

[1:23:36] only

[1:23:38] pink import sites around the la cienega

[1:23:39] station.

[1:23:42] and the densities here range from

[1:23:45] 230 to 320 dwellingdwelling

[1:23:48] per acre. And

[1:23:51] again, the more specific map, and you

[1:23:52] can see

[1:23:54] that only the area d and e shown in

[1:23:55] light

[1:23:57] and dark blue are around the la cienega station.

[1:25:07] see that complies.

[1:25:09] this was noticed in compliance with

[1:25:10] all

[1:25:12] requirements and an email to all interested

[1:25:13] parties was

[1:25:15] sent. And there were several comments

[1:25:16] received that have

[1:25:17] been circulated to the commission.

[1:25:19] and with that, staff

[1:25:20] recommends that the commission adopt

[1:25:22] a resolution

[1:25:25] recommending the

[1:25:27] general plan amendment to create the

[1:25:28] alternative

[1:25:31] plan and find

[1:25:34] it exempt from

[1:25:37] ceqa.

[1:25:40] specifically to prepare

[1:25:43] updated land use maps and

[1:25:45] zoning maps based on scenario 1, 2,

[1:25:46] and 3.

[1:25:49] >> thank you for that

[1:25:50] staff report. I'll now open the public

[1:25:52] hearing.

[1:25:55] each member of the public will

[1:25:58] have three minutes to

[1:26:01] speak. And public comment will

[1:26:03] be closed before the commission begins

[1:26:04] deliberations.

[1:26:06] those wishing to provide comment should

[1:26:07] do so

[1:26:08] now. I'm looking around. I don't have

[1:26:10] any cards. Is there

[1:26:12] anyone in the room who wishes to provide

[1:26:13] public

[1:26:15] comment on this item? Seeing none, I

[1:26:19] will move to ask karen

[1:26:22] if we have any public comment via

[1:26:25] phone, video or email?

[1:26:27] >> yes. We will start with phone comment.

[1:26:28] we have a

[1:26:30] call from kenneth. Please go ahead.

[1:26:40] >> can you

[1:26:42] hear me?

[1:26:43] >> yes. Please go ahead.

[1:26:44] >> can you hear

[1:26:46] me now? My name is ken.

[1:26:49] I live at 731 shoe

[1:26:52] maker drive which

[1:26:54] is part of, I'm literally over the fence from

[1:26:55] the

[1:26:57] east side of tower drive. And I'm

[1:27:00] calling in as just an individual neighbor, of

[1:27:01] course. There is

[1:27:04] a lot to consume here

[1:27:05] and understand with all the rules

[1:27:07] and regulations. Profoundly what

[1:27:09] I'm asking is two things. Number one, that

[1:27:12] you don't grant an exemption under

[1:27:13] ceqa.

[1:27:15] we are, and most of you probably know

[1:27:16] the

[1:27:19] story and history.

[1:27:21] we're on the national registry, et cetera.

[1:27:25] the other thing is I noticed just now as

[1:27:27] I'm getting educated with this, that

[1:27:28] each.

[1:27:31] these plans include an

[1:27:33] exemption that, the three scenarios,

[1:27:34] they're

[1:27:36] not adjacent to single families. The

[1:27:37] east side of tower drive

[1:27:40] is immediately adjacent. It is

[1:27:42] over the fence. I've lived here since

[1:27:43] 1976. I have

[1:27:45] a number of new neighbors that have

[1:27:46] children, et

[1:27:48] cetera. And the impacts will be more

[1:27:49] than substantial.

[1:27:52] as I'm reading right now about ceqa

[1:27:55] in particular,

[1:27:58] notably, that indirect impacts on

[1:28:01] adjacent properties are profoundly

[1:28:03] protected under ceqa considerations.

[1:28:05] even if you choose to exempt ceqa

[1:28:07] from this,

[1:28:08] which I think would be inappropriate, I

[1:28:10] think that

[1:28:12] the very fact that you've chosen to

[1:28:13] exclude in every

[1:28:16] one of your

[1:28:18] scenarios, single-family dwelgs, should

[1:28:19] give the

[1:28:21] people that same consideration on

[1:28:25] schumaker drive. What I would

[1:28:26] request is thatthat looking at plan, that

[1:28:28] you exclude the east side of

[1:28:31] tower drive which is immediately, it

[1:28:34] is in our back yards. It is

[1:28:37] literally in our back yards.

[1:28:40] if ceqa is

[1:28:43] inapplicable,

[1:28:46] it basically says that examples

[1:28:49] of indirect impacts include visual,

[1:28:51] auditory, atmospheric changes to immediate

[1:28:52] surroundings of

[1:28:55] an historical resource from

[1:28:58] construction. This the resource impact

[1:29:00] analysis may overlap with the aesthetic

[1:29:01] and

[1:29:04] noise vibration analysis. I

[1:29:07] plead with you to think of us

[1:29:09] asalize. Spend years working through

[1:29:10] with

[1:29:13] the beverly hills soccer and

[1:29:15] baseball, la cienega park. We have

[1:29:16] already incursions

[1:29:19] from traffic

[1:29:20] and from people people for parking.

[1:29:22] and parking in

[1:29:24] our neighborhood, so the more immediate

[1:29:27] thing, of course, is over the fence

[1:29:28] looking up at a

[1:29:31] 75-foot or so building. All the

[1:29:34] impacts of the noise and he

[1:29:37] esthetics are horrifying. Thank you for

[1:29:38] your

[1:29:40] consideration.

[1:29:41] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:29:42] >> okay. We have no additional phone

[1:29:43] comments.

[1:29:45] no video comments. But we have a few

[1:29:46] written comments. I will go

[1:29:49] ahead and read those. I will apologize

[1:29:50] in

[1:29:51] advance if I mispronounce any names.

[1:29:52] and

[1:29:55] if any letters go beyond the three minutes, I

[1:29:56] will

[1:29:58] just read as far as I can. But the

[1:30:00] entirety of the letters will remain part of

[1:30:01] the record.

[1:30:04] the first letter

[1:30:07] comes from --

[1:30:10] hi. I live on north maple drive.

[1:30:13] I strongly urge you to consider scenario three

[1:30:15] and appreciate your consideration.

[1:30:16] earn

[1:30:19] thety plan scenario three reallocation

[1:30:20] of

[1:30:21] decreased residential density within one

[1:30:22] quarter mail

[1:30:25] of metro stations to mixed use

[1:30:28] properties be adjacent, within one

[1:30:31] quarter mile of the

[1:30:34] la cienega wilshire stop.

[1:30:38] within 200 feet.

[1:30:41] thanks. The next letter come

[1:30:44] from derian. Many thanks to the

[1:30:47] planning department people

[1:30:48] for their prompt and time-consuming work

[1:30:50] on this project.

[1:30:52] I think it is important to place increased

[1:30:53] density in as small

[1:30:56] an area as possible. Therefore I

[1:30:58] favor alternative plans 3 and 2. I think 3 is

[1:30:59] a

[1:31:02] better idea for several reasons.

[1:31:04] one, most of the area near the metro

[1:31:08] stop is in los angeles.

[1:31:11] two, it seems it would fit better

[1:31:14] at wilshire and la cienega.

[1:31:16] three, residents of new projects will have access

[1:31:17] to la cienega

[1:31:19] park. Four, residents of new projects

[1:31:20] will

[1:31:21] have better access to the freeway.

[1:31:25] however, I am concerned about residential having a

[1:31:26] hate

[1:31:28] limit of 75 feet with increased density

[1:31:31] limited to 50%. Then shouldn't the

[1:31:33] height limit be decreased to half

[1:31:35] of 75 feet or

[1:31:38] 38 feet or maybe 45 feet or

[1:31:41] three stories? I think this would

[1:31:42] especially important for such residential

[1:31:44] properties which

[1:31:47] are adjacent to

[1:31:50] other one or two-story

[1:31:51] single family residences which are

[1:31:53] not being upzoned. Thanks to

[1:31:55] everyone for their time. Before I read the

[1:31:56] next letter,

[1:31:58] I'm going to ask the zoom managers

[1:31:59] to

[1:32:00] please make sure everyone is muted so we

[1:32:04] can hear the public comments. The

[1:32:05] next

[1:32:08] is from lee

[1:32:11] pasterknack to the commissioners.

[1:32:14] >> I already spoke. >> did you? >>

[1:32:17] the zoom is not muted. The next

[1:32:20] letter come from lee

[1:32:23] pasterknack to the planning commissioners.

[1:32:25] my preference would be the third plan because

[1:32:26] the wilshire

[1:32:28] and la cienega area is closer to los

[1:32:29] angeles and the quarter mile

[1:32:32] around the metro stop.

[1:32:34] there is largely in los angeles. Also, there

[1:32:35] is better approximate

[1:32:38] it to the freeway as well as san vincente

[1:32:39] and

[1:32:40] there will be less gridlock to get

[1:32:41] to those

[1:32:43] places. Residents of the new projects

[1:32:44] would have

[1:32:47] better access to la

[1:32:48] cienega park. The area around wilshire

[1:32:50] and la cienega seems denser and

[1:32:53] more compatible. The my

[1:32:54] second choice would be alternative

[1:32:56] two. Both 3 and 2

[1:32:58] restrict density to smaller areas in

[1:32:59] the city.

[1:33:02] regards, lee pasterknack.

[1:33:04] the next letter comes from sarah wilin.

[1:33:05] in the

[1:33:08] unlikely event that beverly

[1:33:09] hills might remain a loverly place to

[1:33:11] live as compared to say

[1:33:13] shop, I urge the commission to document plan b

[1:33:14] or

[1:33:16] better yet, an alternative plan calling

[1:33:17] for the

[1:33:20] reallocation of decreased residential

[1:33:23] density within one quarter mile of

[1:33:24] metrometro

[1:33:25] stations to mixed use properties.

[1:33:28] not adjacent to mixed use residents

[1:33:29] within one quarter

[1:33:32] mail of the metro stop and

[1:33:35] within 200 feet. Between the state

[1:33:38] and the city

[1:33:41] council, 32,000 beverly hills are being ronald of

[1:33:44] a residential community which favors

[1:33:45] their interest.

[1:33:47] but here's for trying. Thanks.

[1:33:49] the next letter comes from arnold

[1:33:50] rosenstein.

[1:33:53] this was

[1:33:56] sent. We own

[1:33:58] the proper at niemi 99 wilshire directly

[1:33:59] across

[1:34:02] the street from wilshire and reaves.

[1:34:04] as we measure our property, we are

[1:34:05] about 240 feet from

[1:34:07] the metro site. Slightly more than

[1:34:08] 200

[1:34:10] feet specified in sb 79. In addition,

[1:34:11] our property is not

[1:34:14] in the mixed use overlay don't previously documented

[1:34:17] by the city. Nevertheless, we are, since we

[1:34:20] are so close to the new metro

[1:34:22] station, we think it makes sense for our property to

[1:34:25] qualify for additional density. We

[1:34:26] would appreciate it

[1:34:27] if could you raise this question for

[1:34:29] consideration. Thank you.

[1:34:32] the

[1:34:35] next letter

[1:34:38] comes from we will shire skyline.

[1:34:39] we

[1:34:41] urge the city to reconsider

[1:34:43] its current development alternative

[1:34:44] plan as drafted it

[1:34:47] is very unlikely to be approved by

[1:34:48] hcd

[1:34:50] and risks repeating the same mistakes

[1:34:51] the city

[1:34:53] made with a mixed use. Mistakes

[1:34:56] that previously

[1:34:59] caused hcd. It allows

[1:35:03] an earn thety plan only if

[1:35:06] it creates the same realistic

[1:35:08] increase in zone capacity that sb 79

[1:35:12] itself would proceed.

[1:35:14] but the city moving it out and on

[1:35:15] to

[1:35:18] already difficult-

[1:35:20] out parcels that have little chance

[1:35:21] of

[1:35:24] redevelopment. They will not

[1:35:27] count it as

[1:35:30] real. The draft plan does almost

[1:35:33] nothing to

[1:35:36] upzone multifamily areas.

[1:35:37] exactly where state law expects meaningful

[1:35:39] change. We have

[1:35:42] seen this before when the city revised

[1:35:44] the mixed use overlay density rules,

[1:35:45] it looked

[1:35:46] acceptable on paper but produced no

[1:35:48] real housing capacity and

[1:35:50] chd rejected it. The current plan

[1:35:54] repeats that pattern,

[1:35:55] relying on spread sheets while avoiding

[1:35:57] the area where it must

[1:35:59] be created. If the city wants an alternative

[1:36:00] plan that will

[1:36:02] be certain fade, it must shift real

[1:36:06] feasible density. Some from

[1:36:09] single-family zones. Not rely

[1:36:12] on theoretical

[1:36:15] capacity and built

[1:36:18] out corridors. We attach a

[1:36:20] memo seeking to help the city achieve

[1:36:21] these goals.

[1:36:22] we remain available at your disposal

[1:36:24] to assist the

[1:36:26] city and realize it planning goals.

[1:36:27] thank you for your

[1:36:30] consideration. The attachment, it's

[1:36:32] addressed to the commission, come from

[1:36:33] the beverly

[1:36:36] hills initiative for research

[1:36:39] and development. This is

[1:36:42] part of the same

[1:36:43] comment. We should only have about a

[1:36:44] minute on the clock. This urges the

[1:36:45] city to reconsider its

[1:36:48] current approach to the sb

[1:36:51] 79 transit plan as presently

[1:36:53] framed in the staff report and materials,

[1:36:54] the

[1:36:56] alternative plan appears unlikely to be

[1:36:57] approved by the

[1:36:59] california department of housing and

[1:37:00] community development.

[1:37:03] hcd. And risks repeating the same

[1:37:06] problem that led hcd to question

[1:37:09] the credibility. Mixed use

[1:37:12] overlay zone in the

[1:37:15] last cycle. To

[1:37:18] avoid litigation risk and remedy exposure,

[1:37:21] the city should pivot to

[1:37:24] a more realistic

[1:37:27] strategy,

[1:37:30] mag into multi-family. That just relabeling

[1:37:33] already

[1:37:34] builtout commercial corridors. Legal

[1:37:36] framework

[1:37:38] establishes powerful default for transit

[1:37:39] oriented

[1:37:41] housing including minimum heights,

[1:37:42] densities

[1:37:44] and tier 1 and tier 2 transit stops.

[1:37:48] a city may deviate only if it

[1:37:50] documents a local transit oriented

[1:37:52] development alternative plan that

[1:37:54] one, is approved by

[1:37:57] hcd before july 1st, 2026, and

[1:37:59] two, maintains at least the same total

[1:38:00] increase

[1:38:02] in zoned capacity in terms of both

[1:38:03] total units

[1:38:05] and residential floor area, as provided

[1:38:06] by

[1:38:09] sb 79 crass all

[1:38:15] signs.

[1:38:17] it will remain part of the written record.

[1:38:20] I'll do one last check to make sure we

[1:38:21] don't have

[1:38:24] any other

[1:38:27] comments.

[1:38:36] it looks like that concludes the

[1:38:38] public comments.

[1:38:39] >> thank you. At

[1:38:40] this

[1:38:41] point we will move to commissioner questions of staff.

[1:38:45] commissioner ross, would you

[1:38:48] like to start? Let me

[1:38:49] rephrase that. Commissioner ross,

[1:38:51] kick us off, please.

[1:38:54] >>

[1:38:57] yeah. I've honestly spent the last

[1:38:58] week or so

[1:38:59] trying to understand this and you

[1:39:00] did a great job presenting it to us.

[1:39:03] within various scenarios, and

[1:39:06] alternatives and tiers, it is

[1:39:08] really complicated. And I'm not sure

[1:39:09] I'm in a

[1:39:12] position to really make an

[1:39:13] intelligent decision yet. So I have a number of

[1:39:15] questions and I hope

[1:39:18] I get therethere in meeting.

[1:39:21] just as a

[1:39:24] preliminary matter, I'm looking at

[1:39:27] the very first map we have. The

[1:39:30] draft sb

[1:39:33] 79 base zone map.

[1:39:36] as a preliminary matter, you

[1:39:39] have, excluding

[1:39:42] century

[1:39:45] city, I think up something about, there

[1:39:46] is

[1:39:48] been a finding

[1:39:51] relative to the century city that

[1:39:52] it does

[1:39:54] not impact any properties in

[1:39:55] beverly hills? Something up about

[1:39:57] that. Can you repeat that?

[1:39:58] >> sure.

[1:40:00] you can see with the map

[1:40:03] shown on the screen, the century city

[1:40:04] station

[1:40:05] is at the bottom left. The quarter

[1:40:06] mile

[1:40:09] radius, actually, the only

[1:40:12] radius which the upzoning occurs per

[1:40:15] state law. It only touches that

[1:40:18] one prt which I believe is

[1:40:19] the beverly hills high school property.

[1:40:22] >> okay.

[1:40:25] >> so because that parcel is not

[1:40:28] zoned for

[1:40:29] commercial, residential, or mixed

[1:40:31] uses, it does not apply.

[1:40:33] >> from the green to the red, that

[1:40:34] is the half

[1:40:36] mile radius. Correct?

[1:40:37] >> correct.

[1:40:38] >> what occurs

[1:40:40] within the half

[1:40:41] >> that

[1:40:43] is considered

[1:40:46] the transit zone under

[1:40:49] the law. So although sb

[1:40:52] 79 only applies for

[1:40:54] a quarter mile radius, we are able to

[1:40:55] distribute

[1:40:57] units within the half mail area which

[1:40:58] is what scenario

[1:40:59] one does in the alternative plan.

[1:41:01] and that's

[1:41:02] the only scenario that use that's

[1:41:04] outer

[1:41:07] ring.

[1:41:08] >> scenario

[1:41:10] 1.

[1:41:16] and that's on pagepage

[1:41:19] 6.1.

[1:41:20] >> yes. >>

[1:41:21] scenario 1 is the only one that extends

[1:41:22] beyond the quarter mile.

[1:41:23] >> correct.

[1:41:28] I'll pull

[1:41:31] up thethe 1 on

[1:41:34] the screen here.

[1:41:37] >> and

[1:41:40] then

[1:41:43] scenario 2,

[1:41:46] tentpole, how do you distinguish

[1:41:48] that from pancake?

[1:41:49] >>> so the pancake, I would

[1:41:50] say, is a

[1:41:52] more gradual increase in density

[1:41:54] across the entire half mile radius.

[1:41:55] >> I'm sorry

[1:41:58] to interrupt. I thought

[1:41:59] pancake was limited to the one quarter

[1:42:01] radius.

[1:42:02] >> no. It uses

[1:42:04] the entire half mile.

[1:42:07] you will see here on the

[1:42:10] map, the

[1:42:12] areas in blue extend all the way to the

[1:42:13] half

[1:42:16] mile radius.

[1:42:18] >> did you change maps on me? >> sorry,

[1:42:19] I

[1:42:22] did. This is scenario 1. The pancake

[1:42:24] scenario. It is a more even distribution

[1:42:25] because it uses all

[1:42:28] the sites within the half mile

[1:42:31] that are mixed-use import sites.

[1:42:34] >> so scenario 1 goes -->>

[1:42:37] out to the half

[1:42:40] mile.

[1:42:42] and then I'm changing to scenario 2.

[1:42:46] so the

[1:42:49] scenario 2, the tentpole

[1:42:51] scenario, it maximizes the distribution

[1:42:52] around

[1:42:55] the station. 200-foot

[1:42:58] radius and the quarter meanwhile-mile

[1:42:59] radius.

[1:43:01] so the

[1:43:04] density is more. It accommodated all the

[1:43:06] units west didn't need to utilize

[1:43:07] the outer quarter

[1:43:10] to half mile ring for any of those

[1:43:13] distributions.

[1:43:14] >> so tentpole

[1:43:15] limits to it one quarter mile radius from the

[1:43:18] transit station.

[1:43:19] >> from both are

[1:43:22] transit stations.

[1:43:23] >> both

[1:43:25] meaning la

[1:43:28] cienega and reaves?

[1:43:29] >> yes. >> hold on

[1:43:30] one

[1:43:31] second.

[1:43:32] >> can you actually pull up

[1:43:33] the

[1:43:34] other color maps?

[1:43:36] I think it is easier to see how it is being distributed.

[1:43:40] the teal and pink ones.

[1:43:46] >>

[1:43:49] also, the half mile radius, we

[1:43:51] could under sb 79 have redistributed

[1:43:52] units

[1:43:55] there, none of the scenarios

[1:43:58] redistribute

[1:44:01] there. We have only

[1:44:03] redistributed to the half mile radius to

[1:44:04] the

[1:44:07] two stations

[1:44:10] around beverly hills.

[1:44:13] and we

[1:44:15] did that to move it into an area where it

[1:44:16] is not otherwise

[1:44:19] increasing

[1:44:22] density.

[1:44:25] >>

[1:44:28] if we want to back up a little

[1:44:30] bit, I can go through these maps instead.

[1:44:40] >> your presentation was great

[1:44:43] but a lot of it was

[1:44:46] like, hard to digest. It promise me to

[1:44:48] ask these questions. Bear with me if

[1:44:49] you

[1:44:52] don't mind.

[1:44:55] scenario 2,

[1:44:57] tentpole, confines all the increased

[1:45:01] density to 1 quarter mile from

[1:45:04] the la

[1:45:07] cienega and reaves stations.

[1:45:10] and it goes half a mail, goes

[1:45:13] a quarter mile --

[1:45:14] >> but --

[1:45:16] >> let me say it my way.

[1:45:18] you're being very courteous. I appreciate

[1:45:21] it. Limits the upzoning to a quarter

[1:45:22] mile from

[1:45:25] the la cienega station.

[1:45:28] >> one point of clarification. It

[1:45:29] only limits the redistribution to

[1:45:31] the area around the la

[1:45:34] cienega station. There's still upzoning

[1:45:36] during per sb 79 at the other station.

[1:45:37] it's just

[1:45:39] that we're not adding additional density

[1:45:40] per the alternative

[1:45:43] plan around the reuse

[1:45:45] wilshire station in this scenario.

[1:45:46] >> okay.

[1:45:49] >> would you say that again? >>

[1:45:52] sb 79 is doing it. It is just, we're

[1:45:53] not

[1:45:55] adding additional in

[1:45:58] that area. There's going to be increased

[1:46:01] density. In area because

[1:46:04] sb 79 will have it. Will make

[1:46:07] it happen. But the city isn't then

[1:46:09] redistributing extra density in that

[1:46:10] area under

[1:46:13] that scenario.

[1:46:14] >> it's making up for

[1:46:15] it how?

[1:46:16] >> putting more

[1:46:18] density than would otherwise be in

[1:46:19] the other

[1:46:21] scenarios.

[1:46:22] >> that's correct. If you look at the

[1:46:23] map, you can

[1:46:24] see the pink sites are only limited

[1:46:25] around

[1:46:27] the la cienega station in scenario

[1:46:28] three. So those are

[1:46:31] the only sites that are

[1:46:35] being added more than what

[1:46:36] sb 79 already allows.

[1:46:37] >> what's the

[1:46:38] purpose

[1:46:41] of that?

[1:46:42] >> it allows -->>

[1:46:44] it enables us to show the

[1:46:45] state something.

[1:46:46] >> it allows to us

[1:46:47] remove up to 50% of the density

[1:46:50] from single-family sites

[1:46:52] that were upzoned by sb 79. We're taking

[1:46:53] that

[1:46:56] 50% density and moving it

[1:46:58] to mixed-use sites, the pink sites

[1:47:01] here, those are already designated

[1:47:02] for

[1:47:04] additional housing and development.

[1:47:05] >> okay. Those

[1:47:08] are duplexes or

[1:47:09] fourplexes.

[1:47:10] >> they're commercially-

[1:47:11] owned

[1:47:13] partsels along the corridors that

[1:47:17] allow the mixed-use.

[1:47:20] >> okay. >> I can go back.

[1:47:22] this is scenario three. You can look at

[1:47:23] the pink around

[1:47:25] the la cienega station. And then scenario

[1:47:26] 2, you

[1:47:28] see the pifrg around both stations.

[1:47:29] it

[1:47:31] is only in the quarter mile. And then

[1:47:32] scenario 1,

[1:47:34] you see how it extends the pink out to

[1:47:38] the half mile.

[1:47:39] around both.

[1:47:40] >> and it is limited

[1:47:41] to those specific properties.

[1:47:42] >>

[1:47:43] the additional increase in density that the

[1:47:46] alternative plan would allow are limited.

[1:47:50] the quarter mail radius is also

[1:47:53] upzoned the base density is

[1:47:56] upzoned per sb

[1:47:59] 79.

[1:48:00] >> okay.

[1:48:01] >> how do we have the, within the dictates of

[1:48:05] sb 79, we have

[1:48:08] to demonstrate to the state,

[1:48:09] much like we had to with respect to

[1:48:11] our housing element, that we

[1:48:14] have the ability to have

[1:48:17] this much density.

[1:48:18] and is it, am I correct that staff

[1:48:20] came up with

[1:48:23] these three scenarios as ways

[1:48:26] to show the state that through one

[1:48:29] of these mechanisms, we

[1:48:32] are complying with sb 79.

[1:48:35] >> correct. >> okay. And the

[1:48:37] adoption of the alternative plan allows to

[1:48:38] us

[1:48:40] utilize these flew densities rather

[1:48:43] than what just state law says.

[1:48:44] >>

[1:48:45] which is?

[1:48:47] >> the upzoning in the quarter

[1:48:49] mile radius and which would apply

[1:48:53] the 100%

[1:48:55] density. This allows us to reduce

[1:48:56] the density on single-

[1:48:59] family sites.

[1:49:02] >> these plans aren't acquired.

[1:49:05] >> that's helpful. >> not that

[1:49:06] they're required but our planners

[1:49:08] and our staff are

[1:49:10] proposing these as a way to simultaneously

[1:49:11] comply

[1:49:14] with sb

[1:49:17] 79 and distribute the

[1:49:19] increased density and upzoning in

[1:49:20] ways

[1:49:23] reserve some aspects of our

[1:49:26] city. Within the dictates of sb

[1:49:28] 79. And this will not happen. What

[1:49:29] if we

[1:49:31] don't get an approval. If we don't

[1:49:32] do this in

[1:49:35] a timely manner,

[1:49:38] and/or the state drags

[1:49:41] its feet, like some people think we did

[1:49:43] with respect to the housing element --

[1:49:47] sorry? Then what

[1:49:50] happens? It was dictated, as the chair

[1:49:52] just that. What does that mean?

[1:49:53] >> so

[1:49:54] one of the reasons

[1:49:56] we're presenting this in a very

[1:49:57] compressed time line, we want to allow for

[1:49:59] that 120-day

[1:50:02] review period by hcd. If we

[1:50:04] adopt, if the city council documents

[1:50:07] this plan in january, that 120-day period

[1:50:08] would run through the end

[1:50:10] of may which gives us an opportunity

[1:50:11] to address

[1:50:13] any of the comments and make changes

[1:50:14] so we can

[1:50:17] bring the plan into compliance.

[1:50:19] staff has been working with and is

[1:50:20] in

[1:50:23] direct contact with members of with

[1:50:24] hcd.

[1:50:26] we're addressing how to

[1:50:27] comply with the regulations.

[1:50:28] >> are

[1:50:29] we being

[1:50:31] asked today to pick scenario 1, 2,

[1:50:32] or 3?

[1:50:33] >>

[1:50:35] yes.

[1:50:36] >> then it will go to

[1:50:38] council.

[1:50:39] >>

[1:50:41] light duty.

[1:50:47] and if we select 1, 2, or

[1:50:50] 3, not

[1:50:52] we, council picks, documents 1, 2,

[1:50:53] or

[1:50:56] 3, that the state will find

[1:50:58] that sufficient and satisfactory?

[1:51:02] >> yes. Staff believes all

[1:51:05] three scenarios comply

[1:51:08] with all the requirements of sb 79.

[1:51:09] >> thank you. Now I want

[1:51:10] to back up again one more moment.

[1:51:11] and

[1:51:14] I want to try to simplify this

[1:51:17] if at all possible. If I'm not mistaken.

[1:51:20] scenario 1 extends the upzoning

[1:51:23] beyond the half

[1:51:26] mile intointo

[1:51:28] the, beyond the quarter mail into

[1:51:29] the half

[1:51:32] mile radius.

[1:51:33] >> number 3 --

[1:51:35] number 2, limits the upzoning to a

[1:51:36] quarter

[1:51:38] mile from la cienega and reaves.

[1:51:40] >> correct. >> can you tell me about

[1:51:41] number

[1:51:44] 3?

[1:51:45] >> it limits it to only the quarter

[1:51:46] mile

[1:51:47] from la

[1:51:50] cienega.

[1:51:51] >> and there were a number

[1:51:53] of speakers that talked

[1:51:55] about access to the freeways and activating

[1:51:56] that part of

[1:51:59] the city. And those were people

[1:52:02] that were proponents of scenario 3,

[1:52:03] if I

[1:52:05] heard correctly.

[1:52:06] >> correct.

[1:52:08] >> mr.

[1:52:11] pastrnak.

[1:52:12] >> I

[1:52:13] probably have some other questions.

[1:52:14] that's at least a

[1:52:17] good baseline. I

[1:52:20] didn't have the benefit of

[1:52:23] this. Read aing this

[1:52:26] was very thick.

[1:52:28] I'm going to defer for now if I have

[1:52:29] more questions.

[1:52:31] may I? Okay. Thank you very much.

[1:52:32] thank you.

[1:52:35] >>

[1:52:38] vice chairchair milkowski?

[1:52:39] >> my

[1:52:41] head

[1:52:44] is already going around and around.

[1:52:45] chloe, thank you for

[1:52:46] the explanation yesterday and what

[1:52:51] you've explained today.

[1:52:53] if I understand this correctly, in

[1:52:56] our proposal to hcd, whichever scenario we

[1:53:00] go with, these

[1:53:03] are

[1:53:06] theoretical units that can be --

[1:53:07] >>

[1:53:09] correct.

[1:53:10] >>

[1:53:11] built.

[1:53:12] >> I was not parcelparcel to

[1:53:15] original hcd application that

[1:53:18] seemed to have gone on forever.

[1:53:21] does our state

[1:53:24] housing department,

[1:53:27] how do they analyze the

[1:53:29] realistic, applying the theoretical

[1:53:33] to reality?

[1:53:34] >> the letters, it is a reference to

[1:53:36] a

[1:53:39] standard that the housing

[1:53:41] element exercise is held to. When

[1:53:42] we did the

[1:53:44] last housing element update, we had to

[1:53:45] show that

[1:53:48] the city could accommodate the

[1:53:49] application, the number of units,

[1:53:51] number one, and number two,

[1:53:53] that there was realistic capacity

[1:53:55] meaning they are realistic within

[1:53:57] the next planning period cycle.

[1:54:03] they are still working

[1:54:05] on developing guidance. We expect

[1:54:06] to receive that

[1:54:08] guidance from them. I don't know if

[1:54:09] michael has

[1:54:11] got additional.

[1:54:12] >> just to expand

[1:54:13] on it,

[1:54:14] there is nothing in the legislation

[1:54:15] that suggests

[1:54:18] that this will be held to the same

[1:54:21] standard, and our assumption

[1:54:23] is that it won't. The order of magnitude of this

[1:54:27] is so far beyond what we had to do with

[1:54:30] the arena. Our arena number is

[1:54:33] a little over 3,000. As we mentioned

[1:54:35] in the staff report, the net increase

[1:54:36] in units under

[1:54:39] sb79

[1:54:42] theoretically is a little over 17,000

[1:54:43] units.

[1:54:45] so it is just a completely different

[1:54:46] order

[1:54:48] of magnitude, and the difference in

[1:54:49] the

[1:54:50] two approaches is that under the general

[1:54:51] plan housing element

[1:54:54] we have to identify the site. It is

[1:54:55] up

[1:54:57] to the city to pick

[1:54:59] the geographic area the sites will

[1:55:00] be located

[1:55:02] and in this situation the legislation

[1:55:03] is dictating to us

[1:55:06] where we must put the unit. It wouldn't

[1:55:07] be fair

[1:55:09] to hold it to the same standard because

[1:55:10] this is

[1:55:12] significantly limiting where we can

[1:55:13] put the

[1:55:15] units. To say the sites are not viable

[1:55:17] when legislation says that you have

[1:55:18] to put it there, our hope

[1:55:20] and assumption is that it will not

[1:55:21] be held to the same

[1:55:23] standard, and there is nothing in the

[1:55:24] legislation suggesting it would be.

[1:55:27] >> thank you both for your

[1:55:30] clarification. I

[1:55:33] know t you addressedaddressed earlier,

[1:55:36] michael. Why aren't we expanding in

[1:55:37] the

[1:55:39] scenario, the pancake by the high

[1:55:42] school to the half mile?

[1:55:43] >> because

[1:55:44] in that

[1:55:45] area there is no up zoning applicable

[1:55:46] under

[1:55:49] sb79. Because we are only applying in

[1:55:52] the quarter mile, the only

[1:55:53] property falling within that is the high

[1:55:55] school, and under legislation it

[1:55:56] does not apply to the high school.

[1:55:58] so within the

[1:56:00] half mile there is no increase in

[1:56:04] density there under sb79.

[1:56:07] we have the option to

[1:56:08] import units which would increase

[1:56:10] the density in that part

[1:56:13] of the city. We opted

[1:56:16] as a policy matter not to move the

[1:56:18] density into that area and to keep

[1:56:19] it

[1:56:21] focused on our two metro stations

[1:56:22] in the

[1:56:25] city.

[1:56:26] >> okay. Thank you.

[1:56:43] am I correct in assuming that each that the

[1:56:46] three

[1:56:48] scenarios reached the 17,000 unit

[1:56:49] capacity?

[1:56:51] >> correct. We are maintaining the

[1:56:52] same net zone capacity in each scenario.

[1:56:55] >>

[1:56:58] so, our choice, if I --our

[1:57:01] decision making if I understand

[1:57:04] it

[1:57:07] correctly

[1:57:10] is

[1:57:13] adopting a plan,

[1:57:16] regardless of which we adopt we

[1:57:19] are assuming hcd will go along

[1:57:21] with it.

[1:57:22] >> correct. The request is

[1:57:23] for you to

[1:57:24] recommend which scenario that you would

[1:57:25] like to have

[1:57:27] the city council consider for adoption,

[1:57:31] and then staff does believe that

[1:57:33] each scenario complies with all of the

[1:57:37] requirements.

[1:57:38] >> so with the

[1:57:39] council looking over our shoulder,

[1:57:40] if

[1:57:43] we were to recommend a

[1:57:45] certain scenario they still could

[1:57:46] reject

[1:57:49] the recommendation and go with another

[1:57:52] scenario?

[1:57:53] >> correct.

[1:57:55] >> so it is more

[1:57:58] basically our preference

[1:58:01] of how we want

[1:58:03] to recommend the allocation?

[1:58:04] >> yes.

[1:58:05] >> I guess

[1:58:06] that I understand it as well as I am going to.

[1:58:07] >> thank you.

[1:58:16] >> one of the

[1:58:18] public commenters raised the first

[1:58:19] question on my list.

[1:58:22] why did we only consider multiuse

[1:58:25] overlay zones for the export

[1:58:27] use and not multi family?

[1:58:28] >> you can

[1:58:29] see it on

[1:58:30] the maps. There are a large number

[1:58:31] of

[1:58:34] parcels in the quarter mile

[1:58:36] radius around bus stations that are not any

[1:58:37] color. They are the

[1:58:40] white parcels. Those are existing multi

[1:58:42] family unit parcels that are subject

[1:58:43] to the

[1:58:45] city's rent stabilization ordinance.

[1:58:49] sb79

[1:58:52] specifically exempts

[1:58:55] those from any up

[1:58:58] zoning.

[1:59:01] >> it

[1:59:03] wasn't just they are exempted from

[1:59:04] the effects

[1:59:07] of sb79. They are exempted

[1:59:09] from our ability to export and up

[1:59:10] zone as a result of

[1:59:13] the alternative plan?

[1:59:14] >> both.

[1:59:16] >> okay. >> however, there are

[1:59:19] some --here. Only ones would

[1:59:22] be the condos.

[1:59:25] >> yes. The only multi family shown

[1:59:28] on the base map

[1:59:31] in orange are the condos.

[1:59:32] >> that

[1:59:33] answers

[1:59:34] the questions. I understood sb79 did

[1:59:37] not apply but I did not know

[1:59:39] it they were exempted to use them

[1:59:40] as

[1:59:43] the receivers of some of the

[1:59:46] density.

[1:59:48] I was at the study question when it

[1:59:49] was

[1:59:52] discussed. I heard the city council's

[1:59:55] recommendation. I am still going to

[1:59:58] ask the question what

[2:00:01] is the goal of

[2:00:04] providing an alternative plan?

[2:00:07] >> the alternative plan allows

[2:00:10] the city to

[2:00:13] exert a small level of control over

[2:00:14] where

[2:00:16] the density is going. Mr.

[2:00:19] forbes mentioned it, the state

[2:00:22] already determined the areas around

[2:00:23] the

[2:00:25] transit station will be up zoned allowing

[2:00:26] us

[2:00:27] toto redistribute some portion of

[2:00:28] the units to sites that we would

[2:00:31] like to allocate. There

[2:00:34] are those limitations in

[2:00:36] the statute about how much to reduce

[2:00:37] the density. As

[2:00:40] the city council agreed upon, staff's

[2:00:41] recommendation

[2:00:43] is to reduce the density of single

[2:00:44] family

[2:00:46] sites affected by sb79 to help preserve

[2:00:48] the character of the single family

[2:00:49] neighborhoods.

[2:00:50] >> that is

[2:00:51] the sentence I want to focus on for

[2:00:52] a moment. To

[2:00:55] preserve the character of the

[2:00:58] neighborhoods.

[2:01:01] those neighborhoods, a

[2:01:04] typical residential

[2:01:07] lot, depending on

[2:01:10] the size could now have

[2:01:13] 75-foot building and let's

[2:01:16] just pick a random say 20

[2:01:19] units, you know. If it is

[2:01:22] 7,000-foot lot. Just say that it is

[2:01:26] 20 units. Someone living in

[2:01:27] a single family zone could have right

[2:01:29] next to them a

[2:01:30] 75-foot building with a bar on the first floor.

[2:01:35] with 20 units.

[2:01:38] the net effect

[2:01:41] of the alternative is that the

[2:01:42] same house would have next to them

[2:01:44] a

[2:01:47] 75-foot building with a

[2:01:50] bar on the first floor with nine

[2:01:53] units. That is

[2:01:54] the benefit we are talking about.

[2:01:56] >> yes. It is reducing

[2:01:58] the density as much as possible.

[2:01:59] >>

[2:02:00] the height will be

[2:02:02] 75, 73. The height

[2:02:04] will be 70 something feet. The density

[2:02:05] still will

[2:02:08] be 60 units per acre.

[2:02:11] on a lot say around 7,000-foot

[2:02:14] lot would be about ten units.

[2:02:16] there could be commercial on the first floor.

[2:02:23] I

[2:02:26] guess

[2:02:29] that I am surprised there

[2:02:30] are not more residents that did not

[2:02:32] speak. I am curious

[2:02:34] what had the typical resident would

[2:02:35] feel the value is

[2:02:36] if they are already going to have

[2:02:38] a

[2:02:41] 70-foot building

[2:02:44] next to them.

[2:02:47] how much

[2:02:49] value is it that the vehicle has 10

[2:02:53] units instead of 20 units.

[2:02:56] that is the crux of the

[2:02:57] alternative plans. The assumption

[2:02:59] that it creates

[2:03:01] enough value in terms of the character

[2:03:02] of the

[2:03:03] residential neighborhood that will

[2:03:05] still have 75-

[2:03:08] foot buildings.

[2:03:10] still could have commercial and retail

[2:03:11] on the

[2:03:14] first floor in the middle

[2:03:15] of rodeo drive or anything like that.

[2:03:20] the only difference is

[2:03:23] that instead of the

[2:03:26] same physical building having

[2:03:29] 20 units it might have ten. You

[2:03:32] know. I am

[2:03:35] having a little

[2:03:38] trouble ascribing a

[2:03:40] lot of value to how that is really

[2:03:41] going to

[2:03:42] improve the character of the neighborhood

[2:03:44] when all of the

[2:03:46] buildings are built to seven stories

[2:03:47] and have

[2:03:50] less density.

[2:03:56] I know that is

[2:03:59] not a question.

[2:04:02] but I guess thethe is

[2:04:05] that is really what we are talking

[2:04:08] about. The only change we are allowed

[2:04:09] to

[2:04:11] make is reducing

[2:04:14] the density

[2:04:17] from 120 units perper

[2:04:19] to 60 and no other provisions, height,

[2:04:22] use, anything like that changed. Correct?

[2:04:23] there

[2:04:25] are no other changes happening in

[2:04:26] the export

[2:04:29] areas?

[2:04:30] >> one change. >> 3. 5

[2:04:32] to 2.5.

[2:04:33] >> a slight

[2:04:34] reduction, yes.

[2:04:35] >> but the height

[2:04:36] can still

[2:04:38] be --with the density and the

[2:04:41] f.a.r. , there might be fewer bigger

[2:04:44] units but the same

[2:04:47] physical massing

[2:04:49] and same potential for retail on the

[2:04:50] first floor?

[2:04:58] if we ever go over 35,000 in population

[2:04:59] will there be an opportunity

[2:05:02] to provide a new alternative plan

[2:05:03] since

[2:05:05] it now affects a half mile instead

[2:05:06] of a

[2:05:07] quarter mile?

[2:05:08] >> I would defer the

[2:05:09] question

[2:05:11] to the city

[2:05:14] attorney.

[2:05:23] I don't

[2:05:26] know. I

[2:05:29] know there is

[2:05:31] expectation there will be clean up

[2:05:32] legislation on this.

[2:05:34] at this point right now it does not

[2:05:35] apply to the

[2:05:38] city of beverley

[2:05:39] hills beyond a quarter mile.

[2:05:40] >> we

[2:05:41] are currently at 33,000?

[2:05:44] >> 32,000. >> 32,000.

[2:05:46] we are potentially providing an alternative

[2:05:47] plan that

[2:05:50] will be in place for a long time,

[2:05:53] based on an assumption that all of

[2:05:54] the

[2:05:56] export sites are focused on a quarter

[2:05:57] mile

[2:05:59] radius, and all of the impacts of

[2:06:02] sb79 are in a quarter mile radius.

[2:06:05] five years from now

[2:06:08] we go over 35,000 all of a

[2:06:10] sudden a whole bunch, like on this

[2:06:11] map, all

[2:06:13] of those things in yellow now are --

[2:06:14] excuse me,

[2:06:17] yes. In yellow. The yellow dots.

[2:06:20] they are now suddenly up zoned to

[2:06:21] 120

[2:06:22] units per acre because we crossed the threshold to 35,000.

[2:06:29] no opportunity to

[2:06:32] now revisit that and now we will have a

[2:06:35] situation where we have 60 units

[2:06:38] per acre in a quarter mile radius

[2:06:39] and

[2:06:41] back to 120 and no opportunity then

[2:06:42] potentially

[2:06:44] to sort of re

[2:06:47] configure?

[2:06:50] >> potentially. The quarter to the

[2:06:53] half mile

[2:06:56] radius I

[2:06:59] think it is a 100

[2:07:02] per dwelling acre

[2:07:05] density.

[2:07:11] that would be

[2:07:14] in the quarter

[2:07:17] mile radius.

[2:07:20] that creates an

[2:07:23] odd situation, as all

[2:07:26] of this does.

[2:07:41] >> can I

[2:07:44] ask a question?

[2:07:45] >> please.

[2:07:47] I think I am done with my

[2:07:50] questions.

[2:07:53] I have a question that I want to

[2:07:56] incorporate the word export and

[2:07:59] default.

[2:08:09] what is the

[2:08:11] sb79 default as it relates to the

[2:08:15] quarter mile? Does it means the

[2:08:16] up zoning will be limited to within

[2:08:18] a quarter mile of

[2:08:20] the transit stops?

[2:08:21] >> yes. >> that

[2:08:22] is the default?

[2:08:24] >> yes. >> how is that different

[2:08:26] from scenario 2?

[2:08:27] >> it is really just

[2:08:28] the densities that change. In this

[2:08:30] map it shows

[2:08:33] the base default sb79

[2:08:35] density. In that smallest radius,

[2:08:36] the

[2:08:39] 200-foot radius

[2:08:42] it is a 160 dwelling unit

[2:08:44] per acre density. In the quarter mile

[2:08:48] it is 120.

[2:08:51] >> sb79? >> yes. That is the

[2:08:54] baseline.

[2:08:55] >> that is default? >>

[2:08:56] the biggest difference between the

[2:08:57] base and

[2:09:00] the alternatives is the reducing

[2:09:03] of density in

[2:09:06] the residential

[2:09:09] area in

[2:09:12] t he quarter miles. You

[2:09:15] are taking from one.

[2:09:17] you are taking density from here and

[2:09:18] putting

[2:09:20] it there. Overall density is the same.

[2:09:21] you

[2:09:24] are reconfiguring where you

[2:09:27] are putting the

[2:09:30] density. It is the reduction of density

[2:09:32] in the single family neighborhoods within

[2:09:36] a quarter

[2:09:39] mile.

[2:09:48] >> I think that

[2:09:51] is the question.

[2:09:53] what is the difference between the

[2:09:57] sb79 default and

[2:10:00] scenario 2.

[2:10:05] limiting density to a quarter mile

[2:10:06] from the transitd.

[2:10:09] >>

[2:10:12] yes. You

[2:10:15] are going to see area b are

[2:10:18] the single family export

[2:10:21] sites.

[2:10:42] you

[2:10:45] can the

[2:10:47] teal sites are the single family export

[2:10:48] sites.

[2:10:51] they have been reduced 120

[2:10:54] dwelling units per acre to

[2:10:57] 60. That density, we have moved to

[2:11:00] the pink sites, which are the

[2:11:03] mixed use sites. Those

[2:11:06] densities now range from

[2:11:09] 165 to 320 dwelling units

[2:11:12] per acre.

[2:11:15] >> okay.

[2:11:24] green is non-residential.

[2:11:25] >>

[2:11:27] sb79 does apply to commercial

[2:11:30] as well.

[2:11:36] if I am talking to someone

[2:11:39] tonight about

[2:11:42] export. Give us

[2:11:45] a lesson in the

[2:11:48] role of export.

[2:11:51] those are all

[2:11:53] of the sites that would have been

[2:11:57] up zoned.

[2:12:00] we

[2:12:03] are removing up

[2:12:06] to 50% from those

[2:12:09] export sites.

[2:12:21] increasing the

[2:12:24] density relieving

[2:12:27] the density

[2:12:30] from some

[2:12:33] residential and export

[2:12:36] to areas

[2:12:39] where the density will be

[2:12:45] increased.

[2:12:51] I was just trying to

[2:12:52] understand your back and forth with

[2:12:54] her a little bit. I think that

[2:12:57] helps me a lot.

[2:12:58] >> basically, my

[2:13:00] house, currently zoned for

[2:13:03] single family residential under

[2:13:06] default

[2:13:09] 79

[2:13:12] would be up zoned to 120

[2:13:15] units per acre. Under

[2:13:18] these they would be 60. But the density

[2:13:19] will

[2:13:21] be placed on the mixed use

[2:13:24] overlay zones in those areas. My back

[2:13:25] and

[2:13:27] forth had to do with wondering what

[2:13:30] the true value was of the difference between

[2:13:33] 60 units per acre and

[2:13:36] 120 units per

[2:13:39] acre.

[2:13:51] >> I

[2:13:54] think it is around 5,000

[2:13:57] to 7,000.

[2:14:03] >> what does that mean in

[2:14:06] terms of acreage?

[2:14:18] tenth of an

[2:14:21] acre.

[2:14:27] a little more

[2:14:30] than 10%.

[2:14:31] >> I

[2:14:33] will give you an

[2:14:36] example. My lot is 6 thundershower

[2:14:39] 500 square feet.

[2:14:42] that is.

[2:14:45] 15 acres.

[2:14:48] under 20

[2:14:51] more than 20.

[2:14:58] when

[2:14:59] they talk about how many units per

[2:15:01] acre?

[2:15:02] >>

[2:15:04] it ranges.

[2:15:19] so, on a parcel

[2:15:22] like we are

[2:15:24] discussing you can have 12 units.

[2:15:25] >> yes.

[2:15:28] I think

[2:15:31] so.

[2:15:40] that is .

[2:15:43] 15 acres. Where is

[2:15:46] it. Okay.

[2:15:48] the alternative plan is nine. The

[2:15:49] other

[2:15:52] would be 18.

[2:15:53] >> yeah. I think

[2:15:54] most single family properties that

[2:15:55] would be affected it

[2:15:57] would be 20 dwelling units under the

[2:16:00] default density. Under the alternative

[2:16:01] plans it would

[2:16:04] be reduced proportionally.

[2:16:10] >> again, under

[2:16:13] sb79 the default is limited to a

[2:16:16] quarter mile from the transit

[2:16:19] stop.

[2:16:20] >> yes. What ramifications

[2:16:22] are there for a quarter mile

[2:16:25] to a half mile under sb79?

[2:16:28] >> the default densities

[2:16:31] do not apply from the quarter to

[2:16:33] the half mile. We confirmed we would

[2:16:34] be able

[2:16:36] to utilize the half mile radius for

[2:16:39] the alternative plan redistribution.

[2:16:43] the only scenario contemplates

[2:16:45] moving into that area is scenario

[2:16:48] one. We concentrated that along the

[2:16:49] mixed use

[2:16:52] sites. You are going to see

[2:16:55] some along

[2:16:58] wilshire, the station and some

[2:17:01] units along

[2:17:04] robot son.

[2:17:10] >> is that what I am

[2:17:13] looking at?

[2:17:16] >> yes.

[2:17:24] I am ready to take a break.

[2:17:25] >> any

[2:17:26] questions?

[2:17:28] >> I have

[2:17:31] just two.

[2:17:34] >> under the

[2:17:37] --we have been

[2:17:40] addressing the 120 dwelling

[2:17:43] units vs.

[2:17:46] 60 it says

[2:17:49] they can go up to 160

[2:17:52] dwelling units.

[2:17:55] that increases

[2:17:58] the

[2:18:01] allocation.

[2:18:04] 95 feet instead of the

[2:18:07] 75 feet.

[2:18:16] it says

[2:18:19] we can delay

[2:18:22] the implementation.

[2:18:25] can you explain

[2:18:28] how

[2:18:31] that impacts us.

[2:18:37] the state

[2:18:39] law says for the zone we would have

[2:18:40] to show

[2:18:43] that 33% of the

[2:18:46] parcels have at least 50% of the

[2:18:49] density allowed under sb79.

[2:18:52] the density

[2:18:55] is 120 dwelling units per

[2:18:58] acre. The mixed use sites meet the

[2:18:59] threshold.

[2:19:01] they have a density of 79.

[2:19:04] 2 dwelling units per acre. However,

[2:19:06] it does not meet the threshold of

[2:19:07] 33%

[2:19:10] of the parcels. You are going to see

[2:19:13] the

[2:19:16] calculations here.

[2:19:19] it does

[2:19:22] not qualify.

[2:19:25] there are 299

[2:19:28] parcels total.

[2:19:34] we would have to show

[2:19:37] the densities

[2:19:40] of all sites are

[2:19:43] allowing that. We

[2:19:46] do not believe it

[2:19:49] could meet. The

[2:19:51] law allows us to delay for individual

[2:19:52] sites

[2:19:55] that are affected by

[2:19:58] sb79 if they meet

[2:20:01] 50% of the

[2:20:03] density. Those would be the mixed

[2:20:04] use

[2:20:07] sites.

[2:20:10] the alternative plans

[2:20:13] wants more

[2:20:16] density.

[2:20:22] >> thank you

[2:20:25] for clarifying

[2:20:28] I'm done.

[2:20:31] >> thank you. Any other

[2:20:34] questions?

[2:20:37] okay.

[2:20:43] okay. With that I will close the

[2:20:46] public hearing and move on to deliberates.

[2:20:49] commissioner ross. Would

[2:20:52] you like to share your thoughts and

[2:20:53] deliberations?

[2:20:55] >>

[2:20:58] gladly.

[2:21:01] I would be in favor of the

[2:21:03] default provision or scenario three

[2:21:04] and the third would

[2:21:07] be scenario two.

[2:21:10] probably scenario

[2:21:13] three. In order

[2:21:15] to activate the portion of the city

[2:21:16] which is in

[2:21:19] need of activation. I think that it

[2:21:21] is consistent with the neighborhood.

[2:21:22] you

[2:21:25] know, it is a complement

[2:21:28] of residential

[2:21:31] and

[2:21:34] commercial there.

[2:21:37] it can handle it more than what I am

[2:21:38] going to talk

[2:21:40] about next in

[2:21:43] terms of

[2:21:46] access to the freeways.

[2:21:48] I think the western part of the city

[2:21:50] with all of

[2:21:52] the projects we approved and that

[2:21:53] I voted

[2:21:56] in favor of.

[2:22:02] the friars club

[2:22:05] project. I think if we are going

[2:22:08] to increase the

[2:22:14] density I

[2:22:17] would then vote for

[2:22:20] scenario 3.

[2:22:29] mindful trying

[2:22:32] to minimize the impact

[2:22:35] on single family residential.

[2:22:41] I believe scenario

[2:22:42] 3 is the most appropriate and that

[2:22:44] is what I

[2:22:47] would vote for.

[2:22:56] so, I am

[2:22:59] really challenged here.

[2:23:02] I will be completely

[2:23:05] transparent. My

[2:23:08] personal interests

[2:23:11] are completely opposed to what

[2:23:14] the council direction would

[2:23:17] be.

[2:23:20] it isis difficult.

[2:23:21] >>

[2:23:22] I wasn't --

[2:23:23] >> to go ahead with one of

[2:23:24] the

[2:23:26] alternative plans.

[2:23:28] >> they didn't indicate which they

[2:23:29] would

[2:23:31] prefer.

[2:23:32] >> I am just saying the idea

[2:23:35] of doing the export and

[2:23:38] alternative plan.

[2:23:40] it is not consistent with what is

[2:23:41] best for

[2:23:44] me personally.

[2:23:47] but, since my role is as a commissioner, I

[2:23:50] am going to try to put it

[2:23:52] aside and take the council's direction

[2:23:53] to

[2:23:55] heart. I am going to assume that,

[2:23:56] okay,

[2:23:58] we are going to go forward with one

[2:24:05] I

[2:24:08] would support the tent pole

[2:24:11] one, number two.

[2:24:17] my reasons

[2:24:29] as someone

[2:24:31] that has lived in the southeast, when we

[2:24:32] talk about activating the southeast a lot

[2:24:34] is talkingtalking about south robinson

[2:24:38] olympic

[2:24:41] boulevard. This is really not

[2:24:44] going to do anything to activate

[2:24:47] the areas.

[2:24:53] we are trying

[2:24:56] to get more restaurants and

[2:24:59] shops.

[2:25:05] looking more like south

[2:25:08] beverley drive.

[2:25:14] the shopping is there

[2:25:17] was taken over by a

[2:25:20] personal injury lawyer.

[2:25:23] I don't believe

[2:25:26] putting all f

[2:25:29] of

[2:25:32] the density there is

[2:25:35] going to do anything to benefit

[2:25:38] the area.

[2:25:44] I don't think it

[2:25:47] will

[2:25:50] satisfy those issues. When you look

[2:25:53] at just planning

[2:25:56] in general, step back.

[2:25:59] one of the things that

[2:26:02] you try to do, you are not going

[2:26:04] to eliminate traffic. We are never

[2:26:05] going to eliminate

[2:26:08] traffic. The way that you help it

[2:26:09] or

[2:26:10] reduce the increase in traffic that

[2:26:11] would come from all of

[2:26:14] the development is that you try to

[2:26:15] limit

[2:26:17] the number of trips.

[2:26:20] some someone does eight trips a week.

[2:26:23] that helps. You try to put density

[2:26:24] where

[2:26:25] people live next to where people shop

[2:26:26] and eat and try

[2:26:29] to reduce the number of trips. We

[2:26:30] already

[2:26:32] have in the area around the rodeo stop

[2:26:33] a

[2:26:35] lot of

[2:26:38] restaurants, retail

[2:26:44] markets. If I said I

[2:26:46] would have to drop density in the

[2:26:47] city, what would be the

[2:26:50] best thing to

[2:26:53] do.

[2:26:56] let's put some of it

[2:26:59] over here.

[2:27:02] you have

[2:27:05] shops,

[2:27:08] markets,

[2:27:17] you will also have

[2:27:20] that opportunity. I would treat

[2:27:23] them evenly.

[2:27:29] in order to maximize

[2:27:32] the units

[2:27:35] next to commercial, retail and

[2:27:38] those.

[2:27:41] I know I am in

[2:27:44] the minority but

[2:27:47] before asking for a

[2:27:50] motion, I

[2:27:53] will

[2:27:59] see if I

[2:28:02] had any effect.

[2:28:03] >> I think the

[2:28:04] area is already so impacted with what

[2:28:05] you described.

[2:28:08] I think it will activate the

[2:28:11] southeast part.

[2:28:17] if you build

[2:28:20] it, increased concentration in that

[2:28:21] area

[2:28:23] the restaurants

[2:28:26] and the bakeries and the

[2:28:29] shopping will follow.

[2:28:30] >> mr.

[2:28:32] chair, I always appreciate your

[2:28:35] comments,

[2:28:38] insights. I have learned so much

[2:28:41] from you.

[2:28:44] however you have not changed my opinion

[2:28:46] on that matter.

[2:28:47] >> with that I will

[2:28:48] accept a

[2:28:50] motion.

[2:28:51] >> chair wolfe, if I might,

[2:28:54] inform the commission of a

[2:28:55] further wrinkle. That is under the

[2:28:57] government code with respect

[2:28:59] to planning and zoning and general

[2:29:00] plan

[2:29:02] amendments, the planning commission

[2:29:04] in order to forward a recommendation

[2:29:09] to the

[2:29:12] council

[2:29:15] requires a majority of

[2:29:18] the full body. Two

[2:29:21] votes for any

[2:29:24] particular

[2:29:27] amendment would not

[2:29:30] be sufficient.

[2:29:33] to the extent that

[2:29:35] there are only two votes for one of

[2:29:36] the

[2:29:39] alternatives.

[2:29:42] another option is that

[2:29:45] the commission discuss the

[2:29:48] various

[2:29:51] alternatives.

[2:29:54] does support the

[2:29:57] council proceeding to

[2:30:00] adopt an

[2:30:03] alternative plan.

[2:30:19] that would be allowed to move forward.

[2:30:21] >> okay. What

[2:30:24] does that require?

[2:30:27] >> if there

[2:30:29] is interest in that maybe we can take

[2:30:30] a

[2:30:32] couple of minutes to quickly work

[2:30:33] on

[2:30:34] modifications to the resolution and

[2:30:36] come back to you.

[2:30:37] >> we

[2:30:39] need to take a brief recess in order

[2:30:41] to work on that?

[2:30:42] >> if there is interest

[2:30:43] in

[2:30:44] the commission.

[2:30:45] >> certainly sounds

[2:30:46] that way.

[2:30:48] >> sounds like

[2:30:51] our only option. Would

[2:30:54] it reflect that 2 of the

[2:30:56] 3 commissioners had a preference and

[2:30:57] one had

[2:30:58] another preference?

[2:30:59] >> certainly could

[2:31:00] do that.

[2:31:01] >> okay.

[2:31:03] >> thank you. >> like

[2:31:06] an advisory.

[2:31:09] in any way it

[2:31:12] is a recommendation.

[2:31:14] because we couldn't get to three it

[2:31:15] is

[2:31:18] two to one.

[2:31:33] the council would

[2:31:36] be informed.

[2:31:39] you know, we can

[2:31:42] memorialize that. But ultimately the

[2:31:43] recommendation is

[2:31:45] not for any of

[2:31:48] particulars.

[2:31:51] >> they would benefit

[2:31:54] from knowing that.

[2:31:57] I

[2:32:00] would hope they would be

[2:32:03] informed about that.

[2:32:04] >> I

[2:32:06] think that we can write it into the

[2:32:09] resolution.

[2:32:12] >> yes.

[2:32:21] because of the

[2:32:24] numbers we can make

[2:32:27] no recommendations.

[2:32:28] >> we need

[2:32:30] to take a brief recess for you

[2:32:32] to work on that?

[2:32:33] >> yes. >> okay.

[2:32:34] we are in recess.

[2:32:49] >>> the meeting and

[2:32:52] the discussion of the zone change,

[2:32:53] recommendation. We have been supplied

[2:32:55] an updated

[2:32:57] resolution reflecting the discussion

[2:32:58] we had before

[2:33:01] taking the break.

[2:33:04] at this time we

[2:33:06] will take a few minutes and allow

[2:33:09] the commissioners to briefly read

[2:33:10] the resolution or

[2:33:13] do you want to walk us through

[2:33:14] the major changes here in the red

[2:33:16] lines?

[2:33:17] >> might be best for

[2:33:19] staff to run through the revisions,

[2:33:21] take a look and go from there.

[2:33:22] >>

[2:33:23] the

[2:33:25] first changes that were made are

[2:33:28] to section one, page two of

[2:33:31] the resolution.

[2:33:34] we moved up one of the sentences from

[2:33:37] the bottom to

[2:33:40] the top.

[2:33:46] we

[2:33:49] have added a. 2

[2:33:52] and. 3, the three different maps for

[2:33:55] the different

[2:33:58] scenarios.

[2:34:01] it is scenario

[2:34:04] one, two,

[2:34:07] three in those exhibits.

[2:34:10] the following page,

[2:34:13] page four,

[2:34:16] the

[2:34:19] changes memorialized only only

[2:34:21] commissioner supported 3 and one supported 2.

[2:34:22] the planning

[2:34:23] commission's recommendation is not

[2:34:25] for a specific

[2:34:26] scenario, but they are recommending

[2:34:31] the

[2:34:32] adoption of an alternative plan and

[2:34:34] associated amendments to the planned

[2:34:37] land use

[2:34:40] map and

[2:34:49] recommending the council

[2:34:52] adopt an

[2:34:55] ordinance to reflect

[2:34:58] the alternative plan

[2:35:01] scenario.

[2:35:07] one more change to

[2:35:10] section 5.

[2:35:12] updated to the different exhibits

[2:35:13] that

[2:35:15] are attached and the different amendments

[2:35:19] being recommended.

[2:35:28] >> is that because the

[2:35:30] maps were not available?

[2:35:31] >> we were

[2:35:32] originally

[2:35:33] anticipating if the commission selected

[2:35:37] one scenario we would have

[2:35:40] used that one.

[2:35:43] >> you are already anticipating

[2:35:46] updating one.

[2:36:49] any questions from

[2:36:52] the commissioners on the updated resolution?

[2:36:53] have

[2:36:55] you all had a chance to look at it?

[2:36:56] are you

[2:36:57] comfortable with the way that it is

[2:36:58] currently written?

[2:36:59] >>

[2:37:01] yes, I am

[2:37:10] .

[2:37:11] >> I am as well.

[2:37:13] >> with that

[2:37:16] we move it

[2:37:18] to a motion. Okay. I will accept a

[2:37:19] motion.

[2:37:22] >> a motion

[2:37:24] for a resolution of the planning commission

[2:37:25] of the

[2:37:28] city of beverley hills recommending

[2:37:29] the

[2:37:31] city adopt a general plan amendment

[2:37:32] and zone

[2:37:34] change to amend the land use map and

[2:37:36] zoning map and a draft ordinance of

[2:37:37] the city

[2:37:40] of beverley hills amending several

[2:37:41] sections of

[2:37:43] the beverley hills

[2:37:46] municipal code

[2:37:49] for anan alternative plan,

[2:37:52] 65912. 61 and

[2:37:54] making a determination of exemption

[2:37:55] under the

[2:37:58] california environmental

[2:38:01] quality act. Amended or as

[2:38:04] set forth in

[2:38:07] the document?

[2:38:26] >>

[2:38:28] one more change that we caught.

[2:38:29] >> it

[2:38:30] would be a

[2:38:31] general plan amendment and zone change

[2:38:32] to amend the land

[2:38:35] use and

[2:38:38] zoning map, and general plan

[2:38:41] amendment to update or

[2:38:44] amend the land

[2:38:47] use.

[2:38:48] >> we would say

[2:38:50] it currently

[2:38:51] says resolution recommending the city

[2:38:53] adopt a

[2:38:55] plan amendment to amend the land use

[2:38:59] map and land

[2:39:02] use element. And

[2:39:05] zoning map.

[2:39:17] >> another

[2:39:19] motion or does he say with the laemt that

[2:39:21] you provided.

[2:39:22] >> that's fine. >> as

[2:39:23] amended.

[2:39:24] >> I will second the motion.

[2:39:26] >> in that

[2:39:28] case, I think karen, it would be appropriate for you

[2:39:29] to call for a vote.

[2:39:32] >> commissioner ross.

[2:39:35] >> yes. >> vice chairman

[2:39:37] milkowski.

[2:39:38] >> yes. >> chair wolfe.

[2:39:39] >> yes.

[2:39:44] no city attorney

[2:39:45] statement on this one.

[2:39:46] >> legislative

[2:39:47] and it will go to

[2:39:49] the city council.

[2:39:50] >> I would invite

[2:39:51] the

[2:39:52] recused commissioner back in the room

[2:39:53] but I have

[2:39:55] a feeling they are not in the vicinity.

[2:39:56] I will

[2:39:59] not do that.

[2:40:02] we move on

[2:40:04] to communications from the commission.

[2:40:05] any communications

[2:40:06] from the commission?

[2:40:07] >> none from

[2:40:08] me.

[2:40:09] >> yes, I

[2:40:11] would just like

[2:40:14] to wish everybody a happy

[2:40:15] holiday, whatever they may celebrate.

[2:40:17] I want to thank

[2:40:19] my fellow commissioners for making

[2:40:20] me a

[2:40:21] better commissioner and send love

[2:40:23] to my wife gloria.

[2:40:25] >> thank you. >> let me add to that

[2:40:26] also in

[2:40:27] the spirit of the holidays. Thank

[2:40:29] you to the staff for

[2:40:32] the lovely and delicious and

[2:40:34] thoughtful gift, appreciate it very

[2:40:35] much. I guarantee

[2:40:38] you they will be enjoyed.

[2:40:39] >> I would

[2:40:40] like

[2:40:41] to echo my

[2:40:44] fellow commissioners comment

[2:40:46] s thanking my fellow commissioners

[2:40:47] and staff for

[2:40:49] the work we did this year. It was

[2:40:50] a challenging one.

[2:40:53] we got through it. We were

[2:40:56] able to support

[2:40:59] us extremely well, particularly

[2:41:02] on the item

[2:41:05] today which is very

[2:41:08] complicated.

[2:41:11] the

[2:41:13] beverley hills wellness network. Information can

[2:41:14] be found on the

[2:41:17] website, but in a nutshell

[2:41:20] the beverley hills

[2:41:21] wellness network allows residents

[2:41:23] to pay an

[2:41:25] annual $90 fee in order to cover any

[2:41:26] costs that are

[2:41:28] not covered by the medical insurance

[2:41:29] in

[2:41:31] conjunction with any medical services

[2:41:32] provided

[2:41:33] by calling 9-1-1 emergency services.

[2:41:35] if you

[2:41:37] call 9-1-1 and an ambulance, fire

[2:41:38] department

[2:41:40] comes out, any medical services that

[2:41:41] are provided

[2:41:43] including transport to the hospital

[2:41:44] and what

[2:41:46] not. Anything that is not covered

[2:41:47] by

[2:41:48] your insurance will be covered by

[2:41:50] the city

[2:41:53] if you join

[2:41:54] this program and the cost again is

[2:41:56] $90 a year.

[2:41:59] I was also asked to

[2:42:02] highlight

[2:42:05] the water tracker that is also available

[2:42:08] to all

[2:42:11] residents in

[2:42:13] order to have more information available to

[2:42:14] the

[2:42:17] water use in your home.

[2:42:20] you can find the

[2:42:23] information on the website as well.

[2:42:26] any other commissioner questions?

[2:42:29] >> how do people sign up for the health

[2:42:30] program?

[2:42:31] >> there is a link on the website.

[2:42:32] if you go

[2:42:35] to beverleyhills. Org, on the front

[2:42:38] page of the beverleyhills. Org

[2:42:41] website, and

[2:42:44] if you scroll down --I thought it

[2:42:47] was there.

[2:42:48] >> it is there. >> there

[2:42:50] it is. Under latest news there

[2:42:53] is an icon for

[2:42:56] beverley

[2:42:58] hill welness network.

[2:42:59] >> thank you

[2:43:00] for pointing that

[2:43:02] out. I probably was supposed to say

[2:43:05] that. With that we will move on to anyany

[2:43:07] city planner updates? Do we have a

[2:43:08] city planner?

[2:43:11] >> this will be

[2:43:14] my last official

[2:43:17] comments as the acting planner. I

[2:43:18] am happy to

[2:43:19] announce that cindy gordon has been

[2:43:20] appointed

[2:43:23] as the next assistant

[2:43:26] director of community

[2:43:28] development/city planner and assumes

[2:43:29] her new duties on

[2:43:32] monday and will be taking over city

[2:43:33] planner

[2:43:35] comments from now on.

[2:43:38] >> congratulations.

[2:43:41] >> I wanted to introduce or

[2:43:44] reintroduce. I think andres

[2:43:47] was introduced to the

[2:43:50] commission but this is his first item

[2:43:51] under

[2:43:52] the commission. I wanted to point

[2:43:53] out that he is

[2:43:56] the brains behind all of the

[2:43:59] sb79.

[2:44:08] he was leading the charge on that.

[2:44:09] he

[2:44:10] did excellent work on the project.

[2:44:11] I am sure you will

[2:44:14] be seeing much more of him

[2:44:17] going forward.

[2:44:20] this will

[2:44:22] be the commission's final meeting

[2:44:23] of 2025. I

[2:44:26] wanted to echo what the chair said.

[2:44:27] it was

[2:44:29] a very difficult year for the commission with

[2:44:30] the

[2:44:32] builders remedy projects and sb79.

[2:44:33] I

[2:44:35] think that we had six meetings in

[2:44:36] the month

[2:44:38] of october. I wasn't at all of them,

[2:44:41] but you did.

[2:44:45] I wanted

[2:44:46] to thank the commission for the work

[2:44:48] you did andand

[2:44:49] understanding and patience with staff

[2:44:50] as we worked through the process with

[2:44:51] you.

[2:44:53] thank you very much for all of your

[2:44:54] efforts this year.

[2:44:56] hopefully we will try to make 2026

[2:44:59] easier on you. I wanted to wish you

[2:45:00] all

[2:45:01] happy holidays, new year and see you

[2:45:03] in the new year.

[2:45:06] >> thank you.

[2:45:09] any questions on the current

[2:45:12] development projects list?

[2:45:14] seeing none. Any questions or comments

[2:45:18] on the

[2:45:21] 2026 meeting schedule?

[2:45:24] any other business?

[2:45:27] we are officially adjourned.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript