Mixed views as commission forwards 70 Encina PHZ rezoning to council; owners, shopping‑center operator debate future of Town & Country north lot

The Planning & Transportation Commission voted to forward a planned community rezoning request for 70 Encina Avenue to the City Council on a split recommendation after a contentious public hearing that included opposition from Town & Country Village’s owner and legal challenges raised by a neighborhood commenter.

Staff planner Emily Callas outlined the PHZ (planned home zoning/planned community) application for a three‑story, 19,035‑square‑foot building containing ten condominium units and attached garages. Callas said the project was processed as a PHZ request that would allow departures from the CC‑2 standards, and that it was being reviewed under CEQA Guideline 15183 (consistency with an applicable plan and its certified EIR). "This project was streamlined under CEQA guideline 15183," Callas said, and staff recommended the commission recommend approval to council subject to conditions.

Project and benefits: The applicant’s architect, Jeffrey Galbraith of Hays Group Architects, and proponent Ed Storm (Stormland Development) described design changes made since prior hearings: removal of curb “bulb‑outs” originally proposed on Encina, modified courtyard and landscaping, and a reduced visual profile toward the adjacent shopping center parking lot. The project proposes two deed‑restricted below‑market units (two units, approximately 20% of the project) provided at affordability levels the applicant and staff described as within an 80‑to‑120 percent AMI range, intended to align with Council direction to provide roughly 20% affordable units on small PHZ projects.

Public comment and objections: Dean Rubinson, director of development for Ellis Partners (operator of Town & Country), urged the commission to delay or reject approval and to instead support a comprehensive, master‑planned redevelopment of the entire north parking lot. "A comprehensive project extending across the entire North Lot would meet the findings for a PHZ in a way that this isolated project cannot," Rubinson said. He said Ellis Partners has since learned the city will allow residential uses in portions of Town & Country’s parking and that the shopping center owner is exploring a broader, combined housing plan.

A separate commenter, Herb Boruck, argued the city was not taking the complete project as a whole for environmental review and raised code concerns involving planned community rules and municipal code amendments; staff and the applicant disputed those assertions. Staff replied the CEQA consistency review under Guideline 15183 can consider the project as a whole and that the project’s tentative map and rezoning could be evaluated together. Staff also said the council had provided direction about PHZ public‑benefit expectations and that a separate municipal code provision for PHZs was not required to proceed.

Commission debate: Commissioners raised multiple concerns. Several members said the site is constrained and the project’s departures (including an increased floor‑area ratio of 1.57 where 1.25 is typical and 58% lot coverage where 50% is normally allowed) reduce on‑site landscaping and ground‑level open space. Staff noted garages are excluded from FAR calculation; the project’s usable upper‑floor decks range from 55 to 79 square feet and do not meet standard ground‑level open‑space dimensions. Commissioners also queried fire access, vehicle queuing in the central driveway, and whether adjacency to Town & Country’s parking lot could limit future redevelopment options.

Affordable housing and public benefits: Staff said the project provides the 20% public‑benefit target identified by council by offering two affordable units deed‑restricted in the project; those units were described as in an 80–120% AMI mix given the project size. Commissioners discussed whether the city or Council should set more prescriptive affordability mixes for small developments; one commissioner suggested exploring whether a split (one unit at 80% AMI and the other at 120% AMI) would yield a similar financial effect while improving deeper affordability.

Action and outcome: An initial motion to recommend the staff recommendation failed on a 3‑3 vote (Commissioners Heckman, Aiken and Peterson voted yes; Commissioners G, Chair Chang and Commissioner Suma voted no). After additional discussion the commission voted 5‑1 to transmit the project to City Council with a split recommendation (Chair Chang, Vice Chair Aiken, Commissioner G, Commissioner Suma and Commissioner Peterson voting to forward; Commissioner Heckman opposed). The motion that carried included two specific directions the commission asked staff and the applicant to explore as the item moves to Council: (1) study potential off‑site pedestrian improvements to improve safe walking/biking connections from the encina cul‑de‑sac to the regional pedestrian/bike path, and (2) evaluate whether an alternative mix of the two required below‑market units (one at a lower AMI and one at a higher AMI tier) could provide a public‑benefit outcome acceptable to council. The commission also asked staff to correct FAR and square‑footage references in the draft ordinance before council consideration.

What remains unresolved: Town & Country’s operator continues to advocate for a coordinated master plan for the full north parking lot, saying a combined redevelopment could produce more housing and better operational compatibility with the retail center. The applicant said it remains willing to continue talks with Ellis Partners and hopes to move the entitlement forward while discussions continue.

Next steps: The commission’s split recommendation and the record of the hearing will be transmitted to City Council, which will have the final authority to approve or deny the PHZ rezoning, findings and ordinance amendments.