Recording in progress.

It's Wednesday, December 17th, 2025 at 6 PM.

We're here at Pacific Grove City Council, Council Chambers at 300 Fourth Avenue in Pacific Grove, California.

And this is our special meeting tonight.

And I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order.

And uh I'll note that all council members are present with the exception of Councilmember Paduri.

And I'll ask um the Mayor Pro Tem Amelia to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Um at this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda as stated.

I'll make a motion as stated.

Okay, motion by Amelia, second by Rao.

Uh we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, pass it unanimously.

We will take this agenda uh in order.

Um presentations, we don't have any tonight.

And we're now council and staff announcements.

I think we have a couple of staff announcements.

Uh any council members wishing to make an announcement.

Um Mr.

Moginton.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh we'll start with our city clerk first.

We've extended the date to receive uh boards and commissions and committee applications for our annual uh recruiting time.

And so we will be accepting applications through January second, twenty twenty-six.

Um just a reminder for all the current boards uh and committee members that have uh upcoming expiring terms to please reapply if you are desiring to continue serving.

Um and uh if you need uh any information on any of our boards and commissions, please contact the city clerk's office and I'd be glad to give you a list of all of our openings.

Thank you.

And uh one other thing.

So Amy Colliny, who's works in our public works department, well known, uh is now uh participated in this is our fifth year in leading us through the Salvation Army Angel Tree program.

So I just want to give you a little information of what that consisted of this year.

So these are these are this is a collection of presidents presents to go to Monterey County families that need assistance.

So this year we we we feel that we had enough gifts for 26 children and probably about a a total of a hundred gifts.

So it was another successful one.

Just wanted to share that with the council and community.

Thank you very much.

Any further announcements, Mr.

Moginson?

Uh okay, we'll go ahead and uh move it to the consent agenda.

It deals with continent uh routine and non-controversial matters.

Um may include resolutions and ordinances and do I does anyone wish to pull an item off consent agenda.

Anyone here up here wants to pull an item?

Anyone online wish to pull an item off the consent agenda?

It does not appear we have any hands raised.

Correct.

Okay.

Um do I have a motion uh are you consent.

So moved.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Motion and second on consent.

Uh we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Those of you that came for consent.

Appreciate you.

Um, moving right along.

Do we have our monitors?

Are we uh up and running on that?

Yeah, we're in the process of trying to get us turned back on.

It could have been the power that went out.

Yeah.

For that on the item itself, because we're gonna need that.

Yes, yeah.

A lot of people in the house tonight, so we didn't have it on the agenda, but couldn't no general public.

Jeannie's here.

Jeannie is always here to run it.

She might be else to know we can see the one thing general public comment.

Uh we didn't take a general public comment, which doesn't deal with the housing element.

So if you come up and talk about that, I'm not on the lesson connected until we get to the housing element.

But we have a few people that want to make general public comments.

So please come forward now.

Is it on?

It's good.

You can hear me?

Yes.

I'll be quite into that now.

Okay, good evening, Mayor, Council members.

I'm here to give a big thank you to our public works, have been amazing.

Our events they've done all year, especially the parade at this most recent one.

Um that chamber just wants to thank everybody.

I forgot to introduce myself.

I'm Christy Metzner, president, CEO of the Pacific Group Chamber.

I'm so excited to thank them.

Um we can't do it without our public works.

They're amazing.

And um I want to give a shout out to John Gogh, um, John Goss, Martin Gonzalez, Chad, who does our downtown talk to him every day.

He's amazing.

And I wish I knew all their names because I want to recognize all of them.

But um let me see what else.

And I missed the last meeting to tell you about all of our events coming up.

So right now we only have one more this year.

Shop step installed tomorrow night.

Do your last minute shopping downtown, four to seven, and shop local.

Uh, we have wonderful uh businesses, restaurants, come on down and have a merry Christmas, happy holidays, happy new year.

Thank you.

Please please know it's about thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Smith and Council members.

Jeannie Anton, I'm here to invite all of you to dine with the Heritage Society at Passion Fish on Tuesday, January 13th, starting at five o'clock.

And this will be another fundraiser for our renovation of Chautauqua Hall.

I want to thank the owner for allowing this and the kind offering, and uh certainly thank all of the community members that will end up joining us.

Um, I also want to thank the local community for donations this month through the Monterey County Gives program.

Right now, as of tonight, we've raised $13,000.

And this is for um the upgraded sound system in Chautauqua Hall.

So I'm sure all of you that will agree if you've been in there, you know that's well needed.

Um our overall fundraising continues to do well, and I look forward to really getting the work going here in 2026.

So thank you for your support and happy holidays to all of you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone online wishing to make general public comment.

Thank you, Mayor.

I do not see any hands raised.

All right, we'll go ahead and bring it back to the item itself.

Uh so we're gonna introduce we're the regular agenda, and we have one item item 10A, Pacific Grove, uh 2023 to 2031 housing element update.

And this item is gonna be parsed out into two um large parts.

And I'm gonna turn to my attorneys to help uh guide us through the process that we're gonna follow tonight.

So at this time I'll recognize uh Mary Wagner, I believe.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Smith, members of the city council.

Um if someone can please start the presentation.

We have a couple of slides to share with you on how this item will proceed this evening.

And I can't see if the presentation's up, and I'm happy to just continue if you would like me to, Mayor, or to wait until that presentation is again.

That's fine.

We're just gonna wait a second and try to get you set up here.

Great.

Okay, great.

Yeah, I can see the screen, and I believe all of you can as well.

Um, so the item before you tonight is obviously the Pacific Road Housing Element update, which includes zoning ordinance amendments and general plan amendments.

The process that we're going to follow tonight is to break this project into two pieces.

Um, if I can have the next slide, please.

Um, due to a potential conflict of interest for council member Rao based on ownership of both her personal residence and other property that she owns at 215 Forest Avenue.

So first, the council will receive the presentation, take public comment, deliberate and take action on the certification of the environmental impact report or EIR, adoption of the housing element, amendment of the safety element, and then zoning text and zoning map amendments, except for the amendments to chapter 23.31 related to the commercial zoning districts.

Next slide, please.

After that item has been completed, um, the council we would recommend taking a brief break or recess due to the conflict of interest.

Uh, Councilmember Rao will then um leave the room, and the council will then receive the presentation, take public comment, deliberate and take action on the amendments to the land use element and land use map and the zoning tax amendments to chapter 23.31 regarding the commercial zoning districts.

And with that, I'm happy to turn it uh back to you, Mayor, and/or hand it off to um your community development director.

Okay, we're going to go to Mr.

Biggs now.

Thank you.

Uh thank you very much, uh, Attorney Wagner, members of the city council, Mr.

Mayor Smith, John Biggs with your community development department.

Uh, we are pleased to bring forward this evening the housing element project, which includes not just the housing element element, but also amendments to our land use plan, our health and safety amendments, or excuse me, health and safety element along with some amendments to our zoning code.

Um we have what's called a regional housing allocation, which are a number of units that the city of Pacific Grove is required to provide for in what's known as the sixth housing cycle, which we are in right now, which runs from 2023 to 2031.

Uh, there are a lot of new state laws that have been um part and parcel with this housing element update.

A lot of state laws that the city must comply with.

And the state's taking a very careful look at how we go about making sure that we comply with the laws.

Um, this is the product of many years work and many um the efforts of many people, including our consultant team, uh Cassandra Gale, Aaron Knight, Megan Jones, uh Kaylee Limbach with Ren Rincon, uh Mary Wagner and Stephen Villivis with the city attorney's office, along with Aaron Campbell and Joe Cedar, who are members of the staff here in community in the community development department of City of Pacific Grove, coupled with the work of a lot of different departments, including the city manager's office and our public works departments.

So what we have before you this evening is a housing element that has been recommended for approval by you by your planning commission, and also a housing element that has been evaluated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

It has been found compliant with all of the state's housing and development laws.

So we have that letter from the state that came in in July of 2025 that basically indicates that the housing element you are considering this evening does comply with all of the state housing element laws.

Any any changes to that would require review again by HCD or housing and community development.

So with that, I would like to hand it over to Cassandra Gale with Rincon Development, and she will be going over the various elements of the housing element along with the changes to the health and safety element.

Uh, and then they'll hand it off to Kylie Limbach for a review of the environmental impact report that has been prepared for this project.

So with that, Cassandra.

Thank you, Mr.

Biggs.

Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes.

Okay, wonderful.

Good evening, Mayor Smith, Council members, and those of us uh from the public who are there tonight.

Um let's go to just the next slide after the introduction.

Perfect.

So uh as mentioned for segment A of this presentation, we'll be presenting four components of the city's six cycle housing program.

These components for this portion are going to include the housing element update, the associated safety element update, amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning map, and the environmental impact report prepared for those actions.

Uh next slide.

And just as a refresher, the housing element update covers the 2023 to 2031 planning cycle.

And the regional house regional housing needs allocation is 1,125 units.

That allocation represents the amount of housing the city must plan for across all income levels to address the projected regional housing needs.

The housing element includes a sites inventory that identifies locations that could accommodate the required RAIDA policies and programs to support the development of housing and the associated analysis and justification for why the specific inventory sites and programs were included.

As mentioned on July 10th, 2025, the city received a letter of conditional compliance from HCD, and the element will be eligible for substantial compliance and certification once the required rezoning actions identified in the document are completed and the housing element is adopted.

Next slide.

The site's inventory specifically was developed using an HCD approved methodology, which evaluates site capacity or how many houses or units can be built on a site based on allowable density, feasibility, infrastructure availability, and site specific constraints.

The analysis reviews vacant parcel, vacant parcels, underutilized sites, and select nonvacant properties consistent with state guidance.

The inventory in front of you today also accounts for units already in the development pipeline, approved projects, and anticipated accessory dwelling units as documented in the housing element analysis.

Next slide.

Under Senate Bill 1035, the housing element update does also trigger a requirement for the city to review and update their safety element.

This update is to ensure the document reflects current state requirements and local hazard conditions.

The revisions incorporate current hazard information, updated maps, and updated program language.

The amendments also add details regarding fire protection, emergency access, and evacuation routes.

And these updates were supported by technical analyses, including a climate vulnerability assessment and an evacuation analysis.

The updated safety element must also be reviewed and approved by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The city has completed the required submission and the board accepted the safety element with no required changes at their December 9th resource protection committee meeting.

Next slide.

So moving on to the zoning ordinance and zoning map.

Several amendments are proposed to implement the housing element programs, namely programs five and 13.

The ordinance updates for this portion of the presentation include program specific changes intended to reduce barriers to housing and cleanup updates to reflect recent legislation related to permitted uses, density bonuses, and other housing related requirements, such as supportive housing and emergency shelters.

Altogether, these changes bring the zoning ordinance into consistency with the housing element document and current state housing law.

Next slide.

For the rezonings, there are two map changes proposed.

The map on this slide shows the two areas proposed for rezoning to R3.

So first, we have the Dennis Cynics and Grove Acre area, currently zoned R2B3, and a second area, the first United Methodist Church site, currently zoned R2.

These rezonings reflect the sites identified in the site's inventory and are required for the housing element to be eligible for full certification from HCD.

Next slide.

And with that, I am going to pass it to my colleague to discuss the environmental impact report.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Kayle Limbach, and I am a project manager with RINCON and myself and Megan Jones joining the audience oversaw the preparation of the environmental impact report or the EIR for the project.

As discussed in the EIR, the project in and of itself does not develop housing.

It is a plan to provide for the possibility of housing supported by consistent zoning standards and land use designations.

So while there are no specific development projects currently proposed, the EIR analyzes the potential impacts of possible future housing and commercial projects that could be made possible by the project.

And to provide a conservative estimation of potential environmental impacts, the EIR considers a maximum build-out scenario in which every housing site is developed with the maximum amount of housing possible.

This is a very conservative estimate given actual development trends in Pacific Road, but that's the uh level of what the EIR analyzed.

Next slide, please.

I just said that.

We can go to the next slide.

Um, efforts for the environmental impact report began in January of 2024, at which time a notice of preparation was published.

And the draft EIR was available for public review and comment from June 30th to August 15th of this year.

The city received 11 comment letters on the draft EIR.

Written responses were prepared for every comment letter received, which are compiled into the responses to comments document.

So together, the draft EIR and the responses to comments comprise the final EIR that the council would consider approving and certifying this evening.

Next slide.

This slide presents a summary of all 20 environmental topic areas that were considered in the EIR.

Topics shown in gray were determined to have no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts and no mitigation measures for these topic areas were required.

The EIR determined for the topics shown in orange, which is air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, and utilities and service systems, that these would have potentially significant environmental impacts, but these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation.

For example, the EIR identified that construction of new development made possible by the project could generate a significant amount of air emissions, but these emissions would be reduced by mitigation measure AQ3, which would require construction equipment to use alternative fuel or to have more efficient engines.

Finally, the EIR determined that the project would have significant and unavoidable environmental impacts for the resources shown in red, which are cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts would be significant despite compliance with existing regulations and implementation of feasible mitigation measures.

And for one point of clarity, these resources listed here encompass multiple potential impacts.

So noise covers construction noise, operational noise, transportation, and vibration.

So not every single subtopic under these broad categories has significant impacts, but I will discuss the particular significant impacts here.

For cultural resources, the EIR identified that future development has the potential to cause adverse impacts to historic resources.

For example, future development may be proposed adjacent to historic buildings or may propose to partially or fully replace a historic building.

Compliance with the city's guidelines for historic assessments and applicable state regulations would reduce the potential for these resources to be impacted.

But these guidelines and other regulations do not wholly prevent uh historic buildings from being altered.

So while it's unlikely that future development would alter historic buildings, it's possible.

And because the city's guidelines and policies currently represent the full extent of feasible mitigation, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

For greenhouse gas emissions, future development in Pacific Grove would potentially be inconsistent with the state of California's Air Resources Board's 2022 scoping plan, which encourages future development to provide uh electric vehicle charging infrastructure and for buildings to be fully electric, as and to not use natural gas connections.

And because this can't be uh guaranteed for future development, uh, this would be inconsistent with the scoping plan and would result in significant impacts.

For noise, the construction of new development would be approximate to existing residences, residences and businesses and could exceed acceptable sound levels established by the city's noise ordinance and general plan.

Further vehicles driven by the additional future population facilitated by the project could increase roadway noise levels.

And the EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce this noise, but even with implementation of these measures, it's possible that noise would still exceed acceptable levels.

So overall, these are the environmental uh significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified for the project.

And in order to proceed with approval of the project, the city must also approve a statement of overriding considerations.

The statement of overriding considerations for this EIR.

Um the purpose of this is that the lead agency must consider the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of a project and weigh these against the other benefits of the project.

And if the city determines that these other benefits outweigh the potential environmental impacts, these impacts may be considered acceptable.

And this is disclosed in this statement of overriding considerations.

And uh the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA permits a broad range of economic, legal, social, technological, or other project benefits as permissible reasons to proceed with the project.

And in the statement for this EIR, um, some of the benefits identified for adopting the project include but aren't limited to bringing the city's housing element and health and safety element into compliance with state law and avoiding enforcement actions and financial penalties associated with noncompliance, ensuring consistency between the updated housing element and other elements of the general plan, enabling the city to maintain local control over land use and creating expanded economic opportunities.

And the statement of overriding considerations concludes that any one of these reasons are sufficient to support adoption of the project and that they outweigh potential environmental impacts.

This concludes the portion of the presentation for the EIR, and we'll now summarize the recommended action.

Adopt the resolution of the city council approving the project, which includes amending the text policies, figures, and maps of the Pacific Road General Plan to adopt the 2023-2031 housing element, amending the health and safety element, obtaining uh adopting the secret findings effect, including a statement of overriding considerations and adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Uh request that the city attorney read the title of the ordinance motion to waive further reading of the ordinance and then introduce and hold the first reading of the ordinance, amending the uh city zoning regulations, check uh title 23, the zoning code, um, and then direct the publication ordinance will be satisfied by publication of summary approved by the city council.

And then there's one final thing I would like to go over with the city council.

Could you call that up?

Um, we've had a lot of I was going back and forth all the over all the the various documents, and there was a few uh minor corrections that we wanted to make the city council aware of and um request you include these corrections in any motion to approve the various elements of the the housing element project this evening.

The first is regarding land use element, uh page three.

We're recommending that there be some corrections to the language to reflect that measure E was approved by voters in 1994 that rezone the home building site in the downtown to C1T.

Uh the second, it's a table, table one-six on page one-14, uh changing the title to two of the columns to number of owner units occupied and percent percentage of total units, and then the third correction is the on uh for the housing element page one-36.

It's a reference to the R3 zone district.

Um, there is a sentence fragment that got inadvertently left in there that states Grove Acre Avenue west of George Washington Park.

That'll be deleted.

So, with that, that concludes staff's presentation.

We're available for questions by the city council.

Okay, and so can you put up the your own recommendations again for on the screen for everybody to look at, please?

Do you have any additional comment, Mr.

Morgan?

Okay.

We're gonna go to public comment, but I'd like to reflect the recommendations that you had up there about three slides ago, please.

Okay, thank you very much.

So just showing everybody on online and in the chambers.

This is what we're going to be commenting on tonight for this particular portion of the event.

This is probably why most of you are here if you would like to comment.

This is a housing element itself.

And these this is the actual housing element.

The the second part of the presentation is related to only the land use element and land use maps and the commercial and industrial zoning district changes.

So this first uh portion is all covered in this recommendation here.

And that's so anyone who wishes to make a comment on these items.

Now is your time to speak.

So, how many people in the audience are by a show of hands would like to speak on this topic?

Raise them high, please.

Okay.

All right, so we're gonna have two minutes uh on this because we have all a bunch of callers online as well.

So um we're gonna put the time at two minutes, and I'll ask uh people come forward and line up, please.

And we're not gonna be time in between that's so come on up.

State your name and then go ahead and two minutes.

We're gonna take changes first.

Uh we'll take online seconds.

Go ahead.

Come on up.

You're in front of the line.

Sorry.

Yeah, it's good.

It's good.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, awesome.

Um, okay, I'm Laura Davis giving comment on behalf of Landwatch.

Uh Landwatch joins the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership and other housing advocates in supporting the city's adoption of the housing element.

We asked the city council to approve staff's recommendation.

The draft housing element currently before the council has been a multi-year process involving extensive public participation.

It provides a blueprint for how the city will meet its arena requirements.

It will enable the production of much needed affordable housing for those who work in Pacific Grove but cannot afford to live here.

By amending a land use element and updating zoning codes to allow for higher density in designated areas, the city will facilitate more efficient and sustainable land use while also ensuring housing that is more affordable by design.

Similarly, by allowing for mixed-use development in areas that have previously been designated only for commercial use, the city will enable development that promotes walkability and creates rental units and housing that is within reach for those seeking to buy an entry-level home.

When people can live, work and walk in the same community, the benefits are substantial, extending to the environment and all members of the community.

Reducing commutes reduces greenhouse gases and improves quality of life.

People living and working in proximity to one another creates real community.

Each day that the city delays in adopting its housing element means vulnerability to the builder's remedy and stalled progress in alleviating our community's housing crisis.

Delaying the housing element tonight won't prevent development in places like the Cinex neighborhood.

It will just facilitate it in a more haphazard and potentially undesirable way under the builders' remedy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Patrick Nevis.

I'm your former chair of your former economic development commission.

Um there's been a tremendous amount of good work put in by the consultants and the city staff and everyone on this, and uh want to endorse the housing element.

The I want to speak to mostly kind of the overriding considerations of economic uh development.

This would be a positive for the community.

There would be digital construction, there'd be homes, there'd be it could make our community more vibrant and uh exciting place to live.

Um, but certainly would have a positive benefit to the businesses here in terms of providing food, uh dry goods, and to the construction firms in terms of hardware stores, paint stores, things like that.

So I endorse your the work and I endorse the housing element and uh thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

Welcome.

Uh it's good to be here.

And my name is Michael Nall.

I live on the 500 block of Dennett.

So Dennett and 17 mile.

This time of year, we're known as the Christmas house, if you've seen it.

Um yeah, I want to comment on the rezoning.

So I keep hearing about how if we change something, it has to go back to committee or how it will extend some blah blah thing.

I got it.

But I've also heard that there was extensive community input.

And to be honest with you, up until a few weeks ago, this is the first I've heard of it, and I live a block away.

My understanding is that it was posted 200 feet of within the cynics location.

We're outside that.

Uh so I'm not even asking for like, don't change it.

I'm asking for the the 29 unit density that's on the current map, or the proposed map, rather.

Um we live across the street from 17 mile village.

And that's a that's excellent.

And their current building is 17 per acre, if I understand.

And 29 is just way too dense for that little block surrounded by houses.

So again, not a no.

I just think that we should rethink that density.

And uh save that neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please note the booths.

Please try to keep order near so we could hear up here.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Matt Huerta, Vice President of Community Development with the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership.

And represents the Tri-County region's major public and private employers.

Our key initiatives include creating higher paying jobs with health care benefits, expanding broadband, increasing child care opportunities, and building more housing for all.

We provided a support letter reflecting our support for staff recommendations to approve your housing element update and submit it to the state for final approval.

Housing element compliance is critical to avoid loss of local control.

Loss of grant funding opportunities, and potentially also avoid incurring penalties.

PG has the opportunity this evening to take a major step forward in meeting its obligations to plan for needed in fill housing development.

We're here to help them help the city implement the plan once certified by the state.

Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Council members.

My name's Andrew Miller.

I live at 510 Evergreen, which is about a half a block away from the um the parcel that's uh within Dennett, Cinex, and Grove Acre.

Um I'm at I'm at the crosstalk.

I'm hearing a lot of cross talk, so we're not gonna have that.

We're gonna move a chance to talk, and that's what you talked about.

Okay, thank you very much.

Go ahead.

Why don't you start the start of so I'm a 30, I'm a 36-year resident of PG, 30 years down there in Isilamar and the PG Grove Acre community.

And um I understand that what we're trying to accomplish with the regional housing needs uh allocation and the housing element itself.

However, it's difficult to understand uh why the parcels uh bordered by Dennett's and X and Grove Acre were included in the in the housing element.

The reasons why they shouldn't have been included are many, and the biggest reason is is that density issue that was just brought up by speaker two speakers ago.

I mean, we're going from um roughly nine units per acre up to 29.

So it's it's a huge increase.

And so um there's that's the main reason, but there's also no infrastructure, no few services, minimal public transportation, parking is minimal on Dennett and Grove Acre, and the streets are narrow, um, and emergency service access will be impacted there.

Um, it borders on a wildlife corridor.

That that that parcel and it will have a negative negative impact on that on that uh wildlife access from Pebble Beach.

And it's not close to schools, commercial businesses, businesses, or jobs.

And and also, as as previously commented on, um, not everybody was was informed about this project.

There was notification within with to the um property owners within those streets, but not around those those uh streets.

So um they're gonna be impacted heavily by this, including construction and um the increased um density.

So the big question is how would how did this area make it into the housing element?

It just it just doesn't add up and it makes no sense.

So um there more than there must be more than meets the eye when you look at them, the map and you see this 29 unit requirement in the in the middle of a residential area.

It just makes no sense.

So I strongly urge the council to remove the Dennett Synex Grove Acre parcel from the housing element.

Um we also understand the pre-approval with the state, and but it's over okay.

So we get your add on them.

You get my letter.

I didn't get any, and that's the other thing.

I don't know of anybody who got any responses to any letters that were written.

So I just urge you to buy thank you.

Hi, my name is Melissa Walker, and I live at 520 Evergreen, right next door to Mr.

Miller.

I've been in the neighborhood since 1996.

My main question is why choose this particular block in the Asilomar neighborhood when they're much better locations.

For example, the mission property, it's at a the mission laundry property at 801 Sunset Drive.

It's three acres on a wide street with open space around it.

The city owns the Rip and Winkle Park, so there's open space right next door.

The building there has been empty for a number of years.

It's near shopping and schools.

Wouldn't this be a much better location to be identified for for high density housing?

Another property is the Leport Tarrantine property at 1030 Lighthouse Avenue.

It's one and three quarters acres on another main very wide street.

The house burned down.

The property is currently empty.

It seems to me that would be another good spot.

There's another property down at the other end of Grove Acres at 254 Grove Acres.

It's 1.6 acres.

It's a big property with only one house on it.

The house is pretty much in disrepair.

It's near lighthouse.

There's lots of open space around it.

It backs up to the wreck trail.

In our neighborhood, the streets are narrow.

They're very narrow.

Basically, one line, one lane if there's parking on either side.

So it's it's not ideal.

There's no street lights, it's pitch black at night.

Uh putting 29 units per acre in our neighborhood makes no sense.

The streets are parked out a few times a year for events that happen at Asylamar.

And during that time, there's like one barely one lane down the middle of Dennett or down the middle of some of the other streets.

If you're driving one way and somebody somebody's coming the other, you have to back up.

I just don't understand how we could accommodate that.

I wanted to try and get an idea of what the this kind of density would or build out would look like.

So I went to the motel that's two doors down from my house.

It's the best western.

It was originally built by uh, I think it was Bill Brady back in 1981 as 10 condos.

It didn't sell, so it was converted into a motel.

Well, there's 10 basically 10 condo units on an acre of land, and they each have two car parking.

It's great.

10 units on an acre, that's fine.

But triple that, I don't think so.

Thank you.

Uh hi, I live at 520 Evergreen next door to the Miller's for 29 years.

And uh the port property is at a four-way stop on Lighthouse and 17 mile drive.

It's one and three quarter acres.

The place burned down years ago.

There's a motel to the west of it, apartments across the street, condominiums or apartments to the east of it, and on the Kitty Corner side is a is a lodge, a a bed and breakfast.

Why wasn't that considered?

We had no input into this.

We saw small signs go up near the subject properties that had already been decided on, Mr.

Biggs by you and your consultants, which we pay for.

My grandchildren and my children are paying for this.

This state's running huge deficits.

Wait till the next recession.

And then we'll find out more about this that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Pacific Rose Tax Dollars at work.

This city council approved a 14,000 dollar political consultance.

I hope I have that sec those seconds back.

But actually, I have no problem with increasing the density and picking parcels with which to do it.

We had no input.

I've lived there 29 years.

Okay.

I we had no input, we had no notice of this.

You claim we did.

I don't think you want any.

The easiest thing for the political class to do is in a state, and this is shameful of 40 million people with a coastline to pass a dictate that applies to thousands of communities and threaten to sue you or tie or fine you if you don't comply, Mr.

Biggs.

And you have a defined benefit pension plan.

Mine is where have I saved and where do I get from it?

And I adjust it.

Sorry.

I'm done.

Okay.

Listen, can you have to shut up this mic from the input?

Oh, we take go back to Mayor.

What's up?

Yes, sure.

Mr.

Burke.

Mayor, may I just make a show notary?

Mayor, can I say something?

Yeah.

Um, I think that at this point it's important for everybody to acknowledge that you're certainly allowed to speak.

Um shouting at the council.

If you choose to do that, we're not going to stop you, but it's not really productive to the process.

Um, and the comments that are being made should be directed to the council.

Um, and you can certainly be as critical as you want um of the um matter that's before you, but I think that those are some ground rules that we should all be aware of.

Wolfman.

I'm a lifelong resident of Pacific Grove over 50 years.

I have three quick questions.

I'd like to be entered in the record.

First one is water.

Where's that going to come from?

Second one is um the butterfly impact.

Has there been a California analysis of the one mile radius of the butterfly impact?

The butterfly is an animal.

It's considered an animal.

Okay, so it's been it's not an endangered species on the third list, but California recognizes it as an as a endangered species.

And um third question.

Wow.

So it's um please stop.

Oh, I can I can throw in one.

I can throw in one.

The uh the quick rush for the pro was what's kind of cool too.

Yeah, people made sure they got up here for the let's go, let's go.

But oh, um I'm anti anti-development.

We we've got enough here.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, council.

Uh Steve Tucker, 508 Grove Acre.

So four houses down from the proposal development.

Uh, my family's been in the house for 56, 57 years.

Um, we've watched successive overreaches by the council in terms of approving new development.

When 17 mile drive village was developed, the initial proposal was for 250.

It was called clawed back down to 25200.

It was then finally agreed on at the current 84.

That is a development that kind of makes sense for the neighborhood.

It's low rise, it's two-story, it's not dense, there are setbacks.

With the current proposal of 29 for a much, much smaller plot.

Um, I agree with everything that's been said about the the net sin X Grove Acre parcel.

It makes absolutely no sense for that neighborhood.

Um, I agree with previous speakers that you know there is a housing that you know, we need to build affordable housing.

Um, I find it very, very odd that that particular site was chosen over other more appropriate sites.

Um I also find it extremely odd that the council is proposing essentially to abdicate its role as a representative citizens of Pacific Grove to allow to under the under the provision for objective standards, and then as yet undefined zoning changes on density on on surface area, on height, on parking, on all of the other things that affect the character of individual neighborhoods.

And you're essentially you're saying, well, you know, we want to avoid having the state come in, but what you're essentially doing is transferring your responsibility to individual developers who will make decisions on a basis which is quite different from what a council should be doing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, council.

Uh my name is Doug Philbrick.

I live on 606 Dennett, so directly across the street from the proposed rezoning area.

I have a two and a half minute statement, which I'll attempt to give in two minutes.

Objectively, I think it's fair to say that the process of updating the general plan has been mismanaged.

Otherwise, we wouldn't be here tonight discussing a plan that was nominally supposed to take effect nearly three years ago.

As many have stated tonight, inadequate public notice has contributed to this and has made the entire process more chaotic and much less transparent than it should have been.

While there are nevertheless many useful components of the proposed updates that we're here discussing tonight and which have elicited little discussion or controversy from the community, those related to the uh upzoning of sites 38 to 41 are not among them.

These changes, which account for only 67 of the 1125 additional housing units, or a little less than six percent, and which have elicited hundreds of petition signatures and the presence in this meeting of many of the people that you see here before you are ill-conceived, ill-advised, and quite possibly illegal as the full commission uh planning commission, and at least some council members are well aware.

Moreover, there are many viable alternatives which have none of these drawbacks.

For examples of these, I refer you to an email directed to the council and the planning commission on one December 2025, 2025 by Drew Miller, who was here tonight and who I'm sure would be happy to discuss these options with you after the meeting.

I understand that managing a city is a difficult and complicated process, no doubt made more difficult by ever-changing requirements imposed by the state.

Reading between the lines, it seems clear to me that some of those making these decisions know that these proposed updates, specifically as they relate to sites 38 to 41, are a bad idea.

But as the planning commission demonstrated on 13 November of this year, feel pressured to approve it anyway.

Lack of due diligence, failure to effectively seek public input and to consider viable alternatives is the very definition of bad governance.

So let's let's return.

And as a breach of public trust, it's never too late to do the right thing.

Thank you.

Good evening, counsel.

I'll try and get past my stage right here, but basically, ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto.

Um even even Larry's very impassioned plea.

My name's Buddy Sharp.

I live at 846 Grove Acre.

Um, I've been there since 1992, married there, raised my twin daughters there, and I'm a very active member of our local community.

Um, I learned a new acronym at the Planning Commission meeting the last time I was here, NIMBY.

Not in my backyard.

I didn't know that one.

Um, I'm not really not in my backyard guy, because I live backed up to Hayward Lumber.

I think I know the definition of not wanting to have something like seven forklifts in my backyard with backup beepers, but I do.

What I am concerned about is having lived there and walked my dogs in that neighborhood up and down those streets every day.

And I know every single one of the people on the on the parcel that's in question here this evening on uh bordered by Grove Acre and Cinex, is that none of us had any idea that this process was going on over the last few years.

Not a bit.

I pay attention, I'm on your mailing list, you can check for city council notifications and such.

And I would have spoken up.

I would have been happy to get involved.

I would have been happy to help guide the process.

I'm happy to put any one of you in my car and drive you around the neighborhood and show you a lot more appropriate properties than the one that we're mentioning for the level of density that we're talking about.

I think that you owe it to us as the folks that you have chosen, and we do appreciate you serving, to take a second look at this before you uh put your stamp on it this evening and allow this level of development and this intensity.

There are things that concern me, not only the parcel that's owned by you know, three parcels that are owned by a single individual, just happen to be the ones that were chosen, that something seems wrong about that.

And the uh disruptance of of all of our bus lines, MST has pulled all of the benches and the signs and bus lines, and yet the ER says that transportation is sufficient for people of low income.

Makes no sense to me.

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

Thank you, counsel.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you for being here.

Um, my name's Colleen Ingram.

I live on uh Willow in Unipparo, and I didn't plan on making a comment today, but I hear all these um applause, which I didn't think we were supposed to do here in council chambers.

Um I'm for the changes that we need to get this housing element going forward.

I was at the table for at least two of the uh workshops that we had over the last two years.

I was helping to draw the maps with people at my table from the Monterey Bay Aquarium that were very concerned about not having housing for their employees.

We're losing a lot of what we have here, and I understand the the urge to keep the way they are and to keep your um your neighborhood to where you know everybody.

But if you just understand that we are a growing city, we're a growing state, we're a growing country.

People are populating the world all over.

This is not unique to California, but we have well over a thousand units that we need because we have been kicking this down the road.

And on 17 mile there, where we had more density that was reduced.

That was a mistake.

We could have had more housing there, and we do need this parcel.

We also need the parcel that's on Lighthouse.

We also need the parcel that is where the mission laundry is.

It's not just one.

We need all of this to get this this done.

Um, so I really hope you can move this forward.

And I know there are other people that are sitting here that are that you approve this too, that are um with me.

You can raise your hands if you don't want to stand up and you're for the the housing element, please raise your hand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing besides these two gentlemen to come up, please line up.

Otherwise, we're gonna go to online.

Good evening for um Kevin Carter, 353 Grove Acre Avenue.

So the um representatives of Rincon said that this doesn't pass the EIR doesn't really pass the items that were in black, I believe.

But if you can find a benefit, then you can override it.

And so the benefit appears to be that the state is demanding that we meet our obligations.

Um a burden to us.

And as other people have said, there's many other properties that can share this burden.

And why the heavy focus on the uh Dennis Synex pro acre property is an extra burden to us when you're not spreading to all the other properties that were mentioned.

And all we ask is that you do stick up for us.

And don't let them just do a real quick, oh, here it is.

Let's throw all the apples into one basket.

You know, because that is a heavy burden on just a small area.

And please consider adding all the other properties that are available so that we can lower that density to something similar to the 17 mile uh apartment complex there, which everyone likes.

It's not a burden to us.

They don't spill out and clog traffic.

So thank you.

Good evening.

My name's Michael Baer.

I live on Locust Avenue, which is about a half a mile away from the parcel.

So I'm not as directly impacted as these other speakers.

Uh, I'm concerned about what I've heard about the people in the neighborhood that didn't know about this till very recently, even though it's been going on for a year and a half.

It's also concerned about um, you know, I've just learned about it too.

So I haven't had a chance to read the EIR, but some of the things that concern me about that EIR report.

Um, you know, um, there was no discussion about water, you know, for those units, and I know water is a big issue, and maybe that's just we'll figure that out when we get to it, or maybe it's been accounted for.

But one thing that wasn't on there, traffic impacts, just the general traffic of you know, increasing that density and the number of cars.

You got the hotel going in downtown, and just the overall traffic is a consideration that I didn't even hear mentioned in the EIR uh review.

Uh I also walked, walked that parcel this week, and there are a number of trees, you know, no talk about the you know, if those trees are coming down, what that impact is, and then this woman who talked about the lighting, the street width, the parking, all those issues.

I maybe this is not the time for that, but I do um be nice to know how much time I have here.

Oh, here it is.

Um, so I do have concerns about all of those things not making it into the review of the EIR, and I'll go read it and find out more.

Um yeah.

So, and the main thing is that these people that live in this neighborhood for decades are just finding out about it in the last couple of weeks, and that that is not right.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Drew Miller.

I was raised at 510 Evergreen Road.

I'm a 29-year-old who is far from owning property in PG.

So I uniquely understand the problems we face as well as the potential impacts of builders' remedy.

The proposed rezoning of sites 38 through 41 is not close to jobs or retail, negatively impacts our wildlife and environment, lacks infrastructure, increases VMTs and greenhouse gas emissions, and removes the public and city from decision making, among many other concerns already mentioned tonight.

Legally, if you look at RHA, HCD, AMBAG, and the general plan, there are inconsistencies between these proposed sites and um those those mandates as well.

I won't go through them.

I had some quotes here, but I won't have time to get to them.

Um, at their core, these sites don't make sense for affordable housing or follow the guidelines laid out in those documents.

So why were they chosen?

When asked, staff said that they didn't know.

Simultaneously, we heard an owner of target parcels from out of town is ready to propose a plan to build.

I want to pose a question to you.

What president does this type of rezoning set for future development in our city?

With my concerns expressed, I'm not all doom and gloom, and I do want to provide solutions, which I've sent via email very detailed to you all.

Um, I'm not gonna cover most of my proposals today, but I think some different policies along with other sites would be reducing density to match the neighborhood, approving objective standards before voting, requiring inclusionary principles for affordability, establishing infrastructure and evacuation plans before rezoning, and looking to cities like Aspen or Carmel, who've implemented vacancy taxes, wealth taxes, corporate ownership laws, expanded office conversion, and hotel conversion programs to deal with this issue.

To close, I reach out to you all, but have received no response.

My appeal to you isn't a no to housing, it's a yes to housing done the right way, to building up an urban areas not out, and to putting Pacific Grove on a path to thrive into the future.

In the 80s and 90s, PG leaders crafted a general plan that enabled development while protecting the community.

You can continue that legacy while meeting state requirements.

My ask to you all is continue the vote until January, improve the element and approve an amended version that optimizes benefit to our community, our homeowners, low-income citizens, the environment, local businesses, and our city character.

Thank you.

Um four blocked arteries standing here.

I probably shouldn't be here.

So I remember reading the children's books, The Giving Tree, where the line was who speaks for the trees.

And as a writer for the Pacific Grow Bulletin, when the deer were getting impaled by the stakes, I wrote an article that said who speaks for the deer.

And now I'm asking who speaks for Pacific Grove.

I want to think that you have my interest and every part of town's interest in our city, our neighborhoods, and our life.

Of course, everybody's for housing.

You know, it's a job issue.

Sure, everybody's for jobs, but it's also a space issue.

That people also need space, and that's very important.

Now, in a you know, a Solomar was let down during the COVID thing when all of a sudden Governor Newsom, I like to call him Trump Light, was trying to or brought 27 people to a Silomar, even though there were people with medical conditions around.

It devastated the Silomar.

It hasn't come back yet, loaded off a lot of jobs and low-income people for 27 people.

And the mayor and the council didn't know about it.

They were not speaking for the people.

Right now, I'm saying you need to speak for the people.

You need to know the different ambiances of each community.

Levers Point has a certain feeling, so does the Solomar, so does downtown.

Uh so you need to know and walk each of those areas to see what that is.

Now the job situation for the building.

We had a lot more to go, I could tell.

But okay.

Well, I'm telling you, I'm if I'm standing here ready to have heart attack, I'm going to finish with 20 seconds.

And that is look at Los Angeles, look at the side.

We've got to move on to the next person.

Fine.

I'm you can throw me out and let me have a heart attack in the in the hallway.

But what people of LA built and look what they have.

Calcutta, India, housing housing.

What do you do?

Please.

What do you do?

The next person.

Let us go to the next person.

It's unlivable.

Santa Cruz is unlivable.

Do you want to make Pacific grow up?

Okay.

Do I have the power to tell them go?

I think we can keep moving forward.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I live within 200 feet of the dent block proposed for upzoning.

And as a practicing county-approved field biologist, I'd like to give a voice to the biological resources specific to this block as the EIR determined a number of learning and conclusions related to the biological significance thresholds.

However, EIR provisions would remain, which is why I requested to add the dental block to the ERL survey protocols, as it does for sites 40 million 50, 55, A3, and A4.

We need a preservation, not combined continued fragmentation and degradation of our ecological resources.

Low curly to Costa Street or local state federal species occur.

The proximity will lend the denot to a Silomar should have required we will allow it to include field surveys for the PROC.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife notified the city on two occasions that the draft EIR need to include measures requiring that each project implemented within to be surveilled by qualified biologists to determine potential impact to listed species.

The letters also know the potential conflicts for the Federal Endangered Species Act as the project upzoning would include significant habitat impacts to federally listed species.

There were no field surveys conducted for the development of the ELR only desktop database analysis, which was resulted in the significance threshold for the site.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Nicolas Sanchez.

I live on David Avenue, and I am a renter.

I live in an apartment building, live with many other folks all around.

And I support this housing uh plan to help bring more variety of incomes in the Pacific Grove and allow for a uh controlled and steady flow of density increase into the city.

So it's what the element and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Robert Watson.

Thank you.

Oh thank you.

Uh yeah, I live uh right across the street from uh the Methodist church.

And oh god, I just I came to the last meeting and this meetings first once because I saw the small sign with the tiny tiny print over there.

And I said, I'd better walk across the street and try to read that sign.

And that's what got me here.

So first thing I heard about uh my mom and dad, you know, grew up in PG.

They had a bakery down in Lighthouse.

Uh I play in my backyard, you know, with my two little kids every day.

And uh I said something the last meeting also, but I just feel like I need to because it's just such a beautiful spot.

I can't think of a better use of that, you know, lot.

And I've seen the the kind of recent clearing of the trees and things like that.

There's deer over there all the time, and it's beautiful area.

It kind of slows things down, I think.

It's so quiet and peaceful.

So I think it's a perfect use of that property.

Uh, I don't know what you can do.

I don't have any solutions, but I I moved down to LA in Orange County when there was just orange grove trees there and uh uh for school, you know, and I stayed too long.

I'm sorry to say, but when I come back here, I appreciate it so much.

I used to call it a concrete zoo down there, you know.

I just don't want to see that happen here.

That's all thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, city council.

My name is Brian Shields.

I'm uh senior field rep with Carpenter's Local 646.

And uh I wanted to come up here and ask that a small piece of language that would be impactful be added to the housing element.

Uh it's encouragement language, so it is not binding to developers or contractors, but what it does allow is it allows the city council to provide a moment of pause to the city to any developer that comes through, uh, asking what are you going to do for our local workforce?

Okay.

Um other municipalities that have this uh language are San Benito County.

It's in the land use, Marina General Plan, Capitola Housing Element, Santa Clara Housing Element, Mendel Park Housing Element, Daily City Housing Element, uh Santa Cruz Downtown Expansion Plan, Foster City Housing Element, Redwood City Housing Element, San Mateo County Housing Element, and Monterey County Housing Element, all have this piece of language.

And the piece of language is local labor.

Encourage developers and contractors to evaluate hiring local labor, hiring from and contributing to apprenticeship programs, increasing resources for labor compliance, and providing living wages.

And along with allowing for that moment of pause, uh, for the to be able to ask the question, and I've seen it happen where that would be postponed for at least a month to allow for them to come back with an appropriate response of what are you going to do, not only for the number of units of housing that we want on the back end, but also for our workforce that's going to be building it sometimes for years at a time.

Um it also uh it's a it's one part of the guiding document for Pacific Growth.

And uh when a developer does approach and uh contractor does approach, then they would see that in the housing element and know that hey, workers are valued in this town.

So I asked that it be applied.

Thanks.

Hello, council.

Um I know this is a really difficult issue.

I appreciate all your work and patience and an effort on this.

Obviously, for an effort this big, I really think there should have been additional notifications.

I'm at 895 Cinex.

So I'm outside the 200 feet, but um we are gonna get hit with traffic on cinex.

There's gonna be anywhere from 500 to a thousand more vehicle trips up cynics per day.

So I don't understand how that was not addressed in the EIR.

Um, I'm also concerned that there were um whether it's miscounting or just a lack of understanding where units could be put.

Um there were other uh locations that people have mentioned where we certainly could have absorbed some of the additional needed housing in the city.

Um I'm also concerned that the 17 mile drive uh village was mis uh identified as motel on the um on the map.

So maybe not counting those as residences.

So it was just a lot of these issues as we dive into this that they really had um me asking a lot of questions.

So I'm really concerned how this is gone.

Um and I would ask for a delay to relook at this.

Um I'm specifically concerned about the Dennett Cinex Grove Acre uh location.

Thanks.

Hello, my name is Susan Goldbeck.

Um, first I'd like to I've lived in Pacific Grove for 30 years, and I'm on I was on the planning commission and the city council, and I am a little concerned about the notification issue, which I wasn't aware of until now.

I would like to comment that we do need housing, not just affordable housing, but housing that will bring young people into Pacific Grove.

We old people, we were this is a town of old people, and we need to have young people, and they can't afford to buy a million dollar house.

So that's something we have to address for sure.

And this housing element does to a certain extent.

I'd like to ask the question, and it many people have brought up, which is why are these other sites weren't considered in this plan?

So you know, I think that's very important to a lot of people, whether or not these the ones that were selected are the ones only ones that should be here.

And I think that the public needs to know.

A lot of people have asked me about this.

The public needs to know that the state mandate is only a mandate for a plan.

And what a plan does is simply enhance the ability of people to develop housing.

So a lot of the things that people have said may prevent housing in this area that they're so concerned with.

So it doesn't mandate that the housing be built by the state, only that we plan, make plans so that in case we want to build it, there is a it's easier for people to build.

That's all.

But I do think that the public was not, and this is happening all too much in Pacific Grove, is not given enough notice.

So thank you very much.

And thank you for your service.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll go to the online, please.

Thank you, Mayor.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I lived in in uh on Pico in the Asilomar area for a number of years, but for the past 30, I've been here closer to the downtown area.

And I have um five questions and two suggestions.

There were some things that either I didn't hear or I I missed.

And one was the impact on forestry because the EIR, I think.

But I wonder if um there's an estimate on how many trees might be removed and implementing the um housing element and how they'd be replaced.

I also didn't catch if wildlife were was considered in the EIR, probably was, and if that there would be any effect on deers and foxes, things like that.

And then um, I didn't hear exactly how Pacific Grove's ability to maintain local control will be negatively impacted if the housing element is not passed.

I think that will happen, but I don't know how.

It could be that they're wonderful suggestions, but it's just too late to look into them.

And then my suggestions are maybe in the future, rather than just posting a um a sign during the summer when a lot of people are on vacation.

Okay, oh, time's up.

Okay.

So I was thinking that maybe you could put something in next door.

Thank you.

Okay.

Charles Alvarez.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, my name is Charles Alvarez, and I'm a resident of PG.

I'm also an advocate for affordable housing in PG.

And the first draft of this housing element being considered again tonight, first came before council over two years ago in October of 2023.

Sadly, the housing problems to be solved were never discussed, and they weren't discussed again tonight.

PG has a serious housing affordability problem.

It's well documented in the housing needs section of the housing element.

Among the lowlights are that in 2020, nearly half the PG population was suffering housing affordability affordability challenges.

Fast forward five years, and housing costs are up over 40%, while local local household income and social security up are only up about 20%.

Things have only become worse.

And the data shows that we have an aging population, many of whom are seniors and on and long-term residents who are being squeezed by these economics and forced to leave.

And these are these are or at least were our neighbors.

With no change in policy, this is likely over 20%.

For context, the number of reported vacant housing units is 40% more than the 1,125 unit target assessed at PG.

General plans adopted in the 90s have failed to prevent affordability issues.

Doing things the same way won't change that result.

Corrective affordable housing action will require adopting this housing element and applying community and public private resources to understand and solve the affordability problems.

We've lost over two years so far.

It's time to approve the housing element and engage community to use it to find solutions and fund and build plans with likely a majority of your constituents suffering housing affordability challenges.

You can demonstrate your support to that housing element tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Charles.

Tyler Saddle.

Greetings, Mayor and Council.

My name is Tyler Suttle.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Greetings, Mayor and Council.

My name is Tyler Suttle.

I'm a Pacific Grove resident on Donut Street within site 39 that is specifically targeted as an opportunity area within this housing element.

I'm speaking to oppose the extreme high density rezoning of the Donut Sinex and Grove Acre area that is so out of touch with the values of our neighborhood and really to the community of Pacific Grove as a whole.

I want to ask that you please take more time on this decision and postpone it to a future meeting in order to truly receive and consider more important community input on such an impactful decision and evaluate other appropriate solutions.

As other speakers have said, the noticing was not adequate as part of the development of this housing element for myself and most of our neighborhood.

Everyone I know actually, we only found out about the rezoning when a notice of public hearing was staked in front of our house for the recent planning commission meeting.

This area would be rezoned for 31 housing units.

It's really hard to imagine.

But I want to point out that three of the contiguous largest parcels uh within this neighborhood, uh area 38, 39, and 40 are owned by the same individual who has an interest in development.

So this is not abstract.

Uh, this rezoning is a serious threat um is from our perspective and raises questions about why this area was targeted so specifically in the housing plan.

Um and um I I also want to say that the EIR's analysis uh is incorrect in saying that high density development here would not have a substantial adverse effect on the visual character or historical integrity of the area.

It also failed to uh identify this as a known area of controversy, the rezoning of this neighborhood.

Also, the um uh impacts on this uh Christy Italiano Thomas Hi, I'm Christy Thomas.

I uh was one of those that was at the very first housing element meeting and attended every single one and the workshops.

And so I really kind of take issue with the Dennett people neighborhood that think they could just pull the sites of mission linen and the Laports out of the thin air, like those are those aren't owned by the cities, those were mentioned before, and it was very clear that the mission linen is a private owner.

Not only is there a huge environmental cleanup there, but uh he's not interested or you know, never popped up to say, oh, I want to build housing there, nor has Mr.

Laporte.

So you can't just tell somebody what they're gonna build.

And in these two and a half years, um, every single spot that has been um picked, I've had to hear, as most of us that are huge proponents of low-income senior have to hear that um it's sacred land or there's um endangered species or blah blah blah.

And you know, it gets old, so everybody that's where the NIMBY comes from because everybody knows how desperate for housing the worker bees are here, but nobody wants it in their neighborhood.

And also with respect to these Dennett people, you know, the town crier doesn't come to everybody's yard.

I realize everybody can't sit on these uh meetings like me, like a retired person, but uh you have anything you're interested in.

The city has the website with this housing element, every step that if you care, you can take the time to read.

So this wasn't some just pop-up uh thing and you know, kind of like late to the party, but anyway, this has got to be passed.

Uh if our if our planning commission um thought it was uh good enough after this much time, and can I mention paying two uh consultants for this remote here?

Thank you.

Christine.

Yes, hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

So um I spoke last time.

So try to um I live at uh 608 Dennett, which is right across the street from some of these parcels.

And so try not to be too repetitive and just add, I am I think I did share last time though that I am not a not in my backyard person.

I actually choose to live next to um uh affordable housing.

I think it's very important.

I think what's not being heard is, and I'll just share the story.

I cannot back out of my driveway.

I cannot back out of my driveway without hitting cars that are on the other side.

I drive a Ford expedition, I don't drive that big of a car.

What I feel is not being heard is there's no room there.

If if if I was hearing, I wouldn't be opposed to it being across the street.

If I was hearing, we're gonna widen the roads, we're gonna add lights.

I can't add an extra bathroom, I can't to my house.

I can't even have good plumbing.

I I can't even use my kitchen sink half the time because of the water pressure, right?

So if I heard these things being taken care of, I would understand how we could put all those houses there, right?

Just last weekend there was a teacher's conference.

There was parking all the way up Dennett, all the way up cynics.

So I'll just share that because I think someone said, should we drive people around?

I think that would be really important.

I don't think, I mean, there's probably some NIMBY's here, but I just don't think it's that.

I think it's that it's not just feasible.

It just it's hard to imagine.

I also mentioned, I think Doug spoke earlier, one of my neighbors next door.

We've been trying to take care of a tree that's dangerous, and we can't get the city council to help us with a simple tree.

So it's hard to imagine how we're gonna fit this all in.

The other thing I'll say is we keep calling it a discussion, but I heard all these questions asked last time.

I've been looking for answers.

I've not seen the answers.

I heard concerns about legality.

Um, no answers.

Last week I made sure to be there for the meeting.

The meeting was canceled like five minutes before it was supposed to happen.

So it feels like something's fishy when we're not just answering the questions.

Some of us would be calmer if we had these answers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, my name is Carol Marcoard, and I live in Pacific Grove for the last what many years.

So I I really do feel for the Dennett Cinex Avenue people.

I have been aware of workshops for the last two years.

And I attended at least one or two, and they weren't well attended.

I don't know whether the word didn't get out.

But I also I you know, this is a very blue state, right?

And this is a very blue city.

And next time you decide to vote blue, remember the assembly, the legislature voted all this in.

The the um the builders remedy, they're gonna come in here and and they think they're gonna take over a property if we don't approve this.

I mean, we've had our head to the to the acts on this.

We have no choice.

So next election, why don't you think about whether you're going to vote blue?

Because we have nothing but blue up in Sacramento.

Thank you.

Hi there.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um, I'd like to start by thanking the planning commission and everyone who participated in the community workshops and helped identify the two parcels of interest.

Um, I think that that process is really important and uh participation in it is appreciated.

Um, I am a renter in Pacific Grove on Evergreen Road, uh, within 200 feet of the uh Dennett Cinex parcel.

Um, and I'm here to support the housing element.

Um housing shapes who is able to live and raise a family in this community.

And as a new mom, I think it's really important.

Uh Pacific Grove is a really special place, and that's because of its people and the strong sense of care that we have for one another.

And without planning for new housing, especially homes that are more attainable for families and individuals at different stages of life or in jobs that really matter but aren't always financially compensated as they should be, like teachers, nurses, um, and local professionals.

We really risk limiting who can stay and who can put down routes.

Um, it's my belief that supporting the housing element is one way to plan responsibly for the future while making while protecting what makes Pacific Grove special, and I urge you to support it.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Um yeah.

Uh I've been a longtime resident of Pacific Grove since the early 80s.

Um, I heard something really interesting that the mission laundry site isn't being considered uh for any housing.

And that was because the current owner doesn't want it.

So that my question to you is how did these three parcels on the Dennett Senate Cinex uh site um come into being?

Did the developer come and approach the city and go, I voluntarily want to raise the um density on these for the housing element.

I thought that was really kind of an interesting observation.

Pardon me.

Um let's see, I don't know enough about all the other sites to comment on them, but uh we do need housing.

And the other thing I would say is is there a way that these all these new units are going to be built in the future go to worker housing uh and not just be sold off as vacation condos or living residents for second homeowners type thing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Kyle.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Awesome.

Um good evening, everyone.

My name's Kyle Miller.

I also grew up on Evergreen Road and have lived in Pacific Grove most of my life.

Um, you know, this area is right next to uh the Dennett Sinx Grove Acre location that's been selected.

And I just want to start off by saying I understand the the challenge that you're facing is mandated by the state.

Um and I appreciate that there's been a lot of work when it comes to the housing.

Um obviously I'm I'm all for higher density housing when it is done correctly and would love to support a plan um if correct um to build more affordable housing in Pacific Grove.

But that being said, this this parcel isn't it.

Um the proposition to rezone to up to 29 dwelling units per acre, which is a it's it's a 3x increase over the current zoning of 8.7.

It's an extreme change, and frankly, it it uh poses some serious risks and and issues for the neighborhood.

And I think really starts, you know, and echoing what everyone else has said from an infrastructure standpoint.

This area just isn't prepared for that level of density and and traffic.

There's no sidewalks there, there's extremely limited parking.

Most of these streets are narrow, and I'm really concerned about access for emergency services as well as evacuation routes during an emergency.

Um, you know, not to mention limited services, few jobs nearby, no public transportation, many other things to take into account, such as the nature corridor and and the unavoidable effects outlined in the EIR.

Um that being said, gotta say the lack of communication has been concerning.

And you know, lastly, does anyone really believe that whatever property is built here is is gonna fall into the affordable housing category?

I don't.

Um, there doesn't seem to be a requirement or occlusionary principles in this as well.

So taken together, it feels pretty difficult to understand.

Um, my proposition would be to remove the site, but if that's not possible, let's reduce the the zoning number.

Thanks.

Hi, I'm Eugene Lowe, and I live near sites 38 to 41.

I'm a big fan of the environment, and I really like our neighborhood.

But also seems like the only two types of people who can afford the housing here, in many cases, multi-million dollar homes, are well, they're people like me who moved here decades ago, and we still pay low proposition 13 property taxes.

And then there are also people, often from out of town, who pay cash for houses, but then don't even live here full time.

For me, one symbol of Pacific Grove is the butterfly parade.

But it feels like the expense of housing from low density zoning is driving that family-oriented character of our town away.

We do need higher density zoning to provide housing for younger, less wealthy families in order to retrieve Pacific Grove's hometown feel.

And so I welcome higher density zoning, even yes, in my backyard.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Further hands.

Okay, go ahead and close up with a comment um on the item, bring it back to the council for discussion.

Um, I'll just lead off with a couple of comments that I have.

Um so I don't want to talk too long because I'm gonna give other people the chance.

Um, but I'm just gonna hit four points that I think are important to this discussion.

And uh we appreciate all the input tonight, but this was not even a close percentage of the of the amount of input we've received over the last three years doing this item.

Um we received input from people that from all parts of the community that either opposed or favored or supported different areas, different sites, all the research that's gone into this, all the comments to the EIR, uh, all the comments that staff has correlated and all the comments that our consultants have correlated because it's been a lot.

Um so this is probably the biggest project that uh since I've been on the council, so 10 years.

Um maybe the LCP was I don't think it was as big as this.

This is this is more bigger.

It's uh it's impactful.

And why are we here?

We're here because there's a mandate for housing for increased housing, not for any type specific type of housing, but for an increased amount of housing over a thousand units.

We are gonna have to do this, and if we don't do it, we're gonna get penalized.

It's gonna be it would be really, really draconian.

You could have people come in and put a 50-story high rise in in locations and you wouldn't be able to stop it.

So we are here doing the best we can using the best consultants, and we have great staff working on this.

Um, and this is what this is the resultant, you know, what we have in our recommendation is a result of years of work on this, literally years of work.

Um, and also going back and forth with the state with the with the department that handles this.

Going back and forth with them to make sure that we're hey, is this gonna work?

Is this gonna work?

Because we want to we want to get this thing done.

So um, we're already behind schedule on it.

So we need we're we're kicking it now to try to get back on schedule.

And this is what our experts have told us are that we that we need to do to make this work to get ourselves into a position with the state that will be approved.

Do we know if it's gonna result in over a thousand units?

I don't we don't know that, but this is the best we're taking our best shot, like with many things in life.

We can't we have no guarantees, right?

We we come up here, we take our best shot at it, and we hope that it will go as well.

Um but we have it's not like we haven't done the homework.

I mean, this is this is years of work, literally years of work.

And I heard a lot about the process not being flawed, but I mean, I'm a lawyer, so I work.

I hear this all the time too.

Process is flawed, you know, you didn't do this, you didn't do that, or or you know, I don't even make those arguments myself.

But the but that at the end of the day, this is the best process we have.

The the noticing and all that stuff, that's all just basic state law.

That stuff's been around forever.

Um, these that's the best process that we have.

It probably is, I would say probably one of the best processes available for passing plans like this for trying to get the notice out, and it may not always reach everybody.

That's uh it's flawed, and because government in general is flawed, you know, it's not perfect.

We like I said, we take the best shot we can at things, we do the best we can with the information we have in front of us.

And I think tonight, because it's been so long, we've done so much work on this, we've taken so much comment on this tonight.

I'm support approving this.

And um, with with the information I have in front of me, I think there's enough information that I have to know that this is our best shot, and we've yet we've spent the money on the experts.

We've spent the money on our staff members.

We've spent the time in our meetings with our volunteers in the lower commissions and now us.

So we we've spent the time and this is where we're at.

And so I'm supportive of it.

I think it has a positive chance to increase our housing.

Well, I don't know, it'll get 1129.

I don't know, but it'll help.

And um there were other one last point.

There were other sites too that were considered.

So, like it's not like I think I heard a lot of the this wasn't considered, this was considered actually was considered like almost everything was considered, but you just have to look at our little town.

We love to see that you know, a lot of them every there's already things right on top of each other, and then there's different uh areas like the golf course that we you know it's our golf course, and then there's there's you know, it's just a lot, there's a lot going on here on this little map, right?

So that's why we love this place.

It's beautiful, it's very diverse.

So um, in any event, that's my thoughts for now, Mayor Burton.

Thank you, Mayor.

You've um summarize it very well.

I just um we've spent a lot of time on it.

Mr.

Biggs, I appreciate you and your staff on working on this for many years.

And I've been on the council for going on seven now, and I have heard this the past few years.

I truly believe, and I'm gonna ditto with the mayor here, but um we're at a point where we need to be in control.

The city of Pacific Grove needs to be in control.

That's the key.

We don't want the state of California to come down on us and tell us what to do, but we need to be in control.

That's the key.

I'm in support of this uh plan.

Thank you.

Uh uh Councilman Garfield.

Thank you, Honor.

I want to give some answers or what I see as being some answers to some of the questions that have been raised.

Um Sandra, is it possible to put up the photographs I sent you?

I want to show you what's in the back of my mind.

Um so we talk about builders' remedy.

What is Builders Remedy look like?

In the city of Menlo Park, um, they didn't get their uh housing element approved, and a developer put in this.

This is a drawing of what the city had to take from a builder who put in the plans before their housing element was approved.

That's on a 15-acre site in the middle of a residential area in Menlo Park, which is as you can see, pretty much flat as a pancake.

Um, it's three towers, a hotel, office buildings, not so much in the way of affordable housing, a school, and all of that the city could not say no to because they lost control.

So that's in the back of my head.

Um, thank you.

I appreciate you showing me that.

Um, this is our third cycle.

So some of the places that y'all had recommended as possibilities have already been through cycles to be chosen.

Mission Linen was rezoned when it was um annexed by the city to provide for dense housing.

There's as someone said, no interest in doing that.

The LaPort Mansion was zoned through a citizen's initiative and citizens' initiatives have secured to all of our enjoyment, open spaces, the golf course, the parks, um, the trails, all of that is by citizens' initiative.

And when they were proposed as being part of sites that could be used, the state said, well, can it pass another citizen initiative to overcome that?

And we didn't think that we would.

So those ideas went out the window there.

Every project we do, outreach is hard.

It's how do we reach people?

How do we talk to people who are busy with their own lives?

And that is a huge issue.

I would recommend if you can get on the list and read the city manager's uh newsletter.

It tells you what's going on.

It mentions when there's a meeting.

And if anybody has another suggestion about what could work, a marquee on the corner, um, an ad in the weekly when something's happening.

Although these things have been noticed in the newspapers, how could we do better?

We want to.

So please let us know if you've got a brilliant idea that could make outreach um something that we're not so concerned about anymore because it's working.

Um there were 19 meetings, just so you know.

Um the things that I've heard people be concerned about water pressure, traffic flow, sidewalks, lights, affordability assurances.

These are things that get worked into specific projects.

This is this program is about how do we make things possible, not about specific projects that will come up.

So issues about trees, wildlife, where's it where's a uh the the driveway, how what's the traffic flow?

All of those get settled if we have local control.

And if we don't have local control, a developer can do what they did in Midlo Park.

So I would hope that I've been able to give you some of the things that are in the rebinders like this that do talk about some of these issues and how we will go forward from this once we maintain local control.

So I appreciate your concerns.

Everywhere we live, each of us has a part of Pacific Grove that we're very attached to that we think is the best possible place to live.

And I think Pacific Grove is.

So this is this is the worst kind of change.

It's the change that gets put on you instead of something you step into.

Um, I appreciate that.

And I'm I'm sympathetic.

I really am.

But this is something we've got to do to keep it our town the mostly the way we want it to be.

Thank you.

Council.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Um, thank you, Councilmember Garfield for uh the 19 meetings were just the city council and planning commission.

There were additional community meetings that went along with that.

And I'll tell you in all of this, there's a couple of things that scare the bejeebies out of me.

One is the builder's element, and just so you know, we're in the builders' committee.

We're there because we're late.

However, the one thing that's kind of saved our bacon.

Sorry about the vegans in the room, but one thing that saved our bacon is the temporary restraining order that the state put on us because we overused the Carmel River.

Once that goes away, and we think that probably, according to the the water districts, we think maybe in the first quarter, the state is gonna lift that.

And if our housing element is not approved, by the time they start releasing, we could see.

I mean, Mission Lennon could say today, yeah, I don't want to do it, but then some LO developer shows up and offers them a big rod of sweaty cash, and now all of a sudden there's a 10, 12, 14 story high rise right next to the iSchool.

So I understand that people are frustrated, they feel that they're being forced into this.

There have been cities all over the state that have spent millions, and I'm talking about 10, 20, 30 million dollars to fight this housing element on a wide variety of issues.

Um, and they've all lost in court.

And in fact, Beverly Hills got slapped with a you can't build anything, and you can't even repair anything in your town until you get your housing element in.

So the fine could be if Mr.

Biggs, correct me if I'm wrong, but the fine could be up to a hundred thousand dollars a month until we get this in starting in January.

I mean, we are at the deadline, and uh that's a challenge.

Um staying out of the builder's remedy, I think is is the it's the most important thing to do for us because we do make maintain control.

And if there's a you know, if there's a project that comes up and it needs to have sidewalks and street lights and parking and all of those other things, we can address that in the planning process.

We can address it if we're in a builder's remedy.

So we need to be careful about where we're going.

Um we've already spent about three times as much money as most of the other cities on the peninsula to get our housing.

We've spent about 1.3 million just in consultants, and that is not even the amount of money that we've spent um through staff time, attorney's fees, and everything else.

So I am not unsympathetic to the folks in the areas.

I think the best way to address it is to maintain control so that we can control the projects that come to us.

Um again, just because it gets rezoned doesn't mean that it will be built.

It is expensive, infrastructure is expensive to upgrade.

Um, and so I think you know, all of those things will have to be taken into consideration as well.

Um after all of that is said and done.

I mean, this has been going on since 2018, 2023.

Um we're at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th minute.

And um, you know, it's it's midnight, folks.

And in order for us to maintain control and get out of the builder's remedy and to stay away from the 100,000 a month in fines, uh, I'll be a yes.

Councilwoman.

Thank you, Ayer.

Yeah, um, thank you everyone for your comments.

You know, keep in mind we are all citizens of Pacific Grove too.

We aren't doing this because we want to see a lot of these things happen.

But as the other council members have spoken to, we kind of are put in a position where if we don't do this, the consequences could be much worse.

And I've been reading article after article lately of towns that are being forced to put in really huge out of what we're even zoning for projects because their housing element isn't approved.

We've we jumped the hurdle of getting the state to approve the um the inventory that was already put forward.

I believe that was selected sometime in 2024.

So that the ones that we're considering now have actually been on the housing element during that time.

Um and those were selected again through the process of HCD saying no, you can't use that property because it's open space.

We would have to take it to the ballots, and they were not allowed to include something that's not likely to be approved by the public.

So partly is that we have so few options in our city of places to be able to put density of housing.

Um I very much support maintaining our wildlife.

That's huge for me.

So I, if given the option, would also want to make sure that we're protecting that.

But we have a balance that we have to create between providing housing, which is very important to our communities.

We have over 50% renters in this community, and people are getting squeezed out more and more.

Um, people who work here often can't afford to live here.

Um, part of somebody asked a question about um, oh, a few things that I think might be helpful to have context for because I've asked a lot of questions during this process.

So I wanted to be able to share it with the community.

Within the EIR, unfortunately, we're not allowed to consider traffic.

Um, is that correct?

Am I remembering that correctly that we're not allowed to use traffic impacts in the EIR determination?

Traffic in and of itself is not considered an environmental issue where you know related issues such as emergency vehicle access, um, evacuation capacity, that sort of thing is considered, but you know, the inconvenience of traffic is not an environmental concern.

Yeah.

And to the comment about it being a narrow street, I asked a lot of questions about that as well.

So the advantage that we have is even though we're zoning to enable this density, it doesn't mitigate, it doesn't um eliminate, I should say, the zoning regulations we already have there.

So for example, 50% lot coverage, that would still apply.

Height requirements, that would still apply.

So they're um, oh, and it would require building the infrastructure.

So in order to be able to do it, the streets would have to meet those legal requirements.

So as it is now, absolutely right.

It couldn't accommodate what we're talking about.

And this is where it gets into the idea that as individual projects are approved, it will determine whether things would ever get to that density.

So if the street needs to be wider to be safe, that wideness of the street and sidewalks, presumably would come off of that property that is the one being rezoned.

And we don't, as a city build properties.

The housing element can't force anyone, we're not going to take people's properties.

It would require people making the choice to try and develop on the properties they do own.

And I am hearing that there are you know three parcels, but that would be three parcels that would still have to have the individual biological, cultural, and all of the other requirements and by cultural that could be um whether it be archaeological, whether it be historic.

Um, so it would include things like having to do an individual review of any impacts to wildlife, um, for example.

Um, I heard that brought up in that area.

So right now, being in builders remedy for a while now, and and as um council member Rao pointed out, it's something that we've all been holding our breath on, making sure that we get the housing element approved.

This is the last thing we have to do to make it go into effect.

And that prevents us from having the kinds of developments we're seeing in other cities when the water comes on board next year.

We already had um uh an agenda item of uh probably two, three meetings ago, where we're allocating new water that's coming on from Monterey One water.

So we already know some's coming.

We've allocated that to some of our low-income housing coming forward.

Um, and additionally, when the water meters come on board, that's when development will have room to begin.

And so it's really important that we adopt our housing element before that happens, as council member Rao pointed out.

So I think it's really important.

And and we as council, I think, are put in a really um uncomfortable position.

We know there are people who don't like all the decisions we have to make.

We get it, we don't always like them either, but it's actually our obligation as council and our responsibility to do the things that keep us in compliance with state law.

And the important thing to recognize is by being in compliance with state law, that is actually how we protect our community.

Because while we're not on it, um, not only do we have the possibility of the fines that council member Rao talked about, we also lose access to grant money.

So there are a lot of things that it actually will cost the whole city more and we'll get less of our needs met because we no longer qualify for grants because our housing element isn't approved.

So there's just kind of a whole cascade of issues.

And so my understanding is is that part of the reason the higher density once we're selected is because we had to find properties that actually had the size to be able to accommodate some higher density um areas.

Do I understand that correctly as well?

Yes, you have that correct.

Okay, thanks.

And so as much as there are parts of this that none of us, if we had our own way, obviously, we'd try and do things maybe a little bit differently than we're required to to be able to get within state compliance.

Um, but the goal here looking at the agenda item is we're tasked with determining whether the benefits outweigh the potentially avoidable environmental impacts, and because I heard somebody mention that too.

And the idea is that um it is true that it brings us into compliance with the housing element, and that's an important benefit and for some of the other reasons stated, but but it can't be overstated how much getting local control back is really critical to us being able to apply our own design standards and our own zoning to anything new that's going to be built.

So as much as um we feel for people who might be impacted, the reality is that we are unlikely to see the impacts as they are.

I don't know if you notice in the statement about the EIR, they actually showed it for the maximum possible build out.

It's rare that things get built to maximum possible build out, but it helps us be in compliance, and you will um there will be review of every project that's brought before.

And so I think that's really important that the cost of not approving it really hurts our community more overall than the cost of approving it.

And so we as council, it becomes our responsibility then to get us into compliance so we can protect our community, do more to keep at the neighborhoods we value, do more to make it the kind of community that is inclusive to people who don't have as much means.

Um somebody mentioned that the elderly often getting squeezed out of their homes.

We want to try and prevent that as well, um, as well as making it affordable for families.

A city kind of dies out when there's no families.

And so being able to make the city accessible for all, that really um it is on us to make sure that we're supporting for the community at large.

Thank you.

Actually, uh yes.

I think first of all, thank you to the city council as well for covering uh as much territory as you did in addressing people's questions and laying down the groundwork for why we are being forced to approve um uh this housing element.

Um we as a city are not in a position to say no.

We have been given, we've been graced with a certain amount of uh time um to build to get this put together.

We have gone through multiple steps with them where they have reviewed our housing, our draft housing element provided feedback, and here we are yet again with more feedback from them uh with tacit approvals on what's come before, and then recommendations on what they want to see in order to approve it.

So, what you're seeing before you today is what basically they told us they need to see in order to approve this document.

So here we are going through putting this together, making sure we do our reviews of it to provide it back to them.

It's it's an unfair and um uh probably unproductive position for us to be in, but it's one that we've been forced into since 1969.

Um the concept of the housing element is to infill perpetually, more and more housing into the same basic area and provide it at an affordable rate, so that you increase perpetually more and more pressure on the community.

Um then over time, as we have less and less room to build out, they demand that we build more and more units.

Every time we go through this cycle, we have less space to deal with, and we have increased demands placed on our community, not just our community.

There's over 500 municipalities in the state of California that are going through this exact same thing right now.

10% of our municipalities, like us, have not gotten their housing elements approved yet.

They haven't got them in, they're not done.

That's over 50 municipalities that are in violation of this deadline.

Um, our our problem that we're having here today uh is is not singular, it's not unique.

We're one of hundreds of communities facing this exact same problem right now.

We're one of over 50 that are probably meeting this month, much like this, to try and put this together at the last minute so that we don't get that 36, was it 36 or 33 story?

37 story tall development like what they have in Menlo Park, because we could not stop them.

So I heard one comment resonated with me.

Um first of all, I heard all of your comments.

One of the comments that resume resonated with me is us uh abdicating our role to developers if uh if we do approve this.

And I'm telling you, it's the exact opposite.

If we don't approve this, we are absolutely abdicating our role and our our uh um uh agency over our community to developers, not at some random point in the future in January.

So do I like this?

No.

Hate it's guts.

Do I think it's effective?

No, not at all.

Matter of fact, um, from the 40s, 50s, 60s, all the way up to 1969.

Housing was becoming more and more and more affordable.

But why what I mean by that is the median price of a home was reaching what was reaching parity or or getting closer to the median income of wage earners here in California.

The 40s, the 50s, the 60s, you can see the graph, more and more and more affordable, decade after decade after decade, 1969.

We get the affordable housing act here in California, and on a dime, it stopped, flatlined.

Decades of the graph going towards more affordability, it stopped, flatlined.

1974, there were a number of other uh uh acts and measures that were implemented.

Um at the time, the thing they were trying to address were discriminatory uh practices.

They wanted to address fair uh access to housing, fair access to um to financing.

And so they put tools in place, much like the uh the housing element, um to to address that.

And it was effective to a large degree towards that end.

But this measure, this act, along with other laws that were implemented over the following years, uh, through like 1974, uh, saw housing start becoming less and less affordable.

And now that graph line has continued unobstructed since then.

Do I think the housing element is going to fix affordable housing or more make housing more affordable?

No, it is sat, it is overseen, it's overseen, it's stood by housing becoming less and less and less affordable in our state.

Unmitigated.

I stop short of blaming the housing element for housing being less affordable, but I can definitely say it hasn't helped it.

So what are we doing here?

We've talked a lot about affordable housing.

I'm not expecting it to actually just magically materialize.

Uh, in the long run, in the short term, we do have some options.

But what we're doing here is we're playing defense.

We're trying to protect our community in a very hostile and very aggressive environment.

And we're a small town, but we're a smart town, and we're making moves as best we can to make sure that we serve and protect the people of our community from those outside of our community, maybe within, but people who would want to violently and radically develop our community.

And the best thing we can do to try and protect our small town, keep it a small town, is implement measures within the housing element as best we can that harm our community the least and allow us, once approved, allow us to continue uh uh uh uh governing and and mitigating these impacts with our laws and ordinances, which we still have control over, they're still in place, with our review of the processes, which are still in place and they still have to go through the steps.

We still have to approve it for addressing affordability specifically, um we can contractually obligate and bind developers to offer uh uh to to provide affordable housing within within the development, right?

We can enter into an affordable housing agreement so that we know they will provide X number of units at this level.

Um, and and we now have a binding contract that will guarantee that we get that.

What happens within the uh uh within the the housing market, the speculative housing market after that is is no longer in our control unless we have something like a community land trust or something like that.

But I would love it if we got a community land trust and they came forward to help do a uh a project within our community.

And yes, that's a pitch if anyone's listening out there.

Um but but so much of it goes out of our hands again, uh, which I think is why in the speculative market like what we have in America, why it's been so difficult to change the direction on that graph for housing affordability.

Once it's out in the real estate market, someone wants to sell their home at a profit, and that's going to continue to happen.

And as much as I would like to influence affordability by uh uh uh by changing the fact that I would want people to only be able to sell to single family single to families in single family homes.

I would want owner occupants, those things are constitutional violations.

Those are that that violate someone's constitutional right to do with their property what they want to do with their property.

Uh, we will be talking later in uh uh in following meetings, and I hope to see you there, where we will go over some potential legal um uh options for how we can make our housing more affordable, at least influence affordable housing within our our community.

Um, I don't I don't think this is the whole thing that's gonna do it for us, but there are some options that are out on the table that we'll discuss.

Uh the vacancy tax that got brought up by a number of people is an excellent tool.

Okay, we're gonna get off all about all right, all right, all right, bringing it back home.

Uh we'll discuss those other matters later on.

I hope to see you there.

Uh they are being considered.

Um, but as far as this document here, uh, we we're in a position where we have to approve and and has my support on those grounds.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have uh motion?

Yeah, okay.

I'd like to make a motion.

Let me make a suggestion.

Um wanna move a recommendation one and then two, and then we can do five because it's one's an ordinance of so I think I kind of thought we should do one, two, and five.

Is that okay with that?

Um Mr.

City Attorney Mr.

Barrick, is that the uh well, we got some work to do before we get to five, so I figured we could do.

Should we just go with uh adopt the resolution certifying the environmental impact report?

I I think um what you could do um would be to say that you're uh making a motion to approve recommendation number one.

Okay, start with that, yep, and then go to two and then and then after um that um those votes uh go to three.

Okay, so move one.

Uh uh motion to move one second one.

Okay, the motion on move.

This is the EIR, yeah, the EIR.

Okay, we have a motion by Amelia, second by Rao.

Any further discussion?

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor.

There was um a public comment about um if we could add some language encouraging a pause for local labor.

Is that something we want to consider?

Just it's a language thing, so I don't know that that would be the fact.

So I'm gonna go ahead and stop that discussion.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor Patem Emilio.

Yes, Councilmember Rao.

I council members Markenstick.

Aye.

McDonnell, aye.

Garfield.

Aye.

Motion carries 601.

Councilmember Paderi absent.

Okay, and then we'll go to two.

You're gonna make a motion on the motion on two adopt resolution adopting the housing element, health and safety element, environmental findings pursuant to the California environmental AX CEQA in the statement of the overriding considerations.

Okay, we have a motion by me on the second on recommendation number two and uh discussion of the we've heard the discussion point and we're gonna recognize Mr.

Blakes.

Uh motion include the corrections that we brought up over the uh what's that corrections for the land use element, correct?

That's the two corrections also.

I mean um the labor point.

Um I don't know how that would be done.

We haven't, it's not on the current document.

Where would it go?

Would it affect the HCD outcome?

I don't know all any of that.

So I'd be leery of doing that.

Well, it wasn't in the staff report uh or gender report, and it's not in any of the resolutions.

So yeah, um, my advice would be that maybe you revisit that at a future date.

I'm not in favor of that.

Hopefully, you're all ahead.

Something that we might be able to handle through ordinance as opposed to the uh the actual housing element.

I don't know that either at this point.

I haven't researched that.

That's it's like all brand new information.

I think it's sufficient to say that that's an uh a request that's gonna require some further review.

Okay, okay.

You ready for a vote?

Yeah, okay.

Uh let's take a look at Mayor Patan Amelia.

Yes.

Council members Garfield.

Aye.

Hi.

Rocking stick.

And Mayor Smith.

Mayor uh, sorry, motion carry six zero one.

Council member Paderi absent.

So now we'll go to three and four.

Mr.

Uh, do you want to go with uh do you want me to go ahead and have you read the uh ordinance?

Yeah, I'll be glad to do that.

Um this is an ordinance of the city council of the city of Pacific Grove amending chapters 23.08 definitions, 23.24 R3 districts, 23.26, R3, PGR district, 23.28 R4 district, 23.52 R3M districts, 23.64, general provisions and exceptions, 23.70 community development permit review, authorities and procedures, 23.79 density bonus regulations and 23.81 reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities of title 23 zoning of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and amending the Pacific Grove zoning map.

So now that I've read the title, um what you can do now is make a motion uh to approve recommendations for five and six.

I think we can take a big voice anyway.

Yes.

Council Members Garfield.

Thank you very much.

Thank you everyone for participating tonight.

Uh, we've just passed the housing element and approved the resolution for the housing element of the EIR.

We've approved the zoning amendments at this time.

We're going to take a break, but before we do, I'm going to allow my colleague to uh state a recusal so that we can start the second half of the program, which she will not be participating again.

So she's from the second second portion of the housing element presentation tonight.

Oh, yes, focus on commercial.

So we're going to take a minute break and come back at eight twenty five recording stopped.

Recording in progress.

Did you like my notes?

Yeah.

We're ready.

Are we right?

Okay.

One, two, three, five.

Okay, five now.

Okay.

Five strong.

All right.

Are we uh streaming?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Here we go.

Uh good evening, everyone.

We're back from our break here.

It is uh eight twenty-seven PM, and we're taking on the second part of the the items, the housing element update, and this is gonna be limited to only the land use element and land use maps and the commercial and industrial zoning districts.

So primarily focused on commercial.

We've already done the residential side and taken a lot of comment on that side.

So the any comments will be limited to the only the items uh before us for the rest of the evening.

Um and at that point at this time I will recognize stuff again.

And I'll hand it over to uh Cassandra Gale or consultant to wrap up the presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

So for the sake of not repeating anything, we can go ahead and go to the next slide.

Perfect, thank you.

So for or one slide back, please.

Thank you.

Uh so for the land use element and map, uh, we're proposing a set of updates to keep the general plan internally consistent with the housing element.

The map on this slide shows where these updates occur geographically across the city.

Broadly, the amendments broadly, the amendments update allowable residential uses and densities in the downtown forest hill and identified commercial areas as well as in portions of the former media density residential designation.

These density changes are necessary to ensure the general plan reflects the housing capacity identified in the housing element site inventory.

In addition to those updates, the amendments also include several related cleanup items and these clarify policies related to allowable uses in commercial areas to allow residential update the land use diagram and tables to match the proposed changes and ensure the land use element remains internally consistent with the housing element policies.

For the ordinance amendments, commercial zoning districts in chapter 23.

So these changes include identifying allowed residential uses and the appropriate densities in the C D CFH C One and C2 zones and including the associated development standards for housing.

So again, just to summarize uh the planning commission recommendation from November 13th.

After public comment and deliberation, the planning commission record recommended adoption of the project resolution for the Pacific Grove 2023 to 2020 31 housing element update along with these land use element and zoning ordinance changes, which leads us to our recommendation tonight on the next slide.

So we have a five, a five-parter here.

So first adopt the resolution at the city council approving the project, which includes amending the text policies, figures, and maps of the land use element and the land use map.

Uh second, request the city attorney read the title of the ordinance, followed by a motion to waive further reading of the ordinance, introduce and hold the first reading of an ordinance of the city council adopting amendments to Title 23 zoning of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

And finally, direct that the publication of the ordinance be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the city attorney.

That concludes the uh this portion of the presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Nothing else.

That's it.

Okay, we want to go to the public comment on this section of the event here, relating to only the items uh on the screen.

If there's any, I see none in chambers online.

Is there any?

I see none online, Mayor.

All right.

There probably shouldn't be because we took we took uh quite a quite a bit earlier.

So um I'll go ahead and close the public comment on this section, bring it back to the council for action.

Councilman Garfield.

I just feel like I should say something about this.

Um somebody should say something about this.

So this is an example of how the chosen sites were distributed throughout the city.

This is where we looked across the city for diversity of um spots that could be increased in density and intensity to create a variety of housing options in this program.

And so I think it's pretty self-explanatory that this is an area that was ripe for intensification, and these changes allow that to happen.

And I'm in favor of it.

Thank you.

I'm gonna go ahead and move off a resolution one, uh recommendation one at this time.

This move the uh approval of the land use element and land use maps.

Do I have a second?

Second, second by Emilio, any discussion on item one.

Seeing none, we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, looking at passes unanimously uh with O2.

I think we can skip to that recommendation number two.

It's it's it's redundant with with uh number five.

Sure.

So if you wanted me to read the title, yes.

Yes, this is an ordinance of the city council of the city of Pacific Grove amending chapter 23.31 commercial and industrial zoning districts of title 23 zoning of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

And what you can do now is make a motion to approve recommendations four through six.

Move the balance.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, any further discussion.

All right, seeing no, we'll go ahead and take a voice vote on items four, five, and six to introduce the ordinance.

Uh the commercial and industrial zoning districts.

So four, five and six.

My advice is you do a roll call.

Yeah, we'll take a roll call.

Okay.

You got it.

Okay.

Uh Mayor Smith.

Aye.

Mayor Proton Emilio.

Council Member Scarfield.

Aye.

McDonald.

And walking stick.

Aye.

Zero.

Five one.

Right.

That's uh council member Rao recused and council member Paduri absent.

I think it's five hundred.

Okay.

Absence is not a no vote.

Okay.

Well, what I would say is rather than worry about the numbers, just recite that there's five in favor, one abstaining, and one absent.

You got it.

All right.

And that takes us to the end of the event tonight.

Thank you, everybody, for joining us tonight online.

Everyone who's still here, the diehards are still here in the back.

And um we appreciate you.

Happy holidays to everybody.

Happy new year.

We'll see you in the next year.

Thank you so much.