[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.