Special Planning Commission
Special Planning Commission
mar, 29 de septiembre de 2026
Puntos de agenda
Registros de votación
Resumen del debate
Transcripción
RESUMEN DE REUNIÓNGenerado por IA
Comisión de Planificación Especial — 29 de septiembre de 2026
Esta fue una extensa reunión especial —la segunda en una serie de audiencias públicas continuadas sobre la Phase 1 Zoning Reform de Petaluma, una revisión integral del Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) y del SmartCode para alinearlos con el recién adoptado General Plan 2050. La comisión trabajó a través de 21 puntos de decisión en múltiples capítulos, realizando votaciones preliminares (straw-poll) en cada uno. Por razones de tiempo, la reunión se prorrogó a la reunión regular del 13 de octubre de 2026.
Comentarios Generales del Público
Dave Alden de Petaluma Urban Chat anunció un evento público el 26 de octubre con el arquitecto Carl Lafonte, quien hablará sobre su libro acerca de la descarbonización del entorno construido; el evento se celebrará en el Polly Klass Theater.
Aprobación del Acta (15 de septiembre de 2026)
Se realizó una corrección al acta después de que el Comisionado Goldman (referido como "Brian" en la transcripción) señalara que su nombre aparecía dos veces en un registro de votación; una de las instancias debió haber indicado "Noga Gebauer." La corrección fue aprobada.
Votación: 6–0 (Comisionada Gebauer ausente)
Enmiendas de Zonificación de la Phase 1 — Audiencia Pública Continuada
Personal de M Group Consulting (Andrew Tripp, Asher Tu y Heather Gitz) presentó actualizaciones en múltiples capítulos del IZO. La comisión recibió 14 comentarios escritos del público presentados con anticipación. Un orador se presentó en persona.
Comentario Público:
Darren Rason (6 minutos, con tiempo cedido por otros) planteó dos preocupaciones sustantivas: (1) El comentario de un abogado del personal en un borrador de resolución utilizó la palabra "opponents" para describir a los miembros de la comunidad que pudieran impugnar el paquete de zonificación —Rason argumentó que este encuadre era inapropiado para un proceso público. El personal aclaró que el término se refería a posibles impugnadores legales, no al público general. (2) Rason señaló que el Hallazgo Tres de la resolución se basa en un "análisis de capacidad de desarrollo residencial en el registro administrativo" para demostrar el cumplimiento del Government Code §66300 (sin pérdida neta de capacidad habitacional), pero dicho análisis no ha sido publicado para revisión pública. También indicó que la disposición de altura de 60 pies de la Section 12.025, de mantenerse, se expandiría de aplicar a 32 parcelas R-5 a aproximadamente 127 parcelas residenciales de alta densidad. Hizo un llamado para que el análisis sea publicado antes de la primera lectura del City Council. Rason también cuestionó si se había dado aviso público adecuado para una actualización de zonificación que afecta a la mayoría de las parcelas en Petaluma.
El personal respondió que el análisis de no pérdida neta se realizó como parte del EIR del General Plan, que los aumentos de densidad en el nuevo General Plan son tan sustanciales que es poco probable que haya pérdida neta incluso considerando los cambios en altura y FAR, y que la participación comunitaria sobre las políticas que sustentan estas enmiendas ha estado en curso desde 2021.
Decisión 3.1 — Umbral de Vivienda Inclusiva
El personal recomendó elevar el umbral a partir del cual se aplica el Inclusionary Housing Ordinance de 5 unidades a 11 unidades (eximiendo a los proyectos de 10 unidades o menos). El Concejal Barnacle propuso elevar el umbral a 40 unidades como proyecto piloto de tiempo limitado, argumentando que ningún proyecto en el rango de 20 a 40 unidades se había presentado, que la ordenanza funciona como un subsidio que se traslada a los compradores de unidades a precio de mercado, y que la ciudad necesita incentivar el desarrollo de relleno a pequeña escala. La Presidenta Newell se opuso a cualquier aumento más allá de la recomendación del personal sin una evaluación formal del programa primero, señalando que la tarifa en lugar de unidades de Petaluma de $10.12/pie cuadrado es extremadamente baja en comparación con otras ciudades del Área de la Bahía ($27 en Walnut Creek; $61–91 en Palo Alto) y que la política existente fue modificada deliberadamente para requerir unidades en el sitio en lugar de tarifas porque las tarifas en sustitución eran demasiado bajas para producir unidades. El personal señaló que el Housing Element Program 11 compromete a la ciudad a evaluar el umbral, pero no a suspender el programa. Una votación preliminar sobre el umbral de 40 unidades empató y no prosperó. Una votación preliminar sobre la recomendación del personal de 11 unidades fue aprobada.
Votación Preliminar (recomendación del personal, umbral de 11 unidades): 5–1 (Presidenta Newell disintiendo)
Decisión 4.1 — Vivienda de Apoyo/Transitoria en Zonas de Parques Empresariales/Industriales
El personal señaló que la ley estatal exige permitir la vivienda de apoyo y transitoria en cualquier lugar donde se permitan usos residenciales; los estándares de desarrollo para estos usos en zonas industriales se diferirán a la Phase 2. La comisión tomó nota sin objeciones.
Decisión 4.2 — Mapa de Oportunidades Residenciales 100% en el Centro (anteriormente "Downtown Housing Map")
Para implementar la General Plan Action LU-3.2.0.6 (que permite uso 100% residencial en la zona Downtown Mixed Use), el personal identificó seis parcelas vacantes fuera del Historic Commercial District donde se permitiría el desarrollo 100% residencial. Los edificios que cumplan con los estándares objetivos de diseño (Section 7.120) quedarán completamente exentos del requisito de FAR en planta baja; los que no cumplan deberán proveer 0.1 FAR de uso activo en planta baja. La comisión expresó apoyo general al alcance conservador y limitado de esta primera fase, y solicitó que una revisión más amplia de los estándares objetivos de diseño y la política de uso mixto en el centro se incluya en la Phase 2.
Votación Preliminar: Aprobado (recuento de votos no registrado explícitamente; consenso general)
Decisión 4.3 — Nombre del Mapa del Centro
El nombre "Downtown Housing Map" fue rechazado por considerarse insuficientemente específico. Tras una breve discusión, la comisión adoptó el nombre "Downtown 100% Residential Opportunities Map."
Votación Preliminar: Aprobado por unanimidad
Decisiones 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 — Permisos de Uso en Planta Baja, Vivienda para Empleados, Cambios en la Tabla de Usos del Suelo
Decisión 4.4 (reducción del requisito de permiso de uso menor para usos de fachada en planta baja no activos, con alivio para edificios existentes): Aprobada por votación preliminar.
Decisión 4.5 (permiso de vivienda para empleados de 6 personas o menos en zonas no residenciales seleccionadas): Aprobada por unanimidad.
Decisión 4.6 (cualquier otro cambio en la tabla de usos): No se solicitaron cambios; no se requirió votación preliminar.
Capítulo 6 — Distritos de Zona de Inundación y Llanura Aluvial
No hubo puntos formales de decisión, pero se produjo una discusión sustantiva. El personal (incluidas la Subdirectora Gina Benedetti-Nik y la Planificadora Senior Heather Gitz) aclaró: el modelado de profundidad de inundación está calibrado con datos históricos; si eventos reales de inundación superan significativamente el modelado, FEMA tendría que recertificar mapas actualizados mediante un proceso formal. La decisión de mantener la disposición de variación en la zona de inundación se explicó en parte por razones de litigación (la ciudad está actualmente en litigación respecto al capítulo de zona de inundación) y en parte porque la expansión de la llanura aluvial del 0.2% puede generar nuevas solicitudes de variación. Las ganancias clave de crédito en el CRS (Community Rating System) provienen de extender la regla de no relleno neto y de exigir que los pisos terminados estén 1 pie por encima del nivel de diseño de inundación tanto en las llanuras aluviales de 100 años como en las de 500 años. El Comisionado Ebner solicitó que se exploraran medios alternativos para lograr la activación en planta baja por encima de la elevación de inundación, y pidió mayor legibilidad de los mapas en los anexos publicados.
Decisión 4.7 — Estándares de Retroceso Escalonado en Zonas de Uso Mixto
El personal propuso calibrar los retrocesos escalonados requeridos en las zonas de uso mixto a la altura máxima permitida de la zona residencial *adyacente*, en lugar de un umbral fijo independiente de las condiciones del entorno. La comisión aprobó la propuesta; el Comisionado Ebner solicitó que en la Phase 2 el personal explore alternativas de plano de luz diurna para un enfoque más flexible al desarrollo.
Votación Preliminar: Aprobado por unanimidad
Decisión 4.8 — Estándar Mínimo de Espacio Abierto Utilizable
El personal propuso reducir el espacio abierto utilizable requerido de un rango de 300–600 pies cuadrados por unidad a 30 pies cuadrados por unidad para viviendas multifamiliares, a fin de facilitar el desarrollo de relleno denso en lotes pequeños. La discusión fue amplia: algunos comisionados apoyaron permitir que el mercado determine las necesidades de espacio abierto; otros valoraron incluso un pequeño patio compartido para residentes con limitaciones de movilidad. Se discutió un enfoque escalonado o agregado. La comisión finalmente apoyó el estándar de 30 pies cuadrados con la posibilidad de consolidar los requisitos de las unidades en espacio abierto común compartido, en concordancia con las disposiciones existentes de invasión de área para balcones y patios.
Votación Preliminar: 5–1 (Comisionado Moses disintiendo)
Decisión 7.1 — Bed and Breakfast en Zonas de Uso Mixto
El personal recomendó mantener los usos de bed-and-breakfast como usos permitidos por derecho en cuatro zonas de uso mixto, en espera de una reescritura de los estándares de uso específicos en la Phase 2. Aprobado por unanimidad.
Decisión 11.1 — Reducción de Estacionamiento Compartido
El personal recomendó implementar la General Plan Action LU-6.2.0.3 para permitir reducciones de estacionamiento compartido mediante revisión a nivel de director, en lugar de requerir aprobación de la comisión. Aprobado 6–0.
Decisión 12.1 — Disposición de Altura de 60 Pies en Zonas Residenciales de Alta Densidad (Section 12.025)
Esta fue una discusión significativa de carácter legal y de política pública. La Section 12.025 actualmente permite a la Planning Commission aprobar alturas de edificación de hasta 60 pies en la zona R-5 mediante hallazgos. En el marco de la Phase 1, la zona R-5 es reemplazada por la zona Residential High Density —pero el nuevo General Plan 2050 establece explícitamente un límite máximo de 45 pies para la vivienda residencial de alta densidad. El personal explicó que mantener la opción de 60 pies crearía un conflicto directo entre el código de zonificación y el General Plan adoptado, cuya coherencia exige la ley estatal. La comisión acordó que la sección debe ser derogada. El personal señaló que la densidad en la nueva zona Residential High Density aumenta de 30 a 45 unidades por acre y se aplica a más parcelas, compensando cualquier pérdida de capacidad derivada de la reducción de altura.
Votación Preliminar: Aprobada la derogación de la Section 12.025 (unánime; recuento específico no registrado)
Decisión 12.2 — Modificación del Retiro Frontal Promedio por Manzana
El personal propuso ampliar el cálculo para los retiros frontales modificados, pasando de promediar únicamente las dos parcelas inmediatamente adyacentes a promediar todas las parcelas en la fachada de la manzana. Aprobado por unanimidad.
Continuación al 13 de octubre de 2026
Con los Capítulos 24 (exención de revisión de diseño), 28 (definición y prohibición de centros de datos) y 29 (zona Maker/Microbusiness) pendientes, la comisión votó prorrogar la audiencia a la siguiente reunión programada regularmente. El calendario revisado del consejo contempla una primera lectura el 9 de noviembre y una segunda lectura a mediados o finales de noviembre.
Votación para prorrogar: 6–0 (Gebauer ausente)
Puntos Clave
El umbral de vivienda inclusiva se eleva a 11 unidades (desde 5): Los proyectos de 10 unidades o menos quedarán exentos del Inclusionary Housing Ordinance en espera de una evaluación formal del programa en la Phase 2. Una propuesta para elevar el umbral a 40 unidades no prosperó al resultar en empate.
El desarrollo residencial 100% en el centro ahora está permitido en seis lotes vacantes específicos, con nuevas salvaguardas de diseño; la política más amplia de uso mixto en el centro queda diferida a la Phase 2.
La disposición de altura de 60 pies en las zonas residenciales de alta densidad debe derogarse para evitar un conflicto directo con el recién adoptado General Plan 2050, que establece un límite de 45 pies para esa zona.
Capítulos importantes aún pendientes — la zona Maker/Microbusiness (Cap. 29), la prohibición de centros de datos (Cap. 28) y el umbral de exención de revisión de diseño (Cap. 24) se abordarán en la reunión del 13 de octubre; la primera lectura más temprana posible en el City Council es ahora el 9 de noviembre.
Preocupaciones sobre aviso público y transparencia planteadas por un miembro del público permanecen sin resolver: el análisis de capacidad residencial que sustenta el hallazgo de no pérdida neta no ha sido publicado, y algunos argumentan que la comunidad no ha sido notificada de manera adecuada sobre una actualización de zonificación que afecta a la mayoría de las parcelas en toda la ciudad.
Resumen generado por IA a partir de una transcripción de voz a texto. No es el registro oficial. Verifique los detalles importantes con los documentos fuente vinculados arriba.
Qué ocurrió en esta reunión
Aprobación de Actas de la reunión del 09-15-2026. LOS MATERIALES PARA ESTE PUNTO DE LA AGENDA SE PUBLICARÁN A MÁS TARDAR EL JUEVES, 24 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2026.
# Summary: Approval of Minutes for September 15, 2026 Meeting
The Planning Commission approved the minutes from the September 15, 2026 meeting after Commissioner Brian Goldman identified and moved to amend an error on page three, where a vote was incorrectly attributed to him instead of Commissioner Noga Bauer; Council Member Barnacle seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. During the same meeting, commissioners discussed test fit designs that were predominantly three stories tall and questioned the 25-foot height restriction applied to low-density residential zoning. A commission member requested clarification on the rationale and historical basis for these height maximums, though Staff indicated that Asher, who designed the test fits, was unavailable at that moment to provide the explanation.
The Planning Commission approved the minutes from the September 15, 2026 meeting after Commissioner Brian Goldman identified and moved to amend an error on page three, where a vote was incorrectly attributed to him instead of Commissioner Noga Bauer; Council Member Barnacle seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. During the same meeting, commissioners discussed test fit designs that were predominantly three stories tall and questioned the 25-foot height restriction applied to low-density residential zoning. A commission member requested clarification on the rationale and historical basis for these height maximums, though Staff indicated that Asher, who designed the test fits, was unavailable at that moment to provide the explanation.
Continuación de la Audiencia Pública del 15 de septiembre de 2026 – Recomendación a la Planning Commission para recibir una presentación del personal y comentarios públicos, y considerar una resolución que recomiende al City Council adoptar ordenanzas que enmienden la Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) y el SmartCode, incluyendo el Zoning Map y el Central Petaluma Specific Plan Zoning Map, con el fin de incorporar a la regulación los estándares objetivos y la cartografía técnica del City of Petaluma General Plan y el General Plan Land Use Map, implementar los programas relacionados con la zonificación del 6th Cycle Housing Element certificado y el Blueprint for Climate Action, adecuar las regulaciones de zonificación de la Ciudad a determinadas leyes estatales, y atender las necesidades regulatorias de mayor prioridad en materia de vivienda y desarrollo económico (Phase 1). Las enmiendas propuestas incluyen modificaciones a las siguientes disposiciones: IZO Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 24, 26 y 28, incluyendo las nuevas Sections 1.060, 4.060, 24.045 y 24.120 (Reasonable Accommodations); Derogación y sustitución del IZO Chapter 6 (Floodway and Flood Plain Districts); Derogación y sustitución del IZO Chapter 27 (Residential Density Bonus); Incorporación del nuevo IZO Chapter 29 (Maker/Microbusiness); SmartCode Section 2, incluyendo la Section 2.10; y el Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Map y el Central Petaluma Specific Plan Zoning Map, para implementar las designaciones de uso de suelo del General Plan adoptado. De conformidad con la California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), las Phase 1 Zoning Amendments constituyen una actividad subsecuente dentro del alcance del General Plan 2050 Program Environmental Impact Report, conforme a la CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), por lo que no se requiere documento ambiental adicional. LOS MATERIALES PARA ESTE PUNTO DE LA AGENDA SE PUBLICARÁN A MÁS TARDAR EL JUEVES, 24 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2026.
# Summary
On September 15, 2026, the Planning Commission continued a public hearing on comprehensive Petaluma Zoning Reform Phase One amendments to the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance and SMART Code, presented by Principal Planner Andrew Trip and staff from M Group Consulting. The amendments span multiple chapters (1-4, 6-7, 11-12, 24, 26, 28-29) and include repealing Chapters 5 and 27, implementing the General Plan 2050 and Housing Element, and addressing 21 embedded decision points such as increasing the inclusionary housing threshold from 5 to 11 units (Decision 3.1), allowing 100% residential uses in Downtown Mixed Use zones (Decision 4.2), and revising setback calculations to reflect entire block faces rather than just adjacent properties (Decision 12-2). Staff incorporated public comments received between September 14-23 by removing the Theater and Downtown Overlays from zoning tables, eliminating the T5 Step Down zone, and recommending modifications to parking relief, cluster dwelling regulations, and mixed-use setback standards. The Commission approved several amended recommendations by straw poll and will reconvene the continued public hearing on October 13th.
On September 15, 2026, the Planning Commission continued a public hearing on comprehensive Petaluma Zoning Reform Phase One amendments to the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance and SMART Code, presented by Principal Planner Andrew Trip and staff from M Group Consulting. The amendments span multiple chapters (1-4, 6-7, 11-12, 24, 26, 28-29) and include repealing Chapters 5 and 27, implementing the General Plan 2050 and Housing Element, and addressing 21 embedded decision points such as increasing the inclusionary housing threshold from 5 to 11 units (Decision 3.1), allowing 100% residential uses in Downtown Mixed Use zones (Decision 4.2), and revising setback calculations to reflect entire block faces rather than just adjacent properties (Decision 12-2). Staff incorporated public comments received between September 14-23 by removing the Theater and Downtown Overlays from zoning tables, eliminating the T5 Step Down zone, and recommending modifications to parking relief, cluster dwelling regulations, and mixed-use setback standards. The Commission approved several amended recommendations by straw poll and will reconvene the continued public hearing on October 13th.
Puntos de agenda (2)
Procedural (1)
1ProceduralAprobación de Actas de la reunión del 09-15-2026. LOS MATERIALES PARA ESTE PUNTO DE LA AGENDA SE PUBLICARÁN A MÁS TARDAR EL JUEVES, 24 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2026.
El concejo municipal aprobará el registro escrito oficial de su reunión del 15 de septiembre de 2026.
Qué ocurrió
# Summary: Approval of Minutes for September 15, 2026 MeetingThe Planning Commission approved the minutes from the September 15, 2026 meeting after Commissioner Brian Goldman identified and moved to amend an error on page three, where a vote was incorrectly attributed to him instead of Commissioner Noga Bauer; Council Member Barnacle seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. During the same meeting, commissioners discussed test fit designs that were predominantly three stories tall and questioned the 25-foot height restriction applied to low-density residential zoning. A commission member requested clarification on the rationale and historical basis for these height maximums, though Staff indicated that Asher, who designed the test fits, was unavailable at that moment to provide the explanation.
Public Hearing
2Public HearingContinuación de la Audiencia Pública del 15 de septiembre de 2026 – Recomendación a la Planning Commission para recibir una presentación del personal y comentarios públicos, y considerar una resolución que recomiende al City Council adoptar ordenanzas que enmienden la Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) y el SmartCode, incluyendo el Zoning Map y el Central Petaluma Specific Plan Zoning Map, con el fin de incorporar a la regulación los estándares objetivos y la cartografía técnica del City of Petaluma General Plan y el General Plan Land Use Map, implementar los programas relacionados con la zonificación del 6th Cycle Housing Element certificado y el Blueprint for Climate Action, adecuar las regulaciones de zonificación de la Ciudad a determinadas leyes estatales, y atender las necesidades regulatorias de mayor prioridad en materia de vivienda y desarrollo económico (Phase 1). Las enmiendas propuestas incluyen modificaciones a las siguientes disposiciones: IZO Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 24, 26 y 28, incluyendo las nuevas Sections 1.060, 4.060, 24.045 y 24.120 (Reasonable Accommodations); Derogación y sustitución del IZO Chapter 6 (Floodway and Flood Plain Districts); Derogación y sustitución del IZO Chapter 27 (Residential Density Bonus); Incorporación del nuevo IZO Chapter 29 (Maker/Microbusiness); SmartCode Section 2, incluyendo la Section 2.10; y el Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Map y el Central Petaluma Specific Plan Zoning Map, para implementar las designaciones de uso de suelo del General Plan adoptado. De conformidad con la California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), las Phase 1 Zoning Amendments constituyen una actividad subsecuente dentro del alcance del General Plan 2050 Program Environmental Impact Report, conforme a la CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), por lo que no se requiere documento ambiental adicional. LOS MATERIALES PARA ESTE PUNTO DE LA AGENDA SE PUBLICARÁN A MÁS TARDAR EL JUEVES, 24 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2026.
La Planning Commission de Petaluma celebrará una audiencia pública continuada sobre actualizaciones importantes a las normas y mapas de zonificación de la ciudad, con el fin de alinearlos con el General Plan adoptado, implementar los objetivos de vivienda y acción climática, cumplir con las leyes estatales de vivienda y apoyar el desarrollo económico, incluyendo nuevas normas sobre acomodaciones razonables, zonas de inundación, bonificaciones de densidad y pequeñas empresas tipo maker.
Qué ocurrió
# SummaryOn September 15, 2026, the Planning Commission continued a public hearing on comprehensive Petaluma Zoning Reform Phase One amendments to the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance and SMART Code, presented by Principal Planner Andrew Trip and staff from M Group Consulting. The amendments span multiple chapters (1-4, 6-7, 11-12, 24, 26, 28-29) and include repealing Chapters 5 and 27, implementing the General Plan 2050 and Housing Element, and addressing 21 embedded decision points such as increasing the inclusionary housing threshold from 5 to 11 units (Decision 3.1), allowing 100% residential uses in Downtown Mixed Use zones (Decision 4.2), and revising setback calculations to reflect entire block faces rather than just adjacent properties (Decision 12-2). Staff incorporated public comments received between September 14-23 by removing the Theater and Downtown Overlays from zoning tables, eliminating the T5 Step Down zone, and recommending modifications to parking relief, cluster dwelling regulations, and mixed-use setback standards. The Commission approved several amended recommendations by straw poll and will reconvene the continued public hearing on October 13th.
Votos adicionales registrados en actas
Amend minutes to correct commissioner name on 7-0 vote
aye 6 · absent 1
Chair Newellaye
Commissioner Ebneraye
Commissioner Gebauerabsent
Commissioner Goldmanaye
Commissioner Hiltaye
Commissioner Mosesaye
Council Member Barnacleaye
Continue public hearing to October 13th regular planning commission meeting
aye 6 · absent 1
Chair Newellaye
Commissioner Ebneraye
Commissioner Gebauerabsent
Commissioner Goldmanaye
Commissioner Hiltaye
Commissioner Mosesaye
Council Member Barnacleaye
Transcripción literal disponible
101 segmentos de transcripción indexados
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. UH, [00:00:01] WILL THE CLERK [CALL TO ORDER] PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER EBNER PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN? HERE. COMMISSIONER HIL? HERE. COMMISSIONER MOSES. HERE. COMMISSIONER AU. ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER BARAL. PRESENT CHAIR NEWELL. HERE WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, NOW IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GENERAL [GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT] PUBLIC COMMENT. DURING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT ARE WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AND THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE CURRENT AGENDA. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TIME WILL BE ALLOCATED EQUAL SHARES TOTALING NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES. WE'LL OPEN THE COMMENT PERIOD. AND WILL SPEAKERS PRING PLEASE BRING THEIR SPEAKER CARDS IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WE IS THIS THE, WE HAVE ONE CARD, UH, FOR SPEAKER, UH, DAVE ALDEN. DAVE, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. ONE AND ONLY, HUH? OKAY. GOOD EVENING. GOOD. GOOD TO BE HERE. UH, I'M DAVE ALDEN WITH PETALUMA URBAN CHAT. I KNOW MOST OF YOU ARE CONCERNED, UH, WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ACTIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT ARE ONLY MAKING IT WORSE, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE PLOTTING BETTER PATHS FORWARD. ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 26TH, FOUR WEEKS FROM YESTERDAY, URBAN CHAT WILL BRING NATIONALLY KNOWN AUTHOR AND ARCHITECT CARL A LAFONTE TO TOWN. LAFONTE WAS THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AND HAS HAD MANY OTHER CAREERS IN HIS AND MANY OTHER HONORS IN HIS LONG CAREER. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR US, HE'LL BE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT HIS BOOK, GOING FOR ZERO ON DECARBONIZING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.
PLEASE JOIN US AT THE POLY CLASS THEATER FOR THIS CRUCIAL CONVERSATION. TICKETS WILL GO ON SALE LATER THIS WEEK, AND URBAN CHAT WILL RETURN TO THIS LECTERN IN TWO WEEKS TO MAKE SURE YOU BOUGHT YOUR TICKETS. IN ADDITION TO URBAN CHAT SPONSORS ARE HEALTHY PETALUMA AND REBUILDING TOGETHER PETALUMA WITH MORE TO COME. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU. UH, HAS THE CLERK RECEIVED ANY GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS IN WRITING PRIOR TO THE MEETING? WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. WE WILL THEN CLOSE THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE AGENDA. WE HAVE NO PRESENTATIONS TODAY. WE WILL MOVE TO [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. OKAY. DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE MINUTES? YEAH, THIS IS BRIAN. I HAVE ONE AMENDMENT ON PAGE THREE. UM, IT SHOWS ME AS HAVING VOTED TWICE. UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THOSE NAMES SHOULD BE, UH, NOGA BAUER. IF ANYONE HAS, I'M ASSUMING IF IT'S A SEVEN OH VOTE AND HE'S THE NAME LEFT OFF, SO I'D LIKE TO AMEND THAT POSSIBLE. ALRIGHT. UM, DO WE NEED A MOTION TO AMEND THE MINUTES? COULDN'T HAVE HURT. LET'S, YES, LET'S DO SO. YEAH. OKAY. UM, COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MINUTES? MOTION TO AMEND THE MINUTES SHOWING THAT THE SEVEN OH MOTION WAS CARRIED. SEVEN ZERO WITH ALL, UM, COMMISSIONERS REPRESENTED. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. SECOND. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GOLDEN. WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE. UH, CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER EBNER. YES. COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER HILT? YES. COMMISSIONER MOSES? YES. COMMISSIONER? NO. GEBAUER ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER BAR BARNACLE. AYE. CHAIR? NO. YES. MOTION PASSED. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WE WILL REOPEN, [PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION] UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS CONTINUED FROM OUR LAST MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 15TH.
IT IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECEIVE A STAFF [00:05:01] PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT ORDINANCES AMENDING THE PETALUMA IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE AND SMART CODE, INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP AND THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING MAP TO CARRY THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND TECHNICAL MAPPING OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP INTO REGULATION, IMPLEMENT ZONING RELATED PROGRAMS OF THE CERTIFIED SIX CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE BLUEPRINT FOR CLIMATE ACTION CONFORM THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS TO CERTAIN STATE LAWS AND ADDRESS HIGHEST PRIORITY REGULATORY NEEDS AND HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED PHASE ONE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCLUDE AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS. THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 24, 26, AND 28, INCLUDING NEW SECTIONS, 1.060 4.060 24.045 AND 24.120. IT WILL INCLUDE REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER FIVE, THE FLOODWAY AND FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 27, THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS, AND THE ADDITION OF NEW IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 29, MAKER MICRO BUSINESS. IT WILL INCLUDE SMART CODE SECTION TWO, INCLUDING SECTION 2.10 AND THE PETALUMA ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AND CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING MAP TO IMPLEMENT ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THE PHASE ONE ZONING AMENDMENTS ARE A SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE GENERAL PLAN 2050 PROGRAM. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO CE QA GUIDELINES, SECTION 1 5 1 6 8, SUBSECTION C TWO AND NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ITEM IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND DOES REQUIRE DISCLOSING ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS SINCE THE PRIOR PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 15TH. ARE THERE ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES TO MAKE? ALRIGHT. HEARING NONE, WILL STAFF PLEASE PRESENT THE ITEM? THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU CHAIR AND GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. UM, MY NAME IS ANDREW TRIP. I'M A PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH M GROUP CONSULTING AND THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE PETALUMA ZONING REFORM PHASE ONE PROJECT I'LL BE PRESENTING THIS EVENING. AND JOINING ME WILL BE, UH, ASHER TWO, WHO IS AN ASSISTANT PLANNER WITH M GROUP CONSULTING, AS WELL AS HEATHER GITZ, A SENIOR PLANNER. THEY WILL BE, UH, PARTICIPATING IN THE PRESENTATION AND, UH, WE'LL COME INTO, UH, THE MEETING VIRTUALLY. OKAY, SO THE PRESENTATION CONSISTS OF ABOUT 45 SLIDES. WE WILL BE REVIEWING, UM, BRIEFLY WHAT WE COVERED ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, AS WELL AS, UM, DELVING INTO SOME OF THE NEWER CHAPTERS, UH, THAT WERE NOT COVERED ON THE 15TH. UH, WE'LL ALSO BE LOOKING AT DECISION POINTS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING, AS WELL AS PUBLIC COMMENT AND, UH, LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, FOR CHANGES FROM THE COMMISSION. SO, SO WHERE DID WE LEAVE OFF? WE CARRIED, UH, WE CONTINUED THIS MEETING ITEM FROM SEPTEMBER 15TH. WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD, UH, CHAPTER SIX WITH THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR PRESENT. THAT'S, UH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UH, GINA BENEDETTI NIK. UH, WE'LL BE COVERING CHAPTERS 24, 26 AND 28, AS WELL AS, UM, WITHIN CHAPTER FOUR, THE LAND USE ALLOWABLE LAND USE TABLES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLES, AS WELL AS A NEW SECTION IN CHAPTER 4.060, UH, FOR DOWNTOWN MIXED USE, UH, RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. WE'LL ALSO BE CONSIDERING CHAPTER 12 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MODIFICATIONS, UH, REVIEWING SMART CODE SECTION TWO, AS WELL AS THE CITYWIDE ZONING MAP THAT UNITES BOTH, UH, THE ZONING, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE CITYWIDE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SMART CODE ON A SHARED MAP FOR THE FIRST TIME.
AND THEN IF, IF TIME PERMITS AND AT THE COMMISSION'S. UM, PLEASURE CONSIDERED THE RESOLUTION AND THE ORDINANCE, UH, THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS PROJECT. UM, [00:10:01] THERE WERE 13 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED, UH, FROM SEPTEMBER 14TH THROUGH THE 23RD. SO THOSE WERE IN ADDITION, UH, TO THE, THE PRIOR PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS HELD, AS WELL AS COMMENTS FROM SPEAKERS ON SEPTEMBER 15TH. UM, AS WE SEE HERE, THOSE TOPICS RANGE FROM THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY, UH, SPECIFICALLY REPEAL OF THE OVERLAY WAS, WAS MENTIONED IN WRITTEN COMMENTS AS WELL AS IN PERSON, UH, SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, EXTENDING THE EXEMPTION TO 15 OR FEWER UNITS. UH, THE REVIEW TIME AND SCHEDULE. UH, THAT'S WITH REGARD TO THE SEQUENCING OF THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS AS WELL AS, UM, NEW MATERIAL THAT'S BEEN INTRODUCED. UM, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO CONSIDER RECREATION ACTIVITY IN THE MAKER MICRO BUSINESS ZONE THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING. UM, COMMENTS AROUND DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, THOSE ARE THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IN SECTION 7.120. AND THEN A COMMENT, UH, REGARDING THE PAULA LANE AREA, UM, OBJECTING TO GREATER DENSITY AT THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. ADDITIONALLY, UM, WE PUBLISHED AN ERA AND RECOMMENDED REVISIONS MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 28TH THAT CONSISTED OF THREE PARTS. PART A HOLDS CORRECTIONS ONLY, UM, RESTORES ADOPTED TEXT REMOVED, UNINTENTIONALLY CONFORMS A TABLE CELL TO THE GENERAL PLAN AS ADOPTED OR CORRECTS A CROSS REFERENCE. AND WE'LL BE REVIEWING THOSE. UH, PART B UM, CHANGES WHAT THE STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDS FOR THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN THE AREAS OF THE REAR SETBACKS, UH, PETALUMA BOULEVARD, NORTH FRONT SETBACK AREA, UM, DEFINITIONS OF VEHICLE SERVICES AND AUTO PARTS SALES, AS WELL AS A DECISION THAT WILL COME BEFORE, UH, THE COMMISSION. AND THEN FINALLY, SOME CLARIFICATIONS WERE INCLUDED IN PART C.
SO WHAT THE COMMISSION DECIDES TONIGHT, UM, WHICH IS THE ONE RECOMMENDATION, UH, THE, THE OVERALL DECISION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT HAS ACTUALLY REACHED THROUGH A SERIES OF, UH, SMALLER DECISIONS. THOSE CAN RANGE FROM CHAPTER LEVEL TO SECTION TO SUBSECTION LEVEL. UM, AND THOSE ARE AROUND CONFORMITY, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CONFORM WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, UH, RESPONDING TO BOTH IZO SECTION 25.050 B, AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6 5 8 6 0, AS WELL AS FINDING THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE. AND THEN FINALLY, THAT THEY'RE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM EIR THAT WAS CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2026. AND THEN, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, UH, THE COUNCIL, UH, THE PROJECT DOES COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND FINAL DECISION, BUT THE COUNCIL OF COURSE LOOKS TO THE COMMISSION'S DELIBERATION FOR BEST READINGS AROUND POLICY CHOICES. SO IN TERMS OF DECISION POINTS, WHICH ARE EMBEDDED IN THIS EVENING'S PRESENTATION, UH, THERE'S 21 IN ALL. UM, EACH APPEARS WITH ITS CHAPTER. AND IN THIS ORDER, UH, THE FIRST NUMBER OF THE, THE DECISION NUMBER IS, IS THE CHAPTER REFERENCE. AND THEN, UM, THE SECOND SHOW IS THE NUMBER OF DECISIONS WITHIN THE CHAPTER. SO FOR INSTANCE, UM, IF WE LOOK TO THE FIRST ONE, UH, CHAPTER THREE HAS ONE DECISION IN IT, AND IT'S WITH REGARD TO THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING THRESHOLDS. UH, AS, AS, UH, WAS SHARED, NOT ALL OF THESE DECISIONS ARE MAJOR DECISIONS, SOME OF THEM JUST BY, UH, YOUR, YOUR DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD ON A, ON A MOTION TO RECOMMEND. UM, YOU MIGHT BE BE SHARING THROUGH THAT, THAT YOU'VE MADE DECISIONS ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS. THERE ARE THREE LARGER DECISION ITEMS AND THEN A SERIES OF ABOUT NINE TO 12 THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR THE COMMISSION INPUT ON. SO LET'S GET INTO IT THEN.
UH, CHAPTER ONE, THIS WAS REVIEWED ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, AND, UM, WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES, IT DOES, UH, SOME PROCEDURAL THINGS, STATES THE AUTHORITY, UM, OF A CHARTER CITY ADDS PROCEDURE FOR OFFICIAL INTERPRETATIONS. CODIFIES SEPARABILITY, UM, STATES HOW THE ORDINANCE RELATES TO STATE LAW. WE ALL KNOW THAT, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF HOUSING LAW, UM, THE STATE HAS AND CONTINUES TO PUSH OUT A VARIETY OF NEW STATUTES AND AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING STATUTES. SO WE DID WANT TO, IN THIS, IN, UH, IN THIS CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDE, UM, SOME INFORMATION ABOUT HOW, UH, THIS ORDINANCE WOULD RELATE TO STATE LAW. AND THEN FINALLY, HOW AN AMENDMENT APPLIES TO PENDING APPLICATIONS. THAT'S BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE THAT WE'RE NOW, UH, SEEKING TO CODIFY WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE SEPTEMBER 15TH AT THE COMMISSION'S, UH, REQUEST. UM, THE, THE DELIVERY AND REPORTING [00:15:01] OF INTERPRETATIONS AND SIMILAR USE DETERMINATIONS TO THE COMMISSION, UH, IS NOW STATED TO BE REPORTED TO THE COMMISSION BY JUNE 30TH OF EACH YEAR. AND THAT'S TO GIVE PUBLIC, UH, A SENSE OF CERTAINTY ABOUT WHEN THAT WILL HAPPEN. AND THEN, UH, TWO EMPTY NUMBER SUBSECTIONS IN SECTION 1.040 WERE REMOVED AS A CORRECTION. UH, THERE IS NO DECISION POINT ON CHAPTER ONE. UM, QUESTIONS TO STAFF ARE WELCOME THEN IN CHAPTER TWO, WHICH WE ALSO REVIEWED ON SEPTEMBER 15TH. JUST TOUCHING ON IT AGAIN IN SUMMARY FORM HERE, UM, ESTABLISHES WHAT TABLE 2.1 DOES IN CHAPTER TWO IS ESTABLISHES THE ZONES FOR 25 OF THE DESIGNATIONS, UM, IN THE GENERAL PLAN, AND THEN CROSS REFERENCES SIX OF THE SMART ZONE SMART CODE ZONES, UM, THAT ARE DIRECTED BY THE GENERAL PLAN TO BE ESTABLISHED. IT ALSO, UH, DIRECTS HOW THE ZONING MAP IS KEPT IN THE CITY'S GIS SYSTEM AND HOW IT'S AMENDED PROVIDES RULES FOR ANNEXED LAND AS WELL AS GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS. UM, IT ALSO HAS A FORMER ZONE SYMBOLS TABLE, TABLE TWO DASH TWO, AND THAT'S TO HELP WITH INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE, UM, PETALUMA ZONING ORDINANCE.
THAT'S BEFORE YOU, ESPECIALLY AS, UH, STAFF ARE ASKED TO LOOK BACK ON PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE ESTABLISHES THE BOUNDARY RULES FOR WATER COURSES, UM, WHICH WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT IN CHAPTER SIX THIS EVENING, AS WELL AS RAIL LINES, THE CITY LIMITS AND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES. AND IT CORRECTS, UH, MISSING OR DEFECTS IN THE EXISTING TABLES, INCLUDING ADDING THE FLOODWAY ZONE, WHICH WAS MISSING FROM A TABLE. SO WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE SEPTEMBER 15TH? IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT, THE THEATER OVERLAY AND DOWNTOWN OVERLAY ROWS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM TABLE 2.1. TABLE 2.2 SHOWS THEM AS EXPIRED AND REPEALED. AND THEN IN SECTION 2.050 G, UH, WE CLARIFIED THAT DENSITY MOVES ONLY TO A PORTION OF PARCEL WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL USE IS ALLOWED. UH, THAT WAS DISCUSSED, UH, BY THE COMMISSION ON BOTH AUGUST 25TH AS WELL AS SEPTEMBER 15TH. AND THEN FINALLY, UH, T FIVE STEP DOWN IS REMOVED FROM THE SMART CODE ZONES BAND FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL'S SEPTEMBER 14TH ACTION, UH, WHEN THEY TOOK THAT ACTION ON THE 14TH. EVEN THOUGH THE, THE, UM, STEP DOWN MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION STILL EXISTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN, UH, IT'S NO LONGER APPLIED WITHIN THE SMART CODE ZONE AREA. CHAPTER THREE TO REVISIT THAT AGAIN, UM, THIS REALLY GETS INTO WHAT IS ALLOWED AND WHAT PERMITS ARE NEEDED. SO, UH, IT IS ONE OF THE FIRST STOPS FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, DEVELOPERS AND SUCH, UH, WHO ARE LOOKING TO, UM, TAKE ACTION DEVELOPMENT ACTION UNDERNEATH THESE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO THE AMENDMENTS SEEK TO CORRECT A, UH, CIRCULAR CROSS REFERENCE IN 3.030. UM, HOUSING IN A MIXED USE PROJECT TAKES ITS OWN PERMIT LEVEL. THAT WAS A CLARIFICATION THAT WE DISCUSSED ON AUGUST 25TH AS WELL AS SEPTEMBER 15TH. UM, CLARIFIES ALSO ABOUT UNLISTED USES IN THE DIRECTORS TO DETERMINATION, UM, HOW THOSE ARE POSTED AND HOW THEY MAY BE APPEALED.
AUTHORIZES ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT AHEAD OF PLANNING APPROVALS, UM, FOR SITE PREPARATION UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN IT ESTABLISHES A ZONING CLEARANCE PROCESS FOR THE, UH, MAKER MICRO BUSINESS ZONE, WHICH WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS IN CHAPTER 29. WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE, SINCE SEPTEMBER, UM, 15TH IS REPUBLISHED THE RED LINE VERSION. WITH EVERY CHANGE TRACKED. UM, WE'VE UPDATED SECTION 3.030 A AS WELL AS IN SECTION 3.040. UM, STAFF RECOMMEND THAT THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING THRESHOLD, UH, BE INCREASED FROM FIVE UNITS TO 11 UNITS. AND THAT IS A DECISION 3.1. IT IS A MAJOR, UH, DECISION BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING, UM, THAT WE WILL BE REVIEWING. AND SO HERE IS THAT DECISION 3.1. UM, AT THE, AT THE PRIOR UP, BOTH AUGUST 25TH AND SEPTEMBER 15TH, THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE WAS DISCUSSED. UH, THE COMMISSION ASKED FOR OPTIONS TO BE PRESENTED INCLUSION AS SUSPENSION UNTIL PHASE TWO. UM, WE DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 11 COMMITS THE CITY TO CONTINUE THE PROGRAM AND TO EVALUATE ITS THRESHOLD. SO FOR THAT REASON, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING A SUSPENSION UNTIL WE ARE ABLE TO, UH, CONDUCT THE STUDY IN THE EVALUATION REQUIRED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT. UM, HOWEVER, [00:20:01] STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE THRESHOLD BE INCREASED TO 11 UNITS, SO THE HOUSING, THEIR, THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE RATHER, WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ALL PROJECTS OF 11 UNITS OR MORE. WHAT THIS DOES WHEN WE GET TO CHAPTER 24 THEN, WHICH EXEMPTS, UM, 10 UNITS OR FEWER FROM SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, IS IT BRINGS THOSE TOGETHER SO THAT ANY PROJECT OF 10 UNITS OR FEWER WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, AND ALSO WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. CHAPTER FOUR, UH, WE BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON, ON SEPTEMBER 15TH. UM, AND THIS, THIS CHAPTER IS COMPRISED OF THREE SECTIONS. THE CHAPTER SECTION ARE THE TEXT SECTIONS, WHICH, UM, UH, SET FORTH THE PURPOSE OF EACH ZONE.
UM, THEY PLAY SUPPORTIVE AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AS STATE LAW REQUIRES, AND THEY ESTABLISH A NEW SECTION 4.060 AND THE DOWNTOWN HOUSING MAP. WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE SEPTEMBER 15TH IS, UM, THE SECTION 4.030 A, UH, HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO LIST WHERE PERMISSION SIT OUTSIDE THE TABLES, UH, 4.030 D. UM, PURPOSE INCLUDES PURPOSE STATEMENTS TO SET A PLAN, DISTRICT USES ZONES, AND THEN, UH, WE DUPLICATE A DEFINITION POINTER AT 4.03. UH, ZERO C I'M SORRY, A DUPLICATE WAS REMOVED THERE. AND SO IN DECISION 4.1, UM, THIS IS ASKING THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STANDARDS FOR SUPPORTIVE AND TRADITIONAL HOUSING LAND USES IN THE BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS. AND THE STATE LAW DOES REQUIRE THIS PERMISSION. UM, IN PHASE ONE, A PROJECT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE ZONE, AND THE STANDARDS ARE WRITTEN FOR THE HOUSING ITSELF FOLLOWING IN PHASE TWO. SO TO UNPACK THAT A BIT, THE, UH, BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES HAVE A CARETAKER DWELLING, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL USE WITH STATE LAW SAYS WITH REGARD TO SUPPORTIVE AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, ANY ZONE WHERE RESIDENTIAL USE IS ALLOWED, THEN SUPPORTIVE AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ARE ALSO ALLOWED. HOWEVER, THAT CARETAKER DWELLING AS A RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY ONE UNIT PER SITE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE, THE NON-RESIDENTIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, UH, DOES NOT HAVE APPLICABLE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. SO WHAT WE HAVE PRESENTED BEFORE YOU IN PHASE ONE THIS EVENING IS SUPPORTIVE IN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ALLOWED AS LAND USES, BUT WITHOUT STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES. SO A PHASE ONE PROPOSES IS TO HOLD THAT UP TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW WITH REGARD TO THE USE, BUT THEN IN PHASE TWO, ESTABLISH THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THOSE ZONES, SHOULD A SUPPORTIVE HOUSING OR INDUS OR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT CHOOSE TO LOCATE THERE. THEN, UH, THE SECTION 4.060 WAS ADDED.
THIS IS THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE, UM, AND DOWNTOWN HOUSING MAP SECTION ACTION LU DASH 3.2 0.6 WAS, UM, APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 14TH. AND THAT ACTION GIVES FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW FOR 100% RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAD TO ESTABLISH WHERE THAT 100% RESIDENTIAL USE MIGHT BE ALLOWED. AND THE APPROACH THAT WAS PRESENTED OR, OR DISCUSSED ON SEPTEMBER 15TH WAS TO IDENTIFY NON-RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGES WHERE MIXED USE WOULD BE REQUIRED AND THEN BRING OVER THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FROM THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY INTO, UM, THOSE NON-RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGES. IF YOU HAD A, A STREET FRONTAGE THAT WAS NOT DESIGNATED NON NON-RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE, THEN 100% RESIDENTIAL WOULD OTHERWISE BE ALLOWED. AS WE LOOKED AT THAT FOLLOWING SEPTEMBER 15TH, UH, WE FELT THAT THAT WAS IMPOSING THOSE, UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON, UM, PROPERTIES WHERE WE HAD NOT DONE THE RIGHT LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AND, UM, AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, DISCUSS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TO TAKE THEIR INPUT ON THOSE STANDARDS AND SO FORTH. SO IN ORDER TO, TO RESPOND TO ACTION 3.2 0.6, WE TOOK A DIFFERENT DIRECTION WHERE WE IDENTIFIED, UM, THOSE PARCELS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. AND THEN OF THOSE [00:25:01] PARCELS WE LOOKED ONLY AT VACANT PARCELS OR UNDEVELOPED PARCELS. UM, AND THEN THAT, THAT SET OF, OF VACANT PARCELS WAS SIX LOTS. WE IDENTIFIED THOSE AS PARCELS WHERE 100% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED. WHAT YOU'LL FIND IN THAT, IN THAT VACANT PARCEL DETERMINATION THERE IN, IN, UM, CARD THREE IS THAT WE DID NOT INCLUDE SURFACE PARKING LOTS BECAUSE AS WE LOOKED AT THOSE PARKING LOTS, EVEN IF, EVEN IF A PARCEL WAS AN ENTIRE, IT, IT'S ENTIRE USE WAS A PARKING LOT, IT WAS CLEARLY SERVING IT, UH, A USE ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL. AND SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE VIEWED THAT PARCEL AS BEING UNDERUTILIZED RATHER THAN VACANT, AND CHOSE NOT TO INCLUDE IT IN THE SET OF, UH, SIX LOTS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE DOWNTOWN HOUSING MAP.
CERTAINLY THERE'S A, THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR WORK, A LOT OF RICH OPPORTUNITY IN FACT, FOR WORK TO LOOK AT WHERE 100% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. AND, UM, AND STAFF FELT THAT THIS WAS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE WAY TO APPROACH IT WHILE STILL CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR 100% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN, UM, AS DIRECTED BY ACTION 3.2 0.6. SO THAT'S DECISION 4.2. UM, THEN WOULD ALLOW FOR FULL RELIEF OF THE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVE, UM, FRONTAGE, UH, FOUR OH 100% RESIDENTIAL USE, PROVIDED THAT IT MEETS ALL OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA OR REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7.120. IF IT DOES NOT MEET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THE GROUND FLOOR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT 0.1 FAR OF A ACTIVE USE ON THE GROUND FLOOR. SO WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF GUARDRAILS THERE THAT CAN HELP SHAPE THAT GROUND FLOOR EXPERIENCE ON THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE MAP. AND THEN SECOND, ANOTHER DECISION BEFORE THE, THE COMMISSION IS SIMPLY THE NAME OF THE MAP. WE REFER TO IT IN, IN THE, UH, SECTION 4.060 AS THE DOWNTOWN HOUSING MAP. AN ALTERNATIVE NAME MIGHT, UH, MIGHT BE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL AREAS MAP, OR ANOTHER ONE THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER. SO A LOT GOING ON IN SECTION 4.060, UM, TO AT LEAST INITIATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR 100% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE, UM, THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. SO THEN, UM, ANOTHER BIG COMPONENT OF CHAPTER FOUR IS THE ALLOWABLE LAND USE TABLES. AND THESE ARE, UH, SET FORTH IN TABLES 4.1 TO 4.4. UH, EACH TABLE, UM, CORRESPONDS TO ONE OF THE ZONING FAMILIES, WHETHER THAT'S RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL OR PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC. UM, AND THOSE TABLES WILL SAY WHETHER A USE IS ALLOWED AND IF IT IS ALLOWED, WHAT LEVEL OF PERMIT IS REQUIRED RANGING FROM A PERMITTED USE TO A MINOR USE PERMIT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR ACCESSORY USE. SO THE HOUSING TYPES, UM, HAVE BEEN AUGMENTED WITH, UH, SEPARATE ROWS.
WE'VE ADDED SUPPORTIVE TRANSITIONAL EMPLOYEE AND SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING TYPES TO THOSE THAT ARE EXISTING. ALL OF THE, THE USE LABELS HAVE BEEN ALIGNED WITH THE GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS. UM, SO WE, WE CAN GUARANTEE IN THESE AMENDMENTS THAT EVERY USE LISTED IN THE TABLE HAS A CORRESPONDING DEFINITION. UM, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE PREVIOUSLY AND THAT, UM, ALL OF THE LABELS ARE CONSISTENT ACROSS BOTH CHAPTERS AT THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION. THEATERS ARE, ARE, UM, PROVIDED BY WRIGHT IN THE FIVE MIXED USE ZONES. UH, WE'VE ADDED NEW ROWS FOR BREWERIES AS WELL AS A TRADE SHOWROOM, WHICH GIVES FLEXIBILITY TO SMALL SCALE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE DOING BOTH RETAIL SALES AS WELL AS SERVICE AND INSTALLATION. UM, KIND OF, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S A SMALL SCALE CONTRACTOR, UM, ACTIVITY, BUT IT, IT NEVER REALLY HAD A ROW IN THE PRIOR ALLOWABLE LAND USE TABLE. SO WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO CREATE THAT. AND THEN, UM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS WERE REVIEWED FOR NEED. MANY OF THOSE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WERE CLARIFIED, UM, TO REQUIRE A MINOR USE PERMIT OR PERMITTED BY RIGHT. THOSE THAT REMAIN ARE, UH, CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. UH, WITH REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ONE OF THE REASONS FOR DOING THIS WAS TO, UM, TO HELP, UH, COMMUNICATE TO, ESPECIALLY FOLKS, YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES THAT ARE RETENANTING WHAT THE LEVEL OF PERMIT MIGHT BE REQUIRED. PREVIOUSLY, THE ALLOWABLE LAND USE TABLES ONLY IDENTIFIED AS CUP AND LEFT IT UP TO THE DIRECT DIRECTOR TO DETERMINE IF THAT WAS [00:30:01] A MINOR USE PERMIT OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION. NOW, THE TABLES WOULD CLARIFY THAT, AND WE THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL IN REDUCING, UH, YOU KNOW, THE RISK ASSOCIATED FOR THE RETENANTING AS WELL AS GIVING THE, THE POTENTIAL TENANT CLEAR TIMELINES FOR APPROVAL FOR REVIEW AT LEAST, AS WELL AS, UM, REDUCING COST.
AND SO THEN WHAT WE'VE CHANGED IN THOSE TABLES SINCE, UH, SEPTEMBER 15TH, THE MARKERS ON, UM, ON ALL FOUR OF THE ROW LABELS AND THE RED LINE HAVE BEEN CORRECTED, AND THEN THE TABLES REMAIN OPEN TO CHANGE AS THE HEARINGS PROCEED. OF COURSE, WE TOOK THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION TO CREATE A SET OF RULES AROUND ESTABLISHING ALLOWABLE USES AND, UH, RATHER THAN GO THROUGH EVERY USE, UH, AND ITS CHANGE WITH YOU. SO, UM, HOWEVER, IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT A PARTICULAR, UM, PERMISSION THAT WAS ESTABLISHED OR YOU WANT TO SEE ONE CHANGE, THEN WE CAN TAKE THAT UP IN, IN, UM, DISCUSSION THEN IN THE EROTIC SHEET, UH, THE MEMO THAT WAS ATTACHED, UM, B THREE AND B FOUR, THOSE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE DEFINITIONS OF MAJOR REPAIR BODY WORK, UM, AND AUTO PARTS SALES FOR VEHICLES. AND THOSE ARE DECISIONS 4.4, 4.5, AND 4.6, UH, WHICH ARE FOLLOWING IN THE NEXT SLIDE HERE. UM, SO DECISION 4.4 IS A CHANGE TO A NOTE SIX, UH, ON THE, UM, THE ALLOWABLE LAND USE TABLES REGARDING, UH, GROUND FLOOR, STREET FRONTAGE USES, AND WE WANTED TO CREATE SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE. OVER, OVER TIME, THE GOAL HAS BEEN THAT THE GROUND FLOOR, STREET FRONTING USES ARE ACTIVE USES AND, AND THEN A MINOR USE PERMIT WAS REQUIRED. UM, EITHER THE USE HAD TO LOCATE BEHIND THE STREET FRONTING AREA OR ON AN UPPER LEVEL TO BE A PERMITTED USE. OTHERWISE, A MINOR USE PERMIT WAS REQUIRED. WHAT THAT WAS DOING WAS ELIMINATING A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR, FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES THAT MAY HAVE A MIX OF USES THAT WERE IN FACT ACTIVITY GENERATING. IT WAS, IT WAS PLACING A MINOR USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT ON THEM. SO WHAT WE DID IN NOTE NOTE SIX WAS, UH, CREATE SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT MAY HAVE FRONT LOADING PARKING, UH, WHERE THAT, THAT STREET LEVEL ACTIVITY SPACE IS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT IS IN FRONT OF IT.
AND THEN WE'VE ALSO, UM, REDUCED THAT PERMISSION REQUIREMENT ACROSS A VARIETY OF, OF USES, UM, TO MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE THEN IN, UH, DECISION 4.5 EMPLOYEE HOUSING FOR SIX OR FEWER. UH, THIS, THIS IS THE CITY'S CHOICE. IT'S NOT A STATE REQUIREMENT. UH, WE ARE SHOWING THE USE TABLES CODED AS ALLOWING IT IN NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL WHERE, UM, CARETAKER DWELLING IS ALREADY PERMITTED. SO ALIGNING THOSE EMPLOYEE HOUSING OPTIONS WITH THOSE, UM, THOSE ZONE DISTRICTS WHERE WE DO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE ALREADY ALLOWED. AND THEN DECISION 4.6 WOULD BE ANY OTHER USES IN THE TABLES. UM, AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REQUESTS FROM YOU, UH, BASED UPON YOUR REVIEW OF, OF THE TABLES AS DRAFTED. WE'LL MOVE ON HERE TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THIS IS THE, THE THIRD THEN MAJOR COMPONENT OF CHAPTER FOUR AND TABLES 4.5 THROUGH 4.8, UH, CARRY THE STANDARDS, THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT THE GENERAL PLAN ASSIGNS TO EACH, UH, LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT'S IMPLEMENTED THROUGH A ZONE, AGAIN, 4.5 THROUGH EIGHT, FOLLOW THE, UH, SAME ZONE FAMILIES, RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TO PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC. UH, WHAT WE HAVE CHANGED IN THESE, UH, WHILE WE, THERE'S, THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGE, UM, TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THEMSELVES, BUT WE'VE ADDED THE DENSITY RANGES, UH, IN THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE. UM, DENSITY WAS ALWAYS REFERRED TO IN THE GENERAL PLAN, SO YOU HAD TO READ ACROSS BOTH DOCUMENTS, UH, WITH THE DENSITY RANGES INPUT OR INCORPORATED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLES THAT'S RIGHT THERE TO, TO BE ABLE TO PROCESS ALONG WITH LOT SIZE, MINIMUM, LOT SIZE AND SO FORTH. WE'VE ALSO ADDED THE, UH, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND HEIGHT, BOTH, UM, IN FEED AND STORIES. UH, WE'VE CLARIFIED AROUND STEP DOWNS NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS, AND WE'VE ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2,800 SQUARE FEET IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES EXCEPT FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND A VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
AND WE'LL DISCUSS WHY WE HAVEN'T TAKEN, UM, THAT STEP YET. [00:35:02] WE'VE ALSO CALIBRATED ACROSS ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH REGARD TO CHANGES IN RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS, UM, SITE COVERAGE AND USABLE OPEN SPACE. AND AS WE HEAD INTO, UH, REVIEWING THESE STANDARDS, I WANT TO NOW TURN TO ASHER TWO. ASHER WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN BUILDING THE, UM, THE, THE TEST FITS THAT WE CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UPDATES. AND SO ASHER, I'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN THE MICROPHONE OVER TO YOU AND JUST TELL ME WHEN YOU'D LIKE YOUR SLIDES CHANGED. THANK YOU, ANDREW. UM, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ASHER TU AND I'M AN ASSISTANT PLANNER WITH M GROUP, M GROUP CONSULTANTS. UM, SO YEAH, AS ANDREW SAID BEFORE WE DELVE INTO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, I WANT TO DISCUSS THE RESIDENTIAL TEST BITS THAT WE CONDUCTED AND HOW WE ARRIVED AT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WE'RE GONNA PRESENT THROUGH THESE TEST FITS. AND SO LOOKING AT THIS SLIDE, UM, WE ALREADY HAVE A BUNCH OF HOUSING TYPES THAT ALREADY EXIST IN PETALUMA. THESE ARE ALL HOUSES THAT ALREADY EXIST AROUND PETALUMA, ESPECIALLY IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR DOWNTOWN. AND THIS IS THE DIVERSITY OF LOW DENSITY ZONE WAS NAMED FOR AND WHAT IT WAS CREATED FOR. AND SO WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN IS ASKING IS NOT TO CREATE NEW HOUSING TYPES, BUT TO ALLOW, AGAIN, WHAT THE CITY ALREADY CONTAINS AND TO MAKE AND TO PROMOTE MORE OF THESE HOUSING TYPES THAT INCLUDE COTTAGE PLEXES, DUPLEXES, SMALL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, AND ATTACHED HOUSING. NEXT SLIDE. AND SO THIS DIAGRAM SHOWS WHAT THESE HOUSING TYPES LOOK LIKE IN CONTEXT WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND SO ON THIS DIAGRAM, WE HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN WHITE AND THEN THE OTHER HOUSING TYPES IN THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT COLORS.
AND SO THE, THE GREAT THING ABOUT THESE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES IS THAT THEY'RE VERY MUCH COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND THEY CONTRIBUTE TO KIND THAT UNIQUE CHARACTER THAT CAN FOSTER A MORE WALKABLE AND VI VIBRANT COMMUNITY AND A STRONGER SENSE OF PLACE WHILE ADDING MORE HOUSING UNITS, WHICH IS A VERY, UM, MUCH NEEDED THING WITHIN THE CITY NEXT. YEAH, AND SO LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, THE NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE THINK OF IT AS A NEW OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE, UM, TO KIND OF PROMOTE WHAT THE CITY NEEDS AND WHAT THESE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES REQUIRE AND ARE MORE CONDUCIVE TOWARDS. AND SO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CAN ENHANCE THE PE PETALUMA IDENTITY AND HELP ENHANCE THINGS LIKE THE FRONTAGE, THE MASSING, AND THE USABLE OPEN SPACE. NEXT SLIDE. AND SO THE VERY FIRST, UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THE FRONT SETBACK. AND SO YOU'LL SEE THAT ALL OF THE FRONT SETBACKS HAVE BEEN REDUCED DOWN TO FIVE FEET WITHIN THE, UM, DIVERSE, YEAH, THE LOW DENSITY UP TO THE HIGH DENSITY OR THE HIGH DENSITY ALREADY HAD ZERO FEET, BUT THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, THE RESIDENTIAL DIVERSE DENSITY AND THE MEDIUM DENSITY HAVE ALL REDUCED THEIR FRONT SETBACK TO FIVE FEET. AND THIS ALLOWS FOR MORE OF THAT ACTIVATION WITHIN THAT FRONT, WITHIN THAT FRONTAGE AND MORE ALONG THAT STREET SIDE. AND THEN THERE IS ALSO A MODIFICATION TO THIS FRONT SETBACK STRATEGY WHERE, UM, CHAPTER 12.030 WILL BE REVISED TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE SETBACK. AND SO THE FRONT SETBACK CAN BE DECREASED ON BLOCKS WHERE THE FRONTAGES OF BUILDINGS ARE ARE LESS THAN FIVE FEET. AND SO THAT ALLOWS THAT FLEXIBILITY TO MATCH THE EXISTING CONTEXT WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. NEXT SLIDE. AND SO LOOKING AT MORE OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, IT'S THE GENERAL PLAN REALLY WANTS TO EMPHASIZE MORE INFO HOUSING PRODUCTION AND CREATING MORE OF THESE DIFFERENT, UM, TYPES OF HOUSING.
AND SO WE SEE HERE IN THIS DIAGRAM THAT INFO HOUSING NOT ONLY CONSISTS OF ACCESSORY DRILLING UNITS, BUT ALSO ATTACHED DUPLEXES, FOUR PLEXES, QUADPLEXES, ALL THOSE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING UNITS. AND, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE PUT, ARE TRYING TO PROMOTE ALL OF MORE OF THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. NEXT SLIDE. AND SO LOOKING AT THE GENERAL PLAN, THE GENERAL PLAN HAS TWO ACTIONS THAT WE WERE FOCUSING ON. AND SO GENERAL PLAN ACTION, OU 3.2 0.4 SETS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES TO 2,800 ACROSS THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ALL THE WAY UP TO THE MEDIUM DENSITY. THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ALREADY HAD, UH, 1500 [00:40:01] SQUARE FOOT, UM, MINIMUM LOT SIZE, SO THAT DOESN'T CHANGE GENERAL, THE GENERAL PLAN ALSO HAD AN ACTION LU 7.2 0.1 THAT CAUSED FOR ALLOWING INFO DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO FOUR UNITS. AND SO THIS PRO ALLOWS WHAT KIND OF SB NINE DOES AT THE STATE LEVEL, WHERE IT ALLOWS UP TO FOUR UNITS INCLUDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT AND THEN PROMOTES MORE OF THAT, UM, DUPLEX TO PLX HOUSING PRODUCTION. AND THEN, SO WE'VE ADDED THESE DIFFERENT USES TO THE USE TABLE TO MORE EXPLICITLY ALLOW THEM AND SHOW THAT THEY ARE ENCOURAGED HERE. AND THEN, SO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE ALSO IMPLE IMPLEMENTED GENERAL PLAN ACTIONS AND, UM, GO MORE TOWARDS THAT HIGHER DENSITY INFO DEVELOPMENTS. AND SO THE STANDARD PROCESS FOR ALLOWING MORE OF THESE INFO DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDES WE HA WE, UM, PETALUMA IS ALREADY A PRETTY BUILT UP CITY, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF LOTS THAT ARE DEEPER AND HAVE MORE OPEN SPACE TO ALLOW FOR MORE ADDITIONAL UNITS TO BE BUILT. AND SO THE IDEA IS TO CALCULATE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ALLOWED WITH A LOT SIZE AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY. AND IF SEPARATE LOTS ARE DESIRED, UM, PE DEVELOPERS CAN APPLY FOR A LOCAL SUBDIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES, THAT 2,800 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM AND CREATE ADDITIONAL LOTS.
AND THEN, UM, WITH, UM, ACTION LU 7.2 0.1, DEVELOPERS CAN BUILD UP TO FOUR UNITS WITHIN THIS WITHIN A SINGLE LOT, UM, THAT ALLOW FOR THOSE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFO DEVELOPMENTS. AND SO NEXT SLIDE. UM, AND SO WITH ALL THESE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BEING REVISED AND BEING CHANGED, UM, THESE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE THINK PETALUMA CAN GO MORE TOWARDS. AND SO THE INITIAL SLIDE I HAD SHOWED WHAT ALREADY EXISTS IN PETALUMA, THIS SLIDE SHOWS WHAT OTHER HOUSING TYPES EXIST IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS AROUND THE BAY AREA. AND SO ALL OF THESE PHOTOS ARE, UM, FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, AND THEY SHOW DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFO DEVELOPMENTS AND THAT HIGHER DENSITY OR SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT A, AROUND THE BAY AREA THAT SHOW HOW THESE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES CAN LOOK MORE MODERN, MORE, UM, MORE MODERN, MORE NEW AND NEWLY BUILT, BUT STILL FIT INTO THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO YOU HAVE ALL THESE THAT, OR MOST OF THESE WERE BUILT WITHIN THE LAST DECADE, UM, THE FIVE UNITS, THE TRIPLEX, THE DUPLEX, AND THE FOUR UNITS. AND SO THESE SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN BE BUILT IN PETALUMA. AND I THINK ALL OF THESE, UH, ALL OF THESE, UM, DEVELOPMENTS RANGE BETWEEN RANGE FROM 11 DWELLING UNITS UP TO 30 DWELL OR A DENSITY OF 11 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE UP TO 30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND SO THIS SHOWS THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INFO DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GREAT, THANKS ASHER. AND SO THEN MOVING ON THEN, UH, HERE, HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF, UH, WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLES LOOK LIKE. UM, SIZE FOR SMALL LOTS IN THE FOAM FOUR HOME PATHWAY. UM, MINIMUM LOT SIZE, AGAIN HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 2,800 SQUARE FEET ACROSS MOST OF THE, UM, RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ACCEPT RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND, UH, VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS HAVE BEEN REDUCED, UH, TO FIVE FEET EXCEPT FOR HIGH DENSITY, WHICH HAS BEEN AT ZERO, UM, SINCE 2008.
AND THEN OF COURSE, IT REFLECTS THE BUILDING HEIGHT INFORMATION GATHERED FROM, UM, THE, UH, GENERAL PLAN. UH, THE ERA SHEET B ONE AND B TWO UM, CLARIFIES THAT THE PUBLISHED REAR SETBACK IS 10 FEET. AND THEN ALSO THERE'S AN ON THE ERA SHEET, THERE'S A B TWO, UM, IS WITH REGARD TO IT KEEPS THE 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FRONTING PETALUMA BOULEVARD, NORTH NORTH OFSBAR AVENUE. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE TABLE NOTES IN THE GENERAL PLAN. AND THEN, AS I MENTIONED, RURAL RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL STAY AT TWO ACRES AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET RESPECTIVELY. THE GENERAL WITH REGARD TO THAT, UH, MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THE GENERAL PLAN CALLS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES TO, UH, PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2,800 SQUARE FEET. WHEN WE [00:45:01] LOOK AT, UH, THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT STRICTLY INTERPRETED WOULD ALLOW THOSE, UM, MINIMUM TWO ACRE PARCELS OR TWO 20,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCELS TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 2,800 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. TWO THINGS HAPPEN THERE THEN ONE IS THAT THERE'S, THERE'S THE, UM, ACTION 7.2 0.1, WHICH DIRECTS US TO, TO ALLOW FOR FOUR UNITS, UM, INCLUDING ADU TO BE DEVELOPED ON A 3000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL. SO IF WE TOOK, SAY, A TWO ACRE PARCEL AND ASSUME THAT IT COULD BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 3000 SQUARE FOOT PARCELS, AND THEN EACH OF THOSE COULD BE DEVELOPED WITH FOUR UNITS, THAT THAT WOULD BE A QUITE INCREDIBLE DENSITY IN A RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS THAT THE GENERAL PLAN IS NOT GIVING US DIRECTION ON WHAT MIGHT BE A DENSITY THRESHOLD IN THESE CASES. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT SB NINE AND SB 10, STATE LAW IS VERY CLEAR. SB NINE, YOUR DENSITY THRESHOLD IS TWO UNITS. THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T USE DENSITY AS A THRESHOLD, THEY JUST USE UNIT COUNT AS A THRESHOLD. AND IT'S THE SAME THING WITH SB 10 OR 6 84, 11 23 RATHER.
UH, THE, THE UNIT THRESHOLD THERE IS 10 UNITS, AND SO YOU HAVE A PRETTY CLEAR SENSE OF THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN HAPPEN, UM, ON THOSE PARCELS THAT MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR SB NINE OR SB 11, UM, 6 84, 11 23. WHAT WE'RE MISSING AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN THE GENERAL PLAN IS A CLEAR ARTICULATION OF WHERE THAT THRESHOLD WOULD LIE, EITHER AT DENSITY OR AT UNIT. AND SO WE NEED TO DO, WE NEED MORE TIME TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT AND WORK WITHIN THAT BEFORE WE WANT TO RECOMMEND THEN COMMITTING TO ALLOWING THAT MINIMUM 2,800 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE ON THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL OR VERY LOW, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UM, PARCELS IN THOSE ZONES. UM, AND, AND WE CAN, WE CAN TALK THROUGH THAT AND LOOK AT SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES DURING DISCUSSION AS WELL. UH, THERE IS ANOTHER DECISION WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, THAT IS, UH, IS A PRETTY HIGH LEVEL DECISION FOR THE COMMISSION, AND THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF USABLE OPEN SPACE. UH, WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM OF 30 SQUARE FEET, FEET PER UNIT IN PLACE OF ADOPTED RANGES FROM 300 SQUARE FEET TO 600 SQUARE FEET. UH, THE REDUCTION IN THAT USABLE OPEN SPACE IS INTENDED TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT AT A HIGHER DENSITY, UM, MORE USE OF THE LOT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF, UM, HOUSING UNITS. AND, UH, IT ALSO RECOGNIZES THAT WITH INCREASED WALKABILITY, ACCESS TO TRANSIT AND SO FORTH, THAT, UM, THESE, THESE INFILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS DO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO THIS COMMON SHARED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT THE CITY, WHETHER THAT'S IN THE FORM OF A GREENWAY, A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK OR A COMMUNITY PARK.
UM, BUT WE DO ASK THAT THE COMMISSION WEIGH IN ON THIS, UH, THIS EVENING AS FAR AS THAT, SETTING THAT FLOOR AT, UH, 30 SQUARE FEET THEN IN THE MIXED USE STANDARDS TABLES, UM, BEGINNING IN TABLE, UH, 4.6, UM, HEIGHTS, STEP DOWNS AND FLOOR AREA RATIOS WERE CARRIED OVER FROM TABLE LU DASH TWO IN THE GENERAL PLAN, UM, THE HEIGHT IS NOW PROVIDED IN BOTH FEET AND STORIES WITH THE LOWER OF THE TWO GOVERNING, UM, STEP DOWNS ARE ESTABLISHED WHERE THE PLAN SETS THEM, AND THEN, UM, THERE ARE THE COVERAGE INCENTIVES OR FAR INCENTIVES FOR ACTIVE GROUND FLOORS. WHAT CHANGES IN THE MIXED USE TABLES AS WELL AS, UM, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TABLES IS THE, THE STEP DOWN OR, AND STEP BACK IS RELATIVE TO THE, THE BUILDING HEIGHT OF THE ADJACENT DISC ZONE. SO PREVIOUSLY IT WAS, IT WAS, SAY A FLAT OUT, YOU KNOW, MINIMUM. I THINK, UH, IN ONE EXAMPLE IT WAS A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 15 FEET PLUS ONE FOOT OF, OF FOR EVERY, UM, ONE FOOT OF BUILDING HEIGHT OVER 25 FEET OR SOMETHING. UM, I KNOW I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS CORRECT, BUT THE IDEA WAS THAT IT WASN'T IN RELATION TO WHAT WAS ALLOWED IN THE ADJACENT ZONE. AND SO WHAT WE DID IN THE REVISIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLES AND THE MIXED USE IS WE CALIBRATED THE STEP DOWN AND THE STEP BACK TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE ADJACENT, UM, ZONE AND BASED UPON THE BUILDING HEIGHT IN THAT ZONE. AND THAT THEN IS DECISION 4.7, UM, WHICH ECHOES THROUGH, UH, ALL OF THE, THE, UH, [00:50:01] MIXED USE STANDARDS. AND THEN IN, UH, JUST THE TOWN CENTER ALLOWANCES, THE GENERAL PLAN PROVIDED ADDED FLOOR AREA AND HEIGHT WITH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL IN THE TOWN CENTER ZONING DISTRICT. IT NAMED THE APPROVING BODY AS YOU THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT NOT THE PERMIT THAT YOU WOULD BE REVIEWING TO ALLOW FOR, UH, THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA. AND SO RADS, UM, A 10 AND A 11, UM, HAVE CONFORMING NOTES 13 AND 17 TO THAT WORDING THAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED.
UM, AND WHAT STAFF RECOMMEND THERE IS THAT WE CLARIFY THAT THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA IN HEIGHT, UM, MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS. SO WE'RE, WE'RE DEFINING BOTH THE REVIEW AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE, UM, ENTITLEMENT THAT WOULD BE, UH, REVIEWED IN THOSE NOTES. UM, WE COULD, WE COULD LOOK AT ADDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF YOU WOULD WISH TO DO THAT, BECAUSE CERTAINLY FAR ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF FAR IS TO CONTROL INTENSITY OF USE. SO, UH, THAT IS BEFORE, UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION 4.9, UM, WHETHER YOU WOULD WANT TO OPT FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ONLY, OR CONSIDER DOING BOTH SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THEN IN CHAPTER FIVE, WE HAVE AN UPDATE SINCE SEPTEMBER 15TH. UM, THE, THE RED LINE CHAPTER FIVE CURRENTLY REFLECTS THAT THE EXPIRED THEATER DISTRICT OVERLAY, UM, IS REPEALED AND RESERVED THROUGH A RED LINE AND CHANGE OF THAT SECTION TWO RESERVED AS WELL AS IN SECTION SEVEN POINT OR 5.070. THE DOWNTOWN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY IS ALSO, UM, STRUCK THROUGH TO INDICATE THAT IT'S BEING REPEALED WITH THAT SECTION ENTITLED RESERVED AS WELL. AND THEN THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE STANDARDS, UH, IN TABLES FOUR SIX IN SECTION 4.060, UH, WOULD NO LONGER REFER TO THE OVERLAY AND WOULD BE, UM, ESTABLISHED DIFFERENTLY FOR THOSE SIX LOTS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THOSE STANDARDS. AND SO THEN WE COME TO CHAPTER SIX. WE HAVE BOTH, UH, WITH US THIS EVENING, UM, SENIOR PLANNER, HEATHER GITZ, WHO DRAFTED THE CHAPTER AND, UH, WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH DEPUTY DIRECTOR GINA, UM, BENEDETTI NIK, UM, TO REFINE THE REGULATIONS AND THEN TO PRESENT THEM TO YOU THIS EVENING. SO HEATHER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE OVER AND JUST CALL FOR YOUR SLIDES WHEN YOU WOULD LIKE THEM CHANGED. COMMISSIONERS, UM, AS YOU KNOW, I'M HEATHER GRITZ, SENIOR PLANNER, AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON CHAPTER SIX TO IMPLEMENT THE GENERAL PLANS, UH, FLOOD RESILIENCE ELEMENT.
UM, JUST AS A BRIEF REMINDER, THE FLOOD RESILIENCE ELEMENT INCLUDED OVER A HUNDRED NEW POLICIES AND ACTIONS, UM, WITH VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. AND, UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND, UM, WHEN WE GOT INTO IT, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO GET ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS INTO THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK. THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSING LANGUAGE IN THE EXISTING, UM, IN THE EXISTING CHAPTER SIX. SO WE REVISED AND RESTRUCTURED THE CHAPTER AND WE UPDATED IT TO IMPLEMENT THOSE OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS THAT CAME OUT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. ADDITIONALLY, AT THE SAME TIME, WE WERE MADE AWARE BY OUR COUNTERPARTS IN PUBLIC WORKS THAT THERE WERE SOME DEFICIENCIES IN CHAPTER SIX, UM, IN RELATION TO OUR, UM, COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM RATING, WHICH AFFECTS CITYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE. AND SO, UM, WE HAD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN THERE AND I THINK I HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE THAT HAS THE REVISIONS. IS THAT RIGHT, ANDREW? NO, I'M NOT SEEING ONE, NO. OH, OKAY. NEVERMIND. THERE'S NOT, THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE. SORRY, . SO, UM, SINCE YOU LAST SAW THIS, UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT WE WORKED OUT, UM, THROUGH OUR COLLABORATIVE PROCESS. ONE OF THEM IS WE HAVE REMOVED THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE VARIANCES AS AN OPTION. UM, THERE HAVE NEVER TO DATE BEEN A REQUEST IN ANYBODY'S MEMORY. UM, GOING BACK THROUGH, UM, BOTH OUR PUBLIC WORKS TEAM AND OUR PLANNING TEAM TO REQUEST A FLOOD VARIANCE, AND THERE IS A VERY SPECIFIC PROCESS OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 24 POINT, UM, SECTION 24.080. UM, AND SO WE FELT THAT AS IT STOOD THAT WE COULD, WE COULD JUST LEAVE THAT AS IS. UM, ALSO [00:55:01] JUST CLARIFYING THAT THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION, UM, REQUIREMENTS, OR SORRY, THE, THE FINISHED FLOOR AT THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF ONE FOOT ABOVE THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION IS ACTUALLY IN ARTICULATED VERY SPECIFICALLY IN THE GENERAL PLAN. SO THERE'S NO DECISION POINT ON THAT ONE. UM, AND THEN WE ALSO WENT THROUGH AND, UM, LOOKED AT SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAD.
WE WENT THROUGH IT AND IT WAS ALSO A JOINT EFFORT, UM, IN BETWEEN WITH LEGAL AS WELL AS WITH, UM, GINA INVOLVED WHERE WE'VE REVISED THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE THE EXISTING ALLOWABLE AND, UM, MA AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FLOODWAY. SO, UM, AND THOSE ARE REFLECTED IN THE CHAPTER THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU. SO HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS LATER AFTER WE FINISH PRESENTATION. GREAT, THANK YOU HEATHER. UH, SO MOVING ON TO CHAPTER SEVEN STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES, UM, THAT WE DID REVIEW ON SEPTEMBER 15TH. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES SINCE THEN. SECTION FOUR OR 7.040 B, WHICH IS THE, THE CLUSTER DWELLING, UH, REGULATIONS. WE STRUCK THE MULTIPLIER, UM, I THINK THAT WAS WAS DISCUSSED IN THE SEPTEMBER 15TH STAFF REPORT. WE TOOK THAT ACTION, UM, FOR, UH, FOR THIS, UM, DISCONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WHAT THAT DOES IS REMOVES A CONFLICT WITH A FOUR UNIT PATHWAY, UM, THAT IS ESTABLISHED, UH, IN THE GENERAL PLAN, UH, LAND USE ACTION 7.2 0.1 AS WELL AS IN, UM, PROPOSED SECTION 4.030 E. UM, ADDITIONALLY TO, TO QUICKLY REVIEW ON OTHER ACTIONS THAT WERE, WERE DESCRIBED ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, WE REPEALED THE LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE STANDARDS, UH, PER SB 2, 2 34, WHICH REQUIRED THAT, UH, WE RE-KEYED THE TELE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TABLES TO THE NEW ZONE SINCE WE WERE ALREADY IN CHAPTER SEVEN. AND THEN WE CARRIED THE CARETAKER DWELLING. UM, FORWARD UNCHANGED. THERE IS A DECISION 0.7 0.1, UH, REGARDING BED AND BREAKFAST USE IN THE FOUR MIXED USE ZONES. UH, WE RECOMMEND KEEPING IT BY RIGHT IN THE STEP DOWN DOWNTOWN, TOWN CENTER AND URBAN CORRIDOR MIXED USE ZONES, UM, UNTIL PHASE TWO CAN REWRITE SECTION 7.1 HUNDRED, WHICH IS, UM, STANDARD SPECIFIC TO BED AND BREAKFAST USES. THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO, UM, CHANGE THAT PERMISSION TO A MINOR USE PERMIT IN THOSE FOUR ZONES. CHAPTER 11, PARKING AND LOADING. UH, WE, WE REVIEWED THAT ON SEPTEMBER 15TH AS WELL.
UM, AND SOME OF THE CHANGES SINCE SEPTEMBER 15TH, WE'VE ADDED A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ROW, UH, WHICH IS, IS RELATED TO, UM, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER DWELLINGS OF THE SAME TYPE. WE'VE ADDED THAT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PARKING RELIEF NOW APPLIES ONLY WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF A TRANSIT STOP. AND, UM, WE'VE, UH, REPLACED THE DIRECTOR AS THE REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR THE COMPACT CAR, UH, REFERENCE DECISION. WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES IS THAT IT DOES REVISE SOME PARKING RATIOS TO SUPPORT HOUSING PRODUCTION ACTIVITY. IT DOESN'T, UH, GO TO THE FULL EXTENT OF ENGAGING IN PARKING REFORM. I BELIEVE AT THE, AT THE LAST COMMISSION DISCUSSION, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WHILE WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE PARKING, UH, RATIOS, WE NEED TO DO IT, UH, RELATIVE TO PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT AND OTHER FACTORS THAT COULD SUPPORT A REDUCED RELIANCE ON, ON, UM, AUTOMOBILES AND SUCH. AND SO WE DO HAVE CONTINUED WORK TO DO AROUND PARKING REFORM. THIS IS JUST A FIRST STEP, UM, IN THAT EFFORT TO, UM, CHANGE THAT, CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF WHERE WE ARE WITH PARKING. AND THEN OF COURSE, DECISION 11 DASH ONE IS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS, UM, THAT WOULD REDUCE THE, THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION ALLOWED, UH, TO A DIRECTOR LEVEL REVIEW. CHAPTER 12 SAW SOME MODIFICATIONS OR, OR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MODIFICATIONS. UM, WE WANT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO DECISION 12.1 AT PRESENT. UM, THE AMENDMENTS WOULD KEEP SECTION 12.025, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO 60 FEET, UM, ON FINDINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT. WHAT, WHAT THE, THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT IS THE SUCCESSOR TO THE R FIVE ZONING DISTRICT. SO IF YOU GO OVER TO 12.025 NOW, YOU WOULD SEE THAT THAT SECTION MAKES REFERENCE TO THE R FIVE ZONING DISTRICT.
AS WE TRANSITION THAT ZONING [01:00:01] DISTRICT INTO THE HIGH DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT, WE WANT TO BRING ATTENTION TO THIS OPPORTUNITY THAT THE, THE CURRENT R FIVE DISTRICT HAD TO INCREASE ITS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT UP TO 60 FEET ON FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW. UM, THE, THE ONE THING TO NOTE THERE IS THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IN, UM, GENERAL PLAN TABLE LU DASH ONE SETS THAT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AT 45 FEET. AND SO TO ALLOW IT UP TO 60 FEET, STAFF WOULD FIND IT CHALLENGING DURING PLANNING REVIEW TO MAKE A CONFORMANCE FINDING, UM, THAT, THAT A HEIGHT OVER 45 FEET IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, UM, THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE, UH, FOR THE COMMISSION TO DIRECT STAFF TO STRIKE SECTION 12.025 AND, UM, NO LONGER HAVE THAT HIGH OPTION AVAILABLE, UH, FOR THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THEN THERE'S, UM, UH, ANOTHER DECISION 12.2, AND THAT'S THE FLOOR BENEATH THE BLOCK AVERAGE SETBACK. UM, PREVIOUSLY THE BLOCK AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK HAD NO FLOOR BENEATH IT. SO THE RULE NOW FOLLOWS THE BLOCK AND, AND WE'VE CHANGED THAT TO A STATED MINIMUM AS THE ALTERNATIVE. AND THEN WE HAVE CONFORMING CITATIONS, UM, IN TABLES 4.6 TO FOUR POINT 13 TO BECOME TABLES 4.5 THROUGH 4.8. THEN ON TO, UH, CHAPTER 24, WHICH IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT. UM, DECISION 24 DASH ONE IS THE SIZE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW EXEMPTION STAFF ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING TO EXEMPT 10 OR FEW FEWER UNITS FROM DESIGN REVIEW, UH, AS IS DRAFTED IN THE RED LINE VERSION OF, UH, CHAPTER 24, UH, WITH LOOKING AT A 15 UNIT OPTION IN PHASE TWO. UM, PREVIOUSLY THE COMMISSION HAD REQUESTED THAT STAFF CONSIDER A 15 UNIT OPTION. WE DID DO THAT. UH, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE RAN INTO IS THAT THAT OF LOOKING AT EXCEPTIONS FOR, UM, CERTAIN NATURAL FEATURES LIKE WETLANDS AND SO FORTH. UH, WHAT WE DID FIND DURING THE COURSE OF THAT REVIEW IS THAT THE STATE DOES HAVE, UH, A QUE STATUTE EXEMPTING 10 UNITS OR FEWER.
AND SO THAT DID SERVE THE PURPOSE OF US NOT HAVING TO DO THAT WORK AT THIS TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE PROTECTING CERTAIN NATURAL FEATURES THAT MIGHT BE, UM, PRESENT ON A, ON A SITE WHERE DEVELOPMENT OF 10 OR FEWER UNITS IS PROPOSED. WE, WE CAN REVISIT THAT IF THE COMMISSION ASKS US TO. UM, BUT WE DO FEEL THAT THAT 10 UNITS ARE FEWER AS WELL ALIGNED WITH, UM, STATE STATUTES AS WELL AS, UH, SB OF 6 84, 11 23, WHICH SETS A THRESHOLD OF 10 UNITS AS WELL, UM, AND WOULD ALLOW IT THROUGH A MINISTERIAL PROCESS. UM, WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND REVISIT THAT AS WELL DURING PHASE TWO. THEN, UH, WE ADDED THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION SECTION AND WANT TO CLARIFY THERE THAT IT'S NOW DRAFTED THAT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION APPEALS WOULD GO TO THE CITY MANAGER RATHER THAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE AWAY, UH, THE COMMISSION'S RE APPEAL AUTHORITY IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. HOWEVER, UM, TO KEEP THAT AT STAFF LEVEL IS ADVISABLE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF WHAT IS TRYING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION ORDINANCE. UM, AND THEN ALSO THERE WERE SOME OTHER, UH, MODIFICATIONS IN CHAPTER 24, 1 OF WHICH ADA A DASH 15 CORRECTS, UM, SECTION 24.050 N THREE, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN A PUBLIC COMMENT. UM, AND WE, WE APPRECIATE THAT ATTENTION TO DETAIL. UM, THAT CORRECTION WOULD NOW, UH, REFER SECTION N THREE TO PROVISION M ELIMINATING THE PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENT FOR A PROJECT THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE 10 UNIT OR FEWER EXEMPTION, CHAPTER 26 ENFORCEMENT. THAT'S SOME CLARIFICATION, UH, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS PROPOSED IN ORDER TO, UH, LINK OUR CURRENT ENFORCEMENT, UM, THROUGH THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE. UM, AGAIN, NO DECISION POINT THERE, BUT QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DYLAN AND BRADY WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.
THEN CHAPTER 28, UH, I THINK IF YOU WENT TO THE RED LINE VERSION THERE, YOU WOULD SEE A LOT OF RED, UH, THERE WAS, THERE WAS A LOT OF, UH, UH, CHANGES TO DEFINITIONS TO BRING THEM INTO, I GUESS, A MORE CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THOSE USES FUNCTION TO ALIGN THEM WITH WHAT STAFF HAVE LEARNED OVER OVER DECADES OF IMPLEMENTING THE CURRENT [01:05:01] IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE AND SO FORTH, AS WELL AS CLARIFYING LABELS AND STRUCTURES IN A LOT OF CASES. UH, YOU DO HAVE, FOR YOU DECISION 28 DASH ONE, WHERE WE DO PROPOSE THE DATA CENTER DEFINITION AND INDICATE THAT DATA CENTERS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION, UM, AS DRAFTED IN CHAPTER 28 ARE PROHIBITED. CITYWIDE DATA CENTER IS ALSO A, UH, LAND USE THAT'S LISTED IN THE ALLOWABLE LAND USE TABLES WHERE IT IS PROHIBITED THERE, UH, WITH THE M DASH, UM, AS WELL. SO LOOKING FORWARD TO COMMISSION'S, UH, REVIEW OF THAT AND COMMENT THEN CHAPTER 29 AND I'LL ASK, UM, HEATHER GERROW AGAIN TO, UH, BRING US CURRENT ON BOTH, UH, WHAT WE REVIEWED IN ON SEPTEMBER 15TH AND HOW WE'VE WORKED FORWARD SINCE THEN. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS. UM, AS, AS WE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK, THE IDEA OF THE MAKER MICRO CAME OUT OF IT ORIGINALLY STARTED TRYING TO ADD FLEXIBILITY FOR USE OF SPACES THAT HAD ECONOMIC VALUE, BUT ALSO WERE IN AN AREA WHERE THERE WAS POTENTIAL FLOODING AND ADJACENT TO THE RIVER. SO THAT HAS SORT OF CHANGED A LITTLE BIT. THAT'S STILL THE CORE OF IT, BUT THE IDEA IS TO PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY, UM, TO SUPPORT SMALL, UM, VENTURES THAT ARE DOING CRAFT QUALITY GOODS, BUT TO REALLY BE AS FLEXIBLE AS POSSIBLE WHILE HAVING THE GUARDRAILS THAT DOESN'T ALLOW RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER SENSITIVE USES. UM, AND ALSO TO NOT ALLOW HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. UM, SO, AND LET'S SEE. OH, I GUESS I DON'T HAVE MY NEW SLIDE IN HERE THAT I HAD, THAT I HAD. UM, SO SINCE SEPTEMBER 15TH. UM, OH, THAT'S WHY, 'CAUSE I CAN'T CHANGE THAT. SORRY. , GET THE NEXT SLIDE. THANK YOU. IT IT, MY BUTTON WASN'T WORKING 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE CONTROL. THANK YOU.
OKAY. UM, SO WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW IS THERE IS NO, UM, OCCUPANT LOAD THAT WOULD TRIGGER A MINOR USE PERMIT. AND I THINK WE WOULD LIKE SOME DIRECTION. IT SEEMED LIKE LESS HEARING, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE TRIGGER MIGHT BE AND WHAT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE MIGHT BE, UM, THAT WOULD TRIGGER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR POTENTIALLY NOT ALLOWED IN THE ZONE. UM, AS A REFRESHER, WE ORIGINALLY STARTED WITH 50 AND 300 BECAUSE THAT IS SORT OF THE TRIGGERS THAT ARE IN THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT NUMBER FOR LAND USE. IT WAS JUST THE STARTING POINT. SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE COMMISSIONS INPUT ON THAT. I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, UM, TEAM THAT SUGGESTED THAT MAYBE A MORE APPROPRIATE SIZE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TRIGGER MIGHT BE A HUNDRED OR 150. SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT. UM, IT, WE DID MAKE SOME MINOR REVISIONS AFTER, UM, HAVING SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND HAVING SOME, SOME FEEDBACK ON THEIR EXPERIENCE. WE DECIDED TO REMOVE THE HIGH HAZARD GROUP AT ANY LEVEL AS AN ALLOWABLE, UM, OPTION FOR THIS AREA. AND, AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY EXPLAINED IS THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO HAVE A LARGER BUSINESS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE IN THE HIGH HAZARD GROUP, BUT BECAUSE OF HOW THEY HANDLE HANDLE THEIR CONTROLS AND HOW THEY SET THINGS UP, IT REDUCES THE RISK. AND THEY ARE NOT A HIGH HAZARD GROUP, BUT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLAN. AND THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT IS TRIGGERED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UM, OR SORRY, IT'S THROUGH THE COUPA PROGRAM SO THE CERTIFIED, UM, UNIFORM, I ALWAYS WANNA SAY PUBLIC, IT'S NOT PUBLIC, UM, PROGRAM AGENCY. AND THE COUPA IS ESSENTIALLY, IT'S A STATEWIDE PROGRAM. IT'S MANAGED LOCALLY THOUGH, AND THE STATE SETS THE THRESHOLDS WHERE IF YOU REACH A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, YOU DO HAVE TO REPORT TO THE STATE SYSTEM. SO THEY HAVE A SYSTEM.
UM, AND AGAIN, IF YOU'RE KEEPING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON SITE, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT. AND SO WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE TRIGGER FOR A MINOR USE PERMIT. UM, I KNOW THAT THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, UM, ABOUT WHO HAS TO HAVE A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLAN [01:10:01] AND WHAT THAT, UM, WHETHER THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE TRIGGER FOR A MINOR USE PERMIT OR NOT. SO HAPPY TO, HAPPY TO HAVE THE COUNT, THE COMMISSION'S INPUT ON THAT AS WELL. UM, THE OTHER THING THAT WE HAD PUT IN, AND THIS CAME AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, THAT, UM, IF YOU ARE A STORAGE SPACE AND THE STORAGE SPACE HAS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, BUT THAT DOES TRIGGER SOMETHING, AN ADDITIONAL EXIT. AND SO THEY THOUGHT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT AS IF YOU HAVE 30 OR MORE PEOPLE AS AN OCCUPANT LOAD AND YOU REQUIRE A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL BUSINESS PLAN, UM, THEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED. UM, ALSO, UM, WE, WE HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE BECAUSE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXISTING BUSINESSES, UM, SOME OF WHICH DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A MINOR USE PERMIT BECAUSE THEY PREDATE ANY REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD'VE MADE THEM HAVE THEM. SO WE ADDED A PROVISION THAT BASICALLY IF YOU WERE ILLEGALLY ESTABLISHED USE PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE, LIKE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE CHAPTER, UM, THEN YOU ARE LEGAL AND CONFORMING. SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT OUR LEGAL TEAM HELPED US CRAFT AND ADD IN. UM, WE ALSO IN, IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO PROTECT SENSITIVE USERS AND NOT HAVE SENSITIVE USES IN HERE, WE ALSO ADDED IN A PROHIBITION ON K THROUGH 12 SCHOOLS, CHARTER SCHOOLS, PRESCHOOLS DAY CAMPS, UM, AND JUST FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY, UM, GAS STATIONS, DATA CENTERS, AND, UM, HEAVY INTENSITY MANUFACTURING. UM, AND ALSO THE ODOR THRESHOLD IS REVISED. UM, IT'S A, IT'S A MORE STRINGENT, UM, IT, IT'S MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO THERE ISN'T A MINOR USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IF YOU'RE HAVING ODORS OTHER THAN WHAT WOULD NORMALLY TRIGGER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT CHAPTER NOW. AND I THINK WE HAVE ONE MORE. YES. SO AGAIN, UM, WE WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE SOME, UM, FEEDBACK AND INPUT ON THE THRESHOLDS. UM, ANOTHER QUESTION THAT CAME UP. RIGHT NOW, OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ONLY REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF THEY ARE ON A SITE THAT'S EITHER IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR, UM, HAS SENSITIVE HABITAT ON IT, IS HOW IT'S WRITTEN. BUT THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD, UM, ALL OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? UM, SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP. AND ALSO, UM, THERE WAS THE BEGINNINGS OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THESE, UM, SPECIALTY USES THAT HAVE THEIR OWN CHAPTERS, UM, OR THAT HAVE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS. SO CANNABIS, ALCOHOL AND BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, CARD ROOMS, AND ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES. SO, UM, WE'D LIKE DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION ON WHETHER TO INCLUDE THOSE. SO, AND THAT IS WHAT I HAVE FOR YOU ON CHAPTER 29. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU, HEATHER. UH, MOVING ON TO THE SMART CODE SECTION TWO AMENDMENTS AND THEN THE CITYWIDE ZONING MAP. UM, THE, THE APPROACH TO THE SMART CODE WAS REALLY VERY SURGICAL. UM, THE GOAL WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS IS TO ESTABLISH THE ZONES, UM, TO IMPLEMENT THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE SMART CODE AREA. UM, PREVIOUSLY, IF YOU LOOKED AT, AT THE 2008, UM, GENERAL PLAN, IT WOULD REFER YOU TO THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN. UH, WITH, WITH THE NEWLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN, IT DOES SET FORTH THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, DENSITIES AND SUCH, UM, FOR THE AREA SUBJECT TO THE SMART CODE. AND SO WHAT THE SECTION TWO AMENDMENTS DO IS EXACTLY THAT. IT ESTABLISHES THOSE ZONES THAT IMPLEMENT, UM, THE, THE, UH, LAND USE DESIGNATIONS BY, UM, IN SOME CASES LEVERAGING EXISTING SMART CODE, UH, ZONES OR CREATING A NEW ONE.
IN THE CASE OF THE T SIX, UM, STATION MIXED USE ZONE, AS WELL AS, UH, WE HAD TO ESTABLISH TWO CIVIC SPACE ZONES, UM, FOR THE PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC AND PARKS. UM, PREVIOUSLY CIVIC SPACE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SMART CODE, BUT IT WAS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE ZONE STANDARDS, NOT, NOT SEPARATELY AS AN AS ITS OWN ZONE. ADDITIONALLY, ONE, UM, IMPORTANT POINT NOW IS THAT THE FLOODWAY ZONE IS NOW APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE CITY, INCLUDING BOTH THE, THE AREAS SUBJECT TO THE CITYWIDE ZONING [01:15:01] ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE SMART CODE. UM, AND THAT'S REFLECTED THEN IN THE SMART CODE ZONES AND THE, AND THE MAP AS WELL. UH, AS I MENTIONED, UH, AT THE BEGINNING, WE DID BRING TOGETHER, UM, BOTH THE, THE, THE PETALUMA ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AND THE SMART CODE REGULATING PLAN, OR THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING MAP, I SHOULD SAY, TO BE CORRECT ABOUT IT. UH, WE BROUGHT THOSE TOGETHER INTO ONE SHARED MAP, UM, AND THAT WAS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT 20 A, UH, WHICH HAS, UM, SHOWS THE ZONING MAP WITH OVERLAYS. AND WE CAN SEE HERE WHERE THOSE TWO OVERLAYS THAT HAVE BEEN, UH, RECOMMENDED FOR REPEAL. THE THEATER DISTRICT OVERLAY AND THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY ARE NOT REFLECTED AS, UM, OVERLAYS ON THE ZONING MAP. AND THEN ALSO WE PUBLISHED IT SEPARATELY, UM, AS A OVERLAY ZONES ONLY MAP, UM, TO JUST BE ABLE TO REDUCE SOME OF THE VISUAL CLUTTER SO THAT YOU COULD SEE WHERE THOSE, THOSE, UH, OVERLAY ZONES ARE LOCATED. UH, IN TERMS OF THE ZONES THEMSELVES, OTHER THAN THE FLOODPLAIN FLOOD-PRONE AREA OVERLAY ZONE, NONE OF THE OTHER OVERLAY ZONES CHANGED IN, IN THEIR BOUNDARIES AT ALL. UM, SO THAT REMAINS CONSISTENT. AND THEN FLIPPING BACK QUICKLY TO HERE, UM, ALL OF THE ZONES IN BOTH THE ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AND THE CPSP ZONING MAP CORRESPOND TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THAT WERE ADOPTED THROUGH THE GENERAL PLANS ADOPTION ON SEPTEMBER 14TH.
SO, SO THE CHAPTER TWO WHERE WE, WE BUILD THE ZONES WHERE WE ALIGN THEM WITH, WITH THE FORMER ZONES AND AND SUCH AND BRING THEM OVER INTO, UM, FORMALLY ESTABLISHING THEM, THAT'S ALL ALIGNED WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. SO YOU SEE REALLY THERE THAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN, UM, THE, THE GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOCUMENT. SO FINALLY, UM, IN THE ERA REPORT, WE PUBLISH SOME UPDATES TO THE, THE STAFF REPORT, UM, CLARIFYING WHERE CERTAIN FACTORS, UH, LAND AROUND THE HOME, THE MOBILE HOME ZONE DENSITY, UM, AND HOW WE POINT THAT OUT IN THE REC, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, EMERGENCY SHELTERS, AND, UM, HOW DESIGNATION STANDARDS AND NAVIGATION CENTERS WOULD MOVE TO PHASE TWO, UM, FOR THOSE, THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND THEN, UM, ALSO SOME CLARIFICATIONS AROUND ADDITIONAL WORK ON, UM, LAND USE GOAL SIX, AS WELL AS FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND USE ACTION 7.21 AND UH, 7.3 0.1. AND SO, UH, SHOULD THE COUNT THE COMMISSION CHOOSE TO CONSIDER, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE THEM THIS EVENING, THE RESOLUTION BEFORE THEM, UH, WE DO HAVE, OF COURSE, THE RESOLUTION IN REDLINE. WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IF YOU, UH, IF YOU WANT TO AMEND THAT RESOLUTION TO MAKE REFERENCE TO, UM, THE CORRECTIONS THAT WERE, UH, INDICATED IN THE ERR ERA, UM, AND STAFF RECOMMENDED REVISIONS. AND THEN TO REITERATE THE FINDINGS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION, THE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE FINDING REQUIRED BY THE EXISTING, UH, IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE, HOW THAT RELATES TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT, ACTIONS IN THE BLUEPRINT ACTION AS WELL, AND CONFORM TO STATE LAW. AND THEN FINALLY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, FINDING THAT THE, UH, SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENTS IS WITHIN THE GEN, THE ADOPTED, UH, EIR FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AND NO NET LOSS FINDING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE, UH, SECTION 6, 6, 300.
AND, AND AGAIN, UM, WHILE STAFF PROPOSES THESE AMENDMENTS, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SOME AREAS WHERE, UH, THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION IS REQUESTED, AND OF COURSE, THE COMMISSION, UM, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION TO DIRECT STAFF ON ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT IT MAY CHOOSE. AND SO FROM THERE, UH, FOLLOWING THIS EVENING, UH, SHOULD THE COMMISSION CHOOSE TO NOT TAKE UP A RECOMMENDATION AND VOTE ON IT THIS EVENING, UH, WE CAN CONTINUE THIS MEETING ITEM TO A FUTURE DATE, UH, AND BRING IT BACK AGAIN. I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION TO CONSIDER. UM, THE GENERAL PLAN WOULD TAKE EFFECT ON OCTOBER 14TH, UH, AS DIRECTED BY THE ADOPTED OR BY THE, UM, THE RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PLAN. AND THEN WE WOULD STILL SEEK TO BRING, UH, THE PHASE ONE ZONING AMENDMENTS FORWARD TO COUNCIL THIS FALL, UH, FOR FIRST AND SECOND READINGS. AND SO WITH THAT, I WILL CONCLUDE OUR PRESENTATION, AND I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ANDREW. UM, AS WE PROCEEDED LAST MEETING, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE AND, AND RECEIVE, UH, FEEDBACK FROM COMMISSIONERS AND COUNCIL MEMBER BARTLE ON, ON, UH, A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THIS MEETING. [01:20:01] AS YOU RECALL, LAST MEETING, WE, UH, DECLINED TO ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT, RATHER, WE COMBINED QUESTIONS AND OUR OWN COMMENTS F FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD SO THAT WE COULD TAKE UP EACH INDIVIDUAL CHAPTER SEQUENTIALLY AND HAVE SORT OF A MORE EFFICIENT AND, UH, A PROCESS BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S SO MANY CHAPTERS AND DOING QUESTIONS FIRST, AND THEN DOING COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, FIRST COMMENTS LATER, YOU'D JUST BE BOUNCING ALL OVER THE PLACE. I FELT THAT WORKED PRETTY WELL. LAST MEETING. DO, DO ALL SORT OF AGREE, CAN WE DO A STRAW POLL ON SORT OF CONTINUING THAT PROCESS THIS TIME? ALRIGHT, THAT'S, THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, THE OTHER THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME CHAPTERS HERE WHERE STAFF ARE REQUESTING, UH, SPECIFIC DECISION POINTS, AND THE FIRST CHAPTER IS, IS CHAPTER THREE, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO IN, IN ORDER TO SORT OF GUIDE OUR DISCUSSIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE START WITH CHAPTER THREE AND THEN PROCEED SEQUENTIALLY WITH THOSE CHAPTERS THAT HAVE DECISION POINTS. ONCE WE'VE DONE THOSE, THERE ARE OTHER CHAPTERS WHERE STAFF HAS INDICATED, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON CHAPTERS WITH NO DECISION POINTS, IF WE COULD SORT OF GROUP THOSE AT THE END SO THAT WE CAN PRIORITIZE OUR TIME THIS EVENING WHEN OUR BRAINS ARE FRESH ON THE DECISION POINT CHAPTERS RATHER THAN THE DISCUSSION AND QUESTION CHAPTERS. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A REASONABLE WAY TO PROCEED? A STRAW POLL? I SEE. THUMBS UP. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, AND FINALLY, LET'S SEE, WE'RE ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF INTO THE MEETING. UM, I WANT TO TAKE A TEMPERATURE ON HOW PEOPLE FEEL WITH, UH, A RECESS FOR A BATHROOM BREAK. UH, OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, WE WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE READY TO, TO POWER THROUGH FOR A LITTLE LONGER. UM, I'M ALSO GOING TO, AT 10 O'CLOCK TONIGHT, WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE TEMPERATURE AND SEE HOW WE'RE FEELING AND DECIDE HOW FAR WE WANT TO POWER THROUGH, UH, THIS EVENING. SO AT 10 O'CLOCK, WE'RE GONNA CHECK IN, UM, AND, AND GO FROM THERE. OKAY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I LIKE TO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD AND BRING IT TO THE CLERK. HAS THE CLERK RECEIVED? HAS THE CLERK RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING? WE RECEIVED 14, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS MEETING ITEM PRIOR TO THE MEETING, AND THOSE ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AND PUBLISHED, UM, OUTSIDE IN THE BINDERS. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH SEATED FOR TIME. CHANTEL IS SEATED HER TIME TO DARREN. OKAY. OKAY. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS DARREN RASON. DARREN, AND I'LL ALSO, UH, STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT CHANTEL ROGERS HAS SEATED HER TIME, UH, TO DARREN. SO DARREN HAS SIX MINUTES. UH, I'LL TRY TO BE JUDICIOUS WITH THAT.
UH, THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, DARREN KUSON. I SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS AND DRAWINGS FOR THE RECORD, INCLUDING TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND WHAT SOME OF THOSE SETBACKS LOOK LIKE ON THE CURRENT VERSUS WHAT IT'S PROPOSED. BUT I WANTED TO FOCUS TONIGHT ON TWO ISSUES THAT I THINK GO DIRECTLY TO THE HEART OF THIS PROCESS OR THAT STUCK OUT TO ME. FIRST, UH, GOVERNMENT SECTION 66 306 6 3 0 0. GOVERNMENT CODE 6 6 3 0 0 IS ESSENTIALLY A NO NET LOSS RULE. THE CITY CANNOT CHANGE ITS ZONING IN A WAY THAT REDUCES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY BELOW WHAT WAS ALLOWED ON JAN 1 20 18, UNLESS THAT LOST CAPACITY IS OFFSET BY INCREASES ELSEWHERE. MATTERS TONIGHT BECAUSE YOU ARE CONSIDERING A PACKAGE THAT BOTH INCREASES AND DECREASES DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY, RIGHT? SO 6 6 3 0 0 IS KIND OF UNDERLYING ALL OF OUR DECISION MAKING. SO ATTACHMENT ONE, THE DRAFT RESOLUTION. THERE WAS STILL IN ONE OF THE COPIES THAT I DOWNLOADED, WORD COMMENTS FROM ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS, I BELIEVE THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. UH, THERE WERE SOME NOTES ABOUT ATTACHMENT NUMBERING, BUT THE THIRD IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A RECITAL THAT EXPLAINS 6 6 3 0 0 [01:25:01] WITHIN YOUR RESOLUTION TONIGHT. UH, TO QUOTE IT, IT SAYS, LET'S JUST HAVE THE FINDING. I DON'T LIKE GIVING OUR OPPONENTS A VEHICLE TO POTENTIALLY CHALLENGING US. SO I WANNA BE FAIR ABOUT THAT STATEMENT. ADVISING A CLIENT TO STATE NECESSARY FINDINGS RATHER THAN RECITE LEGAL STANDARDS IS KIND OF AN ORDINARY LAWYER THING. UM, FINDINGS ARE ULTIMATELY WHAT MATTER, BUT THERE'S A BIG PART OF THIS THAT BOTHERS ME. THE FIRST WORD IS THE WORD OPPONENTS USED BY A CITY STAFF MEMBER. SO SOMEONE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TAKING THE FOOTING OF A OPPONENTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T FEEL JUSTIFIED. AND IT PUTS, IT, IT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE THE CITY IS IN A PLACE WHERE THEY ARE ON AN OPPOSITIONAL FOOTING TO THEIR OWN COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SO THAT FOOTING OR THAT APPEARANCE ISN'T COMING FROM NEXT DOOR.
IT'S NOT COMING FROM PROBLEMATIC RESIDENTS. APPARENTLY THE CITY IS TAKING THAT FOOTING. RESIDENTS WHO SHOW UP TO A HEARING, THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO HOLD QUESTION, HIS ZONING AMENDMENT, AND SUBMIT. COMMENTS ARE, UH, THAT YOU AND COUNCIL ARE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER OUR PARTICIPANTS IN A PUBLIC PROCESS. CALLING RESIDENTS OPPONENTS TO BE MANAGED IS THE WRONG FOOTING FOR A PUBLIC PROCESS, PARTICULARLY IN A COMMENT EMBEDDED IN THE DOCUMENT BEING ASKED TO ADOPT AT A PUBLIC HEARING. AND THE RECITAL THEY WERE DISCUSSING SERVES A VERY IMPORTANT PURPOSE. IT TELLS AN ORDINARY RESIDENT WHAT THE CITY ACTUALLY HAS TO DEMONSTRATE. IT TELLS THEM ABOUT GOVERNMENT CODE 6 6 3 0 0, REMOVING THAT EXPLANATION BECAUSE IT MIGHT GIVE SOMEBODY A BASIS TO CHALLENGE THE CITY IS A POOR TEST FOR WHAT BELONGS IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. BUT THE SECOND ISSUE, I THINK, MATTERS MORE, AND THIS IS, UH, FI FINDING THREE SAYS THAT AMENDMENTS COMPLY WITH SAID GOVERNMENT CODE 6 6 3 0 0 BASED ON THE CAPACITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. SO FINDING THREE SAYS, BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, WHAT IS THAT ANALYSIS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD? I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AGAINST CODE 6 6 3 0 0 UNDERLIES ALL THE DECISIONS ABOUT UPZONING DOWN ZONING. WHERE IS OUR FINDING, UH, OR WHERE IS THE RECORD UNDERLYING OUR FINDINGS? AND FINDING THREE ISN'T LIMITED TO ONE PROVISION, IT APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE PACKAGE. IT SAYS THAT WHERE THESE AMENDMENTS REDUCE CAPACITY ON A PARTICULAR PARCEL OR AREA, THOSE REDUCTIONS ARE OFFSET BY INCREASES ELSEWHERE. AGAIN, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE THAT, UH, EVERY PERMISSIVE CHANGE IN THIS PACKAGE SITS ON ONE SIDE OF THE BALANCE. EVERY PROTECTIVE CHANGE YOU MIGHT WANNA MAKE SITS ON THE OTHER. IF YOU WANT A DEEPER SETBACK, A STEP DOWN, A LOWER HEIGHT THAT COULD REDUCE CAPACITY. AND STAFF MAY TELL YOU THAT THAT REDUCTION HAS TO BE OFFSET SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT WITHOUT SEEING THAT UNDERLYING CAPACITY ANALYSIS, NOBODY IN THIS ROOM CAN NECESSARILY DETERMINE HOW MUCH ROOM YOU ACTUALLY HAVE. DECISION. 12 DASH ONE IS A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE. SECTION 12.025 CURRENTLY ALLOWS BUILDINGS UP TO 60 FEET IN THE R FIVE DISTRICT. TODAY, THAT DISTRICT IS 32 PARCELS. R FIVE DISAPPEARS UNDER THIS ORDINANCE. AND THE SUCCESSOR ZONE, RRHD FOLLOWS A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION RATHER THAN EXISTING R FIVE BOUNDARIES. STAFF HAS SAID THAT IF YOU RETAIN SECTION 12.025, THAT 60 FOOT ALLOWANCE THAT CURRENTLY APPLIES TO R FIVE WOULD THEREFORE APPLY IN ALL RRHD PARCELS. THAT'S ROUGHLY 127 PARCELS. ROUGHLY 95 OF THOSE PARCELS ARE GOVERNED TODAY BY PUD PLANS THAT HAVE NOT NECESSARILY BEEN SUBJECT TO 12.025. I GUESS THAT IS AN OUTSTANDING QUESTION WHETHER THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IT IF WE ARE EXPANDING THIS 60 FOOT PATHWAY TO 97 ADDITIONAL PARCELS. SO WHEN DECISION 12 DASH ONE ASKS WHETHER YOU WANNA RETAIN SECTION 12.025, UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE RETAINING, YOU'RE RETAINING THAT RULE. BUT THE GEOGRAPHIC FOOTPRINT MOVES FROM 32 PARCELS TO ROUGHLY 127. AND THIS IS WHERE THAT ANALYSIS OF CODE 6 6 3 0 0 MATTERS IF STAFF BELIEVES REDUCING THAT 60 FOOT ALLOWANCE CREATES A CA CAPACITY PROBLEM. SHOW THE MATH. I DON'T THINK THEY DO. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS SAYING WITH THEIR COMMENT. LIKE, LET'S NOT REFERENCE THIS CAPACITY ANALYSIS IN CASE PEOPLE WANNA PUSH BACK AGAINST THIS 60 FOOT BEING EXPANDED TO NEW ZONES. I DON'T KNOW A HUNDRED PERCENT, BUT, UH, KEEP 6, 6 3 0 0 RECITAL IN THE RESOLUTION. IDENTIFY THE CAPACITY ANALYSIS FINDING THREE RELIES ON, PUT IT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AND PUBLISH IT BEFORE COUNCIL'S OCTOBER 19TH. FIRST READING. MY SECOND COMMENT WAS GONNA BE ABOUT NOTICE. I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT NO ONE IN THE COMMUNITY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON. YOU HAVE THREE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN A ONCE IN 20 YEAR ZONING UPDATE AFFECTING AT LEAST 87% OF THE PARCELS IN THE CITY.
IF A DEVELOPER IS CHANGING ZONING ON ONE PARCEL, YOU'D HAVE TO TELL ALL THE NEIGHBORS, BUT SOMEHOW WE HAVEN'T REALLY DONE A MASS MAILER OR ANYTHING IN PHASE ONE TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS OF THIS. THANK YOU. [01:30:08] OKAY, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL BRING THIS, UH, MATTER BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, TO PROCEED WITH CHAPTER THREE, THE FIRST DECISION POINT IN CHAPTER THREE. CAN WE ASK FOR A CHAPTER TO RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THAT? ANY, UM, YEAH, COULD STAFF PLEASE RESPOND TO THE, THE COMMENT? SO THE, THE NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE GENERAL PLAN, UM, AND WE'RE WORKING TO CLARIFY IF THAT IS PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD OF THE GENERAL PLAN, UM, DID ONLY ANALYZE DENSITY. IT DIDN'T CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF, OF, UM, BUILDING HEIGHTS OR FAR. HOWEVER, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE, THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY THAT WAS, IS CREATED THROUGH THE GENERAL PLAN WAS SO SIGNIFICANT THAT THERE WAS NO POTENTIAL FOR THERE TO BE A LOSS RELATED TO A REDUCTION IN BUILDING HEIGHT OR, UM, A LIMITATION ON FAR. SO IT IS, IT IS INTERESTING, AND I WAS, I WAS JUST REVIEWING THIS AGAIN. THE 2008 GENERAL PLAN, UM, DID NOT ESTABLISH, IT DIDN'T ADDRESS BUILDING HEIGHT, SO IT, IT ONLY REALLY, THE ONLY OBJECTIVE STANDARD, UM, OUTSIDE OF OUR MIXED USE ZONES WHERE FAR WAS APPLIED WAS DENSITY. UM, SO THIS, THIS GENERAL PLAN HAS THE EFFECT OF ADDING TWO DENSITY AS A, AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD, BOTH BUILDING HEIGHT AND FAR. AND WHEN WE GO OVER TO THE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THEN WE REFLECT THAT IN, IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO THAT NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN THAT CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO NET LOSS, YOU KNOW, UH, AND THIS, AND, UH, DEMONSTRATED CONFORMANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6, 6, 300, WHEN WE BRING THOSE DATA OVER TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE'RE NOT CREATING A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR THE POTENTIAL FOR LOSS BECAUSE THAT, THAT POTENTIAL WAS ALREADY ANALYZED IN THE GENERAL PLAN WHEN THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS WERE MADE.
IT'S ALSO INTERESTING, UM, ONE OF THE OTHER FACTORS THAT COMES INTO PLAY NOW THAT THE GENERAL PLAN DOES ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT. PREVIOUSLY WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN DIDN'T ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT, THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WAS ESTABLISHED IN WHAT IS, UM, WHAT IS NOW ADOPTED TABLE 4.9, R FOUR AND R FIVE ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THERE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WAS 45 FEET WITH A NOTE THAT AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT MAY BE PERMISSIBLE AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 12.025. SO THAT OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE HEIGHT UP TO 60 FEET WAS FULLY ENSCONCED WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND DIDN'T RELATE TO THE GENERAL PLAN AT ALL. IN THIS SCENARIO, WE DO HAVE THAT, IT, IT IS A DIFFERENT SCENARIO WHERE WE'RE SIMPLY BRINGING OVER OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FROM THE GENERAL PLAN AND REFLECTING THOSE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BE LOOKING FOR, UH, FOR THOSE FACTORS, THOSE DATA DURING COMPLIANCE REVIEW AND SO FORTH. SO WE KIND OF HAVE TO, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE, THE 6, 6 300 FINDING, AGAIN, WE LEAN ON THE NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS THAT WAS COMPLETED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN WHERE DENSITY, UM, STEP BACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT, AND FAR WERE ALL PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN AT THE POINT THAT THAT ANALYSIS WAS, UM, COMPLETED. I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO TO BE CLEAR, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY MADE THE FINDING THAT WE HAVE, THAT THE CITY HAS MET ITS OBLIGATION UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE 6 6 3 0 0 WHEN IT ADOPTED THE GENERAL PLAN. IT'S NOT A REQUIRED FINDING CHAIR, BUT IT'S ONE THAT WE THOUGHT WAS HELPFUL TO INCLUDE JUST IN CASE THERE WAS A CHALLENGE. OKAY. BUT YEAH, LIKE ANDREW SAYS, WITH THE DENSITY, WE LOOKED AT IT CONSIDERING ALL THE OTHER REDUCTIONS OF SETBACKS AND IT REALLY WASN'T EVEN CLOSE. SO, YEAH. AND JUST ONE MORE CLARIFICATION. YEAH, ONE MORE CLARIFICATION. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OPPONENTS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE BRINGING LEGAL, LEGAL CHALLENGES TO OUR WORK, WHICH IS THEN THEY TRULY ARE LIKE, WE'RE DEFENDING THE CITY.
THAT'S WHEN IT BECOMES AN OPPONENT. IS THAT ACCURATE THAT I THAT WAS PROBABLY THE YEAH, THE SENTIMENT IN THERE. I [01:35:01] MEAN, WE USE PROPONENTS, OPPONENTS ALL THE TIME IN REFERRING TO YEAH. PROS AND CONS AND WHO'S AGAINST AND WHO'S FOR CERTAIN APPLICATIONS AND PROJECTS. SO YEAH, I WOULD AGREE. GREAT, THANK YOU. JUST THE ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THE NOTICING, UM, WE'VE DONE THE NOTICING FOR, FOR THE HEARINGS THEMSELVES, I THINK IT'S ALSO WORTH MENTIONING, UM, IF YOU TAKE A STEP BACK SINCE 2021, SO MUCH OF, I MEAN ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE DISCUSS DISCUSSING IN THE SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE UPDATE TO THE ZONING CODE PHASE ONE IS BUILT ON THE ENGAGEMENT THAT THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN PART OF SINCE 2021. UM, AND SO A LOT OF THE HARD DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO GET THAT CERTIFIED, UM, CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN OUR EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AS ONE EXAMPLE. UM, THIS ISN'T JUST MATERIALIZING OUT OF THIN AIR, RIGHT? IT'S BEEN BUILT OFF OF A NUMBER OF YEARS OF ENGAGEMENT THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. UM, AND SO THE, THESE POLICIES ARE REFLECTIVE OF THAT, UM, LENGTHY ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS? ALRIGHT, WHY DON'T WE DIG INTO CHAPTER THREE? SURE. CHAIR. UM, SO CHAPTER THREE IS, UH, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION THERE, UM, IS THE ESTABLISHING THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING THRESHOLD AT 11 UNITS, SO 10 UNITS AND FEWER WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, 11 UNITS OR MORE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE. UM, AND THIS WOULD BE A CHANGE THAT WOULD BE AN INTERIM CHANGE PENDING THE EVALUATION THAT IS CALLED FOR IN HOUSING, UM, ELEMENT PROGRAM 11, WHICH COMMITS THE CITY BOTH TO CONTINUE THE PROGRAM AND TO EVALUATE THE SIZE AT WHICH IT APPLIES. UH, AND THIS WORK WOULD BE DONE GOING FORWARD FROM PHASE ONE INTO, UH, PHASE TWO AND BEYOND.
I THINK TOO THAT WE, WE ALSO WANT TO LOOK AT THE INCLUSIONARY AMENDING THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF, UM, THE OTHER THINGS THAT THE CITY CAN DO AROUND DENSITY BONUS, UM, AS WELL AS AROUND ADUS. THERE ARE CERTAIN ACTIONS THAT WE CAN TAKE TO BE MORE EXPANSIVE WITH REGARD TO A DU DEVELOPMENT. AND SO TO LOOK AT ALL OF THAT TOGETHER AS A PACKAGE OF OPTIONS TO INCENTIVIZE, UM, PREFERRED HOUSING PRODUCTION, ESPECIALLY HOUSING PRODUCTION THAT RESPONDS TO THE CITY'S GOALS OF, UM, INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PROX PROXIMATE TO TRANSIT OR SUPPORTIVE OF, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS OR TOWN CENTERS. SO THAT'S SORT OF SOME OF THE CONTEXT AROUND, UM, INCLUSION, THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING THRESHOLD AS RECOMMENDED. THAT'S NOT INTENDED TO SAY THAT STAFF WAS IGNORING OR IS TRYING TO NOT DISCUSS WHAT THE COMMISSION REQUESTED, WHICH WAS TO, TO, UH, IMPART, TO SUSPEND, UM, THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THEN ALSO TO LOOK AT OPTIONS AND FURTHER STUDY. RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, UH, FOR STAFF ON THIS, UH, ON CHAPTER THREE, DECISION THREE DASH ONE? YEAH, UM, MY COMMENT ON THIS IS I UNDERSTAND WHY WE SAID IT AT 11 UNITS. UM, AND I, I THINK THAT WE'RE OPTIMIZING FOR MAYBE THE, A DIFFERENT THING THAN AT LEAST WHAT I'M OPTIMIZING FOR, WHICH IS I THINK WE'RE, IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE'RE OPTIMIZING FOR IS THE, THE, THE 10 UNIT MINISTERIAL PATHWAY AND TRYING TO MAKE, UM, THAT'S WHAT IT FEELS LIKE AT LEAST, RIGHT? IS LIKE THAT'S, WE'RE SAYING THAT THESE 10 UNIT PROJECTS, WE LIKE SMALL, YOU KNOW, SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE PROJECTS, RIGHT? AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS OVERALL PACKAGE IS, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SMALL LOT. AND, UM, I THINK ABOUT A LOT OF LIKE THE SMALL LOTS ALONG OUR CORRIDORS WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF REALLY SMALL THIRD OF AN ACRE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, ZONED AT, YOU KNOW, 38 OR 45 UNITS PER ACRE NOW.
UM, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD, MAYBE NOT SO, YOU KNOW, TO 150, BUT MAYBE TO 40 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SO THAT, UM, A SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING [01:40:01] IS NOT, YOU KNOW, UM, LIKE EXAMPLE OF THIS IS A GOOD ONE IS EIGHT 90 PETA BOULEVARD, RIGHT? THAT ONE CAME IN ORIGINALLY AT 13 UNITS AND THEN THEY DECREASED IT TO 10 UNITS FOR SOME REASON. AND LIKE, I JUST HAVE THIS FEELING 10 UNITS IS THIS ARBITRARY. WE'RE SETTING AN ARBITRARY NUMBER THAT'S NOT ALIGNING WITH WHAT WE SAY WE WANT. UM, AND, UM, A PROJECT THAT COMES IN AT 11 UNITS NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN HAS TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, 15% AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND, UM, I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO NOT JUST SEE 10 UNIT PROJECTS COME FORWARD. WE'RE TRYING TO SEE, YOU KNOW, SMALL, LIKE ENCOURAGE SMALL SCALE, UM, LOCAL, LOCAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO DO LOCAL PROJECTS. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD TO SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 40 UNITS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON DECISION? UH, 0.3, 0.1, I GUESS I'M CURIOUS SORT OF WHAT IF, JUST TO KEEP GOING ON, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BARN'S SUGGESTION OF TRYING TO GET THIS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING THRESHOLD, UM, YOU KNOW, CLOSER TO 40, HOW DOES THAT SORT OF THEN PLAY OUT DOWNSTREAM ACROSS THE OTHER CHANGES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? GIVEN THAT I, I TOO SEE THIS SORT OF, UM, KEEPING IN LOCKSTEP WITH THAT SPAR, UM, WAIVER. SO I'M CURIOUS A STAFF RESPONSE TO THE 40 SUGGESTION? WELL, AS, UH, EVERYTHING THAT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED, UM, YOU KNOW, A, A PROJECT OF 34 UNITS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, UNLESS IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF SOME SORT OF STATE, UH, YOU KNOW, SMAP PROCESS, SB 35 TYPE OF PROCESS. UM, SO YEAH, THERE'S NOT, THERE'S VERY LITTLE OTHER INCENTIVES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO ENCOURAGE THAT RANGE FROM SAY, YOU KNOW, 10 TO 50 UNITS.
I THINK JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT, WE DID, UM, SINCE THE LAST MEETING OR THE HEARING, WE LOOKED AT THE PIPELINE, UM, IN THAT 50 UNIT RANGE, UM, SUB 50 UNIT RANGE, MOST OF WHAT WE SUB PART OF THIS, WHAT'S CHALLENGING IS, UM, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A TEST CASE FOR IT. SO ANYTHING THAT WE SAW IN THAT 40 TO 50 UNIT RANGE CAME THROUGH AS A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. SO IT JUST, YOU KNOW, RELIED ON SUBSIDIES. SO IN MANY WAYS, I, I THINK IT WAS, UM, COMMISSIONER EBNER HAD ASKED ABOUT THE PIPELINE. THERE'S NOT, I MEAN, WE SEE A HANDFUL AT THE 45 TO 50 UNIT, AND THEN IT JUST GOES UP OVER A HUNDRED UNITS. AND SO IN SOME WAYS IT'S, IT'S SOMEWHAT COULD BE ARBITRARY. YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, DRAW THAT LINE THERE. UM, THIS WAS STAFF, OUR ATTEMPT, MY ATTEMPT, UM, TO TRY TO LINE IT UP WITH, UM, SOME OF THE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES. I THINK THERE ALSO IS ENOUGH POLICY THERE, UM, FOR THE COMMISSION TO, TO ASK, UM, COUNCIL TO LOOK AT A DIFFERENT THRESHOLD. SO I OFFER THAT UP. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO PINPOINT TO SAY, HEY, IF WE SET THIS AT 50 UNITS, DOES THAT MOVE THE NEEDLE? UM, WITH SOME PROJECTS THAT NO ONE CITED THAT IT'S AN ISSUE. I MEAN, WE, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST WAS THERE'S A SUBSIDY, THOSE COSTS ROLL OVER TO THE MARKET RATE SIDE, AND SO THAT IS GONNA BE IMPACTED AT 10 UNITS, 50 UNITS AND A HUNDRED UNITS. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? SO I JUST, IF WE, WE HAVEN'T, WE LITERALLY SEE NO PROJECTS COME FORWARD IN THE 40 UNIT RANGE, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SB 35 PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE 40 UNIT RANGE. NO, NOT AT THIS TIME, BUT YOU, BUT WE DO HAVE AN SB 35 PROJECT AT 50 UNITS, CORRECT. SO, RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH. BUT LIKE WE, AND SO I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE PROJECTS OF THAT SCALE COME THROUGH ON SMALL, YOU KNOW, ALONG THESE AREAS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO ACTUALLY FOCUS THE GROWTH, RIGHT? AND SO, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN FAIRLY TARGETED WITH HOW WE'RE APPROACHING OUR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND HOW WE'RE DOING THIS.
SO, UM, IT FEELS LIKE WE, UH, LIKE WE SHOULD TRY AND UNSADDLE THAT THAT THRESHOLD OR THAT PART OF THE PIPELINE THAT WE'RE NOT SEEING ANYTHING OF. AND THAT'S MY, LIKE I, WE CAN, LIKE, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THIS AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PHASE TWO, RIGHT? I'M [01:45:01] ITALIAN, SO WOO , UM, LIKE, UH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PHASE TWO. LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US, UM, SEE IF WE SEE ANYTHING COME FORWARD, UM, IN THE 30 UNIT RANGE. BUT I, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU WE'RE NOT GONNA SEE SOMETHING COME FORWARD IN THE 20 UNIT RANGE. YOU KNOW, LIKE I CAN ALMOST GUARANTEE THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THERE. AND THOSE PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED THEN TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, BE SHOULDERING THE LOAD OF FEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT, UM, SO I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE UNDERMINING OUR OWN GOALS BY KEEPING IT SO LOW. I MEAN, I'M STILL INTERESTED IN THE, IN THAT PROSPECT OF IT BEING A SORT OF PILOT AS WE WORK THROUGH PHASE TWO. SO THIS IS SPEND UNTIL PHASE TWO, LIKE I THINK REMAINS MOST INTERESTING. I THINK I HEARD THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE, WE WANTED TO BASICALLY DO THE ANALYSIS SO THAT WE DON'T RUN AFOUL OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. IS THAT WHAT I'M, WHAT I HEARD THERE, RIGHT? YES. YEAH. WE'D LIKE TO DO THAT DEEPER DIVE AND, AND BETTER UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT IS EXPECTED, NOT JUST OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, BUT OF HCD AS WELL, UM, AS WE MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION. I, I ALSO WANTED ONE OTHER THING THAT, THAT CAME OUT OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WE HAVE DONE SINCE, UM, SEPTEMBER 15TH, SUBSECTION D OF THE ORDINANCE, UM, PROVIDES FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THE, AND SO IT TALKS ABOUT DONATION OF A PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE, UM, TO THE CITY OR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PAYMENT OF A HOUSING IN LIE FEE ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY'S ADOPTED FEE SCHEDULE, ALTERNATIVE MIXTURE OF UNITS BY INCOME LEVEL OR USE OF A DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE METHOD.
WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS, THIS SUBSECTION D IS IT SAYS YOU HAVE ALL THESE OPPORTUNITIES, BUT THEY'RE AT THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. AND AS A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING YOUR PROJECT TOGETHER, WHEN YOU'RE COSTING YOUR PROJECT, WHEN YOU'RE GOING OUT AND LOOKING FOR THE CAPITAL AND SUCH AT THE VERY EARLY STAGES, TO, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE THAT IS RELIANT UPON THE DISCRETION OF CITY COUNCIL IS REALLY LIMITING IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU CAN START DOING WITH REGARD TO, UM, ATTRACTING FINANCING DURING THOSE EARLY STAGES OF THE PROJECT WHERE YOU'RE STILL IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. SO THERE MAY BE A BALANCE THERE OF LOOKING AT THE, THE THRESHOLD, YOU KNOW, MODIFYING THE THRESHOLD FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ORDINANCE, AS WELL AS MON MODIFYING THAT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE SECTION TO GIVE SOME CERTAINTY TO THE PROVISION OF, SAY, FOR INSTANCE, BEING ABLE TO, UM, PAY AN IN LIEU HOUSING FEE ON A PROJECT OF UP TO, YOU KNOW, X NUMBER OF UNITS OR SOMETHING. SO OFFERING THAT TOO, THAT THERE MIGHT BE A COUPLE OF LEVERS TO PULL IN THE SHORT TERM THAT ARE WELL WITHIN THE ADOPTED ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW, GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, GIVE SOME INCENTIVE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UM, ALLOW US TO DO THE, THE STUDY TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THAT WE'RE CHECKING IN WITH HCD ON THIS. I'M GONNA TAKE, UH, THE CHAIR'S PREROGATIVE TO GIVE MY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT ON THIS. UM, SO AS I UNDERSTAND THIS, THE HOUSING ELEMENT DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SUSPEND THE PROGRAM UNLESS WE AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT, BUT THEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT ALSO CALLS ON US TO DO AN EVALUATION OF THE THRESHOLD. SO THE REASON WHY WE CAN'T PROCEED WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BARN'S SUGGESTION TO DO A SUSPENSION OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAMS BECAUSE WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT. IS THAT, IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? YES. OKAY.
SO THEN FOR US TO, TO MAKE ACTION ON DECISION THREE DASH ONE, UH, FOR THIS THRESHOLD, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE AN EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM YET. WE HAVE DEFINITELY STARTED, UM, BUT PART OF WHAT, I MEAN, WE CALL IT PHASE TWO IN THE SLIDE DECK, I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IT'S PROBABLY A PHASE ONE B UHHUH. UM, SO WE ARE, UM, THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS JUST FOCUSED ON HOUSING POLICY. YES. THAT WOULD BE MORE COMPREHENSIVE. UM, AND THAT WOULD US THE TIME TO YEAH. IN PHASE TWO. YEAH. AND THAT'S [01:50:01] IN PHASE TWO IN THE, OR AT LEAST THE PERIOD BETWEEN NOW AND PHASE TWO, WE WOULD ALSO HAVE A STUDY SESSION AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED ON THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM. RIGHT. AS PART OF A LARGER HOUSING POLICY. RIGHT. AS PART OF THE LARGER, SO, SO AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T HAVE AN EVALUATION REALLY BEFORE US. I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE. UM, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY INFORMATION THAT ACTUALLY SUGGESTS HYPOTHESIZES OR OTHERWISE INDICATES THAT THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING COSTS ARE THE BARRIERS FOR PROJECTS COMING FORWARD. I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER BARRIERS TO PROJECTS COMING FORWARD, SUCH AS THE COST OF BORROWING MONEY, THE INTEREST RATES, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, UH, OTHER COSTS, LIKE, LIKE THE COST OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISN'T THE, THE, THE POISON PILL FOR PROJECTS. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT. I MEAN, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT I'M MISSING IN, IN WHAT'S, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US? DID WE SEND THE REPORT THAT I SENT IN TO THE, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS? THAT WAS PRETTY UNEQUIVOCAL. THE REPORT THAT BRAND NEW ON THIS TOPIC, UH, THAT REPORT WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED WHEN WE LOOKED INTO IT. IT'S STILL A WORKING PAPER. IT HAS NOT BEEN PEER REVIEWED OR PUBLISHED. UM, AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE OTHER, THE OTHER RESEARCH THAT WAS AVAILABLE, UH, IT WAS SH IT WAS SHOWING QUITE A DISTANCE FROM THE, UH, PAPER THAT HAD BEEN, WAS THE WORKING PAPER COMING OUT OF UC, IRVINE.
SO, BUT HAVING SAID THAT CHAIR, JUST TO ANSWER, UM, TO ADD TO THAT, IT'S CLEARLY A SUBSIDY, RIGHT? THE COST OF BUILDING AN INCLUSIONARY UNIT VERSUS THE COST OF BUILDING A MARKET RATE, UNIT COSTS THE SAME, THE LABOR'S THE SAME CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL, EVERYTHING'S THE SAME. SO IF YOU'RE NOT GENERATING VALUE, RETURN VALUE ON AN INCLUSIONARY UNIT, OR YOU'RE DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT. SO IN THAT SENSE, IT IS A SUBSIDY WHERE THAT GETS REALLOCATED, UH, FROM A DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE AND THEIR PROFORMA, I THINK IT'S ONE OF A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES. YEAH. UM, AND SO REALLY THIS IS A, A DIFFERENCE, UM, IN POLICY APPROACH, RIGHT? DO WE TAKE, YOU KNOW, I AGREE. YEAH, I AGREE. IT'S A DIFFERENCE IN A POLICY APPROACH. AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE A LITTLE BIT WITH AN EXEMPTION AT 10 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND AS RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTLE AT 40, THAT 40 IS ALMOST, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, ALMOST THE SAME AS, AS SUSPENDING THE PROGRAM. BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, FOR SMALLER PROJECTS, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT GONNA BE LIKE A 200 UNIT PROJECT. IT WOULDN'T SUSPEND IT FOR THAT. BUT A 40 UNIT PROJECT, THAT SEEMS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT TO ME. YEAH. AND AGAIN, WE DON'T SEE IT IN THAT RANGE. UM, AND PERHAPS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE DON'T SEE IT IS THE MATH JUST DOESN'T WORK. SO AGAIN, THIS IS, IT'S SORT OF THE UP TO THE PREROGATIVE OF COMMISSION IF THEY FEEL LIKE THAT'S OKAY, SOMETHING TO EXPLORE. ALL RIGHT. I'M, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH SUGGESTING A THRESHOLD AT THIS POINT, GIVEN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION. SO CAN I MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT WE DO 40, JUST, THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA, THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT 40, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROJECTS IN THAT RANGE RIGHT NOW, LITERALLY, AND WE KNOW THAT IT'S A SUBSIDY AND, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE SMALL SCALE HOUSING, SMALL OUT HOUSING. SO I'M GONNA PROPOSE 40. WHEN CAN WE HAVE A STRAW POLL ON THAT?
JUST TO CON CONFIRM, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 40 EXEMPTING UP TO 40 UNITS FOR THIS TIME PERIOD? YEAH. UNTIL PHASE WHILE WE DO THIS. YEAH. COULD WE, UM, SIMPLIFY THE REVIEW PROCESS OR THE MEANS BY WHICH AN ALTERNATIVE EXEMPTION CAN BE GRANTED? SO RATHER THAN COUNCIL GOES THROUGH DIRECTOR LEVEL REVIEW, DOES THAT, THAT'S, THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT MAY EXPEDITE THINGS AS WELL. AND, AND SOME OF THOSE ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS SEEM LIKE THEY MIGHT BE A GOOD WAY TO SPLIT HAIRS PENDING PHASE TWO. SO YEAH, THE, THE OPPORTUNITY THERE UNDER ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE WOULD BE TO RISK, TO REDUCE WHAT WOULD BE RISK, RIGHT. [01:55:01] UM, AND, AND PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH CERTAINTY. SO FOR INSTANCE, IF, IF YOU WERE TO SAY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT, UM, THE TOTALLY FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT, YOU KNOW, OR DISCUSSION THAT THAT PROJECTS OF 10 TO 50 UNITS, UM, MAYBE THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT, BUT THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY THE, IN LIEU OF FEE ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY'S ADOPTED FEE SCHEDULE. AND, AND THAT IS, IS BY, RIGHT? THERE'S, THERE'S NO NEED FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL. AND SO WHAT THAT DOES IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IS THAT GAINS CERTAINTY. THEY KNOW WHAT THE COST OF THAT FEE IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE THEY CAN CALCULATE IT, YOU KNOW, BASED UPON ON, UM, THE PROJECT PRO FORMA AT THAT POINT IN TIME. SO THEY CAN GAIN CERTAINTY IN THAT REGARD BY SAYING, OKAY, I'M GOING TO OPT TO PAY THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEE. UH, THAT FEE CURRENTLY IS $10 AND 12 CENTS, UM, PER SQUARE FOOT, SO RELATIVELY LOW. AND, UM, TO DO THAT WITH CERTAINTY, THEN THOSE FUNDS WOULD THEN GO INTO THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT OTHER LOCATIONS, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A, A GOOD, UM, FUND TO HAVE AVAILABLE, BECAUSE TYPICALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS MARKET RATE HOUSING COST WISE, RIGHT? SO WHAT WE DO IS WE SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF DEVELOPING MARKET RATE HOUSING TO, TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO, UM, INCOME QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS.
SO WHAT THIS COULD DO IS IT COULD GIVE DEVELOPMENTS A CERTAINTY THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, UM, PAY THE, IN LIEU HOUSING FEE IN PLACE OF PROVIDING THE AFFORDABLE UNITS. IT WOULD PROVIDE SOME FUNDS TO THIS, THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND THAT IT COULD THEN USE TO INCENTIVIZE OTHER PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO, SO THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER OPTION THERE, OR AN OPTION IN COMBINATION WITH SOME SORT OF, OF RELIEF THROUGH EXEMPTION. ANDREW, DID YOU SAY THE, THE FEE WAS $12 AND 10 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT? 10 10 12. 10 12 PER SQUARE FOOT? YEAH. SO ON A 1500 SQUARE FOOT TOWNHOUSE, THAT'S GONNA BE $15,000 THAT WE'RE ADDING ON TOP OF IT. RIGHT? SO AT, AT 40 UNITS, LET'S SAY A 40 UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS EXEMPTED AND IT'S A 1300 SQUARE FOOT HOME COMPACT HOME, THAT'S A, THAT'S A TOTAL FEE WAIVER OF ABOUT $526,000. THAT WOULD NOT BE PAID INTO THE, UH, FUND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT WOULD BE PAID INTO BASICALLY WHAT WE WOULD BE SAYING. WELL, IF, IF WE WAIVED IT. NO, NO, NO. I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WAIVING THE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT FOR THE 15%, BUT GUARANTEEING THAT YOU CAN PAY YOUR WAY OUT OF IT, WHEREAS RIGHT NOW IT'S UP TO COUNCIL VOTE WHETHER YOU CAN GET ANY OF THOSE EXEMPTIONS FROM THE 15%. SO IT WOULD ACTUALLY SAY, LIKE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY, IT WOULD BE YOU CAN KEEP THE 15% REQUIREMENT OR YOU CAN PAY THIS HALF MILL AND NO, THAT, THAT'S THE AMOUNT YOU'RE PAYING TO NOT HAVE TO BUILD THOSE INCLUSIONARY UNITS. OKAY. SO THERE, THERE ARE TWO IDEAS OUT ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE IS SUGGESTING SUSPENDING IT FOR UP TO 40 UNITS. RIGHT. AND COMMISSIONER EBNER IS SUGGESTING A POLICY THAT ALLOWS PAYMENT IN LIEU OF YEAH, I, I WOULD RECOMMEND WE IN THE INTERIM YEP. OR SUGGEST GOING WITH STAFF'S ADJUSTMENT OF THRESHOLD OR RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENT OF THRESHOLD WITH AN ADDITIONAL KIND OF BUY RIGHT WAY TO, TO PAY YOUR WAY.
DO WE HAVE ANY DATA ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS, WHETHER THE, IF IT'S THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT OR, I KNOW I'VE SEEN PROJECTS COME, COME THROUGH OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE USED THIS. IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY ATTRACTIVE WAY TO PUSH LARGER DENSITY, LARGER SCALE PROJECTS THROUGH. BUT I, I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW IF ANYONE HAS ANY HARD DATA ON IT. NO, NOT, NOT YET. WE, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT RESEARCH. I DO THINK THAT WHAT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS, IS FAIR ANECDOTALLY, IT DOES SEEM LIKE PROJECTS WOULD PREFER TO PAY AN IN LOOP FEE RATHER THAN HAVE TO, UM, BUILD THE UNITS THEMSELVES. UH, UH, LEMME SAY A MARKET RATE PROJECT, RIGHT? UH, WOULD [02:00:01] PREFER TO PAY THE ENLO FEE RATHER THAN HAVE TO CONSTRUCT AND MANAGE THE UNITS THEMSELVES OR, OR MANAGE AND CONSTRUCT THOSE UNITS AS PART OF A PROJECT, AS PART OF A MARKET RATE PROJECT. AND, AND THAT'S NOT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S, THAT'S COMMENTING ON WHETHER THAT'S FAIR OR RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S JUST, UH, A FACT, UH, THAT WE SEE QUITE REGULARLY. YOU KNOW, IF YOU PAY THE IN LOFI, YOU CAN TAKE THAT, YOU CAN TAKE THAT COST TO THE LENDER, IT'S A FIXED COST, YOU KNOW EXACTLY THEN WHAT YOUR, YOUR, UM, YOUR PROJECT COSTS ARE, AT LEAST AS THEY'RE RELATED TO THAT AND TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ASSESSED BY THE CITY. SO THAT'S HELPFUL. I THINK, UM, ALSO IT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS AND MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE MARGINS ARE SO NARROW ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP AND MANAGE SUCCESSFULLY, UM, INCOME QUALIFIED PROJECTS, YOU, YOU REALLY NEED TO BE PROFESSIONALS IN THAT AREA OF WORK. AND IF IT'S HELPFUL, I DID THE MATH ON THE CHAIR'S QUESTION ABOUT 40 UNITS AT WHAT THE COM OR COUNCIL MEMBER SAID, AT 1500 SQUARE FOOT A UNIT, UH, CURRENTLY WITH OUR SQUARE, UH, ARE IN LIEU FEES AT $10 AND 12 CENTS A SQUARE FOOT, THAT'D BE $607,000, OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UH, PROVIDE AT 15% SIX AFFORDABLE UNITS.
SO $607,000 COMPARED TO SIX AFFORDABLE UNITS. IT DOESN'T SEEM EQUIVALENT. OH, THERE, I I DON'T HAVE OPINION ABOUT THAT. YEAH. UH, CHAIR, JUST, UH, TO ADD A LITTLE BIT ON THE BACKGROUND. SO, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS 2018, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT THE CITY, UM, MODIFIED THEIR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE PROVISION OF ONSITE INCLUSIONARY INSTEAD OF PAYING THE FEE. AT THE TIME, IT WAS BECAUSE THE, THE IN LIEU FEES WERE SO LOW THAT THEY WEREN'T, THE CITY WASN'T ABLE TO TURN THOSE AROUND AND PRODUCE THE UNITS. UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY THE CITY, UH, DECIDED TO GO WITH A REQUIREMENT FOR 15% ONSITE INCLUSIONARY. UM, AND THAT FEE OF $10 AND 12 CENTS IS STILL THAT SAME FEE. UM, AND BECAUSE IT'S NOT ALLOWED BY, RIGHT? IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO GO TO COUNCIL AND GET THAT EXCEPTION, IT'S NEVER CHANGED. UM, I JUST DID A LITTLE QUICK SEARCH. UH, CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, $27 PER SQUARE FOOT, CITY OF PALO ALTO, ANYWHERE FROM 61 TO $91 A SQUARE FOOT, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, 396,702 PER UNIT. SO I WOULD SAY THAT PETALUMA IS STILL, THAT FEE IS QUITE LOW. UH, JUST A QUICK KIND OF, NOT, NOT HIGH SCIENCE DATA HERE, BUT JUST KIND OF AS A, AS A GUT CHECK WITH THAT, I THINK, I THINK WHAT HAS JUST BEEN, UM, DISCUSSED ABOUT THE DISPARITY IN OUR FEES AND HOW IT HASN'T BEEN ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION OR ADJUSTED SINCE, AND THE POLICY IS REALLY AN ONSITE IN LIEU OF NOT A, NOT A PAY TO PLAY KIND OF THING. UM, THAT, THAT SHOWS ME THAT WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THIS EVALUATION BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH ANY KIND OF SUSPENSION OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. IN MY VIEW, IT, YOU KNOW, I RESPECT OTHERS' VIEWS HERE, OF COURSE. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE, SHOULD, SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT IN INCENTIVIZING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT LESS WE, WE SHOULD BE BUILDING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND NOT MORE MARKET RATE HOUSING. THIS, THIS SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GOT OUR SITUATION IN PETAL TURNED ON ITS HEAD RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE MAKING POLICY SHOOTING FROM THE HIP.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN EVALUATION BEFORE, BEFORE THIS AND I'LL, I'LL, WE CAN DO A STRAW VOTE RIGHT NOW. I'M GONNA VOTE NO ON THE STRAW VOTE, JUST SO YOU KNOW. I MEAN, IF IT'S NOT ALREADY APPARENT. I, I THINK MY CONCERN WITH ALL OF THIS IS THAT WE DO, WE'VE ALWAYS, OR WE'VE HAD A LOW INCOME REQUIREMENT, NOTHING HAS BEEN BUILT WITH THAT LOW INCOME REQUIREMENT OVER THAT TIME. I KNOW THAT THERE'S A BROAD RANGE OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER IT'S HOUSING IN GENERAL THAT'S NEEDED OR LOW INCOME SPECIFICALLY THAT'S NEEDED. MY PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT MORE HOUSING DRIVES DOWN PRICES GENERALLY, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MORE PEOPLE TO MOVE IN OVERALL, WHICH IS REALLY THE PROBLEM HERE. OUR PRICES ARE HIGH REGARDLESS THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN BUILDING MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING. IT'S ALL HIGH INCOME BECAUSE [02:05:01] THAT'S WHAT GETS BUILT NOW BECAUSE IT WILL EITHER BE INDIVIDUAL FAMILY HOMES THAT PEOPLE WITH MONEY CAN AFFORD OR NOTHING. AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT MID-LEVEL REALLY BE BUILT. AND THEN THAT OBVIOUSLY PRECLUDES LOW INCOME AS WELL. SO AT THIS POINT, I THINK THAT FROM, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S HAPPENING AT CALIFORNIA'S OVERALL LEVEL IS THERE'S A UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S THE HOUSING IN GENERAL THAT IS TOO SLOW ACROSS THE BOARD. SO ANY HOUSING AT THE, IN MY VIEWPOINT IS GOOD HOUSING BECAUSE THAT WILL THEN AT LEAST POTENTIALLY STABILIZE WHATEVER THE MARKET RATE FOR AVAILABLE LIVING SITUATIONS IS, WHICH AT THE MOMENT IS STARTING TO GET ONLY ON THE UPPER STRATUS OF THAT. SO THE MORE THAT WE CAN UNLOCK, THE MORE THAT PEOPLE IN GENERAL CAN LIVE HERE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LOW INCOME, MID INCOME, OR HIGH INCOME. AND I THINK THAT WE'VE, WITH THE POLICIES THAT WE'VE SO FAR IMPLEMENTED, GENERALLY JUST REMOVE WHOLESALE BECAUSE DEVELOPERS AREN'T GOING TO DEVELOP, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THEM DEVELOP, AND IT'S BEEN QUITE A NUMBER OF YEARS SINCE THOSE POLICIES HAVE BEEN ENACTED.
AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN OTHER ISSUES, WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COVID OR YOU KNOW, MONETARY POLICY, WHATEVER, THAT HAVE ALSO LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT. BUT I THINK JUST MORE DEVELOPMENT, THE MORE THAT WE CAN TARGET OVERALL, THE BETTER THAT IT IS FOR EVERYONE GENERALLY. ANY OTHER POINTS OR QUESTIONS, I'LL JUST SAY IT'S COMPLETELY INEQUITABLE TO, TO FORCE, YOU KNOW, 40 PEOPLE TO, UM, PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE CITY. IF AS A CITY WE VALUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE THE, THE ENTIRE TAX BASE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING IT, NOT A FEW NEW HOMEOWNERS. AND, UM, THAT FEELS, THAT'S LIKE, I JUST, LIKE, I HATE SO MANY THINGS ABOUT THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING BECAUSE OF, OF JUST THE, THE STRUCTURAL INEQUITIES TO IT. AND YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE MAKING CONSTRUCTION HARD RIGHT NOW. UM, WE CAN GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT THE THINGS THAT ARE WITHIN OUR CONTROL ARE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE CAN, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY UNSADDLE $13,000 PER UNIT FOR PROJECTS UP TO WHATEVER THRESHOLD WE WANT AND FOR A DEFINED PERIOD, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY I LIKE IT IS BECAUSE THIS IS A TIME BOUND THING WHERE WE ARE REMOVING $13,000 PER UNIT POTENTIALLY, UM, TO SEE IF WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AND SO I'M GONNA SAY 40 UNITS, UM, AND THAT'S MY PROPOSAL AT LEAST. AND IF IT, YOU KNOW, DIES ON THE FLOOR, IT DIES ON THE FLOOR, I'LL TAKE IT TO THE COUNCIL AND LOBBY FOR IT THERE. BUT, UM, THIS FEELS LIKE, UM, A SHORT TIME BOUND PILOT THAT IS ABOUT SEEING IF WE ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING IN A CURRENT STRATA THAT WE ARE SEEING NOTHING LIKE THE IDEA THAT WE'RE LOSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS TO ME LIKE A FARCE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SEEING ANYTHING BEING BUILT HERE, RIGHT? SO LIKE THE, I LIKE, WE'RE, WE SHOULD BE COMPARING IT TO NOTHING. LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE POTENTIALLY GETTING HOUSING WHERE WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LOTS THAT ARE GONNA BUILD A 30 UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, UM, ARE CURRENTLY JUST NOT BEING BUILT AT ALL. RIGHT?
SO WE SHOULDN'T SAY WE'RE LOSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THOSE LOTS. WE'RE, WE'RE JUST, IT THE, WE'RE STARTING FROM ZERO AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO SOMETHING. SO, AND AGAIN, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A TIME BOUND, WHAT, SIX MONTH PILOT PROBABLY. SO I'M GONNA SAY 40 COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS ON THAT TIME BOUND ESTIMATE OF WHEN IT WOULD BE MORE THOROUGHLY STUDIED AND WRITTEN UP. WE, I'D SAY NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, BUT LIKELY MUCH SOONER. WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THE WORK. UM, WE ALSO WANNA BE COMPREHENSIVE, BUT ALSO NOT, UM, BALANCE, UH, THE, THE DESIRE TO, TO BE QUICK AND NIMBLE ABOUT IT. SO I'D SAY NO LATER THAN SPRING OF NEXT YEAR, BUT LIKELY SOONER. MY CONCERN WITH A TIME BOUND PILOT IS SOMETHING LIKE A TIME-BOUND TAX CUT. ONCE YOU GIVE A TAX CUT, IT'S REALLY HARD TO REPEAL A TAX CUT AND, YOU KNOW, ONE CAN RE ONE CAN VIEW IN THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, UH, POLICY AS A TAX TO FUND A PUBLIC GOOD. [02:10:01] UH, SO, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A TEMPORARY TAX CUT AT THE END OF THE TEMPORARY TAX CUT, THERE'S GONNA BE A POLICY DECISION, THERE'S GONNA BE PRESSURE TO CONTINUE IT. SO I'D RATHER HAVE AN EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM WHERE WE'RE ALL INFORMED ABOUT WHAT THE VARIOUS FACTORS ARE, HOW TO ADJUST MAYBE THE IN LIE FEE TO ADAPT FOR IT AND TO, UM, COME UP WITH SOME VERY WELL-INFORMED, UH, POLICY THAT WE CAN RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO, UH, I'M, I'M STILL GONNA BE OPPOSED ON THE STRAW VOTE. I THINK NOW WE'VE GOT TWO PROPOSALS FOR STRAW VOTE. I'M GONNA WRAP THIS UP BECAUSE IT'S EIGHT 15 AND WE'RE STILL ON, UH, THE FIRST DECISION POINT OF THE NIGHT. UH, SO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS AND CIVILITY AND PROFESSIONALISM IN THIS CONVERSATION. UH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STRAW VOTE ON COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLES PROPOSAL TO HAVE A TEMPORARY, UH, SUSPENSION FOR, UH, UNTIL, FOR SIX MONTHS OR WHAT, WHAT'S THE TIME PERIOD? JUST UNTIL WE BRING IT BACK JUST 40 UP TO 40 UNITS.
IT'S JUST INCREASING THE THRESHOLD TO 40 UNITS UNTIL STAFF BRINGS BACK THE ANALYSIS AND WE HAVE THE WORKSHOP AND, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THE FULL POLICY. SO, SO AS WORDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE, IS THERE A, A INDICATION ON WHO'S IN FAVOR OF THAT? RIGHT, THAT'S A TIE. MM-HMM. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A MIDDLE APPROACH. THE 11 UNIT THRESHOLD INCREASE FEELS LIKE SOMETHING WE'RE KIND OF NATURALLY HEADED TOWARDS. I DON'T WANNA OVERCOMPLICATE THE STRAW POLL, BUT IF WE CAN MEET AT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, I THINK I WOULD, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT THAT. WHAT ABOUT YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF HAVING A MORE CERTAIN IN LIEU FEE APPROVAL? UH, I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO SET AN IN LIEU FEE RIGHT NOW AT 10 BUCKS A SQUARE FOOT IF WE FEEL LIKE IT'S SUBSTANDARD TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS. SO I WOULD SUGGEST UPPING THE THRESHOLD KNOWING THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE DIRECTION IS HEADED, BUT ALSO KIND OF TIME BOXING IT AT THAT. SO COMMISSIONER ABNER IS YOUR PROPOSAL TO DO A A 10 UNIT? I THINK UP TO 11 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. UP TO, UP WITH THE CAVEAT THAT A STUDY IS COMING AND THAT WE CAN EXPAND IT FROM THERE WITH MORE INFORMATION. SO, SO DOES THAT MEAN BELOW 11 IS SUBJECT TO IT, AND THEN IF 11 OR ABOVE IS IT WOULD BE 10 OR FEWER. SO 10 OR FEWER. SO IT WOULD BE AS THE, AS THE DRAFT AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN. SO RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAVE FIVE OR MORE, YOU'RE SUBJECT TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. AND NOW WE'RE SAYING YOU'RE NOT SUBJECT UNTIL YOU HIT 11 PLUS. CORRECT. OKAY. STAR VOTE ON THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. JUST TO CONFIRM, THE 40, THE UP TO 40 FAILED. YEAH, THERE WAS A TIE. OKAY. I, I DIDN'T SEE COMMISSIONER, UH, GOLDMAN VOTE FOR IT. OKAY. OKAY. SO NOW THE STRAW VOTE IS ON THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE EXEMPTION TO BE SET AT 10 OR FEWER. I AM VOTING NO. SO THAT WAS FIVE YESES AND ONE, NO, THAT WAS FIVE TO ONE. OKAY. OKAY. UM, IT'S 10 15. WE'RE GONNA TAKE A SHORT RECESS FOR, UH, FOR . EIGHT 15 WHAT? EIGHT 15. OH YEAH. MY, MY BRAIN , BUT YEAH, LET'S DO THAT.
ALRIGHT, CHAIR, DO YOU WANNA SET, UH, TIME BACK? UH, FIVE MINUTES PLEASE. ALRIGHT, LET'S, UH, LET, LET'S RECONVENE FROM OUR RECESS. BANG THAT THING. OKAY. WE ARE GONNA SKIP AHEAD BECAUSE OF STAFF, UH, LETTING THEM GET HOME, UH, AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. UM, WE'RE GONNA SKIP OVER TO CHAPTER SIX AND TAKE UP THE FLOODWAY PIECE AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GO BACK, UH, AND DIG IT TO CHAPTER FOUR. UM, SO THAT, SO YEAH, SO CHAIR, THERE'S [02:15:01] NO DECISION POINTS ON CHAPTER SIX, BUT, UH, GINA'S AVAILABLE IF, IF, UH, THE COMMISSION HAS QUESTIONS FOR HER ABOUT THE CHAPTER AS WELL AS HEATHER'S STILL AVAILABLE ONLINE TOO. THANK YOU FOR THE ASSIST THERE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON CHAPTER SIX? I HAD HAD A QUESTION ON, UM, CHAPTER SIX FROM LAST TIME, WHICH I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE, UM, SORT OF EXCLUSION OF ANY DEVELOPMENT FOR MOD FOR PARCELS WHERE THE MODELING HITS TWO FEET, IF I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY. SO MY QUESTION WAS WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS IF IT IS NOT CURRENTLY DENOTED AS, UH, LIKE IN THE MODELING BUT A WEATHER EVENT DOES LEAD TO TWO PLUS FEET OF FLOODING? YOU ANSWER THAT UNLESS, UM, GINA'S IN THE ROOM AND WOULD PREFER TO ANSWER. GO AHEAD HEATHER. . OKAY. SO THE WAY THAT THE MODELING WORKS IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHEN YOU HAVE THE CURRENT FLOOD PROJECTIONS. SO WHEN YOU SEE THAT THERE'S A ONE 100 YEAR OR 1% FLOODPLAIN, THAT MEANS THAT IN THAT AREA THERE IS A 1% CHANCE EVERY YEAR OR IT'S CONSIDERED THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, BUT IT'S A 1% CHANCE EVERY YEAR THAT THAT AREA WILL FLOOD. AND THE FLOODING ELEVATION, IT'S ELEVATION 'CAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ABOVE GROUND, WOULD GO UP TO TWO FEET. SO THE MODELING SHOWS THE DEPTH OF THE FLOODING AND THAT'S WHAT THE NEW MAPS ARE THAT WE HAVE THAT SHOW THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL OF WHERE, WHAT THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION WOULD BE. THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS WHERE IT WOULD HAVE A 0.2% CHANCE OF HAPPENING IN ANY GIVEN YEAR OR THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS IT'S CALLED.
SO IN THAT CASE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT AND WE HAVE THE FLOOD DEPTHS OR ELEVATIONS, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS WHAT THAT WOULD BE IF IT WERE TO FLOOD. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IT IS ALL THE TIME. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? RIGHT. I GET THAT. I, I GUESS THE SCENARIO I AM ASKING IS LIKE, WHAT IF WE BLOW THE MODELING OUTTA THE WATER AND WE LIKE END UP WITH SOMETHING WHERE A PARCEL THAT WAS NOT NECESSARILY MAPPED BY THE MODELING DOES HIT THAT TWO FOOT THRESHOLD BY A WEATHER EVENT. HEATHER, I I, IF I COULD ADD YEAH, YOU GO FOR IT. . YEAH. UM, WE, SO THAT COULD HAPPEN. WE DON'T MEASURE THOSE DEPTHS RELIABLY OR REGULARLY WHEN THERE'S A FLOOD. WE DON'T GO OUT THERE AND SURVEY DEPTHS. WE, WE CAN'T. UM, SO IT WOULD BE ANECDOTAL AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO, UM, AT, UH, IF IT WERE REALLY SEVERE AND THERE WERE, AND, AND WE WERE SEEING THAT LEVELS WERE, THAT WE WERE GETTING FLOOD LEVELS AND DEPTHS THAT WERE SIGNIFICANTLY OUTTA WHACK FROM OUR MODELING IN CERTAIN AREAS, PERHAPS OF TOWN, OR THEN WE WOULD GO BACK AND RECALIBRATE OUR FLOOD MODEL AND REVISIT THAT HYDROLOGY AND PERHAPS LOOK AT UPDATING THE FLOOD MAP TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. WHEN WE, WHEN WE CREATE THESE FLOOD MAPS, THEY'RE CALIBRATED TO ACTUAL FLOODS. AND, UM, AND WE COULD LOOK AT DOING THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO, TO, UM, IMPLEMENT DIFFERENTLY BASED ON A, A FLOOD EVENT. AND THE UPDATING OF THAT FLOOD MAP IS LIKE A WHOLE ZONING MAP, AMENDMENT ROUND WITH NO, IT, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE A PROCESS WITH FEMA. WE WOULD MODEL IT, THEY WOULD REVIEW IT, THEY WOULD ACCEPT IT. WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS. BUT ONCE THAT MAP IS ADOPTED, AND, AND ANDREW HELPED ME WITH THE PLANNING ON THIS AND, AND THE, THE PROCEDURE, BUT, UM, ANY NEWER ADOPTED MAPS SHOULD BE, UM, SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY VIRTUE OF, OF HAVING BEEN ADOPTED BY THE, BY THE CITY. WE DON'T HAVE TO, WE DON'T HAVE TO REZONE ANYTHING. WE DON'T HAVE TO, UM, WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IT SHOULD ADOPT A NEW MAP. IT WOULD ADOPT, SHOULD TAKE EFFECT.
IF THE BOUNDARIES CHANGED, THEN, THEN THERE MIGHT BE AN UPDATE TO OKAY. TO THE WOULD MAKE SENSE, YEAH. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE FLOODWAY ZONE. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON CHAPTER SIX? WHERE DID WE LAND ON THAT QUESTION FROM LAST [02:20:01] TIME ABOUT THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE A VARIANCE? UM, HEATHER, CAN YOU UPDATE US ON THE, UM, THE REMOVAL OF THE VARIANCE TOOL? IS THAT IN CHAPTER 24, A DIFFERENT CHAPTER OF THE VARIANCE PROVISION? IT WAS 20%. THE VARIANCE IS ARE IN CHAPTER 24, BUT THE, THE FLOOD, THE FLOODWAY VARIANCE WAS IN CHAPTER SIX. AH, OKAY. YEAH. SO WE, WE HAD A LITTLE BACK AND FORTH ON THAT. UM, AND THE, UM, THERE, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF FACTORS. I KNOW DYLAN WEIGHED IN AS WELL, AND HE MIGHT WANNA, OR MAYBE NOT WANT TO, I DON'T KNOW, , UM, SHARE ANY OF HIS THOUGHTS. BUT BASICALLY WE FELT THAT AT THIS POINT, UM, THE, WHEN WE FOUND, WHEN WE LOOKED INTO IT FURTHER, THERE WASN'T A CERTAINTY OF HOW MUCH THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GET US IN TERMS OF CREDIT FOR CRS. THERE WERE SOME MIXED OPINIONS ON THAT. AND, UM, JUST GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE, UM, FACT THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES TO DATE AND, UM, THAT THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED PROCESS, UM, THAT WAS SOME OF THE GROUNDS FOR KEEPING IT. I DON'T KNOW IF DYLAN OR GINA WANTS TO ADD IN ON THAT. I CAN ADD IT. WE ARE CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION REGARDING OUR FLOODWAY CHAPTER, AND SPECIFICALLY THAT IT'S A TAKING BECAUSE IT'S SO O ONEROUS, BUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THAT VARIANCE, IT'S NICE TO TELL THE JUDGE, WE SAY THAT EVERY, IN ALL OF OUR BRIEFS, THAT THERE IS AN OUTLET THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T EVEN ASK FOR, EVEN THOUGH WE TOLD HER. UH, SO IT IS NICE TO HAVE EVEN DURING THE LITIGATION, BUT LIKE, THE FACT IS, AND GINA MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT WAS GONNA AFFECT THE CRS RATINGS. UH, AND THE FLOODWAY ACTUALLY IN THE, THE RIVER BUFFER IS NOW GETTING BIGGER. POTENTIALLY WE COULD HAVE MORE, UH, POWER PARCELS ASKED FOR THE FLOODWAY VARIANCE HERE.
SO I DON'T THINK WE WANTED TO GET RID OF THAT OPTION, UH, JUST TO PROMOTE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. BUT THAT, OF COURSE, IS, UH, UP TO THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL. SO GINA, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING OR, YEAH, NO, I, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD COVERAGE. I JUST, UM, UH, IT, IT'S A INTERESTING AND COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE, UM, 0.2% FLOODPLAIN NOW, UH, BEING REGULATED FOR THE FIRST TIME, THERE WILL BE A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE GONNA BE, UM, IMPACTED. AND THERE MAY BE SOME DEMAND FOR, FOR VARIANCE AND FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION. SO IT MAY COME INTO PLAY. IT, IT TRULY NEVER, NEVER HAS FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF, OF PUB, YOU KNOW, FROM OUR PUBLIC WORKS FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATION, WE'VE NEVER SEEN THAT A REQUEST LIKE THAT COME IN, BUT IT COULD. AND, UM, UH, AS FAR AS CRS GOES, IT IS RATHER HARD TO TELL IF THEY COULD, UM, IF THEY COULD FIND JUSTIFICATION TO, TO GIVE US EXTRA CREDIT, IF YOU WILL, FOR, FOR THAT PROVISION. UM, IF THEY DID, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. I THINK OUR SIGNIFICANT CRS CREDIT GAINS ARE ALREADY IN HERE, AND THAT'S WITH THE, UH, INCLUSION OF THE 0.2%. IT'S WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE NO NET FILL, IT'S WITH THE ADDITIONAL FREEBOARD REQUIREMENTS IN BOTH THE 1% AND THE 0.2% FLOOD PLAN. ALL OF THOSE ARE REALLY, REALLY, UM, UM, SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES AND HIGHER STANDARDS THAT WILL GAIN, GAIN US, UM, EXTRA, EXTRA CREDITS, IF YOU WILL, AND, AND COULD HELP LAUNCH US INTO THE NEXT CLASSIFICATION, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO FURTHER REDUCE THOSE INSURANCE RATES. SO. GOT IT. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS HAVE WHAT YOU NEED FOR THAT DECISION, AND WE'RE GOOD. YEAH, I THINK WE'RE FINE WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT. YEAH.
COMMISSIONER NER, UH, TWO KIND OF QUESTIONS, MAYBE ONE POINT, UM, HOW, I GUESS, RELATED TO THESE NEW STANDARDS FOR THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, HAVE WE FORMALIZED, IS THERE A NEED TO FORMALIZE, LIKE ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO ACHIEVE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION ON A RAISED PEDESTAL OR PODIUM LEVEL FOR A PUBLIC GROUND FLOOR? I KNOW WE'VE, WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT IN PAST PROJECTS ON AN AS NEEDED OR AS APPLICABLE BASIS, BUT DO DESIGN STANDARDS KINDA NEED TO HAVE THIS [02:25:02] AVAILABLE TO HELP US HAVE A MORE UNIFORM TREATMENT NOW THAT THAT AREA IS RELATIVELY BROAD? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WANTS THAT ONE. UM, UM, SO I, IF I AM GONNA TRY AND RESTATE THE QUESTION AND MAKE SURE, FIRST OF ALL THAT I UNDERSTAND IT, UM, YOU'RE ASKING IF WE CAN PROVIDE DESIGN STANDARDS WITH ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FREE BOARD IN THE 0.2%, THE NEW 500 YEAR AREA THAT'S BRINGING, THAT WE'RE BRINGING INTO REGULATION? YEAH, WE HAVE NOT CONTEMPLATED DOING THAT. NO, IS, IS THE FIRST ANSWER. AND, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD WANT TO, UM, IT, UM, IT'S, IT'S WORTH A DOUBLE CHECK TO SEE IF THERE ARE SOME ALTERNATIVE OPPORTUNITIES THAT CRS OFFERS. UM, I DON'T THINK SO. UH, AND ONCE YOU WEAKEN THAT, THEN YOU, THEN YOU'VE WEAKENED YOUR PROTECTION IN THE FLOODPLAIN. SO, UM, I'D BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT, BUT IT'S ABSOLUTELY IT WORTH CHECKING. GREAT. AND, UM, ONE OTHER COMMENT, MAYBE THIS IS A, A SUPER DUMB QUESTION, BUT IN THE UPDATED FLOODPLAIN MAP, THE HATCH WE HAVE FOR THE 500 YEAR, IT'S DASHED AND REALLY THICK. I FIND IT HARD TO DENOTE THE PARTICULAR EXTENTS OF THE FLOODPLAIN AREA. JUST CURIOUS, LIKE, HOW, HOW ARE YOU, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONLINE MAP OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A PHYSICAL MAP? THE, THE EXHIBIT THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED? I'M JUST WONDERING WHERE THAT CAME FROM. IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO LIKE A SOLID LINE SIMILAR TO THE HUNDRED YEAR HATCH.
I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY JUST, JUST ASKING THE QUESTION SINCE I'M LOOKING AT THE EXHIBIT AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME READING IT. AND, AND I, I WILL POINT OUT THOUGH, WITH THESE PHYSICAL EXHIBITS, WITH THE HARD COPY EXHIBITS, UM, STAFF WON'T RELY ON THOSE. WE'LL BE MAKING DETERMINATIONS, UH, WITH VERY, VERY HIGH RESOLUTION GIS MAPPING. UM, AND, AND THOSE WILL BE ONLINE FOR, UH, INTERACTIVE FOR, UM, FOR PUBLIC USE AS WELL. UM, SO, SO YES, IT'S VALUABLE AND I AGREE IT, IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING TO LOOK AT A HARD COPY MAP AND NOT BE ABLE TO DISCERN WHAT YOU WANNA SEE. AND, AND I'LL LET ANDREW SPEAK TO WHAT COULD BE DONE, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH PHY WITH MAKING SOME EDITS IN CAD TO, TO MAKE OR IN GIS TO MAKE THAT READ BETTER. BUT, BUT, UM, REST ASSURED YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TELL WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE GIS MAPS, UM, DIGITALLY. SURE. WE'LL CARRY THAT, UH, COMMENT OR REQUEST FORWARD, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS IT WHEN WE GET IT INTO GIS WILL BE OUR PRIMARY PLATFORM FOR THE MAPS. AND SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT THROUGH, UM, THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF BUILDING THE MAP. IT'S, IT'S ALREADY BUILT IN GIS, WE WE'RE JUST WAITING TO REFINE IT FROM, UH, THE COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK THIS EVENING AND, AND, UH, AS A RESULT OF THIS HEARING. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON SIX? OKAY. HEARING NONE. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE GOOD CONVERSATION ON CHAPTER SIX. WE WILL NOW GO BACK TO, UH, DECISION 0.4 DASH ONE. UH, ANDREW, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE ANYTHING BEFORE WE HIT YOU WITH QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THAT ONE? UM, NO. I BELIEVE, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, UH, A RELATIVELY, IT'S REALLY, UM, JUST NOTED AS A DECISION FOR AWARENESS. UH, AS I MENTIONED DURING MY PRESENTATION, WE ARE IMPLEMENTING THE LAND USES, UM, SUPPORTIVE AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES. UH, BUT WE WOULD NOT HAVE STANDARDS UNTIL WE GET TO PHASE TWO. SO JUST, UH, SHARING THAT WITH THE COMMISSION FOR AWARENESS. OKAY. SO DO YOU, WE DO NOT NEED A STRAW POLL HERE.
THIS IS JUST SORT OF A RECEIVE AND FILE KIND OF POINT, RIGHT? SURE. SO STRAW POLL, IF YOU WANNA JUST ACKNOWLEDGE IT AND, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON. ALRIGHT, LET'S DO A STRAW POLL. ALRIGHT, THERE WE GO. [02:30:01] ALL IN FAVOR? UM, MOVING ON TO DECISION FOUR DASH TWO. THIS ONE LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA NEED A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE TOPIC BRIEFLY? SURE. SO THIS, UH, IN CHAPTER FOUR, AS AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, UM, THE RECENTLY ADOPTED, WELL PRESENTED AND ADOPTED, UM, LAND USE ACTION 3.2 0.6 WAS, UH, INTRODUCED TO GIVE THAT DOWNTOWN MIXED USE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW FOR 100% RESIDENTIAL, UH, DEVELOPMENT. PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF 3.2 0.6, THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE DESIGNATION WAS THE ONLY DESIGNATION THAT DID NOT ALLOW 100% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS, THIS MAKES SENSE. I THINK IF WE, IF WE EXPERIENCE THE DOWNTOWN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PETALUMA BOULEVARD, WHERE 100% OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IS GROUND FLOOR IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? WITH GROUND FLOOR, UM, COMMERCIAL SPACES. HOWEVER, AS WE MOVE OFF THE OFF OF THE BOULEVARD, ESPECIALLY HEADING WEST, UH, THAT VERY QUICKLY DISSIPATES WITHIN A BLOCK OR TWO. AND SO WE FIND THAT THERE'S A REMAINDER OF ABOUT TWO BLOCKS, UM, BEYOND THAT WHERE 100% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD FIT WITH THE EXISTING, UM, DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF, OF THE BLOCK FACE OF THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE AREA. AND SO IT WAS WITH THAT IN MIND AS WELL AS A COUPLE OF SPECIFIC SITES, UM, ONE OF THOSE BEING 1 31 LIBERTY, 1 36 COURT STREET, WHICH HAS COME FORWARD, DOES HAVE AN APPROVED PROJECT THAT DID INCLUDE A MIXED USE COMPONENT. IT'S NEVER BEEN, IT, IT CAN'T ACHIEVE, UM, CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE REALLY BEGAN TO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT A A NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR IS ESSENTIAL TO THE BLOCK FACE ON LIBERTY STREET AND THAT BLOCK FACE ON COURT STREET, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A DEAD END STREET THERE.
UM, IT'S, IT'S, UH, COURT STREET IS A VERY SHORT SEGMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST WASHINGTON STREET WHERE SOME MIGHT THINK IT'S, UH, ACTUALLY KEOKUK EXTENDING. BUT NEVERTHELESS, THAT WAS ONE OF THE SITES THAT WE LOOKED AT AND SAID, WELL, IT IS REASONABLE THAT, UM, THAT 100% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WOULD BE, UH, A NET ADVANTAGE TO THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT WE WOULD GET RESIDENTIAL UNITS OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, UNENCUMBERED BY A GROUND FLOOR, UH, COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT OF A MIXED USE BUILDING. SO THAT WAS THE GENESIS BEHIND 3.2, 0.6. THEN, UM, WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT VACANT LOTS ONLY IN THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE ZONE, WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, UM, ALL OF THOSE VACANT LOTS WERE IN LOCATIONS WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, IT WAS REASONABLE TO RECOMMEND 100% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THAT SECTION 4.060 AND HOW WE IMPLEMENT THE RESIDENTIAL ALLOWANCE IN THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE ZONE. SO WHAT THIS SAYS IS, IF, IF, UM, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH, WITH THIS APPROACH AND WITH THE DOWNTOWN HOUSING MAP, THEN WE WOULD PROVIDE RELIEF TO THOSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BECAUSE AT PRESENT, WHAT THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE ZONE ALSO REQUIRES IS THAT, UM, A, A 0.2 FAR ON THE GROUND FLOOR WITH THAT, THAT 20% OF THE PROJECT BEING, UM, ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR FRONTAGE. AND THAT AGAIN WOULD, ESPECIALLY ON A SMALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UH, WE SAW THAT AS BEING A BIT OF A HINDRANCE TO A 100% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. SO WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING THROUGH THIS, UM, THIS, UH, AMENDMENT IS THAT IF A BUILDING MEETS THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS OF 7.120, THAT IT WOULD GET FULL RELIEF FROM THAT, UM, THAT GROUND FLOOR FAR REQUIREMENT. AND, UM, IT WOULD HAVE A REDUCED GROUND FLOOR REQUIREMENT OF 10% OF GROUND FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE. IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARDS OF 7.120 THAT WAY WE GIVE IT THE FLEXIBILITY.
WE STILL HAVE A BIT OF INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO, UM, WE HAVE A BIT OF INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND TO PURSUE THOSE. AND REALLY THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE WRITTEN WITH A, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY A SIX PLUS UNIT MULTIFAMILY UNIT PROJECT IN MIND. SO THEY ARE ACHIEVABLE FOR SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY AND FILL PROJECTS. [02:35:02] ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON FOUR DASH TWO? COMMISSIONER EBNER? WE RECEIVED A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS, I THINK I SAW, OR JUST THE, UM, I THINK THE REQUEST TO DO A MORE COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT OF OUR CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS, RIGHT, AS PART OF A PHASE TWO. UM, COULD, I THINK THIS MAY PREDATE MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE COMMISSION, A QUICK BACKGROUND ON HOW THE CURRENT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE DEVELOPED AND HOW RECENT THEY ARE WITH. SURE. WELL, THEY WERE, GOSH, ADOPT HEATHER IS IN 23, RIGHT? THEY WERE ADOPTED IN FALL OF 2023. THE, THEY WERE, THEY WERE FUNDED THROUGH SB TWO FUNDING, AND WE STARTED WORK ON THEM AND THEN PAUSED AND THEN PICKED THEM BACK UP IN 2023. BUT WE HAD, UM, WE DID CONVENE, UH, LOCAL DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS AS PART OF THAT PROJECT. WE CONVENED NONPROFIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING REPRESENTATIVES TOO, I BELIEVE, EARLY ON IN THE PROJECT. AND, UM, AND IT WAS ALWAYS THE INTENTION TO DEVELOP THOSE STANDARDS AS BASE LEVEL STANDARDS. SO THE PUBLIC COMMENT, CALLING FOR ADDITIONAL WORK IN PHASE TWO TO FURTHER DETAIL OUT THOSE STANDARDS AS IS APPROPRIATE AND WELCOME, ESPECIALLY WHERE WE LEFT, UM, THOSE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WHEN THEY WERE ADOPTED. AND SO HEATHER HAS BEEN WITH THAT PROJECT AS WELL THROUGHOUT. SO, AND I WOULD JUST ADD, AS THINGS CHANGE FROM THE STATE LEVEL AND THERE'S MORE AND MORE THINGS THAT ARE COMING THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY THINGS WE CAN APPLY TO A PROJECT OR WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, YOU KNOW, LESSER DISCRETION. UM, IT WAS ALWAYS A THOUGHT THAT THOSE WOULD BE ADOPTED. WE'D USE THEM, WE'D SEE WHAT WORKED, WHAT DIDN'T WORK, AND GO BACK AND REVISE OR, UM, STRENGTHEN.
UM, SO THE, THE COMMENT IS NOT, IT'S NOT A SURPRISE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT. AND I'LL JUST ADD, HAVING BEEN ON THE COMMISSION WHEN WE WERE DOING THAT IN, UH, I'M SEEING NOVEMBER 23, IT WAS DEFINITELY SORT OF IN THAT FRAMING OF WE HAVE, WE HAVE TO HAVE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THESE MINISTERIAL PROJECTS BECAUSE OF THE STATE LAWS THAT HAVE MADE CERTAIN AFFORDABLE PROJECTS. MINISTERIAL, WE'RE NOT GONNA GET THIS FAR. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO SHOW THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE. AND I'LL SAY, THINKING BACK TO THOSE MEETINGS, THERE WERE A VARIETY OF, OF CHOICES WE MADE THAT WERE LIKE ABOVE AND BEYOND WITH THE INTENT OF PRODUCING MORE, LIKE ENSURING A HIGHER QUALITY EVENTUAL BUILDING BECAUSE YOU'RE SAVING ALL THIS TIME ON THE, ON THE REVIEW PROCESS THAT IT, THE BIG ONE WAS VINYL WINDOWS , WE SAID YOU COULDN'T HAVE VINYL WINDOWS. AND THE SORT OF RATIONALE WAS, WELL, IF YOU'RE GETTING ALL OF THIS SAVINGS, NOT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, SUBJECTIVITY OF SPAR, THEN YOU CAN AFFORD TO, YOU KNOW, PAY FOR THE MORE EXPENSIVE WINDOWS. UM, AND THERE ARE A VARIETY OF LEVERS WITHIN THOSE STATE LAWS THAT YOU CAN GET WAIVERS. SO IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THE VINYL WINDOWS ARE A HINDRANCE TO THE AFFORDABLE PROJECT, YOU CAN GET YOUR WAY OUT OF IT. BUT ALL THAT TO SAY THAT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE, I THINK, UM, SORT OF A ABOVE AND BEYOND IN MANY CASES, UM, WHAT YOU SEE AROUND TOWN. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? I'LL JUST SAY I LIKE PUSHING MOST OF THE HEAVY LIFTING TO A, A LATER FACE SO WE CAN SPEND A LOT MORE TIME ON IT. I THINK, UM, EXEMPTING PARKING LOTS MAKES SENSE FOR THIS PHASE. I, I THINK THIS IS SUCH A SENSITIVE SUBJECT AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST THAT, UM, IT MAKES, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY, UH, A LOT OF SENSE TO HAVE A FOCUS WORKSHOP JUST ON MAYBE THIS AND ONE OTHER THING OR SOMETHING SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT, UM, PUBLIC CAN SHARE THEIR OPINIONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE PRETTY EASY, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING CODE UPDATE, BUT THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT THE PUBLIC WILL WANNA WEIGH IN ON. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF 'EM. SO I APPRECIATE THE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH HERE. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO ARE WE READY TO GO WITH A STRAW POLL? I'M, I'M HEARING GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING HERE. THAT IS FOR THE SIX LOTS ENTIRELY RESIDENTIAL USE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE, AT THE GROUND FLOOR. OKAY. STRAW POLL. COULD WE ALSO REQUEST, UM, A REVISIT ON THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS? OH, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S, THAT'S, YEAH. [02:40:01] ESPECIALLY AS PART OF IT, ESPECIALLY AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN. I DON'T THINK WE CAN TAKE ON A LARGER SCALE ANYTHING IN THE DOWNTOWN WITHOUT TAKING ON A LOT MORE LOOK AT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO YEAH. CAN WE CLARIFY THE PHASING OF ALL THIS THEN? IF WE ARE KIND OF OFFERING FULL RELIEF FOR FULL RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOORS, WILL THAT COME IN PHASE ONE AND THERE WILL BE A TIME DELAY AND WE'LL HAVE A LITTLE GAP BETWEEN THEM ALL? OR IS THIS SOMETHING WE CAN KIND OF PUNT PER COUNCILMAN COUNCIL MEMBER? BARNER COLE'S SUGGESTION. THAT'S TOTALLY THE PREROGATIVE OF PLANNING COMMISSION. YEAH. ALRIGHT, SO STRAW POLL TO FORGE AHEAD WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE DECISION FOUR TWO FULL RELIEF FOR THE BUILDING MEETS ON THESE SIX LOTS. THE SIX LOTS, YEAH. YEAH. ALRIGHT. GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. FOUR DASH THREE. THIS IS THE NAME OF THE MAP . HOPEFULLY WE CAN RESOLVE THIS ONE QUICKLY AND MOVE TO OUR NEXT DECISION POINT. UH, STAFF RECOMMEND DOWNTOWN HOUSING MAP? I DON'T LIKE IT. NO. ? NO, BECAUSE IT'S HOUSING IT'S LOT. IT'S EMPTY LOT. IT'S, THAT'S, THIS ISN'T A MAP SHOWING HOUSING DOWNTOWN, IT'S SHOWING LIKE HOUSING, HOUSING OPTION, RESIDENTIAL, GROUND FLOOR HOUSING. I WOULD APPRECIATE AN INCREDIBLY SPECIFIC MAP NAME. YEAH. WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR HOUSING MAP OR SOMETHING LIKE, SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
I'M GONNA RUN WITH THAT RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR HOUSING MAP. OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND ON GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING MAP DOWNTOWN. WELL LET ME, LET ME, LET ME COMMENT FOR A MOMENT HERE. , WE JUST WANNA MOVE ON. I THINK. I KNOW. NO, I KNOW. SO, SO WHAT WAS HAPPENING PREVIOUSLY WAS WE WERE GETTING TO A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BECAUSE WE WERE ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THIS WITH 3.2 0.6 IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. THIS IS OUTRIGHT SAYING THAT A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL IS ALLOWED, RIGHT. WE DON'T NEED TO GET INTO CREATING AN EXCEPTION AROUND THE GROUND FLOOR. RIGHT? SO I THINK IF WE WANT TO GET SPECIFIC, WE WOULD JUST CALL IT THE DOWNTOWN. 100%. YEAH, 100% RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES MAP. THERE YOU GO. YEAH. OKAY. WE HAVE DOWNTOWN 100% RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES MAP FOR A STRAW POLL. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOOD TO GO. OKAY. WE ARE NOW MOVING TO DECISION FOUR DASH FIVE FOUR DASH, UH, WHICH IS IN REGARDS TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING OF SIX TO FEWER EMPLOYEES, UH, AND STAFF RECOMMEND KEEPING IT. UH, THIS IS A PRETTY LOW, UM, ON, ON THE RELATIVE SCALE OF, OF THE DECISION POINTS WE HAVE TONIGHT. A PRETTY LOW POINT ON THAT LIST. SO, UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT? OKAY, HEARING NONE, UH, WE'LL HAVE A STRAW POLL ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. UH, OKAY. THAT'S A UNANIMOUS DROP HOLE. GOT IT. THANK YOU. CHAIR FOR 4.5 AND FOUR SIX IS WHETHER TO CHANGE ANY OTHER PROPOSED USE OR ITS LEVEL OF REVIEW. UM, THIS ALSO IS ONE OF THE LOW, LOW END DECISION POINTS FOR US. AND ARE THERE ANY RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO ANY ROW OF THE TABLES FROM ANY COMMISSIONER? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, UH, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A, A STRAW POLL. WE'RE JUST NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES. OKAY. FOUR DASH SEVEN. THIS, UH, THIS MAY REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONVERSATION. THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER TO REPLACE THE 2008 SETBACK. UM, ANDREW, CAN YOU BRIEFLY INTRODUCE THIS IN ONE MINUTE OR LESS? SURE.
SO WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO IS CALIBRATE THE AMOUNT [02:45:01] OF, UM, STEP BACK IN THE MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICTS TO AN ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE HEIGHT IN AN ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL ZONE. SO FOR INSTANCE, UM, IN, IN THE, UM, IN THE MIXED USE STEP IN THE STEP DOWN MIXED USE ZONE, UM, THE UPPER FLOOR STEPBACK OR STEP DOWN IS A MAXIMUM OF THREE STORIES WITHIN 35 FEET OF A REAR OR SIDE PROPERTY LINE. ABUTTING AN R ZONE WHOSE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IS THREE STORIES OR LESS, OR 45 FEET, A 45 FOOT SETBACK FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE. SO BEFORE THE, THE, THE STEP DOWN AND STEP BACK REQUIREMENT WAS AGNOSTIC TO, TO, UM, WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. BUT BY CALIBRATING IT TO THE ZONE AND TO THE HEIGHT IN THAT ZONE, WE'RE WE'RE, IT'S STILL A CRUDE TOOL, BUT WE'RE BETTER THAN WE WERE, UM, PREVIOUS WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROACH IS WHAT I WOULD SAY THERE. ALRIGHT, SO, SO J JUST GO AHEAD. BROADLY SPEAKING, WHAT THIS DOES IS IT CREATES A MORE UNIFORM LOOK ON A ZONE BY ZONE BASIS SO THAT IT LOOKS MORE, THERE'S MORE COMPARATIVE BUILDING HEIGHT BE AS THOSE ZONES TRANSITION, RIGHT? AND IT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE STRUCTURE AS TO HOW WE DETERMINE WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE BEHIND CHOOSING WHATEVER THAT HEIGHT THEN IS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO IT IS, IT IS, YOU KNOW, MAKING, MAKING THE TYPICAL ASSUMPTIONS AROUND, UM, HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW A BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, FORM AND, AND BULK IN TERMS OF HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, CAN IMPACT ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. WHAT IT IS DOING IS SAYING THAT WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO WE MAKE, WE MAKE IT ONLY APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES. AND SO WE ESTABLISHED THAT RELATIONSHIP, UH, BETWEEN OUR MIXED USE IN OUR COMMERCIAL ZONES VIS-A-VIS THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE ONLY. UM, AND THEN WHAT WE DO IS SAY THAT WE CALIBRATE THE SETBACK AND THE STEPBACK TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IN THAT ADJACENT ZONE.
SO IF THAT ADJACENT ZONE HAS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF SAY, 35 FEET AS OPPOSED TO 25 FEET, THEN IT CALIBRATES TO THE 35 FEET. IF IT HAD A A 25 FEET, THEN IT WOULD CALIBRATE TO THAT. GREAT. THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. SURE. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER EBNER LOOKS LIKE YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? UH, QUESTION JUST ON LIKE, COULD WE GET SOME SORT OF HYPOTHETICAL, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH ONE WHERE THIS MAY OCCUR OR PAST PROJECTS WHERE THIS HAS BEEN A SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION? I THINK THE HYPOTHETICAL WOULD BE EASY OR, UM, LET ME, LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN. ASHER, I I THINK IT, I THINK IT MIGHT WORK TO LOOK AT IT IN, IN THE TEXT ITSELF. SO THE REAR SETBACK IN, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE ZONE IS ESTABLISHED AT ZERO FEET. HOWEVER, IF IT'S AN, IF, IF THE PARTICULAR PROJECT SITE IS ABUTTING AN R ZONE, THEN THE REAR SETBACK BECOMES 15 FEET PLUS ONE FOOT OF ADDITIONAL SETBACK FOR EACH FOOT OF BUILDING HEIGHT OVER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R ZONE. SO IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE ZONE AND YOU'RE NOT ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, YOU COULD BE ADJACENT TO ANOTHER MIXED USE ZONE TO A COMMERCIAL ZONE OR AN INDUSTRIAL, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A ZERO FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK ON THE REAR. BUT THAT CHANGES THEN. SO THEN WHEN YOU BECOME ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, IT AUTOMATICALLY, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SET BACK 15 FEET TO GIVE THAT SPACE AND PRIVACY TO PRESUMED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE, IN THE ZONE. AND THEN WHAT WE SAY IS [02:50:01] FOR EVERY FOOT OVER WHAT WOULD BE LIKELY 25 FEET, LET'S SAY IF YOU'RE IN A, IN ONE OF THE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, SO FOR EVERY FOOT OVER 25 FEET, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO STEP BACK ANOTHER FOOT OR SET BACK ANOTHER FOOT.
SO IF YOU GO UP, IF YOU'RE BUILDING HEIGHT THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IN THE MIXED USE ZONE IS 35 FEET, YOU'RE ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZONE WHERE THE MAX BUILDING HEIGHT IS 25 FEET, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SET BACK 25 FEET ON YOUR REAR IN ORDER TO PROTECT THAT RESIDENTIAL ZONE 25 PLUS 15. WERE DAYLIGHT PLANES DISCUSSED DURING THE GENERAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN LIEU OR IN ADDITION OR SOMEHOW RELATED TO HEIGHT STEP BACKS? I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN. DAYLIGHT PLANES, LIKE WERE THEY DISCUSSED EITHER IN LIEU OR I, I KNOW SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE DAYLIGHT PLANES IN LIEU OF HEIGHT STEP BACKS, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE BACKGROUND THERE. NO, WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY. UM, JUST LOOKED AT SOME OF THOSE TRANSITION AREAS WHERE WE THOUGHT THAT THAT STEP DOWN WOULD IMPROVE THE, THE INTERFACE OF DIFFERENT DENSITIES IN DIFFERENT HEIGHTS. WAS THERE A REASON WHY THE STEP DOWN SPECIFICALLY WERE THE, THE SOLUTION WE OPTED FOR HERE IN LIEU OF SAY, A DAYLIGHT PLANE OR, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT SINCE I DON'T RECALL US TALKING ABOUT DAYLIGHT PLANES. MM-HMM . IT WAS, THIS WAS WHAT WAS KIND OF OFFERED AND FELT LIKE EVERYONE THROUGH THE PROCESS AGREED THAT THAT WOULD HELP, UH, MITIGATE CONCERNS. MM-HMM . I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DEFINITELY LOOK FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVOLVE OUR BASE ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THROUGH PHASE TWO. AND, AND THESE ARE VERY BASIC TOOLS THAT WE'RE USING HERE, BUILDING UPON, YOU KNOW, 2008 TRYING TO REFINE THEM. UM, BUT CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, USING A DAYLIGHT PLANE AND, AND BUILDING THAT OUT IN PHASE TWO AND BEING ABLE TO BE MORE SENSITIVE TO, UM, BECAUSE PART OF OUR GOAL IS, IS TO INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITY, ESPECIALLY FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? SO WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE THE, ALLOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, TO SUPPORT, UM, HOUSING PRODUCTION.
SO I THINK SOME OF THE TOOLS THAT WE COULD BRING INTO PHASE TWO WOULD HELP US DO THAT AND PROBABLY CREATE A, A MUCH MORE THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO, UM, THESE VERY ESSENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. I HAVE A, A QUESTION. SO I'M THE, WHAT I'M HEARING HERE IS THAT WITH THE RECENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN, THIS CHANGE IN THE ZONING CODE IS NECESSARY GIVEN THE STEP BACK, UH, ZONING DESIGNATIONS. SO IT, WE, WE WOULD BE, IF, IF WE DON'T REC, IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH THIS CHANGE AND RECOMMEND IT, WE WOULD BE RECOMMENDING SOMETHING THAT'S IN CONFLICT WITH THE, THE RECENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN TO, TO SOME EXTENT. AND IN SOME CASES, YES. IN, IN OTHER CASES WE WERE ACTUALLY REWRITING TO, TO MAKE BETTER WHAT, WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE, UM, IN THE ZONING ALREADY IN THE ADOPTED CODE. I'M TRYING TO FIND, LET'S SEE HERE. SO LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IF WE LOOK WHAT I HAVE ON THE SCREEN NOW, THESE ARE, ARE, UM, THE SETBACKS IF WE LOOK TO THE SIDE INTERIOR AND THE REAR SETBACKS IN THE MIXED USE ONE AND MIXED USE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ADOPTED, RIGHT? MM-HMM . IT SOUNDS VERY SIMILAR. WHEN ABUTTING IN OUR DISTRICT, WE CHANGED TO ZONE BECAUSE WE'RE SHIFTING TO THE TERM ZONE MM-HMM . INSTEAD OF DISTRICT, THEN IT, IT ESTABLISHES THE SAME 15 FEET, BUT THEN IT SAYS PLUS ONE FOOT OF ADDITIONAL SETBACK FOR EACH FOOT OF BUILDING HEIGHT OVER 20 FEET. SO IT'S REALLY AGNOSTIC TO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ABUTTING R ZONE. WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS RECOGNIZE THAT IN THE ABUTTING R ZONE, IN AN R FOUR R FIVE ZONE, YOU MAY HAVE A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 FEET OR 45 FEET. SO WHEN YOU START GETTING PENALIZED AT 20 FEET, REGARDLESS OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN THE R ZONE, THEN THEN THAT, THEN THAT MAKES THIS MORE RESTRICTIVE. SO WE WERE TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THE LANGUAGE AND PROVE IT A BIT TO MAKE IT MORE SENSITIVE AND TO ESTABLISH A [02:55:01] BETTER RELATIONSHIP, BUT, BUT NOT YET TO DELVE INTO THAT PHASE TWO WORK OF REALLY FUNDAMENTALLY REWRITING THE, UM, THE STANDARDS.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR IF WE'RE READY TO TAKE A STRAW POLL ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I AM NOT HEARING ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. OH, COMMISSIONER EBNER. SORRY. . UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST WE GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT AS A PHASE TWO ITEM TO REVISIT A MORE PERMISSIVE STEP BACK, MORE PERMISSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT IT OFFERS MORE FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOPMENT STEP BACKS SURE. VIA A DAYLIGHT PLANE OR AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF, OF REGULATING. GREAT. THANK YOU. WITH THAT AMENDMENT TO THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, I SEEK COUNCIL MEMBER VAR. YEAH. AND I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO REACH OUT TO COMMISSIONER EBNER AND TALK TO HER ABOUT SOME IDEAS FOR THAT TOO. CLEARLY YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS, SO PLEASE DO REACH OUT TO US FOR SURE. WE'LL DEFINITELY DO THAT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. CAN WE HAVE A, A THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN ON THAT STRAW POLL PLEASE? ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU EVERYONE. UM, DECISION FOUR DASH EIGHT, UH, THIS IS ABOUT REDUCING THE, UH, OPEN SPACE STANDARD, UH, FOR DIVERSE LOW DENSITY, MEDIUM DENSITY, AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONES THAT WOULD APPLY FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THAT, SO, UH, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF ON THIS COUNCIL MEMBER? BARNACLE MY QUESTION. SO HEARD ON THE 2,800 SQUARE FEET FOR THE VERY LOW DENSITY AND THE RURAL, UM, YOU KNOW, TWO ACRES, 20,000 SQUARE FEET, THE, LIKE A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT COULD STILL GO THROUGH AN SB 1123, RIGHT? AND SUBDIVIDE, LIKE WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IS THAT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 20,000 SQUARE FOOT. IF SOMEONE HAD A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL, THEY COULD STILL SUBDIVIDE THAT DOWN INTO 10, 10 LOTS CORRECT. MINISTERIALLY, RIGHT. WITH 60 DAY SHOT CLOCK, ALL THAT STUFF. RIGHT. OKAY. MM-HMM . SO, UM, NOPE, NO, NO ISSUES HERE. UM, AND IT AND, AND, UH, I WISH I, I WISH, YEAH, I I WANT TO SAY THAT IT WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF A MINIMUM OF 30 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT OF USABLE OPEN SPACE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD ON OUR BOOKS.
SO WHAT 4.8 IS GETTING AT IS, UM, TRYING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN SPACE PER UNIT FROM WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS A PRETTY VAST RANGE, UM, IN THE ADOPTED ORDINANCE. AND THIS CAME UP DURING THE HOUSING ELEMENT DISCUSSION WHERE THE HOUSING ELEMENT SAYS TO EVALUATE REDUCTIONS IN, UM, THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T GIVE US A TARGET TO ACHIEVE, IT JUST SAYS TO EVALUATE IT. UM, DURING THAT DISCUSSION, UH, 30 SQUARE FEET CAME UP AT THE TIME, AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT 30 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT SAY A, A BALCONY, A SMALL, YOU KNOW, UM, SLAB PATIO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WHAT IT DOESN'T DO THOUGH IS, IS IT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS, YOU KNOW, YOUR REAR SETBACKS AND SIDE SETBACKS. THAT WOULD ALSO CREATE SOME OPEN SPACE. BUT AT 30 SQUARE FEET IT IS REALLY CALIBRATED TO THAT VERY SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN DIRECTS US TO ALLOW A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2,800 SQUARE FEET AND TO ALLOW UP TO FOUR UNITS OF DEVELOPMENT ON A 3000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. SO WE ARE CALIBRATING TO THAT, THAT THAT VERY SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT QUESTION, IF I MAY. UM, SO A FIVE FOOT SETBACK, IT'S, DOES THAT COUNT AS A PRIVATE OPEN SPACE? LIKE IS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON A 20 FOOT HOUSE? IS UM, IS A HUNDRED WOULD BE A HUNDRED. YEAH. RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD, SO OKAY. UM, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I JUST [03:00:01] HEARD IS IT DOES COUNT. UM, OKAY. UM, MAYBE ONE CONSIDERATION I'VE SEEN IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS IS KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS. ONE FOR PRIVATE, ONE FOR COMMON, SO A MINIMUM COMMON AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET. AND I FEEL LIKE THAT COULD BE A, A NICE WAY, IF POSSIBLE, TO ACCRUE MORE OPEN SPACE FOR SHARED USE THAT, THAT DID OCCUR TO ME WHILE WE WERE DRAFTING IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, OR, OR MAYBE THE IDEA OF AGGREGATING, RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 30 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT, BUT THAT COULD BE AGGREGATED INTO COMMON OPEN SPACE.
SO WE HAVE A FOURPLEX AND, YOU KNOW, THEN THE, THE SHARED COMMON OPEN SPACE WOULD BE, UH, A MINIMUM OF 120 SQUARE FEET ON THAT PROJECT. UM, SO DEFINITELY, UH, DID THINK ABOUT THAT. WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT THOROUGHLY OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT, BUT THAT COULD BE AN ADDITION WE COULD MAKE IF, IF YOU WOULD WISH TO AGGREGATE ACROSS ALL UNITS TO A SHARED CON A SHARED OPEN SPACE. YEAH, GO AHEAD. I WOULD MAYBE ALSO JUST ENCOURAGE US ALL TO THINK ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE OPEN SPACE. A FIVE FOOT STRIP ON A SIDE YARD NEXT TO A FENCE LINE IS NOT ALWAYS THE MOST PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE GREAT PROGRAMMING AND ACTUALLY USE THAT SPACE. SO EVEN THOUGH IT MAY COUNT TOWARDS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, I WOULD MAYBE THINK ABOUT QUALIFYING OPEN SPACE WITH DIFFERENT THRESHOLD NUMBERS FOR DIFFERENT DENSITY OR, OR RESIDENTIAL ZONES. SO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE MAY NEED MORE OPEN SPACE TO KIND OF ACCOUNT FOR THE SETBACKS. AND THEN SOME, THE, THE, THE THING THAT WOULD THEN WORRY ME IS JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW THE MATH ACTUALLY WORKS WITH, YOU KNOW, THE SUBDIVIDED LOT SIZE WITH THE 30 FOOT AMOUNT OF SPACE, WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S AGGREGATED OR NOT, UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL WORKS LIKE IN A PLOT OF LAND. UM, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE'VE CREATED A WHOLE BUNCH OF MANDATES THAT THEN DOESN'T ACTUALLY MATHEMATICALLY PLAY OUT. 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, I, I AGREE WITH THE IDEA THEORETICALLY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT ACTUALLY WORKS ON A PLOT OF LAND, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT ENDS UP GETTING SUBDIVIDED. I MEAN, NOT THAT 20,000 FEET WOULD RUN INTO THAT PROBLEM, BUT THERE MIGHT BE SITUATIONS WHERE IT DOES. UM, AS SOMEONE WHO'S LIVED IN PLACES WITHOUT PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, I DON'T WANNA BE OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE HERE. I THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO BUILD AND THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE IN THAT TYPE OF HOUSING WILL.
AND IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A GARDEN, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A SPACE FOR A BARBECUE, THEN MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE APARTMENT FOR YOU. BUT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE OUR DEVELOPMENT BE SO CONSTRAINED BY, YOU KNOW, LITTLE CHUNKS OF HOUSING OR OF, OF OPEN SPACE THAT WON'T ADD THAT MUCH TO DAILY LIFE ANYWAY. AND I THINK THE MARKET PRESSURES WILL DRIVE THAT WHERE IT NEEDS TO. I'D LIKE TO, UM, JUMP IN HERE WITH, WITH, TO, TO SUPPORT THAT POINT. WHEN I WAS READING THIS AND THINKING ABOUT THIS, I WAS THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CONDOMINIUM, UM, UH, PROJECT, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE WHERE SENIORS CAN MOVE IN WITH AN ELEVATOR, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NEAR THE RIVER PARK, YOU KNOW, AND WALKING DISTANCE TO THE RIVER PARK, YOU KNOW, THERE REALLY ISN'T NEED FOR A BIG BACKYARD OR SOMETHING, BUT THERE'S, IT'S CLOSE PROXIMITY TO, YOU KNOW, THE SMART STATION TO DOWNTOWN. YOU CAN WALK TO THE RIVER PARK, YOU DON'T NEED THAT BACKYARD. AND I WOULDN'T, I I AGREE. I I I WOULD WANT TO CREATE THE FLEXIBILITY FOR THAT HIGH DENSITY AND I DON'T KNOW IF, IF THESE ZONING DESIGNATIONS WHERE, WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHERE A PROJECT LIKE THAT WOULD HAPPEN, BUT I, I FEEL YOU ON, ON THAT POINT. THANK YOU. UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE. YEAH. ONE OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS, UM, IS, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF SB NINE IS THAT YOU, THERE'S A, A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN ONE OF THE UNITS THAT YOU ARE DOING? OR IS THAT NOT THE CASE? UM, [03:05:01] I THOUGHT THERE , SORRY, I CAN SEE YOUR HEAD. I'M SORRY. I'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE TRYING TO RESEARCH IF, IF THE OPEN SPACE CAN BE APPLIED TO A SETBACK AREA. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE MY BRAIN STILL IS, , AND THIS IS WHAT OFTENTIMES HAPPENS WHEN I'M TRYING TO RESPOND TO A QUESTION THAT'S STILL OUTSTANDING AND OTHER QUESTIONS ARE ARISING. SO IF, IF ANYONE ELSE CAN TAKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AND I CAN LOOK INTO THAT DURING THIS MEETING, TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND TRY TO FIND AN ANSWER DURING THIS MEETING.
YEAH, I THINK JUST SORT OF LOOKING AT THIS CHART, LIKE I, I, I, I CONSIDER SETBACKS TO BE MORE ABOUT LIKE NEIGHBOR RELATIONS AS OPPOSED TO OPEN SPACE. SO I'M F I'M FINE TO REGULATE WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE A STANDARD OF NEIGHBORLY BUFFER. UM, BUT I'M MUCH LESS INTERESTED IN MANDATING, ESPECIALLY PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. SO THE PIECE THAT I'M LOOKING AT ON SP NINE IS THAT THE APPLICANT MUST SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THEY INTEND TO OCCUPY ONE OF THE HOUSING UNITS AS THEIR PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS FOR, FOR A LOT SPLIT, BUT NOT FOR A TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENT. GOT YOU. THAT, THAT I THINK IS, IS APPEARS TO BE THE DIFFERENCE. I WAS LOOKING AT A BACK. OKAY. YEAH. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO, THAT WE IN, LIKE, THINK IS IMPORTANT? I GUESS IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PROVIDE HOUSING AND NOT LIVE IN IT, WHY IS LIKE, IS THAT NOT SOMETHING WE RIGHT. I MEAN THAT, THAT'S TO ME IS IT'S, IT WAS PUT IN AS A, AGAIN, AS A A STATE LAW RIGHT? BY A BUNCH OF LEGISLATORS THAT WERE LIKE, I NEED TO GET THIS BILL PASSED, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT SERVES OUR NEEDS. SO THAT'S MY, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'RE, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT HERE, BUT IT FEELS LIKE WHEN I'M LOOKING AT LOT SIZES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE'S OTHER SORT OF CONDITIONS WHERE WE'RE REFERRING TO STATE LAW AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND, UM, IF WE WANNA STRIKE, UM, ANY OF THAT STUFF THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WAS PUT IN TO PASS A BILL AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SERVE OUR HOUSING GOALS. IF WE DO END UP HAVING A THIRD COMMISSION HEARING ON THIS, I WOULD APPRECIATE MAYBE STAFF'S TAKE AT, UM, A MORE NUANCED OPEN SPACE ANALYSIS OR A RECOMMENDATION, WHETHER THAT BE WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE IF WE CAN ACCRUE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE INTO A SHARED OPEN SPACE, OR IF IT'S TIERED OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DENSITY TYPE. UM, BUT I FEEL LIKE A ONE NUMBER FITS ALL IS A TOUGH ONE TO APPLY IN THIS CASE, AND IT MAY BE A LITTLE TOUGH FOR US TO FIT THOSE SPECIFICS INTO THIS PARTICULAR MEETING.
WHAT IF THAT ONE SIZE FITS ALL WAS ZERO? I, HAVING WORKED WITH OPEN SPACE AND DENSER JURISDICTIONS, I'VE COME TO APPRECIATE EVEN A SMALL AMOUNT OF SHARED OPEN SPACE. I'M THINKING OF, YOU KNOW, UM, MISSING MIDDLE TYPE HOUSING. I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO PROMOTE ADDITIONAL LARGER SCALE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, BUT, UM, I THINK AT LEAST IN THE CASE OF A DUPLEX FOURPLEX, HAVING SOMETHING ALBEIT 150 SQUARE FEET MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. EVEN IN A LARGER DENSITY CONDO DEVELOPMENT. IF YOUR MOBILITY IS LIMITED AND YOU CAN'T WALK THE FIVE BLOCKS IT TAKES TO RIVER PARK, HAVING JUST A SMALL GARDEN MAKES, MAKES A BIG IMPROVEMENT ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE. SO I WOULD SUGGEST SOME VERSION OF IT. I ALSO REALLY LIKE THAT IDEA AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WITHIN HAVING A, HOW ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE IS TO WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COULD BE THAT. SO IF THERE'S EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WITHIN LIKE TWO CITY BLOCKS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS A DEFINED SORT OF, UM, YES, WHERE THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE SO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT IN AS A PRIVATE SPACE, BUT IT THEN WOULD MAKE IT VERY EMINENTLY ACCESSIBLE TO SOMEONE SO THAT YOU'RE NOT PRECLUDED FROM ACCESSING OUTDOOR SPACE IN A WALKABLE DISTANCE. THAT, THAT, I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT THAT, THAT ONLY ADDRESSES AN EXISTING CONDITION. SO, [03:10:01] YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY FOR INSTANCE THAT THIS YEAR YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS NOT WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF A PARK, BUT A YEAR AND A HALF FROM NOW THERE'S A NEW PARK AND, AND, AND SO, SO THEN YOU'VE, YOU'VE IN, IN A WAY. I, I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S, THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT COME TO MIND IS I, I THINK THAT I, I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I THINK THIS CONVERSATION IS INITIALLY BASED ON THE IDEA OF, OF BEING ABLE TO ACCESS PUBLIC OPEN SPACES, RIGHT? WHETHER THAT'S A GREENWAY, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF AN ACTIVE MULTI-USE TRAIL OR, YOU KNOW, A NEIGHBORHOOD POCKET PARK.
BUT IT, IT, WHEN YOU SHRINK THE OPEN, THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, IT PRESUMES THAT EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO LARGER OPEN SPACES AND THEN IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF HOW CONVENIENT IS THAT ACCESS? OR HOW AVAILABLE IS THAT ACCESS TO THOSE LARGER SPACES? SO I THINK THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO A DEFINITION IN CHAPTER 28 THAT WE WOULD READ THIS AGAINST AS WELL. AND I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO BRING THAT TOGETHER, UM, AND TO GIVE IT MORE DEFINITION THAT THAT CAN, CAN ADVANCE THIS. AND IT'S GREAT TO, IT'S GREAT TO UNDERSTAND THAT I FEEL LIKE THE COMMISSION'S NOT AVERSE TO THE 30 SQUARE FEET. IT'S JUST HOW DOES THAT, HOW DOES THAT LIES IS WHERE SOME OF THE DETAIL IS DESIRED AND THAT CAN BE HELPFUL. UM, BUT AT EVERY LEVEL WE STILL HAVE TO WRITE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THAT'S ALSO WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO AS EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF, ESPECIALLY FOR OUR BUY RIGHT, UM, STANDARDS AND SUCH, UH, THAT THEY'RE OBJECTIVE AND THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERIFIABLE AND IMPLEMENTABLE. SO, UM, THE MORE NUANCE WE GET INTO IT, THE FURTHER WE GET AWAY FROM THAT OBJECTIVITY OR JUST SOME THOUGHTS THAT I HAVE. ALL RIGHT. UH, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHERE WE ARE ON A RECOMMENDATION OR AN ARTICULATION OF A MODIFIED POSITION THAT THE COUNT THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO, TO VOTE ON. I SEE A THUMBS UP FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE. I THOUGHT WE WERE THUMBS UPPING THE 30 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. AND ARE WE ALSO PROPOSING THE ABILITY TO BUNDLE IT TOO, OR IS THAT OFF THE, LIKE I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT TOO. SO CAN WE PROPOSE 30 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT OR THAT IS EITHER PROVIDED AT PER UNIT OR AS A BUNDLED COMMON SPACE? I THINK I SEE COMMISSIONER EBNER NODDING AT THAT. SHE WAS THE ONE WHO I THINK RAISED THAT. YEAH. COULD WE APPLY THAT TO MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY AND THINK OF A MORE, UH, GENEROUS OPEN SPACE AMOUNT FOR LOW DENSITY? OR WILL THE FAR AND THE UNIT PER ACRE JUST DO THAT FOR US?
SO IF, IF WE GO, SO THE DEFINITION OF US USABLE OPEN SPACE, SO LET, LET'S ASSUME FOR A MOMENT, 30 SQUARE FEET IS THE MINIMUM AND THEN USABLE OPEN SPACE IS OUTDOOR AREAS ON A BUILDING SITE OR ASSOCIATED WITH A BUILDING THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO OCCUPANTS FOR ACTIVE OR PASSIVE RECREATION. MAY BE PRIVATE OR SHARED, MAY INCLUDE YARDS, PATIOS, BALCONIES AND DECKS. TO QUALIFY AN AREA MUST HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE FEET AND AN AREA OF AT LEAST 30 SQUARE FEET. GROUND LEVEL AREAS MUST BE AT LEAST FIVE FEET WIDE AND EXTEND AT LEAST 10 FEET IN ONE DIRECTION. DRIVEWAYS OFF STREET PARKING AND SERVICE AREAS ARE EXCLUDED. AT LEAST 75% OF THE REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE MUST HAVE A SLOPE OF 10% OR LESS. SO, UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THERE ABOUT, ABOUT BUNDLING THEM FOR THE PROJECT, BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD THAT TO IT THAT, YOU KNOW, IN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT, THAT THE, THE USABLE OPEN SPACE CAN BE AGGREGATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF, OF ALL THE TENANTS OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. UM, AND WE HAVE OTHER, OTHER STANDARDS IN SECTION 7.120, THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ADDRESS, UM, OPEN SPACE. SO WE WOULD WANT TO ALIGN, UH, WITH THOSE STANDARDS AS WELL. TO SOME EXTENT, I DON'T THINK WE WANNA SAY USE THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE THOSE STANDARDS ARE SPECIFIC TO QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL [03:15:01] PROJECTS, WHEREAS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS APPLICABLE TO ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE CAN BE DIFFERENCES THERE, BUT WE WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE AND IF THEY NEED TO MERGE TOGETHER TO SOME DEGREE. COMMISSIONER MOSES, I SAW YOU TAKE A DEEP BREATH AS IF YOU'RE ABOUT YEAH. TO SAY SOMETHING IT, IT JUST, IN READING THAT, LISTENING TO THAT DEFINITION, IT JUST STRIKES ME AS OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE AND PATERNALISTIC TO SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE THESE, YOU KNOW, DIMENSIONS FOR IT TO BE A, A HEALTHY BUILDING. AND I THINK THERE ARE WAYS THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE THAT DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OPEN SPACE.
MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE A PATIO TO MAINTAIN OR A GARDEN TO PLANT AND LIKE THAT SHOULD BE OKAY AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE BUILT IN. THE PEOPLE WHO, WHO DON'T WANT A GARDEN CAN LIVE THERE AND THE PEOPLE WHO DO WANNA GARDEN WILL PICK A DIFFERENT BUILDING WHEN YEAH, I THINK, I THINK BUNDLING IT IS SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE ADDED. UM, I I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE, ANDREW WITH, UM, FOOTNOTES, I BELIEVE IT'S FOOTNOTE SEVEN, UM, SAYS THAT IT'S UNDER THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. IT SAYS THAT YOU CAN HAVE IT BE COMMON PRIVATE OR A COMBINATION, WHICH KIND OF GIVES YOU SOME FLEXIBILITY. SO LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY IT WAS, UM, A COURTYARD SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE THAT WAS EQUIVALENT TO 300 SQUARE FEET BECAUSE YOU HAVE 10 UNITS AROUND IT AND IT'S ONE COMMON INSTEAD OF 30 SQUARE FEET ON EACH UNIT MM-HMM . THAT YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SATISFY IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. BUT JUST TO GAME IT OUT, NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE, YOU KNOW, LOCAL DEVELOPERS THAT WE'RE HOPING TO COME IN AND, AND BUILD 10 UNITS OR LESS ARE NOW, LET'S SAY THEY'RE DOING 10 UNITS TO, UM, NOW ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE, UH, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, NOT SUBJECT TO SPAR, BUT ARE SUBJECT TO HAVING 300 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE, WHICH LIKE MAYBE THEIR LOT ISN'T SUITED FOR AND THE TYPES OF RESIDENTS THEY'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT ISN'T SUITED FOR, BUT WE'RE REQUIRING THEY USE UP 300 SQUARE FEET OF THEIR LOT FOR THAT. I WAS JUST RESPONDING TO THE BUNDLING. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LIKE THE ABILITY TO HAVE IT COMMON OR AS INDIVIDUALS OR SOME, I THINK IF ON THAT POINT IT'S ALREADY IN THERE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET A STRAW POLL HERE. UH, IT'S 30 SQUARE FEET AND THERE'S A LOUD BUNDLING. DOES THAT ARTICULATE IT? ALRIGHT. CAN WE, UH, INCLUDE SETBACKS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN THE DEFINITION? SORRY, MORE PRESCRIPTION. SURE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO CLARIFY THAT. DO YOU WANT IT TO, UM, NOT INCLUDING SETBACKS OR, OR I, I WOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE REAR YARD SETBACKS. OKAY.
UH, IF WE'RE, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINING FIVE YARD, FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS, IT FEELS LIKE THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF A REACH. BUT I, ANYONE, WHAT I DON'T WANNA DO IS SAY IT'S FIVE AND THEN NOW YOU'RE ADDING ANOTHER FIVE, BUT, SO NOW IT'S 10, BUT YOU ONLY GET COUNT, YOU ONLY GET CREDIT FOR THE FIVE . ALRIGHT. UM, CAN I ADD ANOTHER JUST SURE WRINKLE TO THAT. OKAY. OR NOT WRINKLE, BUT YEAH. UM, IF YOU, IF YOU WANT TO OPEN UP, BROADEN THE DEFINITION FOR COUNTING THE REAR SETBACK, WHICH FOR A TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME, MOST FAMILIES, MOST INDIVIDUALS, THAT'S THE BACKYARD, RIGHT? SO THAT IS INCLUSIVE, BUT I'D ALSO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IF I THINK THE, THERE'S A VALUE IN MAXIMIZING THE FRONT SETBACK AS WELL TO NOT JUST BE YOUR BUFFER BETWEEN THE STREET. UM, SO IF YOU'RE APPLYING THE REAR SETBACK LOGIC, THEN I WOULD CONSIDER, I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO ALSO CONSIDER THE FRONT SETBACK TUBE TO COUNT. YEAH. TOWARDS THE TOTAL OR THERE'S A SEPARATE CALCULATION. I AM JUST FOLLOWING THE LINE OF THOUGHT HERE, WHICH IS TO COUNT IT TOWARDS THE 30 SQUARE FEET, [03:20:06] OUR BALCONY BALCONIES AND SIDE YARD PATIOS ALLOWED TO EXTRUDE WITHIN OR, UH, ENCROACH WITHIN SETBACKS SIDE, FRONT OR BACK. MM. UM, I'LL HAVE TO RESEARCH THAT. I CAN'T, I CAN'T RECALL RIGHT NOW WHAT THAT SECTION IS. LET'S SAY I THINK WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS INCLUDING ALL SETBACKS IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH UP TO X SQUARE FEET. IT LOOKS LIKE WE ADDRESS THAT IN THE CURRENT CHAPTER 12 CODE. SO IF WE AT SOME POINT MOVE TO CHAPTER 12 THIS EVENING, I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS IT THEN 12.050 DOESN'T, UM, SPECIFICALLY MENTION PATIOS, BUT IT DOES TALK ABOUT UN UNCLOSED PORCHES. ANOTHER SECTION TALKS ABOUT UNCOVERED DECKS LESS THAN 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND IT ALLOWS THE ENCROACHMENT UP TO A PERCENTAGE, UP TO 10%, UM, OF THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. SO, SO MAYBE WE BORROW THAT FOR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. MM-HMM .
WOULD NOW BE THE RIGHT TIME TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE TEST FITS THAT WERE PRESENTED OR IS THAT A SEPARATE SECTION? MAYBE THAT'S AFTER TROPEL. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TEST FITS AND IT RELATES TO THE TABLE 4.5, BUT IT DOESN'T RELATE TO THIS PRESENT DECISION 4.8. SO WE COULD MAYBE I, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION AFTER THE STRAW POLL ABOUT, YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TEST FITS. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA DO THAT QUESTION AND THEN WE'RE GONNA DO A STRAW POLL ON THIS PARTICULAR DECISION POINT. WE COULD DO A STRAW POLL, WE CAN DO A STRAW POLL NOW. OKAY. SO THE STRAW POLE IS A 30, UH, FOOT, UM, UH, USABLE OPEN SPACE STANDARD PER UNIT. UM, AND IT CAN BE BUNDLED, UH, AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE SIDE OR FRONT SETBACKS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT DOES INCLUDE PORTION, DOES INCLUDE FRONT PORTION OR THE ENCROACHMENT ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT. OKAY. I'M GONNA ASK COMMISSIONER EBNER TO ARTICULATE THE STRAW POLL. COULD I PUNT IT BACK TO STAFF? I'M, I'M HAPPY TO MAYBE, BUT HAVE, I WOULD SAY THE STRAW POLL IS, UM, PRESERVE THE USABLE OPEN SPACE AS STAFF RECOMMENDS AT 30 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. UH, AND, UH, ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENTS WITHIN THE SETBACKS PER THE CURRENT ENCROACHMENT STANDARDS FOR BALCONIES AND OTHER OPEN SPACE. I THINK ABOVE GRADE. AND WOULD THAT BE ANY SETBACK? FRONT SIDE, REAR? YEAH, I WOULD SAY WE JUST RESPECT WHAT THE CURRENT CODE HAS AND MAYBE WE HASH THAT OUT IN CHAPTER 12 AND THEN ADD THE BUNDLING. RIGHT. GREAT. OH ALRIGHT. DROP HOLE. OKAY, THAT'S SIX TO ONE WITH FIVE? YEAH, FIVE TO ONE. THANK YOU. UH, WITH COMMISSIONER MOSES DISSENTING. UH, ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYONE. THAT WAS DECISION 0.4 DASH EIGHT. UH, WE ARE NOW, UM, THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC DECISION POINTS IN CHAPTER FIVE. UH, COMMISSIONER EBNER. SORRY, I JUST HAD THAT ONE QUESTION ON TABLE POINT. NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE. NOT AT ALL. . UM, IT'S OKAY.
UH, RELATED TO THE TEST FITS THAT WERE PRESENTED, I COULDN'T HELP BUT NOTICE A LOT OF THEM WERE THREE STORIES AND OUR, UM, HEIGHTS ARE STILL RESTRICTED AT 25 FEET FOR WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING. COULD SOMEONE JUST WALK ME THROUGH THE LOGIC THERE ON THE HEIGHT, UM, MAXIMUMS AND WHAT HISTORY MIGHT BE RELEVANT FOR THAT? THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH, [03:25:07] I, I CAN'T RECALL RIGHT NOW. I'M SORRY. I, I JUST COULD NOT RECALL THAT DETAIL. SO I'M WAITING TO SEE ASHER DESIGNED THE TEST FITS. I'M TRYING TO SEE IF HE'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. UM, BUT I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW. ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE AHEAD. OKAY. OKAY. SO, UH, THERE'S NO DECISION POINTS IN CHAPTER FIVE AND CAN I SAY A, A QUICK THING FOR THE RECORD ON CHAPTER FIVE? IT CAME UP IN IN PUBLIC COMMENT A COUPLE TIMES, BUT JUST TO STATE IT MM-HMM . CLEARLY THAT AS WE ARE PROCEEDING THROUGH TONIGHT, IT REPEALS SECTION 5.050, WHICH IS THE EXPIRED THEATER DISTRICT OVERLAY AND REPEALS SECTION 5.070, THE DOWNTOWN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY AND RESERVES THOSE SECTIONS. SO THAT CAME UP AND THAT'S CORRECT. A VARIETY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, THEY'RE REPEALING BOTH OVERLAYS, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. SURE. I JUST WANNA NOTE TOO THAT WE'VE GOT A DECISION FOUR DASH FOUR REMAINING AND UM, IS THAT IN THE EROTA FOUR DASH FOUR OR OKAY, WE, I ACCIDENTALLY SKIPPED DECISION FOUR DASH FOUR. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU ANDREW FOR POINTING THAT OUT. WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN FOUR DASH FOUR WHICH IS, UH, A USE THAT IS NOT AN ACTIVE USE NEEDS A MINOR USE PERMIT ON A GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGE DOWN FROM A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH RELIEF FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STAFF. RECOMMENDED STRAW POLL. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY, NOW WE'RE GOING TO CHAPTER SEVEN, WHICH HAS DECISION 0.7 DASH ONE AND STAFF HAVE RECOMMENDED KEEPING A BED AND BREAKFAST BY RIGHT IN FOUR MIXED USE ZONES, UH, UNTIL THE PHASE TWO REWRITES, SECTION 7.100 POLL.
ALL RIGHT, UH, THAT'S, UH, UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THAT DECISION POINT. NOW WE ARE INTO CHAPTER 11 WITH DECISION POINT 11 DASH ONE WHERE IT IMPLEMENTS, UH, ACTION LU DASH 6.2 0.3. UM, THIS IS SHARED PARKING REDUCTION AND WE HAD GIVEN DIRECTION IN AUGUST. ON THIS POINT, STAFF RECOMMEND UH, THIS ACTION AND I CAN'T READ THE REST OF WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN. UM, ALRIGHT, SO ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? HEARING? NONE, UH, STRAW POLL TO ACT ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S, UH, SIX ZERO APPROVING DECISION POINT 11 DASH ONE. WE ARE INTO CHAPTER 12, LITTLE FAITH AND I WAS ONE OF LITTLE FAITH IN THINKING THAT WE WERE NOT GONNA MAKE IT TO CHAPTER 12 TONIGHT. , I AM GLAD THAT COMMISSIONER MOSES HAS STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT THAT WAS THE CASE. UM, SO DECISION POINT 12 DASH ONE, UH, THIS IS A QUESTION ON WHETHER TO RETAIN THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT IN, UH, SECTION 12 DASH OR 12.025 OR TO ALLOW IT TO LAPSE. UH, SO ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ACTION ITEM? THIS WAS THE ONE WHERE WE HAD SOME PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT HOW R FIVE WAS 32 PARCELS, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MOVING THIS 60 HEIGHT [03:30:01] LIMIT OVER TO, UH, R HIGH DENSITY, THAT WOULD APPLY TO UPWARDS OF 127 PARCELS, BUT 95 OF THEM ARE IN A PUD. SO TB, SO SORT OF LIKE MAYBE SOME MATH TO BE DONE THERE ON HOW MANY IT WOULD ACTUALLY IMPACT. THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. OKAY. UM, YEAH, I THINK THAT, UH, IF IT'S HIGH DENSITY, I THINK 60 FEET IS FINE, EVEN IF THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING MORE PARCELS IN THE CITY HIGH DENSITY THAN WE USED TO. THIS IS A NEW GENERAL PLAN AND MORE PARTS OF THE CITY ARE CONSIDERED HIGH DENSITY. NOW, IT ALSO, IT ALSO SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT RETAINING THAT 60 FOOT HEIGHT AND THE DENSITY THAT WOULD GO WITH IT WOULD FURTHER ADDRESS THE POINT THAT THE COMMENTER MADE ABOUT THE KNOWN NET LOSS ISSUE.
SO BY RETAINING THIS, UH, THE 60 FOOT, UH, HEIGHT IN THE ZONING CODE, THEN WE WILL, UM, ENSURE THAT THAT WE ARE MEETING WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN SAID WE WERE DOING AS WE ARE IMPLEMENTING THE ZONING CODE. SO, AND JUST TO MAKE THE POINT THAT I ALWAYS MAKE 60 IS, IS THE LIMIT, NOT THE PRESCRIPTION, NOT THE GUARANTEED HEIGHT. SOMEONE MIGHT COME IN WITH A PROJECT THAT'S 30 45, LIKE WE'RE JUST, WE'RE JUST ALLOWING AN ENVELOPE. SO I I RIGHT. AM COMFORTABLE WITH 60. BUT THE, SO, AND, AND I'M GOING TO ASK HEATHER IF SHE WOULD COME UP. THE CHALLENGE THAT WE RUN INTO HERE IS WHEN THIS WAS ADOPTED, THE GENERAL PLAN DID NOT SPECIFY MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. AND SO THROUGH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD MAKE A DECISION TO ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT FROM 45 FEET TO 60 FEET AND COULD DO THAT, UM, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY HEIGHT LIMIT THAT WAS ESTABLISHED. BUT NOW THAT THE GENERAL PLAN ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 45 FEET, STAFF WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAKE A CONSISTENCY, A GENERAL PLAN, CONSISTENCY FINDING ON A PROJECT THAT EXCEEDS 45 FEET BECAUSE THE GENERAL PLAN DOESN'T GIVE US ANY TOOL TO EXCEED 45 FEET IN ORDER FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A DECISION TO ALLOW THAT. AND I ALSO THINK IT CREATES A INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN. AND THEREFORE IT WOULD, UM, COULD REVERT TO THE LEAST, THE MOST PERMISSIVE OF THE TWO GIVEN, UH, A CONFLICT OR A DISCREPANCY THROUGH STATE LAW. THROUGH STATE LAW. RIGHT? YEAH. MM-HMM . JUST, JUST LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE, UH, OVERLAY THAT THE GENERAL PLAN SET A FOUR FOUR FOOT IN THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE ZONING OR, UH, LAND USE DESIGNATION. THEREFORE, SINCE THAT WAS NOW SET IN THE GENERAL PLAN, THE ZONING, IF THE ZONING ALLOWED SOMETHING DIFFERENT, IT WOULD CREATE THAT INCONSISTENCY. UM, WHICH IS NEW FOR US BECAUSE OUR GENERAL PLAN, THE 2008 GENERAL PLAN DIDN'T HAVE HEIGHTS.
UM, BUT UH, IT WAS THE, IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR GENERAL PLAN CONSULTANT TO INCLUDE HEIGHTS IN THE GENERAL PLAN, UM, TO ENSURE THAT THERE WEREN'T DISCREPANCIES. AND THEN CAN YOU REMIND US OF, OF THE CHANGE IN ALLOWABLE DENSITY BETWEEN R FIVE TO WHAT IS NOW A MAXIMUM OF 45 UNITS IN HIGH DENSITY? BECAUSE THERE, THE, THE TRANSLATION FROM R FIVE TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY, I MEAN THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS A PLANNED ZONE CHANGE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN WE CREATED THE, THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONE, WE BASED IT ON THE R FIVE STANDARDS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE GENERAL PLAN, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHANGES TO DENSITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, CORRECT? MM-HMM . BUT I CAN'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD TELL YOU WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE EXISTING AND THE, AND THE NEW GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PULLING IT UP ON MY COMPUTER. MM-HMM . WHERE IS TABLE LU ONE? THE GENERAL PLAN? GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE SETTLEMENT. WHY DID WE SET OURSELVES UP [03:35:01] TO HAVE THAT CONFLICT? THERE'S ENOUGH, SO HEATHER ALLUDED TO IT EARLIER. UM, THERE'S ENOUGH, AND I DON'T KNOW THE CITATION FOR THE STATE LAW, BUT THE GENERAL PRACTICE NOW IS FOR THE GENERAL PLANS UPDATED GENERAL PLANS TO INCLUDE, UM, THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AND SO IT'S REALLY BLURRING THE LINE BETWEEN A GENERAL PLAN AND A, AND A ZONING CODE. UM, AND SO SINCE THE START OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN, UM, INCLUSIVE OF THESE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, HEIGHT, ET CETERA. AND PART OF THIS EXERCISE IS TO BRING OUR VERY, VERY OLD ZONING CODE THAT WASN'T EVEN FULLY UPDATED WITH THE 2008 GENERAL PLAN. SO IT'S VERY OLD. SO SOMETIMES WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE WHERE DIFFERENT REMNANTS IN THIS, IN THE ZONING CODE CAME FROM AND BRING IT UP TO SPEED WITH OUR NEW JOURNAL PLAN. SO THERE ARE GONNA BE INCONSISTENCIES IN SOME WAYS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX.
UM, AS WE'RE UPDATING THE ZONING CODE TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW JOURNAL PLAN, YOU ASK A QUESTION, WHAT, WHAT'S OUR, WHAT'S OUR OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE GENERAL PLAN? I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, RIGHT? IS TO FOLLOW THE GENERAL PLAN'S PARAMETERS. IF WE DON'T, THEN I THINK I'M GETTING AT WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT WHERE, WHAT HAPPENS THEN? WELL, IF THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY, RIGHT? THEORETICALLY SOMEBODY COULD SAY, HEY, THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY. AND WHAT STATE LAW SAYS IS THEY GET TO FOLLOW WHATEVER GIVES THEM THE MOST PERMISSIONS. SO IF ONE PLACE IN THE ZONING CODE SAYS YOU CAN HAVE 60 FEET AND THE GENERAL PLAN SAYS YOU CAN HAVE 45 FEET, RIGHT? THEY'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO ARGUE FOR 60 OR VICE VERSA. BUT I, YEAH, I, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. SO THANK YOU. I, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE OUR EXERCISE WAS TRYING TO LINK THE GENERAL PLAN TO THE CHANGES IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, AND NOW WE'RE OPENING THAT DISCREPANCY UP. AND I'LL JUST ADD A COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ POINT. WE, IF SOMEBODY SAID, HEY, OUR ZONING CODE IS INCONSISTENT RIGHT NOW WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN, WE COULD BE SUBJECT TO A LAWSUIT. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE FAR AND THE OVERLAY. SO OUR ZONING CODE DOES NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN HERE. I MEAN, THAT WAS SOMETHING WE DEFINITELY TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE HAD THOSE ZONING SCOPING MEETINGS WAS LIKE, LET'S NOT SET OURSELVES UP TO HAVE TO CHANGE A NUMBER IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES AND POTENTIALLY CREATE A CONFLICT. SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GOTTEN OURSELVES IN THAT PICKLE. WELL, YES, BUT, BUT THAT, THAT WAS THE SIMILAR, BUT, BUT A BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS THAT WE'RE, IT'S NOT CREATING A NUMBER IN TWO PLACES. IT'S THAT THE GENERAL PLAN IS TELLING THE ZONING CODE WHAT TO DO ON THE MATTER OF BUILDING HEIGHT. SO, SO THE ZONING CODE LOST THE FLEXIBILITY AND THE GENERAL PLAN DIDN'T GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY. UM, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY ABSOLUTE WHEN IT COMES TO BUILDING HEIGHTS.
SO THE, THE QUESTION ABOUT THE NO NET LOSS, IF, IF WE, WELL, WHEN WE STRIKE THIS, I THINK I, I WOULD OFFER THAT WE HAVE TO STRIKE IT BECAUSE WE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND THAT A BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEEDING 45 FEET IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. AND WE COULDN'T FIND THAT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD PROVIDE A PATHWAY FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCEED 45 FEET WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. SO THEN IF, IF WE ACCEPT THAT, THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES DO WE HAVE A NO NET LOSS ISSUE? AND THE R FIVE ZONING DISTRICT OR THE, THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT WAS UPDATED, THE ONE THAT THE R FIVE ZONE WAS BASED UPON, ALLOWED FOR A MAXIMUM OF 30 UNITS PER ACRE. THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE THAT IS REPLACING IT, THAT UNDERLYING LAND USE DESIGNATION ALLOWS FOR A MAXIMUM OF 45 UNITS PER ACRE. SO WE'VE INCREASED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY BY 15 UNITS PER ACRE. AND BASED UPON THE DATA THAT WERE PROVIDED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'VE ALMOST DOUBLED THE NUMBER OF PARCELS THAT HAVE THAT HIGHER ALLOWABLE DENSITY. [03:40:01] SO I THINK THAT WE COULD, WE COULD SAFELY MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT EVEN IF WE REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THIS DISCRETIONARY TOOL TO ALLOW FOR A 15 FOOT INCREASE IN MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, WE'VE STILL SO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND THE NUMBER OF PARCELS TO WHICH THAT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY IS ASSIGNED IN A WAY THAT, THAT THERE'S, THERE'S NO POSSIBILITY FOR NO NET LOSS. SO THEN THE CONFLICTS COMES DOWN TO, WE'VE BEEN SORT OF PITCHING RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY AS A REPLACEMENT FOR R FIVE, BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY PULL ALL OF R FIVES TRAITS FORWARD. WELL, IT DOESN'T APPLY, IT DOESN'T PULL FORWARD THIS, UM, FLEXIBILITY FOR A MODIFICATION. AND THE REASON THAT IT DOESN'T IS BECAUSE OUR EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DOESN'T HAVE HEIGHTS. IT, THIS IS BASED ON WHEN YOU SAY OUR EXISTING GENERAL PLAN, YOU MEAN 20 20, 20 25, NO, 2025 DIDN'T, DOESN'T HAVE BUILDING HEIGHTS. IT JUST, THAT WAS REGULATED IN ZONING. RIGHT.
GENERAL PLAN DID DENSITY. THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS DONE IN 2008. AND SO THIS SECTION IN THE ZONING CODE DIDN'T CREATE A CONFLICT BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THE GENERAL PLAN ABOUT BUILDING HEIGHTS. AND NOW GENERAL PLAN 2040 DOES SPEAK TO BUILDING HEIGHTS. CORRECT. SO NOW THIS OLD SECTION OF THE CODE ACTUALLY, IT, IT'S A CONFLICT AND I DON'T ACTUALLY, THE ONLY WAY WE WOULD'VE GOTTEN AROUND THAT IS TO SAY EVERYTHING IN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CAN BE 60 FEET. AND WE DID, WE DIDN'T DO THAT. IT WASN'T ADOPTED THAT WAY. THAT WASN'T PART OF THE DISCUSSION. UM, AND SO NOW WE HAVE TO BRING, THERE ARE THESE AREAS IN THE EXISTING ZONING CODE THAT NEED MASSAGE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A NEW GENERAL PLAN AND IT'S A NEW ERA AND DIFFERENT THINGS ARE IN THE GENERAL PLAN. AND THIS IS, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE. OKAY. THEN I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE THAT IF, IF THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN DOES COMMENT ON HEIGHT AND WE HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH IT, THEN WE HAVE TO STICK WITH WHAT IT SAYS. EVEN IF THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE WAS LIKE IN THEORY PITCHED AS AN R FIVE MM-HMM . IT DOESN'T MODERN . RIGHT. UM, WHAT IT DOES DO, WE MISSED THAT 15 FEET. RIGHT. AND WHAT IT DOES DO IS THE, THE BASE STANDARDS STAY THE SAME. THIS EXCEPTION THAT IS IN THE CODE, UH, THE ABILITY TO MODIFY WITH CERTAIN FINDINGS IS THE SPECIFIC COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN, DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? NO, JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN TERMS OF OUR DISCUSSION. SORRY. SO, NO, IT'S GOOD. UM, 'CAUSE OTHERWISE WE WOULD'VE DONE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE CREATED MORE PROBLEMS FOR US DOWN THE LINE. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE CAN DO IS NOT MUCH EXCEPT FOR ADOPT WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN SAYS AS AND NOW INTEGRATE THAT INTO WHAT THE ZONING CAN, CAN WE ASK STAFF THAT QUESTION? HAVE WE EXHAUSTED ALL OPTIONS? IS THE GENERAL PLAN A BLACK AND WHITE 45 FOOT MAXIMUM ACROSS THE BOARD, OR OUR DENSITY BONUS IS GONNA COME BACK INTO PLAY HERE AND STATE LAW KIND OF TRUMP THAT SOME OTHER WAY?
WELL, SURE, CERTAINLY YOU COULD USE, UM, YOU COULD USE DENSITY BONUS TO ACHIEVE IT. YOU KNOW, YOU COULD EVEN, UM, SET UP OTHER, OTHER TOOLS, YOU KNOW, UM, FOR INSTANCE YOU COULD ADD SOME SORT OF, OF, YOU KNOW, INCENTIVES LIKE THAT TO YOUR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. SO I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COMPLIANCE, UH, COMPLIANCE WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE TO CONSTRUCT THE UNITS AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFIES YOU FOR DENSITY BONUS. SO YOU GET THE INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS OUT OF DENSITY BONUS JUST BY THE CITY REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. SO IT, IT IS, IT IS INTERESTING. IT, IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO BUILD LOCAL INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS TO INCENTIVIZE THE SORT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU DO WANT, YOU KNOW, IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN TARGET THEM AND CONTROL THEM, UM, AND, AND MAKE THEM APPEALING TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. UM, RATHER THAN ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, OR, OR OFF, OR RATHER THAN HAVING THE ONLY OPTION BE STATE DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS WHERE THE CITY'S, THE CITY'S HANDS ARE BASICALLY TIED. SO THAT'S A REALLY GREAT POINT. THERE'S [03:45:01] NO, THERE'S NO OPTION IN THE GENERAL PLAN AROUND IT. AND I THINK IF WE GO BACK TO THE A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN, WE WERE ABLE TO CATCH THAT BEFORE THE GENERAL PLAN WAS ADOPTED. AND WE WERE ABLE TO SEE THAT THE WAY THAT THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION WAS SET UP, IT WASN'T GOING TO ALLOW FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO REALLY THAT'S WHAT 3.2 0.6 DID WAS IT, IT IT INTEGRATED THAT FLEXIBILITY INTO THE GENERAL PLAN HERE. UM, WE DON'T HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY TOOL BUILT INTO THE GENERAL PLAN, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT, AT FINDING OTHER TOOLS TO USE. WAS GPAC LIKE ENTIRE GENERAL PLAN, DID IT YIELD A CEILING AT 45 FEET?
I'M, I'M, I GUESS I'M CURIOUS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMMUNITY'S FINDINGS WERE AFTER THAT FULL PROCESS AND HOW, LIKE IF WE OVERRULED THAT OR UNDERMINED IT BY STARTING TO TALK ABOUT INCENTIVES OR BONUSES, IS THAT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITIES, WHAT THE COMMUNITY CAME UP WITH FOR THE GENERAL PLAN? SO HEIGHT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AS YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW. UM, NOT SPECIFICALLY WITH THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UM, MORE IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE, UM, WITH SOME OF THE MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS AND MOSTLY SIX STORIES AND ABOVE. UM, SO THAT HAS BEEN MUCH OF THE CONVERSATION. UM, WE DID DO SOME OUTREACH KIND OF PREFERENCES IN CERTAIN OF THE AREAS OF CHANGE. UM, LIKE WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, WHAT TYPE OF USES, WHAT DO YOU LIKE, WHAT DON'T YOU LIKE? SOME OF THAT, BUT AGAIN, I CAN'T RECALL THAT AREAS WITH THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SPECIFICALLY WERE IN MANY OF THOSE AREAS OF CHANGE THAT I, IT WAS MOSTLY THE MIXED USE AREAS OR THE UM, LIKE, UH, 15 MINUTE NEIGHBORHOOD NODES. UM, SO I DON'T THINK THAT SPECIFICALLY CAME UP. THERE ALSO HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, THE DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS OR STATE LAW. SO THO THOSE ARE WHAT, WHAT THEY ARE. AND WE'VE BEEN VERY, UM, EXPLICIT ABOUT THAT TOO THAT, UM, THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CONTROL OVER, UM, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS, BUT I'LL JUST SAY, LOOKING AT THE MAP, THERE'S LIKE NOT A TON OF RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY. YEAH, CERTAINLY NONE IN GROWTH AREAS. IT'S A LOT DOWNTOWN. IT'S A LOT THAT'S ALREADY IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY ANYWAY. SO LIKE IF I COULD CUT US TO THE CHASE HERE. I THINK WE HAVE TO GIVE A THUMBS UP TO THE 45 BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. THERE'S A VARIETY OF OTHER ZONES MIXED USE THAT GO HIGHER. SO THERE'S LIKE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES THERE.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY, IT SEEMS LIKE OUR, OUR SORT OF CHOICES MADE HERE THAT WE HAVE TO STAY 45 TO REMAIN CONSISTENT AND IT'S KIND OF A MOOD POINT ANYWAY SINCE IT'S MOSTLY DEVELOPED LAND ALREADY. AND ONE THING I WILL ADD IS ONE THING THROUGH THE GENERAL PLAN PROCESS AND THROUGH THE ZONING CODE IS WE DID TAKE, UM, OPTIONS TO DO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED OUT OF OUR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS BECAUSE THE WAY OUR CODE WAS SET UP, IF YOU COULD DO A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED IN THE LOWEST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, IT CARRIED THROUGH ALL OF 'EM, IT WOULD ADD ON, BUT IT WOULDN'T SUBTRACT THE HOUSING TYPES. UM, AND SO THAT IS ONE THING TO MORE EFFICIENT USE OF THOSE HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS. ALRIGHT, I'M GONNA BRING THIS UP FOR A STRAW VOTE NOW, AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A STRAW VOTE ON REPEALING SECTION 12.025. YOU, YOU'VE GOT A FLUMMOX LOOK ON YOUR FACE. IS I, I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S LIKE THE PROPER WAY TO DO THIS FOR STAFF IS REPEALING TO, OKAY. YEAH. AND THEN THE GENERAL PLAN HOLDS AT 45. YEAH. OKAY. RIGHT. SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD STRIKE ALL OF THE TEXT IN, UM, THAT SECTION AND THEN RENAME THAT SECTION RESERVED. AND SO WE HOLD IT THEN FOR FUTURE USE AND WE'VE ELIMINATED THE CONFLICT SIMPLY BY REPEALING THAT SPECIFIC SECTION. CORRECT. OKAY. UM, IT'S 10 O'CLOCK AND I SAID I WOULD, UH, UH, TAKE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE COMMISSION [03:50:01] ON WHERE WE ARE, UM, HOW MUCH WE HAVE LEFT TO COVER. UM, I'M, I'M GONNA ASK, UH, WHAT, WHAT COMMISSIONER'S PREFERENCES ARE? COUNCILMAN BARN'S PRE PREFERENCE? COMMISSIONER SCHU? NO, I'M JUST, I'M LOOKING AT HOW STAFF RANKED OUR, OUR JOB HERE, UHHUH AND UM, YOU KNOW, WE DID THE JUDGMENT CALLS, BUT WE HAVE SO MANY IN THAT THIRD RANK, THE ONE RUN RUN RUNG UNDER IT. SO IT'S GETTING LATE. MY MOUTH ISN'T WORKING. AND SO, UM, I'M WONDERING, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GIVE IT THE, TO BE HONEST, THE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION THAT I CAN GIVE IT, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
I, I THINK THE LAST THING WE WANNA DO IS RUSH THROUGH THIS AND I THINK TAKING TIME, 'CAUSE THE WHOLE PROCESS HAS FELT RUSHED TO ME AND SO, AND YOU'VE SLOWED IT DOWN REALLY NICELY. SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO SPEND SOME MORE TIME WITH IT RATHER THAN RUSHING THROUGH IT. I, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN GETTING IT DONE, I'D RATHER GET IT DONE. RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. UH, UH, OTHERS THOUGHTS? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SCHU. I'M, I'M GOOD WITH PUSHING ON FOR A WHILE LONGER. UM, I AM VERY COGNIZANT OF HOW MUCH WORSE WE GET. THE LATER IT BECOMES, WE JUST ARE GONNA SLOW DOWN AND POTENTIALLY GET MORE, UH, JUST LESS APT AT BEING ABLE TO DIGEST ALL THIS INFORMATION AND MAKE GOOD DECISIONS. SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE THING THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT IF AT ANY POINT WHERE FEELING ANYONE IS FEELING THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO DO AS GOOD OF A JOB AS THEY NORMALLY CAN, PLEASE JUST ANNOUNCE THAT OR LET US KNOW SO THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. I JUST FEEL LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER, IF WE COME BACK, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER HOUR AND A HALF PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'RE GONNA SIT THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HEAR FROM TWO OR THREE PEOPLE AGAIN. AND I JUST FEELS LIKE IF WE CAN, LET'S TRY AND PLUG THROUGH THIS. UM, I DON'T WANT TO GET IT DONE WRONG. I JUST ALSO, UM, WANNA NOT SIT THROUGH THE SAME PRESENTATION AGAIN. I GUESS, DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PRESENTATION AGAIN? CAN WE JUST STOP AND GO FROM HERE? YES. BECAUSE WE'RE JUST DELAYING THE, WE'RE NOT REALLY, WE'RE JUST MOVING TO HEARING. IT'S JUST THE DECISION MAKING, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE WE'RE FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE WRITTEN, RIGHT? AND, AND THEY'VE BEEN PUBLISHED. WHAT HAPPENED IN TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION WAS WE HAD TO, WE STILL HAD NEW STUFF TO FINISH UP SOME NEW STUFF AND WE WENT BACK AND REVISITED SEPTEMBER 15TH, BUT WE COULD REALISTICALLY COME INTO THE NEXT MEETING JUST READY TO TAKE ON, UM, YOU KNOW, THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT IS, IT WOULD BE DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, THE MAKER MICRO ZONE, WHICH, WHICH IS A NEW ZONE. THERE'S A LOT OF MECHANICS, UM, TO HOW THAT GETS OPERATIONALIZED. UH, THE DATA CENTER DEFINITION WOULD BE PART OF THAT, THAT CONVERSATION. UM, CHAPTER 24, THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW EXEMPTION, UM, WOULD BE ONE OF THE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION. SO THERE'S, THERE'S SEVERAL BIG TOPICS THERE, UM, THAT, THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT BE MORE COMFORTABLE, UM, DELAYING DISCUSSION ON TO HAVE MORE TIME TO REVIEW THEM AND TO POSE QUESTIONS TO STAFF. IF WE WERE TO DELAY, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS OF THIS WHOLE, UH, PROJECT ? MM-HMM . UH, THERE'S DEFINITELY DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS. UM, IF WE DO DECIDE TO IDENTIFY A THIRD, I WOULD RECOMMEND A DATE CERTAIN SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO THEN RE-NOTICE AND START OVER. SO I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON THE FULL DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ONCE WE IDENTIFY A DATE THAT WORKS FOR THE COMMISSION TO, TO COME BACK POTENTIALLY. AND ANDREW, LET ME KNOW IF YOU'RE WRONG, BUT YOU ARE OUT PART OF OCTOBER. AND I'LL JUST ADD FROM, SORRY, FROM THE BROWN ACT PERSPECTIVE, UH, WE DO HAVE TO DO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR A NEW MEETING, BUT FOR THE ITEM WE'VE ALREADY DONE PUBLIC COMMENT, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN IF WE DON'T WANT TO. SO COMMISSIONER MOSES, I'LL THROW OUT A, UM, HYPOTHETICAL 10. SO OCTOBER 6TH WOULD BE NEXT TUESDAY. WE ARE CURRENTLY SET FOR, UM, COUNCIL ON THE 19TH OF OCTOBER. SO THAT GOES OUT THE WINDOW. UM, WE [03:55:01] WOULD NEED, UH, ESSENTIALLY FOUR, 12 OR 14 DAYS TO NOTICE, UM, THE COUNCIL MEETING. UM, AND WE CAN'T DO THAT UNTIL WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THAT PUTS THE FIRST READ AT THE EARLIEST, UM, NOVEMBER 2ND IN FRONT OF COUNSEL. AND THIS IS A TWO READ ORDINANCE, SO IT NEEDS TWO READINGS. HOW MUCH IS ALL THIS GONNA GET RE-LITIGATING WITH COUNSEL ANYWAY? TBDI GUESS WE DUNNO, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE IT SET UP AS ONE HEARING.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE TO BE REALLY TIGHT TO GET THROUGH IT, UM, IN ONE SITTING. UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE AIMING FOR. SO AGAIN, IF WE ADD THAT THIRD, UM, THIS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT HAS THE, THE DOWNSTREAM IMPACT. SO THAT'S ONE OPTION. THE OTHER OPTION, JUST GIVEN THE CONTENT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN AVAILABLE PUBLICLY, WE COULD POTENTIALLY PAUSE HERE AND JUST TAKE A STRAW POLL ON WHAT WE DO NEED TO DO A, A DEEP DIVE INTO, I WOULD SAY THE MAKER MICRO. ABSOLUTELY. UM, THE OTHER PIECES, I MEAN, IT'S BEEN OUT THERE, I FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED, SO UNLESS THERE'S SOME CONSTERNATION OR SOME ISSUE THAT INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS WANNA OPEN UP, UM, THEY FEEL, YEAH, I JUST OFFER THAT UP FOR CONSIDERATION. COMMISSIONER EBNER, YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? I'D SUPPORT US JUST CONTINUING THIS, SEE HOW LONG WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE DOING THAT FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER HOUR. UM, I'M FADING PRETTY HARD IN TERMS OF MY CAPACITY. UH, I'M, I'M MORE WITH COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ'S POINT THAT I FEEL LIKE I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO BETTER PROCESS AND HANDLE SOME OF THIS STUFF AT A, AT A MEETING. AND I'M AVAILABLE ON THE SIXTH AND THE 13TH FOR A MEETING. BUT YEAH, I'M DONE . SO, OKAY. LET'S, I'M GONNA PROPOSE THAT WE CONTINUE IT, UM, TO, IS IT AUGUST, OCTOBER 6TH IS THE NEXT ONE WE CAN WE JUST FINISH CHAPTER 12. THERE'S LIKE TWO PRETTY EASY YEAH. ONES. SURE. SO LET'S DO CHAPTER, LIKE I THINK WE COULD FINISH CHAPTER 12 AND THEN KICK 24, 28 AND 29 TO OCTOBER 6TH. OCTOBER 13TH. OCTOBER 13TH. WE'VE ALREADY HAD QUORUM CHECK FOR, SO RIGHT. BUT IF WE DO OCTOBER 13TH, I WON'T, I WON'T BE HERE. SO, SO THAT'S THE ONLY, THAT WOULD BE THAT. BUT, BUT HEATHER GITZ WILL BE HERE FOR CHAPTER 29 AND, AND SHE'S THE LEAD ON CHAPTER 29. UM, I CAN LEAVE NOTES ON THE OTHER CHAPTERS SO THAT YOU KNOW BRIAN AND, AND DYLAN CAN STEP IN AND, AND, UM, DYLAN, UH, OCTOBER 6TH ISN'T A REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. CORRECT? IT'D BE A SPECIAL MEETING. SO IT'D BE A SPECIAL MEETING.
AND DO WE KNOW THAT THE CHAMBERS ARE, I MEAN THERE'S MORE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN CONTINUE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN THAT'S NOT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I THERE'S A-A-H-C-P-C MEETING SCHEDULED THAT DAY. YEAH, AT FOUR THOUGH. AND SO THEY'LL PROBABLY BE OUTTA HERE BY SIX. AND THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY STORY OR ADDITION. IT IS KIND OF A SMALL ONE, I THINK. SO THAT WOULD BE DONE BY SIX. YEAH, EASILY BY FIVE ACTUALLY. YEAH. CAN WE CONTINUE, CAN WE SERVE FIVE DYLAN? IF WE CAN CONFIRM A, A, A QUORUM THIS EVENING, CAN WE CONTINUE DO A SPECIAL MEETING ON THE SIXTH? SURE. OKAY. SURE. ASK ONE MORE THING. UM, IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPERTISE OR OPINIONS AND WE'RE LIKE BRINGING THOSE TO THESE, THESE MEETINGS AND IT WOULD BE, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO OFFER TO JUST REACH OUT AND TALK TO EACH ONE OF US ABOUT LIKE, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND CAN, YOU KNOW, THINGS WE HAVE, LIKE I KNOW COMMISSIONER MIR HAS THOUGHTS ABOUT OPEN SPACE AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND LIKE WE'RE GETTING [04:00:01] GOING DEEP ON SOME OF THESE THINGS AND IT WOULD BE GOOD TO JUST LIKE, HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE UP HERE, LIKE WHAT QUESTIONS DO THEY HAVE SO THAT WE DON'T GET UP HERE AND JUST SPIRAL. UM, AND TRY AND LIKE HELP US MOVE THE MEETING ALONG FASTER, UM, BY BRINGING PEOPLE INTO THE PROCESS A LITTLE MORE. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S DO A QUORUM CHECK FOR OCTOBER 6TH. UM, DO YOU WANT ROLL? I'M AVAILABLE. THAT'S SIX. I SEE. LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT FIVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SIX. OKAY. OKAY. SIX. SO DO WE HAVE, WE DO WE HAVE QUORUM WITH FIVE OR SIX? WE HAVE QUORUM WITH UH, FIVE. OKAY. SO WE HAVE QUORUM PLUS ONE RIGHT NOW, WHICH GIVES US, WE'RE GOOD. AND BY HOLDING ON THE SIXTH, WE'RE ABLE TO GET IT TO COUNCIL ON, ON THE PLAN DATE. WELL, ON THE SIXTH THEN, UM, PRESUME THAT THE, THE COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION. WE WOULD, UH, THE NOTICING WOULD PUBLISH ON THE 16TH THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO GO TO COUNSEL ON NOVEMBER 2ND.
SO THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE THE EARLIEST WOULD BE NOVEMBER 2ND. AND THAT WORKS FOR, THAT WORKS FOR THE TIMEFRAME ON GETTING THIS DONE. YEAH. I BELIEVE WE'RE NOT SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT. NO. YEAH, I THINK THE ONLY CONCERN WAS THERE WAS THE PUBLIC WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT DATA CENTERS AND TRYING TO GET THAT THERE WAS THAT MORATORIUM, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARY. SO REALLY I THINK LET'S JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS ARE ALL COMFORTABLE AND HOW THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION AND OKAY. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW HOW IMPACTED THE NOVEMBER 2ND CITY COUNCIL MEETING WOULD BE, BUT I DON'T KNOW. WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT. OKAY. WELL I GUESS WHAT I DON'T WANNA DO IS PUT OURSELVES IN F LINE FOR FURTHER CRITICISM BY LIKE PUSHING FORWARD TO OCTOBER 6TH, SPECIAL MEETING, NOT CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, NOTICED IF THE POINT OF THIS IS TO LIKE, GIVE THE PUBLIC MORE TRANSPARENCY, SHOULD WE JUST STICK TO THE OCTOBER 13TH PLANNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THAT'S LIKE WITHIN OUR NORMAL CADENCE. AND IT'LL BE UNFORTUNATE THAT ANDREW'S NOT AROUND, BUT THAT LIKE MAYBE IS WORTH IT IF IT KEEPS US LOOKING A BIT MORE CONSIDERED AND ABOVE BOARD ON THE, AND I'LL JUST COUPLE ENGAGEMENT. YEAH. ADD NOVEMBER 2ND BEING ELECTION DAY CITY COUNCIL'S GOING TO THE NOVEMBER 9TH. SO WE DO HAVE THAT EXTRA WEEK THAT WE COULD PUBLISH AND STILL MAKE IT WELL, WELL I, I THINK I WOULD, I THINK, I THINK ELECTION DAY IS NOVEMBER 3RD. THE COUNCIL GOES TO THE NINTH BECAUSE IT'S ELECTION WEEK. YEAH. OKAY. SORRY. YEAH. OKAY. SO THEN I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. SO THEN WE GAIN NOTHING BY GOING TO THE SIXTH. WE SHOULD STICK TO THE 13TH IS WHAT I'M HEARING. AND AS COMMISSIONER MOSES POINTS OUT, IT GIVES THE PUBLIC AN EXTRA EXTRA TIME TO, UM, UH, PROCESS AND PARTICIPATE. AND IT LOOKS LIKE ACCORDING TO THE PUBLISHED, UM, SIGNIFICANT AGENDA ITEMS, THEY WERE PLANNING ON OCTOBER 19TH FOR THE FIRST READING NOVEMBER 9TH FOR THE SECOND READING. SO WE WOULD JUST BE KICKING IT BACK ONE CYCLE.
SO IT WOULD BE NOVEMBER 9TH FOR THE FIRST READING AND THEN SECOND READING COULD BE NOVEMBER 16TH OR WOULD IT HAVE TO GO TO DECEMBER 7TH? DECEMBER 21ST? IT DEPENDS ON THE VOTE. SURE. OF THE FIRST READ. OR MAYBE CITY COUNCIL HAS A SPECIAL MEETING COME ON THE BOOKS SO THAT THEY'RE NOT PUT PUSHING IT TOO FAR INTO THE HOLIDAYS. BUT YEAH, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE, WE'VE GOT A FEW MORE TICKS IN THE PRO COLUMN TO STAY ON OCTOBER 13TH, THEN PUSHING, UM, FOR A SPECIAL MEETING ON OCTOBER 6TH, DESPITE THE, THE LOSS OF ANDREW FOR THE 13TH. OKAY. SO LOOKS LIKE WE ARE SETTLED ON CONTINUING TO OUR REGULAR SCHEDULE MEETING ON, ON THE, UH, ON THE 13TH. YES. THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONSENSUS. AND I WOULD JUST ADD THAT WE SHOULD [04:05:01] JUST FINISH UP CHAPTER 12 'CAUSE THERE'S JUST A COUPLE LITTLE THINGS AND THEN WE CAN FOCUS ON 24, WHICH IS THE SPAR EXEMPTION 28, WHICH IS DATA CENTERS AND 29, WHICH IS MAKE OR MICRO THREE MEATY CHAPTERS ON OCTOBER 13TH, GIVING THEM THEIR FULL DUE. OKAY. AND NO PRESENTATION. SO, AND ABBREVIATED PRESENTATION WE HAVE, WE HAVE 12 DASH TWO AND THAT'S IT FOR, FOR CHAPTER 12. SO LET'S TAKE UP 12 DASH TWO. GREAT. SO, UH, BRIEFLY 12 DASH TWO IS, UM, IN CHAPTER 12, SECTION 12.030, THERE'S AN ALLOWANCE FOR A MODIFICATION TO REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK THE WAY THAT IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN. UH, IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE YOUR FRONT SETBACK, YOU CAN DO THAT BY CALCULATING THE AVERAGE OF THE TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SITE WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED. THAT'S A VERY NARROW AVERAGE TO TAKE. AND, UM, WE OFTENTIMES FIND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THAT USEFUL AND IT DOESN'T REALLY REFLECT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN EXHIBITED ALONG THE ENTIRE BLOCK FACE OR, OR SEGMENT OF A STREET. SO WHAT 12.030, UM, PROPOSES IS THAT WE WOULD EXPAND THE, UM, THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT AVERAGE TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE PROPERTIES ON THE BLOCK FACE WHERE THE SUBJECT SITE IS PROPOSED.
SO IT EXPANDS IT TO BECOME AN AVERAGE OF THE SETBACKS OF ALL OF THE PROPERTIES ALONG THAT SEGMENT OF A STREET AND THEN ALLOWS THE REDUCTION TO BE DOWN TO THAT AVERAGE. UM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE THAT, THAT CAN ALWAYS CONTINUE TO, TO USE, UH, UH, ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN BECAUSE IT IS A MINIMUM SETBACK, NOT A MAXIMUM. SO, SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IN 12.030 IS IS CLARIFYING WE EXPAND FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE BLOCK FACE. THAT SEEMS VERY REASON REASONABLE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON 12 DASH TWO THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE? I THINK IT'S A NICE WAY TO, UH, EXPAND YOUR DEFINITION OF A BLOCK. YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST YOUR, YOUR NEIGHBOR'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR. IT'S THE WHOLE STREET. SO LET'S, LET'S TREAT IT THAT WAY. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THEN A STRAW POLL TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ALRIGHT. 12 TWO IS UNANIMOUS. OH, THERE ISN'T, YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S JUST 12 TWO. 12 THREE. WAS THIS 0.3 IS JUST A HEADS UP, RIGHT? OH, THEN WE'RE DONE WITH 12. GREAT JOB, EVERYBODY. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT TEAM. UH, SO WE WILL, UM, ADJOURN CHAIR. WE SHOULD MAKE A MOTION. DO I NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN? UH, LET'S A MOTION TO CONTINUE AND THEN ADJOURN. YEAH. MOTION TO CONTINUE. AND THEN AJOUR, OR YOU DON'T NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 13TH. THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6:00 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I SECOND. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MOSES AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN. UM, I'LL, UH, ROLL CALL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER EBNER AYE. COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER HILT? YES. COMMISSIONER MOSES? YES. COMMISSIONER GAU. ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE. AYE. CHAIR NEWELL? YES. MOTION CARRIED. ALRIGHT, WE'RE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.