Name: Petaluma General Plan Advisory Committee meeting, Feb 16, 2023
Start: 2023-02-16
End: 2023-02-16
Location: City of Petaluma

General Plan Advisory Committee

Thu, February 16, 2023

Agenda PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

General Plan Advisory Committee — February 16, 2023

This was a regular advisory meeting of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), notable for welcoming five new members and focusing heavily on required revisions to Petaluma's Draft Housing Element based on comments received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Christina Paul, the principal policy planner, was absent due to illness; Heather Hines filled in to lead the presentation.

Member Introductions

The meeting opened with introductions from all GPAC members — new and returning — along with city and consultant staff. New members include Lizzie Wallach (art, design, and architecture background), Elda Vasquez (20-year Petaluma resident and community advocate), Kevin Kelly (retired federal architect and urban designer), Yancey (youth advocate, resident since 2019), and Sharon Kirk (land use policy advocate and Petaluma Urban Chat member). Returning members represent a wide range of expertise including affordable housing, environmental justice law, climate adaptation, civil engineering, architecture, and community organizing. Staff introductions included Heather Hines (Special Projects Manager, City of Petaluma), Ron Whitmore (principal consultant, Raimi & Associates), Michelle (Raimi project support), and Eugene (newly hired associate planner, City of Petaluma).

Project and Staff Updates

Ron Whitmore provided a brief overview of concurrent General Plan Update workstreams:

Greenhouse Gas / Climate Action Planning: Draft action plans by sector are being finalized ahead of public engagement.

Sea Level Rise / Flood Mapping: Updated modeling by West Consulting and Sherwood is in final stages; public outreach on results is upcoming.

Policy Frameworks: The bulk of draft goals and policies have been written and are under city review; a handful await completion of the flood mapping.

In-Person Meetings: The city is considering transitioning GPAC back to in-person meetings. Members were asked to watch for an email survey from Eugene soliciting individual feedback on this question.

City Council Goal-Setting Workshop: A special City Council meeting is scheduled for March 13 to set annual priorities; GPAC members were encouraged to attend given the connection to General Plan work.

Housing Element Revisions and Adoption

This was the main agenda item. Heather Hines presented a summary of HCD's comment letter (received January 27, 2023, the 90th day of the state's review period) and proposed staff responses. The city is on track to bring the housing element to the Planning Commission on March 14 and to City Council for adoption on March 20, after which the final adopted document will be submitted to HCD for certification.

Background: Petaluma's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023–2031 cycle is 1,910 units spread across income categories. The city's site inventory demonstrates capacity for approximately 3,241–3,257 units, providing a buffer above the RHNA minimum.

Data/Technical Responses (no policy change required):

Several HCD comments simply asked for additional data or documentation. Staff is addressing these administratively:

Adding 2018 ADU permitting data, which reduces the projected annual ADU average from 18 to 16 units per year — a minor change that does not affect the city's ability to meet its RHNA.

Providing evidence that 80% of recent downtown development applications included residential uses, supporting the reasonableness of assuming residential capacity on mixed-use and commercial downtown sites.

Compiling assessor data to support redevelopment assumptions; providing digital site inventory files; adding language on approval timelines, energy conservation measures, and quantified objectives by income category.

Policy Revisions (substantive discussion):

*Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units:* HCD asked the city to explicitly permit SROs in zoning code. Staff proposed committing to a zoning text amendment (by December 2024) to allow SROs wherever multi-family housing is permitted. The Planning Commission supported this. GPAC discussion pushed further: multiple members (Bill Reinhardt, Josh, Ali Gaylord) recommended SROs be conditionally permitted in all zones, not just multi-family and non-residential districts, particularly given that SRO residents are unlikely to own cars and need proximity to transit and services. Sharon Kirk raised the distinction between purpose-built SROs and informal room-rental arrangements. Jesse Feller asked whether the zoning amendment could be extended to institutional/civic zoning districts (e.g., church properties), and Heather agreed this was worth exploring in the future amendment process.

*Private Open Space Requirements:* HCD flagged Petaluma's requirements — ranging from 30 to 400 square feet per unit depending on zone — as a barrier to housing production and asked the city to commit to reducing them. Staff proposed committing to a zoning text amendment to analyze and reduce these minimums, aligned with regional trends, also by December 2024. This generated significant discussion. Kevin Kelly and Mary argued that private open space is a livability essential, not merely a development constraint, and cautioned against reducing requirements in ways that produce unusable or token spaces. Bill Reinhardt suggested recalibrating requirements by housing type and unit size (e.g., larger units should require more open space), increasing minimum dimensions rather than just reducing square footage, and allowing balcony encroachments into rights-of-way. Lizzie Wallach suggested that any reduction in private open space should be offset by increased communal/shared open space requirements. Sharon Kirk noted that ADUs already have a 100 sq ft standard as precedent. Heather clarified that the state is unlikely to accept non-compliance on this point, making some commitment to reduction necessary. The Planning Commission also raised concerns about heat island effects and community character.

*Parking Requirements:* HCD identified Petaluma's parking minimums as a constraint on housing production, particularly for smaller units. Staff proposed strengthening the housing program language to commit to eliminating the current 1.5 spaces/unit minimum and developing new context-sensitive standards based on unit size and proximity to transit. This aligns with a broader parking reform effort already underway. GPAC members were broadly supportive. Sharon Kirk and Josh advocated for switching to parking maximums rather than minimums. Sharon also suggested the policy reference incentives for on-site bike parking, including e-bikes, and asked about lifting parking requirements for single-family homes that could add units. Roger noted that reducing parking only works if alternative transportation infrastructure (particularly separated bike facilities) is actually funded and built, and questioned whether the two commitments would truly be linked.

*Residential Care Facilities:* Current code restricts these uses to upper floors or behind active ground-floor uses in commercial/mixed-use zones. HCD said this restriction creates barriers to housing for people with disabilities. Staff proposed allowing residential care facilities in those zones via conditional use permit, without the floor restriction. Bill Reinhardt expressed concern about allowing residential care in active retail storefronts, preferring sidewalk-entrance upper-floor access. Mary initially shared that concern but acknowledged she may have been picturing a different type of facility. Josh argued in favor of removing restrictions given the city's track record of 100%-commercial mixed-use projects in practice.

*Strengthening Program Language:* HCD asked for more specific, measurable commitments in Housing Programs 3, 4, and 7, replacing vague language like "explore" or "consider" with firm commitments and deadlines. Staff has revised Attachment F accordingly. The December 2024 target date for zoning code amendments is tied to the city's anticipated comprehensive zoning code overhaul concurrent with General Plan adoption.

Additional GPAC Comments:

Ali Gaylord requested a formal commitment to convene working groups — potentially including GPAC members — during the zoning code amendment process to assist with implementation of housing element policies.

Roberto raised broader concerns about whether increased density has been evaluated against long-term resource constraints, particularly water, wastewater, and transportation infrastructure. Heather and Ron acknowledged this is a key part of the upcoming land use and settlement pattern discussions in the General Plan, where utility capacity will be formally analyzed.

Roger echoed this, noting that some of the densest sites in the inventory may be in areas vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding — an issue the climate change subgroup has been tracking.

Chris Rebelow highlighted several positive aspects of the housing element, including provisions for farm worker and service worker housing, partnerships with religious institutions, and language supporting intergenerational rather than age-segregated senior housing.

Bill Reinhardt asked why Housing Program 1 references facilitating 3,257 units rather than the 1,910 RHNA number. Ron and Heather agreed to follow up with consultant Veronica Tam for a formal written clarification, but noted that HCD holds cities accountable to meeting RHNA, not to building every unit in the inventory buffer.

Public Comment:

One member of the public, Matt Heinz, spoke in favor of addressing the housing growth through comprehensive bike and pedestrian infrastructure — specifically contiguous frontage paths along Highway 101 and improved connections under the freeway on Washington Street — as essential to serving low-income and disabled residents who cannot rely on cars.

*This was an advisory meeting; no binding votes were taken.*

Key Takeaways

Housing Element adoption is imminent. The city plans Planning Commission action on March 14 and City Council adoption on March 20, 2023, with submission to HCD for final certification to follow.

Five policy revisions are being made in response to HCD comments, covering SROs, private open space minimums, parking minimums, residential care facility restrictions, and strengthened program language — all with a December 2024 deadline for corresponding zoning code amendments.

GPAC pushed for broader SRO allowances than staff proposed, recommending conditional permitting across all zones rather than limiting to multi-family and non-residential districts.

Open space and parking changes generated the most debate, with members cautioning that density goals must not come at the expense of livability, human-scale design, or adequate active transportation infrastructure.

Broader resource and climate concerns — water capacity, infrastructure strain, and flood vulnerability of high-density sites — were flagged by multiple members as critical lenses for the upcoming General Plan land use discussions, which will be the next major phase of GPAC's work.

AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.

What happened at this meeting

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by staff. Heather opened the meeting and welcomed attendees, noting that Christina was absent due to sick babies. Ron Whitmore, principal consultant for the Petaluma General Plan update project, was introduced to help facilitate the meeting alongside Heather.

ROLL CALL, LOGISTICS AND MEETING OVERVIEW

Ron Whitmore conducted roll call and confirmed attendance of GPAC members including new members Kevin Kelly and Elda. He provided a comprehensive logistics overview covering technical procedures such as closed captioning, audio options, muting protocols, camera requirements, and the raise hand function for speaking. Staff also reminded participants to contact Daniel Harrison as Zoom Host for technical support and to speak slowly while minimizing acronyms to assist interpreters. Ron emphasized the importance of spelling out acronyms upon first use and noted that the meeting's primary focus would be discussing the housing element with the goal of bringing potential revisions to GPAC's attention before final Planning Commission and Council consideration.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT During General Public Comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the Committee’s subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed on the current agenda. Public comments are limited to two minutes per person. Depending on the number of persons wishing to address the Committee, time will be allocated in equal shares totaling no more than twenty minutes. During General Public Comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the Committee's subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed on the current agenda. Public comments are limited to two minutes per person. Depending on the number of persons wishing to address the Committee, time will be allocated in equal shares totaling no more than twenty minutes.

# General Public Comment Summary

General public comment was opened with standard guidelines limiting speakers to three minutes, with threats and obscene language as grounds for removal. Daniel Harrison, the Zoom Host, initially found no members of the public wished to comment. Public comment was later reopened, during which Matt Heinz testified in support of adding housing units to Petaluma but emphasized the need for adequate mobility infrastructure. Heinz recommended prioritizing connected bike and pedestrian pathways, including frontage roads along Highway 101 on both sides and utilizing existing paths like the informal route under the freeway on Washington Street. He stressed that comprehensive infrastructure is essential for addressing climate change, environmental impact, and accessibility for disabled and low-income residents, warning that some developments may miss opportunities to connect to citywide pathways.

GPAC Member Introductions Self introductions from new and existing GPAC members

# GPAC Member Introductions Summary

GPAC welcomed five new members and conducted self-introductions from both new and existing members in reverse alphabetical order. New members brought diverse expertise including Lizzie Wallach (art, design, and architecture background), Elda Vasquez (20+ year resident), Josh (community organizer in tech), Bill Reinard (former developer and park designer), and Chris Rebelow (seniors and age-friendly initiatives advocate), while existing members shared their motivations for continued service, such as Bill Walpert's experience from the last General Plan update 15-20 years ago. The broader group demonstrated extensive professional backgrounds spanning environmental law (Brent Newell), urban planning (Jesse Feller with 20 years experience, Kevin Kelly as retired GSA architect), affordable housing (Ali Gaylord), civil engineering (Dave Alden), and climate action (Roger, a water engineer leading the city's climate change committee). City staff also introduced themselves, including Heather Hines (Special Projects Manager with 13 years at the city), new associate planner Eugene (Master's in City Planning from Berkeley), and moderator Daniel Harrison. Members collectively emphasized their commitment to public service and community engagement across expertise areas including development, environmental protection, social justice, housing, climate adaptation, and youth representation.

HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS AND ADOPTION a. GPU Team presentation summarizing possible Housing Element revisions based on HCD comments Planning Commission Staff Report, February 14, 2023 ATTACHMENT A - Petaluma Draft Housing Element Letter ATTACHMENT B - Draft Housing Element ATTACHMENT C - Planning Commission Staff Report, September 13, 2022 ATTACHMENT D - City Council Staff Report, October 3, 2022 ATTACHMENT E - Posted revisions to Draft Housing Element ATTACHMENT F - Revisions to Housing Programs in track changes ATTACHMENT G - Public comment letters received b. Clarifying questions from GPAC members c. Public comment d. GPAC discussion

# PROJECT AND STAFF UPDATES: General Plan Update and Housing Element

Staff provided comprehensive updates on General Plan Update initiatives, including greenhouse gas climate action planning with a 2030 Net Zero goal, refined flood and sea level rise mapping by West Consulting and Sherwood, and the policy framework phase currently under city review before public engagement. The Housing Element revision process, Petaluma's sixth cycle covering 2023-2031, is nearing completion after the State Department of Housing and Community Development returned mandatory review comments on January 27th; staff is addressing HCD feedback on topics including accessory dwelling units, single-room occupancies (SROs), parking requirements, private open space standards, and residential care facilities, with Planning Commission review scheduled for March 14th and City Council adoption on March 20th. GPAC members raised substantive concerns regarding density assumptions, utility capacity constraints (water, wastewater, transportation), and whether the proposed zoning changes adequately account for climate change impacts and long-term resource availability, while also providing feedback on specific policies—with members like Ron, Bill Reiner, and Josh advocating for parking maximums rather than minimums, broader SRO permitting across all zones, and increased flexibility for residential care facilities. Staff clarified that the city's zoning already accommodates proposed densities and that the housing capacity buffer of 3,241 units versus the 1,910-unit RHNA target protects against underperforming sites, while acknowledging that the Housing Element can be updated as the broader General Plan process evolves to reflect future density and utility decisions.

Agenda items (7)

Procedural (7)

1ProceduralCALL TO ORDER

What happened

2ProceduralROLL CALL, LOGISTICS AND MEETING OVERVIEW

What happened

3ProceduralGENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT During General Public Comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the Committee’s subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed on the current agenda. Public comments are limited to two minutes per person. Depending on the number of persons wishing to address the Committee, time will be allocated in equal shares totaling no more than twenty minutes. During General Public Comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the Committee's subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed on the current agenda. Public comments are limited to two minutes per person. Depending on the number of persons wishing to address the Committee, time will be allocated in equal shares totaling no more than twenty minutes.

What happened

4ProceduralGPAC Member Introductions Self introductions from new and existing GPAC members

What happened

5ProceduralHOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS AND ADOPTION a. GPU Team presentation summarizing possible Housing Element revisions based on HCD comments Planning Commission Staff Report, February 14, 2023 ATTACHMENT A - Petaluma Draft Housing Element Letter ATTACHMENT B - Draft Housing Element ATTACHMENT C - Planning Commission Staff Report, September 13, 2022 ATTACHMENT D - City Council Staff Report, October 3, 2022 ATTACHMENT E - Posted revisions to Draft Housing Element ATTACHMENT F - Revisions to Housing Programs in track changes ATTACHMENT G - Public comment letters received b. Clarifying questions from GPAC members c. Public comment d. GPAC discussion

What happened

6ProceduralCOMMITTEE MEMBER GENERAL COMMENT Open time for thoughts, reflection, and closing comments from GPAC members

What happened

# GPAC General Comments Summary

During closing remarks on the Housing Element, GPAC members raised diverse perspectives on density, open space, and implementation. Kevin warned against prioritizing density over human-centric design, citing Le Corbusier and European models as alternatives to developments like Emeryville that lack nature access, while Sharon countered that flexibility in open space requirements—as precedent shows with ADU standards—could facilitate desired development. Other members questioned specific policy details: Roger sought examples from Seattle regarding single-family to duplex conversions and whether parking reductions tie to transit funding; Lizzy suggested redirecting private open space requirements to public communal spaces; and Roberto expressed concern that density drivers beyond state mandates weren't clearly justified against existing infrastructure limitations. Conversely, Mary advocated for increasing minimum density requirements in key corridors and downtown rather than reducing open space standards, Josh defended learning from Emeryville's tenant protections despite aesthetic concerns, and Ally requested the city establish working groups with GPAC members for policy implementation. Chris thanked staff for their progressive work, and Heather (staff) expressed enthusiasm for advancing the Housing Element to adoption while committing to continued conversations.

7ProceduralWRAP-UP

Verbatim transcript available

81 transcript segments indexed

foreign she maybe doesn't have volume yet sorry Michelle do you remember if there's a specific setting to allow you to record locally I think there should be if I'm not a couple host [Music] um maybe it comes up after the cloud recording starts yeah I think it's got to be it thank you okay yeah and then pretty members that just joined of gpac if you could uh put uh gpac in your name that'd be great um just click on the three little dots next to your name and should be able to rename Allie what are you doing here I know and look at as she looks uh So Glamorous too I never remember feeling that glamorous that quickly after becoming a mom oh we can't hear you you're muted Ally that's the new Mom glow maybe I don't know we'll keep it going as long as you can [Laughter] thank you but you're still in Florida right amount of time yeah 9 30.

[Music] that's a long way to travel to have a baby if you're telling me [Laughter] I've seen I've seen pictures really really sweet sweet baby so yeah Chris nothing sweeter than a baby yeah she's across the five pound Mark line as of yesterday night so getting bigger every day yay congratulations Ali hey uh Daniel Sharon Kirk is also gpac member and Roberto which gets us Beyond and Elda yes that's a new one too great and Daniel Daniel you were able to let me in via my phone so there'll be two of me I'm trying to get a message no use yeah is that Phil yeah sure yeah thanks for clarification I used the phone for audio and the computer for video thank you all right you got it Hi Brent welcome to the g pack hi Sharon welcome thanks for being here thank you good evening everyone hi Elda happy to have you here there's a little this past 6 30 I see Bill wolfert joining you wanna and Jesse as soon as they arrive you wanna get started sure foreign [Music] so if we want to just let let people in now Danielle and we can just start the meeting I think we're ready to go ahead and start recording yes thanks Heather recording in progress okay hi everybody just wanted to welcome everybody to our next gpac meeting um excited to have our new gpac members joining us tonight um so I just wanted to open the space and say welcome and pleased to be here Christina is out um sick and with sick babies so I am going to try to fill in for her um so bear with me um but we'll I'll hand it over to Ron and

he can kind of kick us off with the logistics great thank you Heather and good evening everybody for the new gpac members my name is Ron Whitmore I'm a principal with Ramey and Associates which is the prime consultant for the Petaluma General Plan update project um and I'll be collaborating with Heather tonight to support your meeting and the first thing we always do is pass it off to our friendly interpreters to um and for Daniel to open an interpretation Channel and get us started in that regard thank you very much interpretation is thank you very much ready to get started thank you and I will quickly do roll call um I think these are listed in alphabetical order I think I saw Dave you're here I'm here Stephanie I believe she's absent Bill Boyle hi Steve nope no Phil okay um all right good night see Phil earlier he's here okay can you see us um Aaron don't forget Aaron's here Mary I think I saw you come in here Sierra I believe is ill Jesse welcome hi Ali welcome and again congratulations [Music] NC I think I saw you earlier yeah and Kevin Kelly a newbie I'm sorry can you see me yes okay I can hear you and I'm here excellent great to meet you uh Sharon Kirk here Roger I'm here Eliana present Roberto here Brent great great to see you Chris here Bill Reinhardt here Josh listen Elda good to see you uh Lizzy here and finally Bill won't bring I'm here okay excellent wow it's a great good size group tonight um and again welcome all the new members we'll have a little opportunity

for everybody to introduce themselves shortly so hold on to your hats um we always start the meetings with a little bit of logistics just to make sure everybody has uh is easily able to navigate these Zoom meetings your reminders closed caption is available and you have that option at the bottom of your screen you're right to join or disconnect from audio you can do that either through your devices audio settings and you can also call in separately on audio the links should be available through the invite once your audio is connected we ask that people please mute themselves just to minimize background noise until it's your turn to speak um to unmute you press the same button if you're calling in my phone you toggle the mute on and off with star six yeah likewise with the video we asked the gpac members please keep their cameras on and members of the public we ask that you keep your video off except during the public comment period when you're testifying often it's helpful with such a large group to use the raise hand function in Zoom depending on your version of Zoom it might be in a few different places um if you're lucky like me it's right at the bottom and just press it sometimes sometimes you have to press the more button or the reactions button to get the raise hand function and also open the window of participants and usually have an option to travel raise handle and just as a note for the public during public comment um Daniel will be asking you to use the raise hand

function to indicate your interest in sharing a comment if anybody is having technical difficulties during the meeting Daniel Harrison who's our Zoom Host this evening can be contacted at the email address on the screen likewise if you're having trouble with the Spanish interpretation Channel you can contact sorry there's a typo here this is not martine's address this is either Monica or Maria's email address um but you can contact somebody at that email address and they'll help you with the interpretation and then finally basically for myself this is a reminder when you're speaking to please speak slowly a lot of hard work for the interpreters to to keep up with us when we're covering a lot of different topics and doing it very quickly likewise they ask that we minimize our use of acronyms and if we are using them to please explain spell them out explain it when we first use the term uh tonight's primary focus is the housing elements we're getting very close to the adoption phase of that process and want to use tonight as an opportunity to bring some potential revisions in the housing element to gpac's attention and get any feedback which will then inform the final PC and Council consideration of the housing element before we get into that we'll do some introductions of gpac members to welcome the five new members tonight and also as usual do some quick project and staff updates okay I will stop sharing screen at this point Daniel turn it over to you for the initial period

of General Public thanks Ron um so we'll Now open up general public comments um if any members of the public do wish to provide a full comment please utilize the raise can feature public comment will be three minutes and just remember to keep it simple uh threats and any obscene language maybe grounds removal from the meeting and let's see if we have any hands raised um I'm not currently seeing any hands let me double check we'll give it a few moments just to see if anyone is thinking about it so right at this time I see no hands raised and I'll turn it back over to you and we'll close general public comment for the time being thanks thank you Daniel and just a reminder for members of the public there will be another opportunity to share public comment um during our main agenda item focused on the housing element okay so uh before we get too far on the agenda we did want to stop and say hello to each other um inviting and welcoming our newest gpac members and so we obviously want to make good use of our time tonight so we don't want to spend a huge amount of time on this but we did want to give a chance for everybody to say hello introduce themselves and just say a little bit about what it is that brought you to the city of petaluma's General plan advisory committee and for no other reason under other than the fact that my last name starts with w and so most of my life in school I always went last or next to last we're going to do this in Reverse alphabetical order so um that

would mean we start with Bill walpert so would you mind saying hello to the new epac members Well Ron I'm I'm surprised you don't recognize me from past meetings but I was just uh relating to your being last in uh roll call because I'm just the same but no I'm uh I've been around for a little while I'm not a new member but we still would like you to share a little bit about what brings you to the gPad just so the new five new members get a little sense oh we're going to go through those for everybody so yeah thank you okay [Music] um well I was involved 15 20 years ago when we did the last update and it was an experience that I um really enjoyed and um I was a fairly new resident of Petaluma at the time and it gave me a great introduction to my community and my city government and I felt that my involvement was worthwhile and impactful and it was something I really enjoyed so I was um glad to have the opportunity to um offer my services for another term thanks Bill I think up next is Lizzy one of our newest members thank you so much I really appreciate starting with the w because my entire life I too was at the bottom of the list um I'm Lizzie Wallach and I have been a resident of Petaluma for just about 10 years I live here with my husband and two children both of whom go to Petaluma City Schools I come with a background in art design architecture and building and have just a real genuine passion for Community engagement and relationship building and in being in a place that

I love and I'm raising my children and I feel really passionate about public service and being able to offer some of my talents up for future planning great thank you and welcome um next up Elda another newbie oh although you're on mute can you hear me now okay hi my name is Elda Vasquez and I live in Petaluma for the past 20 plus years I am a mom of a 23 year old uh 40 year old girl um and I am glad to be with you and you know bring something that can um help my community great thank you welcome and Josh what brought you to the gpac yeah hi um I am a community organizer who Works in Tech and recently found like some stability in my life put down roots in Petaluma in 2016 after floating around Sonoma County and just fell in love with the place the pandemic makes Civic engagement accessible weirdly uh and wonderfully and so learning more I decided uh it's a good time to give back I run events here like North Bay pride co-organizer of that and work with Petaluma Pride so um I don't know it's a community that matters to me and how it's laid out and how we use the space great thank you Josh uh bill reinard uh thanks Ron um let's see well I like to think what I can bring to the gpac is for the first 25 years or so of my career I spent a lot of time working for dastardly developer types picking apart development codes and and I'm trying to figure out how to maximize profitability of land but at the same time I've also been um a park designer an open space planner and so I like to

think that I can speak the language of the developer but but I also speak for the trees so I think um you know and also I love Petaluma and I just I like being involved and I think this has been a great effort thanks great to know we have The Lorax on the gpac thank you Bill uh Chris thank you hey everybody so my name is Chris rebelow I began my Civic engagement on the Petaluma senior advisory committee lived in Petaluma for years I work in Novato I got tired of not knowing people in the community where I lived so that was a natural place for me to go um got involved in spearheading age friendly uh Petaluma so I care a lot about uh I guess people both people of all ages in particular I have a focus on seniors and health welfare and a community that's really representative and um maximizes potential so that's why I'm here thank you Chris uh Brent my name is Brent Newell I I'm glad that the new member of the gpac place that has been Petaluma now for close to 20 years of course that was after moving back from law school I grew up in the north and full of men's basketball went to high school uh went to Cherry Valley oh it was Paul Cherry Valley um anyway it's it's wonderful to be part of this this effort because uh my my professional life is is as an environmental justice lawyer yeah in that role I knew policy advocacy for surprising legislation and Advocates to do a legislation um administrative advocacy before federal state local agencies and also litigation uh primarily the

Clean Air Act false climate for laws including California Environmental Quality act which gives me an interesting lens here as we work through the dental plan process um I'm especially interested in in the way that the general plan is investigating with social justice environmental justice Transportation housing different issues that we Face here and most significantly now to climate uh how we can in our community uh Express that issue while while you know uh supporting uh all of our residents so with that a really glad to join again thank you great thank you Brian welcome Roberto hello everybody I uh coincidentally joined gpac a couple years ago and applied because one of my mentors at work uh recommended that I get involved in local government as well as somebody from the Petaluma city council so simultaneously they're both coincidentally recommended that I joined some level of involvement uh so I I did um and their hopes was that I can apply some of my knowledge in aerospace engineering and high coupled systems into sitting planning in one way or another and my principal interest for joining was to kind of advocate for I guess education within City Planning we haven't touched much on it but it's been a great experience so far to be able to help and provide input and other elements so yeah that's why I joined thank you thank you Roberto Eliana thank you Latina so first of all I want to welcome another person who is a Spanish speaker so I'm very excited this is the reason I

joined to have more voices from underserved under uh under scene here so as a background in urban and public affairs a former youth commissioner former Family Resource Center manager like I feel like everything interconnects I'm very excited to be here with all of you thank you Roger okay I've been here not quite 10 years I'm sure it's on a variety of you know volunteer icon parks and Transit um professionally I'm a water engineer and hydrologist and I do climate change for my work for the county Marin so I've been leading up the climate change committee and so far it's been a committee of two so if anybody's interested we could certainly use more and we're um looking at my area of expertise is really adaptation and uh how we're going to adapt um you know to uh Rising tide levels and changing rainfall um and actually I've been helping the city out recently got a couple meetings with the Consultants that will feed back to this study on the technical study so it's been great so there's a way to be here but also integrate out a little more in the work that's being done around the city great thank you Roger uh Sharon myself there we go um I've been a resident of Petaluma since 1995.

my husband and I raised our kids here they're 34 and 24 so we've got a little generational span there which gives me an interesting perspective they don't always want the same things and uh you know I've been involved in community activities since we moved here so through the through the schools and youth sports the the usual uh routine but I've really enjoyed it and about five years ago when my son graduated high school I joined Petaluma Urban Chat which is focused on on land use policy and practices in the community um and my interest is is really in uh seeing you know ensuring that Petaluma is able to support a variety of people uh in the years to come I really don't want to live in a town that's just made up of people like me so that's uh that's my motivation for being here thank you welcome thank you uh Kevin you're gonna need to unmute yourself sorry yeah how's that okay so I'm Kevin Kelly um these earplugs are not working so I'll take them out um I came to Petaluma in 2004.

uh from Washington DC where I was born and raised and spent my entire life except for three years in Saudi Arabia uh where I was um you know working as an architect with a French company um the reason I am very passionate oh by the way I just retired in uh July 31st I was a senior architect for the public building service of the national GSA and as in that role I could have lived anywhere and I chose to live here so obviously um I've been in 49 of the 50 states as I say often um I realize um and sometimes I think more than people who are native to Petaluma what a spectacularly uh unique place it is so my um my graduate work was uh you know I majored in architecture but my my graduate work was mainly in um city city Urban Design and planning and as an architect uh with the federal government I did a lot of um interaction with the national capital Planning Commission in Washington DC plus I was the um quote unquote expert about National um Court Federal courthouses I've worked on this Sacramento one um uh I worked on the San Francisco Federal Building so my focus is obviously kind of architectural and with my experience with developers I believe that developers can do a good job um if you look historically some of the great buildings like bath England were developers so how do we get the best out of developers because oftentimes we see the worst so I would like to and I know there's other Architects on this team and I think it's great to how do we straddle between what the sort

of law requires or what what it says there and how do we get the best out of developers and their designers or Architects if they have them um that's what fascinates me and what I think I can contribute to thank you Kevin welcome thank you one other thing I would say is I there's a quote I wanted to use it's from Winston Churchill where he said we shape our buildings thereafter our building shape Our Lives I think even more so we shape our cities and therefore afterwards cities shape our lives so that's my last stinky cabin we'll put you in charge of all the quotes we put in special textbooks yeah yeah thank you Kevin uh Yancey please say hello to the group hi everyone um I joined because I was new to Petaluma I moved here in 2019 and I just wanted to be a more active participant of the community um I also currently work with a lot of Youth throughout primarily Petaluma but Southern Sonoma County so I'm also here to elevate youth needs as well um thank you thank you Ali hi everybody Ali Gaylord here um I uh I guess I joined the Deep pack because well a lot of reasons but I've spent the last 20 years of my career working in affordable housing you know housing folks that are more vulnerable lower income special needs senior citizens and I just think housing is so interconnected with so many pieces of the general plan and long-range planning um I'm very interested in transportation climate change mitigation and how everything is linked together so I was really excited to be able

to weigh in and make an impact in Petaluma a city that I love and I think has so much great attributes and I just want to see us all be impactful and forward thinking for the next 20 plus years in this effort and I just really appreciate all of those great dedicated folks that are on this commission committee that are really thoughtful invest did show up here month after month for years and years and just a shout out to everybody everybody's great here so um just I'm looking forward to continuing oh and along with Dave and Chris rebelow we're the housing working group so if anybody's interested I think we may be shifting gears a little bit now that the housing element is close to being passed but we'll certainly continue to convene to talk about the land use stuff and um you know various policy items so if you're interested we're open doors thank you Allie and we'll dedicate the general plan to your new baby um Jesse hi everyone um yeah my name is Jesse Feller I um also have two kids two little kids here in Petaluma um my I think well I I've also worked for the last 20 years in urban planning Urban policy sustainability and um Community Development so uh felt like a good way for me to be civically involved to join gpac I've um been pretty active in um homelessness advocacy and volunteering my whole life so I I do a lot of Civic work outside of work somehow but now I have two kids it takes a lot of my time um but yeah I mix you know I just I think it's a good use of all of our

skill sets and to to Ali's point of super appreciative of everyone's commitment to to gpac and welcome to the new members and um I think the best time we can spend is on our own on our own community so yeah that's it for me thank you Jesse um Mary hi everybody uh great to meet the new members and um I'm really I've really learned a lot since this uh being on gpac I've been involved in the community um trying to shape the town through policy um on on large committees like the central specific plan downtown and the um station I can never say the station area master plan um and as an architect in town um practicing here since 2003 um I feel like really I'm part of shaping this town just by my my day-to-day um I love this town I raised three sons here my uh husband is also my business partner another architect and that's not good business planning but that's what we did um and I I really do um when I started I thought all right I'm an architect but I really care about the open space I care about the unbuilt spaces more than the built at this time and protecting them is of utmost importance of where we build and holding to our Urban growth boundary I came in with things that were important to me and I know are important to a lot of my um Community um but I really expanded I'm learning about so many of the topics that have been brought to this process um and the social justice component has been really um expanded my life and so you know this is a give and take and I think it's

great that we have such diversity of uh Talent on this on this committee and um I'm I'm here for the Long Haul thanks thank you um bill hello everyone and can you hear me okay good hello everyone and welcome new members um I am a graduate of Sonoma State University in Environmental Studies and planning been a planner for about 30 years uh was a planner for the city of Petaluma from the 2000s 2008.

and my wife and I raised two little ones through Petaluma we also helped helped in creating Live Oak charter school and also Credo High School up in Roanoke Park which are both waldorf-based schools and um so I do planning Monday through Friday 40 hours a week so I figured I might as well sign up and do some more in the evenings good to be here thank you Phil and finally and Dave I wonder if this is the first time you've ever been last in a list but they've all done please yes it's not it's not the first time I've been lasting you know every time somebody talks about the advantages of being first I think back to eighth grade when I was asked to be the first one to recite a original poem in front of a class there are times you don't want to have an A anyway um Dave Alden been in Petaluma just over 20 years semi-retired civil engineer as Bill Reinhardt said earlier that leads us to work with a lot of Developers some good some less so one quick story I well several years back talked to a developer about working on a project here locally and I've met with them and we talked at length about the general plan and the smart code and all the good things in town and he finally said I'm not going to use you why not he goes because you care more about the community good than about my bottom line and he said it was like he said it was like a bad thing I don't understand that anyway I'm passionate about good land use and where that leads us to better climate housing community wealth and

from that passion I was one of the co-founders of Urban Chat through the city I have served on the transit committee The Pedestrian bicycle committee and the park and rec commission so history of involvement and this is just the next step thanks thank you Dave um I'm wondering I hadn't planned this so sorry to drop this on folks but um I was looking at Eugene and realized he's brand new to the group and so we probably should do a quick introduction of the team the the group of faces that you'll see commonly at these meetings so um to give the others a little bit of prep time I guess I'll go first yeah so I met I grew up in the Bay Area um haven't lived here much since I graduated high school but returned recently to be closer to my mother um and I am a lifelong Community Development uh geek I'm focusing primarily on community planning specifically the last wow 10 or 15 years um have degrees in community sustainability but also a certified planner do a lot of done a lot of community and comprehensive planning but also manage housing plans adaptation plans and have dabbled a lot also in Economic Development natural resource management and other issues so I'm the new classic generalist planner and have been thrilled to be part of this process I appreciated hearing from everybody again tonight as a great reminder of what an incredible group of volunteer leaders we have to work with so I just really want to thank you all again for volunteering your time and supporting us and

helping us and guiding us through this very important um Michelle sorry to put you on the spot that I'll turn over to the city team um Michelle you will see often behind the scenes she helps us with a lot of project aspects and whatever common rules is to make sure we capture all of your feedback and guidance at these meetings so she takes a lot of the notes and will produce the summary of the meeting Michelle would you are you able to say hello are you trapped in another Channel no I was having some Zoom issues on my computer so I am here um but hello everyone I'm Michelle I am a part of the Ramey team um I grew up and went to school in Oakland and Berkeley and um kind of recently to almost two years ago graduated from UC Berkeley and and now and helping excited to you know learn about more about the planning process and how all works and it's been it's been an interesting ride so far with Petaluma and excited to keep it going thanks Michelle uh Heather you want to introduce your team yeah sure and I realized I introduced everyone but um I feel like I know everybody in here but I realize some of the new members um I haven't met so my name is Heather Hines um I am most recently my title has become special projects manager for the city um I uh went to Sonoma State Phil and I both are graduates of the same program um I got married at the Garden Valley Ranch on Pepper Road some almost 30 years ago um my and my one of my internships and undergraduates school was doing a tree

survey for Street trees in Petaluma so I remember so many years what seems like a lifetime ago counting trees and evaluating tree Health as I walk the streets of Petaluma and of course there was no tablets or anything it was all you know written down and you know back then you you learned with the sticky contact paper to make your land use maps and all that great stuff um so I um you know I'm one of those rare breeds that went to undergrad for a planning degree in graduate school for a planning degree and I worked as a planner ever since um so I took a very linear path um and I [Music] um worked for Santa Rosa and was unfortunately laid off in 2010 and that's when I started working with the city so I just last week I had my 13 years that I have been working with the city and with a lot of different titles over those 13 years but I'm really happy to be here welcome to the new members and this is a great group of 21 I think we are again 21 active participants so um I am filling in for Christina Tonight Christina Paul is our principal policy planner she is out sick with sick kids so she is generally your contact person for a lot of gpac related things um and we will hopefully welcome her back next month new to our team is Eugene and Eugene is not on my screen but he is here yes Eugene I'm here okay hi so welcome to Eugene Eugene just joined our group um as a associate planner um and I'll let him introduce himself and a little bit about his background yeah I'm sure it's great to

meet everyone here um you might have gotten an email from me in the past few days I've only started about two three weeks ago so uh fairly new and I'm also fairly new to the planning profession I received my masters of City Planning uh program from Berkeley uh last year in May but before then I was working uh with a lot of community-based organizations mostly in Communications and programmatic rules so I just recently started my um urban planning career but I will say that when I was working with community-based organizations a lot of issues I was working on and a lot of community members brought up was based in the build environment so that's why I've uh decided to get my masters and decide to get this profession to work on those issues so it's great to meet everyone and uh looking forward to working involved with y'all thank you Eugene and then the other member of our team here this evening is Daniel Harrison who's our moderator tonight and Daniel has been working with the city a couple years now Daniel do you want to introduce yourself sure I think Senator hey everyone uh sleep serve as a moderator uh we're gpac but I have a keen interest ing very exciting land use topics you cover um my background is in history uh the ba in history um that focused on Earth street um Masters that kind of focused on Urban Design and policy it's a masters of city and Regional planning I'd studied my my biggest interests are you know creating Equitable kind of outcomes through Urban Design

and policy reform uh and uh my dad's an attorney I think I think like an attorney um and I like to kind of apply that kind of reasoning um to really shape healthier and more Equitable communities so thanks uh and I'm grateful to be part of this great work that we all do thank you Daniel I think that's ever I think that's everyone here from the city team yes thank you everybody and we'll just have to remember next time to give an opportunity for the folks who are not here tonight to say hello in a bit about themselves next week oh um thank you all for sharing um again fantastic group we look forward to working with all of you once um let me reshare again I feel like we should I don't know that we ever did that that was such a nice a nice thing to do to like I feel like I got to know you all a little bit better and I don't even know that we did something like that when we started this two years ago so lovely that was a good good revisit great idea and um and also uh wanna thank the new members for allowing us to orient you largely kind of outside of the meeting context I believe the Petaluma team has provided you a lot of the same kind of orientation materials that um the other gpac members got originally plus I believe they're they're trying to schedule a separate meeting just to touch base answer any questions you may have um so forgive us new folks for kind of jumping right back into the substance of what we typically cover in these meetings but there is a lot going on and

we have a lot to talk about and so we are going to still try to focus the bulk of our time tonight on supplemented men so so thank you for being quick Runners as you uh catch up with where we're at the impact on the planning process um so as usual we're going to quickly do a few project related City related staff updates which I'll run through Heather I suspect will have some additional comments as we go through if I miss or forget something um quickly um as you know we've been prioritizing the greenhouse gas climate action planning in light of the emergency the city um is adopted and the 2030 goal for Net Zero the city is currently in the process of finalizing and refining draft PhD action plans focused on different sectors in preparation for public engagement and review of those months and just to re-emphasize all that work though it's on its own accelerated track it's definitely going to continue to be aligned with General plan the related requirements for VMT reductions patient planning and obviously the the sequa sorry that's California Environmental Quality act related environmental impact report requirements likewise more on the adaptation side as you all know and as I think somebody mentioned earlier the city's been working with West Consulting in Sherwood to develop some updated and refined maps of different scenarios for flooding and sea level rise for the future of Petaluma those also are in kind of the finishing touches stage and the next step then is to bring

that to the public for conversation initially about what the maps what the modeling and the maps tell us and then we'll get into a conversation probably starting right here about how we might use that updated mapping and months to inform climate adaptation strategies and to inform land use policy as you know another concurrent thing going on has been this this kind of third primary phase of the general Plan update uh this policy framework phase which follows the initial existing conditions Vision development phases these policy Frameworks are designed to really firmly establish the set of goals and policies that will become the foundations for the complete General plan the bulk of them have been drafted a handful have been waiting for the mapping the sea level rise and flood mapping to be completed but the bulk of them have been drafted or currently under City review will then move on from there into public review Once those have been completed as well as the kind of the second phase have been completed as well some of the timings a little bit up in the air because of the dependency on the flood mapping um and the thorough approach the city is using and reviewing the administrator and then just a recap kind of high level here's where we're headed we're nearing the adoption of the housing element which has been the fourth major concurrent track that has been ongoing the last year or so and then into winter and spring we'll be wrapping up the Frameworks the mapping the

exercises I noticed notice all in preparation for a lot of related public engagement coming up later this year one quick note um that Heather wanted to make sure you were aware of the council has had the tradition of setting goals and priorities which in turn for informed budgeting and other programmatic priority setting and in case you weren't aware I wanted to make sure you're aware of the upcoming special meeting on March 13th which will be their goal setting Workshop on this slide is a link to the the record of previous goal setting priority setting workshops you have an idea of what those Encompass and we put it put on the screen here the current set of top 10 priorities and so obviously there's a lot of connection between the general plan and cities error term goals and priorities so you want to make sure you're learning and thinking about as part of the general Plan update process you might want beta that upcoming special meeting and then again a reminder one of the great ways to stay abreast of all the many different things going on in the city across May the important fronts is to make sure you're subscribed to the regular City Weekly email updates and then finally as we were talking a little bit of talking about a little bit before the meeting started the city's generally transitioning committees commissions and Boards back to in-person meetings but is interested in feedback from the gpac on what to do with these meetings you're going to get an email from Eugene

likely tomorrow with some questions that the city would like you to use individually to respond to we understand everybody's personal situations or difference have different needs limitations they want to make sure they understand those as they're considering whether or not the gpac should shift to in person meetings um we encourage you also to just think about what you think is best for um the gpac for the role it plays and as kind of a liaison between the city and the community and it's and it's critical role in advising the city so so in your feedback and your response to the email if you could consider that as well just to help the city understand the whole picture for what the implications might be if we shift from online Heather did I miss anything critical in all of that no you did a beautiful job Ron so here we usually just pause to see if feedback members have any questions about those updates before we dive into the main agenda item yeah do me a favor raise your hand if you do have a question [Music] Roberto yeah the top 10 list is not listed in any particular order is it no no idea do you know I don't think it is each if you go to the website and you go into I think if you go into each of these different um different ones had different milestones and different timing but I don't believe there's anything um that this isn't a prioritization got it yeah these are just the top ten yeah okay any other questions right um we are now gonna shift to our main agenda item the

housing outlet and at this point I am going to ask the Baton to Heather who gave a similar presentation earlier this week to the Planning Commission and so it's well versed in talking through all of this um and then so she'll gonna give a presentation we'll again pause for gpac clarifying questions we'll then open it up for public comment specific to this agenda item then we'll reconvene as a gpac to uh hear from you if you have any specific questions feedback recommendations that should be included in the staff report that is being written currently for the upcoming city council meeting where they're also going to be given a similar update as well as both yours and the in commissions feedback okay away we go Main Event so I just wanted to very briefly just kind of update the group or remind the group what are we doing why are we doing this um so extremely brief but as you'll remember um the housing element is a required element of the general plan um and it is on a different cycle than all the other elements and that's mandated by the state of California so every eight years is a new planning cycle and we have to do a new housing element with new targets for housing production so we are embarking on the sixth cycle um for this housing upcoming housing element for a period from 2023 to 2031.

um so the local housing elements are adopted by the city council and then they are submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for certification so um that's that's why we're focused on that that's what we're doing that's also why if you remember we kind of decoupled this from the the general Plan update because there are specific timelines for the housing element different than the rest of the general plan next slide please so the the real main components of the housing element one is our site inventory so um our Regional Housing needs allocation which is acronym Arena that is the number that is given to each jurisdiction um and our number for this upcoming cycle is 1910 housing units spread across the different income categories um so what we have to do is we have to show that in the city of Petaluma we have properties that are adequate to demonstrate capacity for those 1910 units so that is one aspect of the housing element the other aspect are the strategies for promoting preserving facilitating housing across firm to meet everyone's needs um so we have goals policies and programs that are outlined in the housing element to do things like preserve the affordable units we have incentivize adus accessory dwelling units expanding the housing capacity and that's really this is the part that is most of our will be most of our conversation this evening is around some of those programs next slide so we're we're here again this is not the first time

we've been before the gpac um to talk about the housing element and so this slide is really just giving you a reminder of where we've been um we were last before gpac with the housing um element I believe in October September October of last year along with the Planning Commission and the city council and that was to really um review the draft housing element after those meetings there were some updates to respond to comments um and we updated that draft housing element and we submitted it to the state for their review there is now a requirement that before we can adopt a housing element we have to submit the draft to the state for a 90-day review and so that is what we've done on the 90th day which was January 27th we got a comment letter back from hcd the state um and that is what we are here to talk about this evening are the comments we received and to get some feedback from the gpac next slide so moving forward as Ron mentioned on Tuesday we had a similar presentation to the Planning Commission we're here before the gpac to get feedback from the gpac this evening and then next well I guess it's not next week the week after the 27th we'll bring all of that information before the city council for their Direction on the same issues that we'll discuss tonight which will in turn inform the final draft of the housing element that final draft will then be presented to the Planning Commission for their recommendation because adoption of the housing element is actually a general

plan Amendment our code requires that all General plan amendments go before the Planning Commission for recommendation before they're presented to the city council so we're anticipating Planning Commission on the 14th of March and then going to the city council on the 20th of March for adoption of the housing element and then following that we will submit that final adopted housing element to the state for their review and certification next slide so really what we're here to talk about tonight is the comment letter that came in from hcd um and staff responses and also discuss some of the um policy um items that were mentioned in that letter um I just kind of as as we're jumping into this and we'll go over each one that was outlined in the staff report that was included in your in your packet in preparing for tonight I wanted just a couple comments that I want to you know kind of set the stage as we move into this discussion uh we're not necessarily going into every single thing about the housing element we had a draft we've gone through those review periods we have already submitted that to the state so really what we're focusing on is what came back to us from the state and the state said hey before you adopt this and you submit it to us for certification you need to address these items we were very pleased with the letter that came from the state in that it was a lot of um most of the things were asking for a little bit of more detail or more information as well as some

policy Direction but from what the information we've gotten uh you know kind of across jurisdictions the letter we received was actually um quite digestible so we're feeling very pleased with that we're feeling pleased with the progress so far um another thing I want to mention is as we get into these policy discussions um one of the things I really want to emphasize is we're talking about committing to doing certain things in response to the hcd comments but we don't have to solve those things for instance you'll you will have seen one of the things that came up is you should reduce parking requirements because it's a barrier to housing production so what we're being asked to do is to make a commitment to do that we're not tonight we don't have to solve for that we don't have to say okay we're going to reduce the requirement from this to this um that that will come later as implementation it's more making the commitment to do those changes so I'll keep emphasizing that um but that's I think it's an important takeaway okay so next slide and the way we have these um organized really gonna go through more of the comments first that were the requests for additional data or information um not really policy discussions and then go into the five or six ones that are fall under policy discussions um as as the tail end so first comment and you know you got a comment of the letter in the packet um and we tried to kind of verbatim take those comments and and respond to them one of the

exercises we had to do was to show the city's um trends for permitting accessory dwelling units for the last several years so we submitted um those numbers for 2019 through 2022 the state has come back and told us that we need to include the numbers for 2018.

we felt like because the numbers in 2018 were so much lower than the trends that we had been seeing and the increase in permitting for accessory dwelling units we felt like it was kind of an outlier but nonetheless the state has indicated we need to incorporate uh the permitted adus in 2018 so we will do that what this does is it changes the overall average for projected accessory dwelling units from 18 to 16.

so what we can claim for projected accessory dwelling unit production over the eight year cycle is 16 units per year so it's it's a relatively minor change if you remember back when we looked at our site inventory there was a buffer provided so we have enough in that buffer that this change doesn't doesn't make a difference in uh demonstrating our capacity to meet the Regional Housing needs allocation next slide um this comment the second comment many of our sites and our housing inventory were sites in our downtown core and particularly sites that uh maybe were zoned mixed use are zoned commercial uh where residential development isn't the only allowable use they are zones where you could do a hundred percent commercial project theoretically so what the state was asking is for us to show the trends for applications in those downtown areas to demonstrate that us uh assuming residential capacity on those sites was realistic so what we did is we looked at applications in the downtown area over the last three to five years and eighty percent of our applications have included residential development so we will include that um that information in our responses but really feeling that that data is consistent with our site's inventory and our projections in those in that downtown corn and on those properties next slide let's see um this one was asking for additional information um to support um assumptions about Redevelopment of um given age of structure or Improvement to land ratio

so again this is a data needs request the consultant team is gathering data including assessor data to respond to this inquiry and based on the initial analysis is confirming that what we have presented is consistent with the pipeline project trends next slide this is just telling us that we need to provide digital versions of our site inventory when we submit our final housing element we will do that and we're planning to do that next slide um let's see I'm trying to remember what this one was providing analysis of how land use controls impact housing Supply financing timelines so no policy change is required it's really adding some language in detail that Veronica Tam is working on to include in those final documents next slide again this is asking for more information about typical applications and timelines some of the procedures and what approval bodies approve what types of project so we are compiling that data to include in our responses next slide um oh this is really analyzing to make sure that um the the assumptions we made about density um is is rational and is likely so we're compiling data that's really supporting the anticipated densities that we indicated in the site inventory and we did a lot of this behind the scenes when we were putting that together in terms of What's the allowable what kind of Trends have we seen in previous proposals or approved projects how why is it um why does it make sense to make those density assumptions in what we provided in our

site inventory next slide uh this has is asking about um the opportunities for energy conservation so we're Gathering um data about the things the city does have in place um including the city's adopted efficiency measures um our tier one code requirement are all electric requirements the things that are already on our books and just providing that background uh and this uh I think is kind of a catch-all catch-all hcd um is basically saying we can still ask you more questions once you submit all this information so noted and we will continue to do everything we can to respond to comments if there's another round of comments after we submit our final adopted housing element so now we really get oh one more uh Quantified objectives this is about um uh cons conserving the units by income category so this is again something Veronica is working um to develop the needed data to incorporate into our response so these are all kind of data the data responses not policy changes um but additional information so now getting into really the the handful of things that are um more of some policy discussion or we're being asked to commit to certain changes maybe in our codes most of them are in our codes or use language that is more um stronger language commit to dates commit to doing certain things in our regulations so um I'll kind of ad-lib too just to share some of the Planning Commission feedback on these just to kind of bring that information to the gpac on on the things that we

discussed at Planning Commission earlier this week on each of those um so starting out is single room occupancy um so we need to comply with state law and include a description of how sros are a permitted use so sros are typically small rooms with shared kitchens and bathroom facilities but they can take other other forms it common in permanent Supportive Housing so in our Studios that Montero project that we're working on currently at the America Best Value Motel those are a little bit different could it because each room has their own bathroom and kitchenette but similar in that their small efficiency unit so we have found even though our code makes no mention of single room occupancy as a land use type or where they're allowed or any kind of standards for them we have found different ways to incorporate um to usually it's to address permanent Supportive Housing needs um I the people's Village could be seen as sros and that they're their own private space but with shared bathroom and um and eating facilities so the staff recommendation is to add um a commitment in the housing element to amend our zoning ordinance to allow sros in those in those zoning districts where multi-family is allowed and the non-residential zoning districts where multi-family housing is also permitted um and it's I believe it's a December 2024 is the timeline that we've committed to to make that change in our code so overall the Planning Commission was supportive of this um I think the only kind of

comment that came up is really making sure that under the definition of SRO that there's no time um requirement for how long you stay in an SRO wanting to make sure that when we adopted it we didn't include language limiting limiting or being too restrictive with the timing and I do see I do see a question Jesse yeah I was just curious like if there are best practices on changes to allow other kinds of land use designations like Civic facility like or I'm thinking like we have a lot of huge Parcels that are dedicated to like religious like churches and such if they wanted to build um essentially SRO or Supportive Housing would our current housing element policy allow that okay [Music] um I don't know I don't have I couldn't answer it off the top of my head if um I don't think Civic facility would allow it so right now it's kind of um like multi-family um so you could have them anywhere multi-family is allowed you could probably say this is a multi-family but there's some shared facilities or their extra small units so their efficiency units um I think that's a good feedback loop that when we do come back with that zoning text amendment to maybe look Beyond um multi-family zoning districts or you know non-residential zoning districts could incorporate the other things you're talking about like Civic facilities zoning districts or yeah you know those type of other zoning districts to look at um to include that analysis yeah I just bring it up because like I know like the

Archdiocese and Boston has done a lot around Supportive Housing so and they creating kind of an enabling mechanism not that Boston's like the most best practice out there but it'd just be interesting thinking about like that space between the church and the Women's Club on B Street like it just seems like an underutilized and very like uh you know accessible place where somebody might not have to have a car for instance good comment thank you Eliana thank you heather I truly uh support the staff recommendation as well as the recommendations of the Planning Commission I have a few comments I believe that the CD can protect its character and in field duplex and Triplex density into single fat into single family neighborhoods I'm a little worried about our ability to raise families is dissipating because of the cost of housing so the slight density in field will help ensure that neighborhoods continue to thrive among young families also from an equity perspective the change is made in attachment f with a prioritization of mixed-use and tenants protections will help our most valuable most vulnerable communities and lastly I would like to also see um you know that loss of open space requested by the state made up for with improved Sony Tech's amendments that add requirements for share or common open space thank you thank you Sharon thank you um you know I I think I support the idea of sros for creating more affordable housing units um but I'd like for us to think about them a

little bit more broadly sort of as an old-fashioned boarding house because I don't think that they necessarily have to be supportive housing in the in the way that we've been talking about um and with that in mind I wonder um I'm curious about why we'd limit sros to multi-family and non-residential Zoning districts because if we think about the residents who could afford who can't afford a fully outfitted apartment they're likely not going to be able to afford a car either and so it seems like these housing options should in particular should be allowed within walking distance to services and Transit so um I would just look at at um more broadly where they might be allowed and and to that point I mean there are sros in my neighborhood that effectively exist today because they're larger homes that are rented by the room so if we're looking at a purpose build or re repurposed building for sros I like to understand how that differs from renting by the room in a larger home and the other sort of um comment I'd offer is that sros have sprung up across the country and are branded and marketed as co-living arrangements and these apartments are of these rooms offer a lot of flexibility uh for short-term rentals and um they're branded as a way to meet people explore new places and there's some sometimes they even offer curated events for residents um they sometimes offer cleaning services for common areas but um they stopped short of employing on-site management which I think is

something we need to think through but the but where I'm really going with this is the units are not affordable they're um they're not accessible to people who either don't have a credit history or can't provide a rental history for a background check and so I think we just really need to be very careful about how we spell sros somewhere between that Supportive Housing and somehow different from co-living that is really not accessible because I could see a you know a reimagined boarding house model giving people an opportunity to build some uh wealth so that they could actually move on into other housing Arrangements thank you Heather process question for you um we we have four more of these uh more substantive revisions to cover would you like to finish your introduction of them before taking questions or do you want to take questions after each one I want to do whatever makes people feel most included and willing to participate um but I definitely also want to be cognizant of getting everyone out of here by our nine o'clock um time frame so yeah I'm also just aware of the need to give public comment before the gpac uh it Barks On it's kind of full discussion and so I guess what I'll ask is if people do have questions specific to one of these remaining before substantive revisions go ahead and raise your hand but otherwise please hold your your comments or thoughts feedback recommendations until after public comment when the entire gpac will have a chance to get into Pros

cons things to consider okay sounds good so let's see I think moving on to the next slide which is open space requirements so one of the things that the comment letter from the state said was uh that we have a relatively High open space requirement for multi-family units and I really want to be clear we are not talking we're talking about private open space per unit so we're talking about a balcony a patio maybe a small yard we are not talking about open space in the same way as you know an open space parcel on the hill or along the river we're talking about private open space associated with each unit so I just I just want to make sure that one clear on that um what what the state said is we have they're high and they're a barrier to housing production because they're high and so what they have asked us to do is to commit to reducing what our local requirement is for private open space on a per unit basis so right now our code requires anywhere from 30 square feet to 400 square feet per unit of multi-family development depending on what zoning District you're in and so kind of that same that same reminder we don't have to decide exactly what the right number is for Petaluma but what um but what we are proposing is that we modify our um our program to commit to doing a zoning text amendment to analyze and reduce the requirement and again that timeline is December 2024 to consider that and really that's to align with more Regional Trends and remove development constraints so

we have not done the full analysis on this we have we don't have all the information on what everybody else in our region requires by zoning District to kind of do that full analysis but that is something we would do when we brought that zoning text Amendment back in the future to consider making that change and I would guess that a lot of other jurisdictions are um having the same comment at the Planning Commission um there was a question posed to Veronica Tam at that meeting about well what if we don't want to um and one of the things Veronica said was that open space I think it was open space parking and there might have been one other things are the things that hcd is particularly stringent about and so this is not one that she thought there was wiggle room this was us being given direction to look at that um and and respond accordingly um so at the Planning Commission overall they were they supported their staff's recommendation but there was questions about hey when this comes back how we need to be thinking about how are we going to make sure we're maintaining a quality of life um and the the character our community character um in in development if we're reducing this requirement um so uh input kind of to think about common more common or um options different options to achieve that same that same character with our multi-family to make sure that they are continuing to be enjoyable livable places um there are also comments about heat island effect if we have fewer and

fewer um pockets of open space within development so while supportive of it the Planning Commission definitely had certain things that they wanted to see considered when it came back for that zoning text Amendment yeah I I was having the same gut feeling as the person that you were referencing that spoke out uh my question is more I guess a process question is so you were mentioning that they're pretty stringent on this particular one and parking but what does that really mean I mean if we were to take the suggestion from that individual and just say you know comment receive but we you know Trends are one thing I'm just kind of curious what the process would be like if uh for a lack of a better phrase here like just stood the ground saying we would like to hold this requirement um so I think one and this is a perfect question for Veronica but she's not here tonight um the the impression she gave was that they won't accept it that we will probably get the same comment back um when we submit our final housing element for certification and we will need to address it before getting that certification okay okay yeah it's just a very open-ended comment I think where the context here we provide square footage right per unit and it just says align with the trend I'm not sure what that trend is but yeah for the staff recommendation is that what you mean to align with regional Trends yeah like you know what what is the margin that they're looking for the reduction that their Trend that

they want everybody to fall within you know so we don't have to come by and that's not we need to make the commitment that we will analyze and reduce um so one of the things we would likely do when we brought that back um to you know to for consideration is we would look at what our other jurisdictions in the Bay Area are requiring um you know uh is it I'm not sure that 30 square feet is too low um but maybe 400 is too high or you know maybe most jurisdictions in the North Bay are requiring 200 square feet per unit in their high density residential zones um so those are the things that we would be looking at when we brought it back to um figure out what that right reduction is for Petaluma Sharon and Kevin I see your hands are these questions or are they comments we're happy to take clarifying questions at this point but if you could hold comments you have until after public comment that would be great Karen was your aunt was yours a question I just had a comment [Music] I'm holding that until the gpac discussion that follows public comment Kevin was yours a question sorry you're muted it was a question I mean it was a comment all right yeah you could please hold it I'd appreciate it [Music] next slide uh so the next one was about parking similarly um identifying um petaluma's existing parking requirements as being high and being a constraint particularly to smaller unit residential projects and this is something that we've talked about when the Planning Commission city

council and pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee had a study session um last I think it was last summer this is exactly what we talked about and there was direction to look at pretty holistic changes to the way Petaluma looks at parking um things kind of the whole gamut of should we eliminate parking minimum should we establish parking maximums um should we unbundle parking from each unit all those kind of things so we were given direction to do that we are working on that and one of the things and this came up by the Planning Commission which is exactly one of the things we're working on we're looking at both private parking requirements but also making sure we're looking at increase in and improvements in our Transit and improvements in our bike and ped facilities so that we're not just reducing parking but we're also increasing opportunities for alternative means of transportation so staff recommendation here is to add to our policy I think it's policy four maybe policy seven I don't remember off the top of my head but to remove that um that one and a half spaces per unit and look for new requirements that are really more of a addressing smaller units and addressing location of units relative to Transit and amenities so once again not trying to answer those exact questions what is the requirement but just making that commitment to look at it and and reduce those requirements to eliminate that barrier the Planning Commission again we're supportive of this

recommendation emphasize you know that looking at Transit is going to be essential wanting to make sure that if we're reducing parking we're doing it but we're doing it thoughtfully um and doing it in relationship to the other things like active Transportation facilities and Transit um I'm acknowledging uh that probably there's not one size that fits all we might have to think geographically about different standards in different areas based on um the the specifics of those different areas so that's the recommendation um Brent do you have a question on this one what's the rationale for limiting the verification of small units and what does the first small units in the context of the recommendation well one one of the things for instance the way our code currently reads for a single family detached unit uh you're required to have three on-site parking spaces and that is we ran into this one we've talked about like tiny homes or small smaller homes maybe uh you know small Bungalows around a courtyard that kind of type of development pattern in our current code it's considered they're each considered single-family detached and would require three on-site parking spaces which obviously in certain situations feels like too much parking um so that to look at different ways to evaluate parking differently than how we have it now and for that good ad I think the hcd comment was specific to constraints on small unit residential projects but that's not to say that the city is is

already committed to revisiting its parking requirements universally and as part of that we'll certainly address this particular constraint that hcd has correct uh bill you got a question well I'm just trying to understand if you could excuse me clarify how the 1.5 spaces is a constraint is it a constraint to the developer because the cost of providing the parking or is it a constraint because um housing demands more parking than that in which way is it being constrained I I uh good question um I would I read it as uh it's a constraint to develop housing so I guess I considered it a constraint whether it's oftentimes it's also it's a constraint on land so you're limiting your you're limiting your the number of units you can build based on how much land you have to designate to the parking you have to provide so the assumption is developers would like to provide less parking for certain units yes and I think I think we see that um anecdotally too uh with our affordable projects typically with our affordable projects um there's much more willingness to have less parking and a lot of times we also see that they're located in areas that are closer to Transit and services need less parking well where it makes sense yeah okay thank you okay next slide care facilities um in our current code we have restrictions on this this type of land use which in our mixed use in our commercial zones we only allow this type of land use which is a land use for housing for special needs it's only

allowed when it's on upper floors or behind a ground floor um activity generating on the ground floor um so the the comment is that these restrictions create a barrier for producing housing for persons with disabilities um and so the recommendation is to commit to removing that restriction and I believe the exact language that was in attachment F was to allow these uses in these zones with a conditional use permit without the restriction on them being um on upper floors or behind other uses to allow them to be Standalone uses in order to help facilitate provision of housing for persons with disabilities any questions on that one okay seeing none moving to the next slide um so this is really a slightly more General comment um in the comment letter um it's really asking the city to look at language that we use that was um not really committing saying like explore or consider ask us to use more specific and measurable language in our Housing Programs specifically program three four and seven were called out and that's really what we've tried to do with the recommendations is say we will do this we will you know reduce our parking requirements and set a time for when we will do that zoning change you will notice that a lot of the commitment to doing changes in the zoning code there's a timeline of December 2024 and the reason we use used that is we anticipate doing a holistic overhaul of the zoning code with the adoption of the general plan so that we can create the regulations

we need to implement the general plan so what we're looking to do is once we're further along with the um with the policy Frameworks and the land use diagrams is to start that process of an updated code so that it can come close on the heels of the adoption of the general plan and so we're not left with you know a lag time between adoption and the general plan and Adoption of the zoning code so December 2024 was kind of trying to track with with the kind of outside expectation of when that would be done so that was not kind of um put in there without that context so next slide so kind of in summary the the real items that we're looking for any feedback um for the from the gpac um which we will then take forward to the council in addition to the planning commission's comments um we're around the single room occupancy the private open space requirements the parking requirements the residential care facilities and generally some updates that were highlighted in yellow in attachment f um to strengthen some of the program language to commit the city to make some some changes um to further those programs so as I kind of mentioned we went before the the Planning Commission and we received feedback but overall the commission was in support of all of the recommendations um that staff presented with feedback that I've kind of inserted and shared with the gpac as we move through those so with that I think I am done um and we'll turn it over to Ron to kind of facilitate questions before

moving to public comment yeah so again gpac discussion will follow immediately after public comments so at this point if there are any remaining just clarifying questions to make sure you understand what Heather presented and what types of revisions the city is considering and taking a council in the coming weeks um go ahead and raise your hands Mary you've got a clarifying question uh yes I do about the private open space is the a comment from hcd that it for example 30 square feet is a is that a minimum right now that we have and is that considered too high I don't think it's the 30 square feet I think it's the 400 square feet and so we're achieving um in a project the density that um let's say uh the maximum density that the site allows why does the open private open space need to be um I guess is this a maximum they or a minimum I mean why why does it matter if the design uh um creates allows for open space um private open space and high density I don't I don't think the concern is the projects that elect to to do it I think it's the require the required minimum is the the state's interpretation is that is keeping is a barrier to the higher density so there's this would in no way say you can't provide 400 square feet of open space um it would just say we wouldn't we wouldn't mandate that you had to have that as a minimum okay all right thanks I just have a little confusion there thank you Roberto no I was just gonna say during public comment if we can leave that last

chart up with the summary oh sure yeah yeah definitely do that yeah remind me if I forget okay any other clarifying questions before we hear some public comment and come back to discussion okay Daniel I think it's time for me to hand it over to you again you wouldn't mind sure thanks Ron and to clarify do you want a certain um visual that's not the timer in the background or I would love to use your timer Daniel sure okay sorry I might have understood Roberto was your question was your request that the list be up during public comment or gpac discussion uh honestly both if possible to just kind of reference it while people are providing yeah thanks for that clarification yeah yeah I think Kevin has his hand up just okay okay so Ron you're going to share that and I can audibly um give people the the 30 seconds sure yeah that works for me no problem thank you um okay um so with that we'll go ahead and reopen uh general public comments so um if any members of the public would like to comment please uh raise your hand um and looks like we have at least one hand raised uh so Matt uh Heinz um I'll go ahead and um the floor is now yours you have three minutes and I'll go ahead and give you a two minute one minute and 30 I think that works thank you hey everybody uh I'm really uh interested in this discussion from the standpoint of uh you know we're talking about adding quite a few housing units to town which I think can be a very positive thing um but I know there's also a lot of

concern about Mobility and to address these uh recommendations here I think what's essential is to have um a strategy for Mobility to accommodate for the growth there's a lot of opportunities that I see to improve bike and pedestrian Mobility uh for instance there can be like Frontage bike and pedestrian roads pretty much spanning all along 101 on either side and I'm interested in seeing those projects go through because that's what's going to be able to accommodate for this growth most effectively if we're talking about uh any requirements about uh climate change or uh environmental impact if we're looking to make it easier for people with disabilities and low-income people to get from home to work then the bike and pedestrian pathway and making that connected through the whole city is going to be what's really essential I'm concerned that some of these developments might be missing opportunities to be connected to that bike into pedestrian pathway and I'm also concerned if we're focusing on putting but I bike and pedestrian pathways on major roadways like Petaluma Boulevard in Washington um Washington Street when we can actually go under the freeway on Washington Street where there's an informal path there at the moment uh I think we should be looking comprehensively at all of those opportunities thank you I see Kevin's hand raised but you are a gpac member um so we'll hold that for now yeah thank you um at this time I do not see any other public hands raised so I'll turn

it back over to you Ron and we'll close general public comment thank you thank you Daniel okay um we are now to gpac discussion I'll go back to the summary of recommended revisions and thank you Kevin for being very patient other gpac members who have comments please also raise your hand and I'll do my best effort to take you in order go ahead Kevin okay so um I must say um first of all I agree very much with what Mary said about I'm somewhat concerned that the Quest for density will um override the ability to provide human eccentric spaces uh you know man does not live by beds Alone um the open space requirement I agree oftentimes 300 square feet per housing element can be too much but on the other hand um it's all no matter the way you design it for instance um we never really talk about uh if you look at European examples of what is an adequate size for a housing unit they're much much more sparse than I than ours yet they tend to add a lot more um usable opened space I I'm thinking of for instance and I can share this with people it's a it's a classic example of multi-family housing by Loco busier and you know it goes back to 1922 and it's an absolutely brilliant uh way of doing an apartment building where the you don't put a dumb um you don't put a dumb balcony on the front that nobody ever goes out onto and maybe they keep their bike there uh I think that is something that we don't want to encourage but to have open space that really is Meaningful and that gives people

some access some private access to Nature however small it is and that's why that particular there was something about uh you know as Heather said they won't accept it um I think if you look at the um the scientific um what we're finding out about the need for light for circadian rhythms for attachment to even a geranium is very very important and I just don't want this to become like um what's that place down there where Ikea is uh the all those new Emeryville Emeryville which is I think absolutely ghastly in terms of the access people have to any kind of natural um naturalness and I would hate to see the Quest for density triumph over the need for human-centric housing and one of the ways you can do that is make the housing unit itself much more compact much more better designed and maximize the space that you for instance have outside particularly in a Mediterranean climate like like California so that's the only thing I really reacted viscerally to thank you Kevin uh Sharon I think you were next thank you um I I'll let my SRO comments stand and appreciate um Ron and Heather you're redirecting a newbie on the process so appreciate that um I did have a comment on the open space requirement you know we only require 100 square feet of open space for adus so I think that there's precedent for reducing what's required in some of the larger developments and I agree that we can um you know where where open space requirements are an impediment to development we want or achieving

densities we want to address that but it doesn't seem that that's and and maybe the state requires it but but we're not even close to getting to what our maximum density is on most of these properties so I I just don't I think that's we satisfy the state requirements and it seems it'll be a non-issue on that on the in reality um the other the other uh comment I wanted to make was about um uh parking requirements I do think it's important that we act aggressively eliminating parking minimums and set parking maximums instead um and I and I think it would be great if our parking policy maybe even looked at uh including or pointing to incentives for development of um bike parking facilities on site so even e-bike so that you can bring an e-bike indoors and and park that that might be another option the other thing that I'd suggest for the policy consideration and again I realize this is out of scope of the causing element itself is that we um look at lifting parking requirements for existing single-family homes where they're zoned and could potentially lift or build on top of the home and add another unit but the parking requirements today are impediment to doing that so I'd also ask that we take a look at that and that's it thank you thank you uh Bill Reiner thanks Ron um I just have comments on a few of the items um first of all I think sros should be conditionally permitted in all zones um I don't think they should be categorically you know um no Zone should prohibit them um

and they can be considered as conditionally permitted um regarding the usable open space um I think I have a couple comments first of all I think in the R4 R5 you know where we have 300 400 foot standards I think those are pretty minimal especially if you're considering it to me it depends on the housing type so if you have um I don't know if we have single family detached in R4 but if you're considering side yards absolutely that shouldn't be lowered so maybe they need to be recalibrated to housing type so that um you know we reduce the total square footage but increase the minimum Dimension so you don't end up with a single family detached with two three foot side yards instead you might have a duplex or a multi-family unit where it's aggregated and they're you know they're larger Dimensions I think the minimum dimension of three feet is is not workable you know for actual usable open space um so I don't know how to do that but maybe reduce the square footage and increase the maximum the minimum Dimension then just regarding the in the MU Zone where it's a 30 foot standard um I think that also should be calibrated to the unit size I mean if you think about 30 feet is like less than a sheet of plywood so what if you have a three the three-bedroom you know dwelling and and you've got there's your you know usable open space that's private I think that's inadequate so I think 30 is probably the minimum uh for a single uh a one bedroom but a three bedroom should require more and

I don't think you know I don't agree that balconies are not useful I think they really tend to activate Urban spaces and I think they provide you know having lived in apartments I think they provide a a nice Escape so I think they are useful and one thing we could do too is in order to allow for an increased um usable open space in a multi-family maybe we allow for encroachments so that balconies could be you know extend into the right-of-way on upper floors and therefore you know it's not a you know an far impact or um you know we could we could find other ways to allow for maximum um or for minimum standards and I don't I don't think these are barriers in any way I think these are minimum livability standards so I think 30 square feet is is too small for a multi-family or you know multi-bedroom unit so about that but um regarding Residential Care Facilities I don't believe they should be permitted on um in commercial retail storefronts I'm a strong believer in continuity of the streetscape in a retail District but I do think we should allow for or maybe encourage if we if we have opportunities for this type of housing is that they can have sidewalk entrances just like our a lot of our downtown buildings have their upper floors access through sidewalk entrances and I think that's okay but I don't think that a storefront should be occupied by um a residential care facility um I think that's it for me thank you thank you Billy's a lot of great um very nuanced recommendations

which um I'm sure Michelle is capturing and we'll be sure to use when the actual code revisions are being considered so thank you thank you everybody for those detailed comments Josh yeah thank you um I've been hearing a lot about how other cities housing elements have gone uh seeing that in the news recently and first of all I just want to say I'm really glad for the good faith effort we've all put in here uh to really tackle these problems head on um I just wanted to Echo a few things that uh that I heard uh that I think are important um you know as the parking discussion uh moves along definitely want to uh maybe clear Advocate uh parking maximums rather than minimums um so thank you for Sharon for mentioning that um one of the things that uh Bill said that I appreciated was uh allowing sros and in more zones uh than is you know perhaps currently being considered right now um you know in mixed use uh areas and and just it seems like maybe we're limiting the scope more than we need to here um so I want to look at that uh when it comes to the Residential Care Facilities um in view of our track record with mixed-use developments that are 100 Commercial um in practice um I would be Keen to over correct there and say yeah we should allow residential care facilities and mixed use um mixed use developments there with these restrictions are with those restrictions removed uh the last thing that I wanted to note um I really uh there's a lot that uh that Kevin shared that I

appreciated about sort of livability and human-centered Design I think we can find a way to thoughtfully you know Square those trade-offs um Ileana made a great Point earlier about uh taking duplex uh existing buildings making them duplexes and triplexes we've seen a lot of success like that around downtown Petaluma in particular um but I did want to gently push back on the criticism of Emeryville it may not be the image we want but they are a leader in tenant Protections in affordable housing so there there are some things we can learn from them thank you thank you Josh Lizzy yes thanks so I wanted to just touch on a couple things on the open space requirements and I think an agreement to what Mary was saying that kind of where are the parameters if the density is being met of buildable unit and space then why does the the private open space need to be eliminated so kind of more clarification on that um which perhaps is then more of a discussion about elevating our design standards so it's not a this or that but it's a both and situation and then the other part is kind of contrary that if we do need to kind of pull out some of that usable private open space could that then just in turn go into usable um public open space shared communal open space so making sure that if there's an extraction it's put back in other ways so that we can start to activate and program these spaces um with shared open space you know even if it's not private thank you you're all getting me very

excited about the upcoming zoning commitment discussions um Roger okay that'll be quick um this is definitely not my area of knowledge or expertise but uh I'd be curious in where in terms of more like single Plex duplexes right in residential neighborhoods where that's been done and how it succeeded so I know people are from live in Seattle where they've sort of declared war on single-family homes and they were tearing them down and building these Prime practices and I guess I've known people with who have um not had such a great view of that as much as some you know the it's more of an urban town than we are I think in some ways so I just not that I'm against that I'm actually gonna defend Emeryville too I think the way they built is is uh um having lived there is a very as particularly great it's a lot of ways um and they have a great sort of separate bike path going in town where people are always strolling so I'm sure it can be done but uh I would be curious to learn more about where they've you know added a lot of density and and bigger things right in a residential neighborhoods next to it how that's worked and then um the other thing I heard was that you know a lot of people on bike pad and such where I served for many years uh were okay with reducing parking and it's sort of in exchange for more I guess bike Lanes or Transit but you know the limit often things are limited not because we don't can Envision more bike Lanes it's because we don't have the ways and means

and the money to put them in so I'm curious if that's a tied connection or it's just sort of like well we're going to reduce parking and then we're gonna hope that we can get you know you know not just bike Lanes no one wants to ride next to road so they want really what it is is uh separated by claims if you don't want to be used that's you know um so I just wonder if that's a tide connection or it could sort of like we'll reduce parking and then hope that somehow um there'll be more Lanes uh in the future so but um it's a great topic and I've learned a lot thank you thank you Roger um Ally and then um Kevin just a heads up since Mary hasn't commented yet in this period I'm going to take her and then come back to you Allie go ahead hi thanks um I wanted to uh second the comment um I think from Bill and Josh about um expanding the SRO um where that's permitted um in the different zones um I also wanted to say I support the staff recommendations for the um for the rest of the comments back to hcd and I would love to see some kind of documentation or something where the city will commit to convening working groups or something else I think you've seen that there's a lot of interest in the implementation of these things like open space requirements and re-examining the parking requirements during the Ivo um um revision so I think just um having that hard commitment and a willingness to bring on um the the gpec members in a working group fashion or something like that to help

with that implementation would be great thanks thank you Allie um Mary okay on the open uh space idea I'm wondering this kind of ties back to something earlier but maybe we want to increase the minimum density rather than reducing the open space minimum requirements and earlier Heather was talking about a topic that maybe we weren't really commenting on but it was developed densities and there was going to be looking at Trends and other cities and or or something that was oh that's right what was being done in our town what was successful um to to provide evidence I guess evidence of what we built or evidence um historic evidence I really wasn't clear why we would look backwards I thought we would want to be aspirational about this and what are the and this is what we're going to get into as we look at land use um so it seems like we're you know these are all little nuggets that we're touching on and we're not really changing yet but I would not I'm not sure that I would look at our our history maybe some recent history like some of the larger developments but um I think our our densities are going to have to shift and um we're going to need to focus along the key corridors downtown um so that was one topic on the open space and then yes agree with um what everybody said about allowing the sros micro units and even tiny homes um in more places each one serves a different uh kind of housing type and they have some really nice amenities um including tiny homes so um which

currently don't have any aren't addressed at all in our zoning code um and then I think last Residential Care Facilities comments um I was kind of tilting towards what Bill had Reinhardt had brought up because my first reaction to the um the the staff recommendation was okay where's we have spent so much time trying to make this a walkable town where there's um activation at street level and um if we maybe I was picturing like the memory care clinic on McDowell which is basically you know a fenced community and so I I may have the residential care facility mixed up with uh you know wrongly so I apologize for that but I think the idea is if it's um Lively it's it's you know on the street level and if it's more quiet or that it it maybe does go on the upper level or in the back thank you and there I see your hand raising do you want to respond to her okay yeah I would love to just quickly um so on the density thing Mary I agree with you but one of the things that we had to do when we were coming up with the assumed densities in our site inventory is we had we had to provide kind of feasibility to show that what we were proposing was realistic to assume that was going to happen and one of the areas in particular I remember doing this exercise with uh uh raymie staff as well as Veronica was in our in our core area where we had we don't have a density maximum so like in this in the station area this specific plan boundary we don't have a maximum density and so when we were looking

at in so many of our sites are in that area because they're near Transit because they're near Services because they're you know centralized um we had to do an exercise to prove what was in a a reasonable full density assumption there and we ended up I believe we ended up coming up with 45 units to the acre as our density in that area but the way we got that was we looked at applications we had received so we looked at even though you know the Heinz project didn't go anywhere we use that as you know one because it was an application that came in on that smart parcel we looked at Haystack we looked at I can't remember what else did we look at North River Apartments so the things that had come in recently and the density on those different projects to come up with an assumed density of 45 units per acre so following hcd's methodology we had to use those Trends to prove what we were what we were saying the density we could assume on those projects so that's the forward versus backwards um so that's how we came up with that and then I also just wanted to I think that we do have a program in the general in the housing element that talks about establishing minimum densities um in in um I don't know if it's all zones or some zones but I I believe that is a program in the housing element and one of the reasons was because we typically are not getting our full density on projects they're not coming in pushing the upper limits actually I think the only projects we get typically that

come in pushing the upper limits of the density range are affordable housing projects our 100 affordable tend to be closer to the upward and so wanting us especially in our like R4 R5 type zones where those are our high density residential um wanting to say no we don't want to develop these as these lower lower densities and we do have minimums in a way but maybe looking rethinking those minimums so we have like eight to 18 units per acre but rethinking those because do we want to use our last remaining our four R5 Parcels at the very low end of those density ranges or do we want to assure that we're getting those higher densities um when we can so just a few responses thank you Heather and Kevin I appreciate your patience for Just Another Second just to emphasize the other aspect of your question uh Mary is not there's a really important distinction I want to remind people of between the site inventory we do in the housing element which in simple terms is a is a assessment of existing residentially zoned like land demonstrating that the city has sufficient amounts to accommodate Arena that's a very different exercise than the exercise we'll be doing for land use planning which is really determining what the Preferred Future development and growth pattern is for the city and that's where we're really going to get into the questions you're raising Mary around like what do we want like not just what are the what are the trends have been but what do we want the future Trends to

be and how do we plan for that so it's a really great point and we'll have to ask you to just kind of hold a bit more before we dive into that conversation as a group so thank you Kevin thanks for your patience go ahead sorry you're muted Kevin sorry Kevin you're you're muted can you unmute yourself sorry two of what Mary said I think she said it very well um and and underline the word aspirational and maybe maybe I'm getting too far into the aspirational and we're at the more planning things um what I what I would say uh my comment about balconies is balconies obviously I love balconies but how they're Incorporated when they're just stuck on uh a great big block you notice that hardly anybody ever goes who uses them um so it's all a matter of the way that we do balconies and if you lower the outdoor space to 30 square feet the only thing you can do is just stick a balcony on there that you're gonna put your bike on and um aspirationally I think we want more than that Emeryville what I'm talking Emeryville is fine for what it is but I would certainly hope that Emeryville does not uh Petaluma does not become memory bill uh it has a different totally different character and it seems to me that from what I'm hearing from the state is they almost the way things are put it sounds as though they want everything to be Emeryville and I I think that would be a terrible mistake thank you Kevin any additional bill go ahead question um really regarding um in the um in the attachment F in

the table two this is just something that popped out of me and I think we've had this conversation before and I just need to be schooled on what it means um you know it says in the Arena strategy table it indicates that we have capacity for 3241 units and our Arena number is 1910.

so then further on in the timeline for specific actions it says that we shall facilitate production of 3241 units over the next eight years so I have two kind of questions one is um why are we overshooting Arena Target by more than 50 percent and then what will be the implication if we identify that as a strategy and then in eight years it hasn't been done will there be any implication you know that those Parcels now become priority sites and um you know they become ministerial development potential and again I apologize if I'm beating this up I know I've asked this question before so I was trying to find a specific table you referenced was it the summary the the it's in the attachment app which is the um yeah page nine of um attachments let's see there it is I think that's it yeah yeah and then a couple Pages later thank you okay answer your question is why they're why we're demonstrating capacity for 3 200 units that I understand but it's just further on in the strategies um and I can't remember what page that is but it says specifically that we shall facilitate the development of that number of units within the next eight years that's that's in the first housing program program one and it says facilitate the overall development of 3257 units which is which is basically saying we'll facilitate the development as laid out in table two which is the summary of our Arena strategy so then again my question is um is there any implication you know the the the the aggregate of all

that's my question I guess and that's also probably a best for Veronica to respond to but um I think the simple answer is what the state is holding cities accountable for is their Arena what they like what they appreciate is that cities like Petaluma are including a buffer recognizing that despite our best best efforts to make assumptions based on historical Trends not all sites that are identified in an inventory May necessarily be developed or be developed in a mix of incomes projected um and so and limit simply demonstrating that it has capacity it exceeds the minimum requirement which by the way also helps with the requirement to replace any sites that are developed at below the expectations with additional sites so it makes it easier for the city to not have to do that every time project doesn't get built expect exactly to the to the site in the employees parameters um I don't believe I've I've heard Veronica respond to similar questions before I I do not believe that the expectation from ACD will be that 3257 units will be built um it's just that the city's saying here that it's it's it has the Zone capacity to accommodate that number and will and will accommodate the development that's currently permitted that answer your question but I would also add yeah Bill why don't why don't Ron and I touch Circle back with Veronica and and get just clarification on this and and then we can kind of update you know with with an email or something that you know responds to that

does that work I can't see Bill is he nodding or is he yeah he gave us a promise okay okay I want to make sure you feel heard so great thanks Bill any additional gpac comments at this point housing Berto yeah no I just see a recap of do we have more to cover if if we do I can wait until the end or is this uh we have just this item and then we have kind of the final opportunity that we typically do if you pack for gpac to make any other comments um specific to the gpac's responsibilities so this is if you have something to say that's not directly related to the housing element maybe that would be the time but no I'll just say no I guess I I mean the tone of the high density units and everything is just kind of like ringing off a kind of an alarm in the sense of everything kind of all the you know the main summary recommendations here I hear we you know reduction in parking and open space increase in density um while we spent like the last well two years you know discussing the other topics that tie in and where I think uh population in a whole will drive transportation resources water Etc so I think uh if we can push back on certain things even density while you know taking into account just water in itself in the future yeah this plan you know for developing it within the next eight years but we don't know what I mean we can only predict right with the long-term consequences of just what the resources availability are going to be in the strain of our system so that's just the

thing that's kind of going off in my head as we discuss kind of more density more units Etc uh while we're already witnessing some kind of you know policies and just water alone from where we get it so just something to think about and wanted to make sure I voiced that it's a great comment Roberto and like Mary's it's it's kind of like the next step of things we're going to get into and again a reminder that the site inventory is is demonstrate that the city's current zoning already accommodates the densities um you're mentioning and so because there's no rezoning required it didn't trigger any kind of evaluation of utility capacity that being said as part of the housing element we did have to ensure that sufficient acidity existed for water Wastewater Etc to accommodate those units but that was covered when these sites were originally zoned so um so yes for the housing element and yes it'll definitely be part of the conversation as we move forward and think about future settlement patterns related Mobility networks and infrastructure needed to support all of that yeah and I I Ron you can kick me if I'm saying this incorrectly but if when we go through the general plan process if there's areas that are on the site inventory that are decided to be increased in density capacity or decreased in density capacity as we get into that conversation of the land use pattern we can go and and update the housing element to track with the discussion we have as part of the general plan so

if if there's one of the sites under the current zoning which you know that's a good point that Ron brought up that we're not changing the zoning or the density on any of the parcels in our site inventory they're already designated and Zone that but if when we're going through the general Plan update process we decide hey this area we're really going to increase density in this area we're really going to decrease density we will want to go back and we will want to make sure the site inventory is amended to reflect that General plan discussion so this is this is not doesn't have to be a completely static document for the next eight years no thank you we've actually assumed all along we'll probably have to make some revisions in the housing element with it I mean along with the adoption of a broader General plan hey Roger related comment yeah because to Echo Roberto in the sense of none of this has taken into account climate change so when it came out of our climate change group is you know we're putting a lot more density in the areas that are most vulnerable that we'll know how to protect for for rising to hide so I think that that kind of overarching lens it's almost like the idea of carrying capacity you know I mean um that's not the state is trying to get as many people in as possible um so they're not really looking at these other elements that I think are a legitimate's a question then to bring out inside I kind of echo that is a sort of a broader sense now it's a lot

stay tuned we'll be getting that getting that sooner rather than later thank you all right any additional comments getting close to nine o'clock here but we do want to make sure we hear from everybody tonight who has a comment on that housing element well it just happened there that was me okay just so we could see people for the end oh thanks okay hearing nothing I think the final piece was just um final gpac thoughts housing element or otherwise before we close out I got a question so I know we're following the arena recommendations right but if we had to like pinpoint like one main driver that would like you know overarch the requirements for all these units in development and it wasn't you know the government Arena what what is our main driver um and I kind of want to just kind of reiterate my last comment where you know given a side that we have to kind of show that we can have all these units are we what are we value more as I guess in the planning aspect of this is it resources in the future uh the infrastructure that I mean I just recall the transportation conversation where we were you know where we're talking about expanding roads and modifying it where we already were showing issues there and so I guess my question back is like what is the main driver if it wasn't the arena for what would limit us of what we do I'm just like very confused on that it but again you're are you asking about like for the planning period for the general plan like or like through 2045

what like okay oh like I'll give an example right if I were to it's a hypothetical right but if I were to answer my own question I'd say the main driver for what I would allow the city would do would be my analysis based on the water the sewage and just like the transportation like those would be the three main drivers that would justify the growth uh and what the impact of the system might be on the people who currently live here and the people who might move in to you know like what is the strain that we might cause to the system based on these changes and another I guess good Edge case would be even if we didn't do anything what would the current system experience given those limited resources even if we didn't add people right so anyways that's that's how I'm looking at it yeah those are great important questions and it's definitely part of that that longer term land use discussion and as a matter of fact I was reminded recently that we as we're considering different options for future settlement patterns for Petaluma and coming down to a preferred development pattern we'll be evaluating that specifically against utility capacity to ensure that as you're saying there is the there's the water or the waste water um Etc to support anticipated future growth um that being said I again the reason that it broadened the conversation the reason we went through the exercise of doing developing vision and guiding principles was to clearly identify the sort of criteria we should all

be using as we're evaluating potential future settlement patterns along with uh supporting roadways multimodal Pathways parks and everything else that we're being mindful of the entire complex in our related system and considering a variety of factors in potential trade-offs together and so I I hear that's part of your question it's like how do we weigh all these different like the impacts of decisions on other aspects of City Life and systems but that we have very intention of thinking about it very holistically as we proceed thinking about future settlement is that getting to your question yeah in a way I'll yield my time I could go on but yeah did you have something to add Heather or otherwise we'll go to Chris no I was gonna bring up the the visioning The Guiding principles because I think that was a really good exercise to start thinking about all the lenses we want to look at the decisions that this group is going to be grappling with and we did know that this this was you know we're about to get into some challenging hopefully a little bit of fun but some challenging discussions because we've got a lot of different lenses that the community and this gpac has indicated are really important you know so yes we have you know kind of right now unfortunately because of the timing we have to deal with our housing element um it would be really nice to be dealing with the housing element after we've gone through some of these other things but here we are and we've got the

statutory requirement but we knew we were going to have to talk about you know how do we accommodate those those housing numbers but you know uh uh you know protect our natural resources and you know increase you know efficiencies and become carbon neutral and you know all of those things are going to be part of this conversation and how how to balance all of those so yeah I don't know that I added anything to the answer but um that's definitely what what we're headed into to talk about and how to how to balance them and how to look through the decisions um that you're going to be considering through all those lenses that gpac has said is important in the vision and the community has said is important when they provide their input and also why it's so great that you have such a diverse gpac with such a wide range of areas of expertise so there's lots of eyes they're going to be honest looking at it from different perspectives reminding us of all the different factors we need so Chris comment yeah just getting towards the end first of all I want to thank the staff for a great job on all this the staff report was excellent um I just want to point out I I listened to part of the Planning Commission meeting and you know just want to point out some really great stuff here we're providing for housing for Farm Workers for agricultural workers and for uh you know service employees there's uh languaging here to explore uh Partnerships with religious and institutional facility housing

to develop new kinds of projects in town uh the call out for senior housing I was just after we we're looking at housing but that we we look outside the box I know with senior housing there has been a tendency to sort of ghetto wise older adults and put them in separate facilities this document calls for at least exploring the possibility of intergenerational housing or ways to to bring everybody into the community so you know there's a lot of nuances here that I think are really great and once again you know um great work from the staff I really appreciate it thank you thank you Chris being no other hands raised Heather would you like to close us out thank you um thank you for participating in this discussion we are really excited to move the housing element forward to have it be adopted and looking forward to the um the conversations we have in in the coming months with this group so um thank you again I appreciate everyone's time and service to Petaluma um and we'll see you next month thank you thanks everybody and welcome again new members thanks everyone good night