Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Tue, March 14, 2023
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summaryAI-generated
Planning Commission — March 14, 2023
This was a regular meeting of the Petaluma Planning Commission, notable for being the first meeting run through the new PrimeGov platform and for taking place fully in person. The primary business was a major milestone: recommending adoption of the City's 2023–2031 Housing Element to the City Council.
General Public Comment
One member of the public, Taryn, addressed the Commission. She praised the current generation of Planning Commissioners for their thoughtfulness and elevated standard of deliberation compared to prior commissions. She then raised concerns about a recently filed lawsuit she believed was connected to Petaluma missing a housing compliance deadline, and urged the Commission to recommend that any consultants responsible for the missed deadline be held financially accountable through their professional liability insurance. (Staff later clarified during the meeting that no lawsuit from "the Johnsons" had actually been filed against the city — the speaker appeared to be referencing a builder's remedy application, not litigation.)
Approval of Minutes — January 24, 2023
The draft minutes were approved without substantive objection. Commissioner Rockason reiterated a standing recommendation that the City use a transcription software called "Descript" to more fully capture staff responses and commission dialogue for the record.
Vote: Approved by consensus (no formal roll call noted for this item).
Public Hearing: 2023–2031 Housing Element — Recommendation to City Council
This was the meeting's central item. The Commission considered a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the new Housing Element of the General Plan for the 2023–2031 cycle, repeal the prior 2015–2023 Housing Element, and approve an addendum to the existing Negative Declaration.
Background: Staff planner Christina (last name unclear in transcript) presented the final draft. The Housing Element is a state-mandated document demonstrating Petaluma's capacity to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City submitted a draft to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), received a comment letter, and returned to the Commission and Council for direction on revisions. This was the Commission's final review before an anticipated City Council vote the following Monday.
Key changes made in response to HCD's comments:
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units: HCD noted SROs are not currently permitted anywhere in Petaluma. The Housing Element now commits the City to creating an SRO definition and evaluating allowances in MU-4 and R-5 districts, with a zoning text amendment targeted for December 2024.
Private open space requirements: HCD flagged Petaluma's multi-family open space standards as higher than peer jurisdictions and potentially a barrier to development. The City will evaluate reducing those requirements while exploring alternatives such as communal rooftop decks or shared gardens.
Residential care facilities: Currently restricted to upper floors or behind active uses in mixed-use buildings for facilities serving seven or more people — a barrier to development. The City will evaluate expanding where these are allowed.
Parking minimums: The City will reduce parking requirements for smaller units and locations near transit, and encourage unbundled parking. A broader parking study is already underway. Staff also noted that making Petaluma Transit free for all riders is being considered in the next budget cycle.
More specific timelines and metrics: HCD pushed for concrete dates and measurable targets rather than aspirational language. The revised element includes unit production targets for senior housing, veteran housing, farmworker housing, and special needs housing — with the caveat that these are good-faith goals, not binding mandates, and that one unit can count toward multiple categories.
ADU production estimate: Reduced from 18 to 16 units per year annually, reflecting HCD's requirement to include 2018 data (a low-production year) in the average calculation.
Commissioner questions and discussion highlights:
*Builder's remedy exposure:* Commissioner Rockason asked whether any applications had already invoked builder's remedy due to the City's lapsed compliance deadline. Staff confirmed one application citing builder's remedy had been submitted for a residential project on commercially zoned land. Staff is currently reviewing it. A pending San Francisco court decision may affect when builder's remedy can be invoked relative to environmental review.
*Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO):* Vice Chair Hooper pressed staff on whether there would be a public process for updating the zoning code. Staff confirmed a comprehensive update is planned in coordination with the general plan, working with consultant Raimi & Associates, with a target around December 2024. The Commission would be involved throughout.
*Minimum density standards:* Discussion of establishing minimum densities in mixed-use zones, where currently no minimums exist, allowing low-density projects on high-capacity land. Staff indicated this will be addressed through the general plan and IZO process.
*Farmworker housing:* Commissioner Bauer asked why farmworker housing is specifically called out. Consultant Veronica Tam explained it is a state law requirement for jurisdictions in agricultural regions.
*Fairgrounds site:* Commissioner Carolyn suggested the City-owned fairgrounds could be leveraged as a development partnership opportunity for housing. Staff noted a community visioning process for the fairgrounds is underway and is among the Council's top ten priorities, though several council members have expressed reluctance to sell off portions of the site.
*Affordable housing impact fee reduction:* Staff noted that recent City Council changes to impact fees for affordable housing projects have been praised by developers including MidPen, Burbank, and Danco as a significant financial relief — reducing project costs by millions of dollars.
Public comment during hearing: Callum Weeks, Policy Director at Generation Housing, expressed strong support for the housing element and specifically applauded the direction on parking reform, SROs, shared open space, and the prospect of free Petaluma Transit. He offered Generation Housing's support in advocating for parking meters and transportation demand management measures.
Vote: Moved by Commissioner Hooper, seconded by Commissioner Potter. Roll call: Thompson — absent; Wissman — yes; Rockason — yes; Bauer — yes; Hooper — yes; McCarling — yes; Potter — yes. 6–0 in favor, 1 absent.
Staff and Commission Updates
Staff noted that the East Washington MidPen SB 35 project has submitted a letter of intent triggering tribal consultation, and a community meeting is being planned. The Scannell project developer is holding a community workshop/charrette on March 21st at the Marriott Courtyard at 6 PM. The Council reviewed its top 10 priorities at a lengthy session the prior evening without reordering them. The PrimeGov platform transition is ongoing; Commissioners will receive training on how to annotate staff reports digitally before the next meeting. There will be no meeting on March 28th; at least one and likely two meetings are expected in April.
Key Takeaways
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended (6–0) that the City Council adopt the 2023–2031 Housing Element, clearing the way for a Council vote the following Monday and submission to HCD for 60-day review — a critical step toward restoring the City's housing compliance status.
Builder's remedy is a live issue: At least one application has already been filed citing builder's remedy due to Petaluma's lapsed compliance, underscoring the urgency of finalizing the Housing Element.
Parking reform is coming: The City is actively moving toward reduced parking minimums for small units near transit, unbundled parking requirements, and possibly free Petaluma Transit — significant shifts in development policy.
A comprehensive zoning code overhaul is planned for late 2024, which will implement the housing element's commitments on SROs, open space standards, minimum densities, and more — with public participation and Planning Commission involvement expected throughout.
Affordable housing project economics are improving: Recent impact fee reductions have been called transformative by local affordable housing developers, potentially accelerating pipeline projects.
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
Draft Minutes January 24, 2023
The Planning Commission moved to approve the draft minutes from January 24, 2023. Commissioner Rockason suggested that staff consider using Descript, a transcription tool that converts video and audio into transcripts, to capture the full discussion and valuable staff responses to questions during meetings, which could serve as a reference for future discussions. No other edits or comments on the minutes were raised by commissioners, and the minutes appeared to be approved without objection.
Public Hearing and Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a General Plan Amendment to repeal the 20152023 Housing Element, adopt the City of Petaluma Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 20232031 with findings that it substantially complies with State Housing Element Law, and including approval of an Addendum to the previously approved Negative Declaration for the 20152023 Housing
# Summary: General Plan Amendment - Housing Element (2023-2031)
Staff presented a General Plan Amendment to repeal the 2015-2023 housing element and adopt the 2023-2031 housing element, which incorporates revisions made in response to Housing and Community Development (HCD) comments. Key modifications include reducing annual ADU estimates from 18 to 16 units, allowing Single Room Occupancy buildings in specified districts by December 2024, evaluating private open space requirements to reduce development barriers, reducing non-residential conversion goals to 40 units and multi-family goals based on feasibility assessments, and implementing reduced parking requirements that allow unbundled parking and potential transit pass subsidies. The housing element demonstrates the city's capacity to meet regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) through an eight-year cycle with specific unit production targets for senior, veteran, and special needs housing (approximately 50 units per project), while commissioners emphasized the importance of minimum density standards and design quality to prevent under-development. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend City Council adoption, with public commenters expressing support for parking reductions, smaller unit types, and shared open spaces as key affordability measures.
Staff presented a General Plan Amendment to repeal the 2015-2023 housing element and adopt the 2023-2031 housing element, which incorporates revisions made in response to Housing and Community Development (HCD) comments. Key modifications include reducing annual ADU estimates from 18 to 16 units, allowing Single Room Occupancy buildings in specified districts by December 2024, evaluating private open space requirements to reduce development barriers, reducing non-residential conversion goals to 40 units and multi-family goals based on feasibility assessments, and implementing reduced parking requirements that allow unbundled parking and potential transit pass subsidies. The housing element demonstrates the city's capacity to meet regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) through an eight-year cycle with specific unit production targets for senior, veteran, and special needs housing (approximately 50 units per project), while commissioners emphasized the importance of minimum density standards and design quality to prevent under-development. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend City Council adoption, with public commenters expressing support for parking reductions, smaller unit types, and shared open spaces as key affordability measures.
Agenda items (2)
Procedural (1)
1ProceduralDraft Minutes January 24, 2023
What happened
The Planning Commission moved to approve the draft minutes from January 24, 2023. Commissioner Rockason suggested that staff consider using Descript, a transcription tool that converts video and audio into transcripts, to capture the full discussion and valuable staff responses to questions during meetings, which could serve as a reference for future discussions. No other edits or comments on the minutes were raised by commissioners, and the minutes appeared to be approved without objection.Public Hearing
2Public HearingPublic Hearing and Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a General Plan Amendment to repeal the 20152023 Housing Element, adopt the City of Petaluma Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 20232031 with findings that it substantially complies with State Housing Element Law, and including approval of an Addendum to the previously approved Negative Declaration for the 20152023 Housing
What happened
# Summary: General Plan Amendment - Housing Element (2023-2031)Staff presented a General Plan Amendment to repeal the 2015-2023 housing element and adopt the 2023-2031 housing element, which incorporates revisions made in response to Housing and Community Development (HCD) comments. Key modifications include reducing annual ADU estimates from 18 to 16 units, allowing Single Room Occupancy buildings in specified districts by December 2024, evaluating private open space requirements to reduce development barriers, reducing non-residential conversion goals to 40 units and multi-family goals based on feasibility assessments, and implementing reduced parking requirements that allow unbundled parking and potential transit pass subsidies. The housing element demonstrates the city's capacity to meet regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) through an eight-year cycle with specific unit production targets for senior, veteran, and special needs housing (approximately 50 units per project), while commissioners emphasized the importance of minimum density standards and design quality to prevent under-development. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend City Council adoption, with public commenters expressing support for parking reductions, smaller unit types, and shared open spaces as key affordability measures.
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Approve minutes from January 24, 2023
aye 1
voice voteaye
Recommend city council adopt the housing element general plan amendment
aye 6 · absent 1
Baueraye
Cader Thompsonabsent
Hooperaye
McCarlinaye
Potteraye
Rockasonaye
Whismanaye
Verbatim transcript available
45 transcript segments indexed
um clerk will you please take roll call foreign Thompson absent whisman here racism here Bauer here Hooper here mccurling yeah Potter here we have one absent and six years all right thank you very much Miss Ellis we'll now move into general public comment during General Paul during general public comment the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the Planning Commission subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed on the current agenda public comments are limited to up to three minutes per person depending on the number of persons wishing to address the Planning Commission time will be allocated in equal shares totaling no more than 15 minutes I'll now be opening public comments and if you have not done so please bring your speaker card to the clerk's desk uh clerk did you receive any other comments prior to the meeting no okay thank you okay um we will now be taking general public comments and it looks like I got one public general public comment today and I'll call on that person and please come to the podium and you'll have three minutes and the first and only person is Taryn if you're here go to the podium and you'll have three minutes to speak before foreign you could go ahead and speak now thank you I'd like to make a comment tonight about quality of discussion I'd like to thank out excuse me thank our planning Commissioners who demonstrate above and beyond consideration thoughtfulness analysis of the issues that come
before the Planning Commission um is very appreciated it's noticed it's appreciated by many people that don't attend that don't raise their hand that are too shy too shy to even write an email there's a lot of discussion in Petaluma recently specifically with regards to how the bar has been raised for planning commissioners and the planning commissioners of the past who really didn't provide the same level of thoughtfulness consideration towards keeping our city safe and preserving our quality of life I never heard that kind of comments about them this is like a new generation and we really thank you so what I want to mention tonight is not about the housing element which I realize is on the agenda tonight but it is about the recent development where the Johnsons have sued our city because we're not in compliance with our housing Arena whatever with Sacramento somehow we're not in compliance we missed a deadline I don't know what the full story is I don't know what part of the deliverables weren't done who didn't do them what happened what didn't happen when it all happened but what I want to say tonight is a lot of people are really upset because it interferes with the Greenway Park potentially and I know we hired a lot of Consultants for our plan uh for our general plan and whichever consultant or Consultants that are ultimately responsible for not getting this deliverable in on time I look to the Planning Commission to recommend to the city council that they be held fully
accountable and financially liable for the impact to quality of life and to The Greenway Park effort which is really being embraced as a pride a treasure for Petaluma now and for our future I've worked in insurance companies including the largest one on our planet there is liability insurance professional liability insurance that covers errors and Emissions so whomever whichever Consultants are responsible if this is really an impact to us I look to you to hold them accountable and for the city to file a lawsuit against them thank you thank you very much Taryn we'll now move on to our approval of minutes these minutes are from January 24th 2023 if anybody has any comments or edits for the um for the minutes please say so okay yes Darren just make a quick comment and another plug for dscript and I guess I should be looking at um staff who takes the minutes but this is a program that you can feed video into audio and it'll create a transcript of the meeting and it sounds like a broken record but every time I read those minutes I think man all the time that gets poured into this all the valuable staff responses to questions that get thrown out at meetings we want to make sure we're kind of capturing all that and ideally we can later kind of mine that and that functions as kind of a a reference point for future discussions so just wanted to plug that that's d-e-s-c-r-i-p-t I think it would be a really useful tool all right thank you commissioner rockason I don't see any other
comments so we'll go ahead and approve those minutes and um we'll close that agenda item and I don't know if I actually formally even closed the public comment but closing that too now sorry um okay now we're going to open um agenda item number two which is the public hearing for housing element and I'm going to um say that we're going to be considering today so this is a public hearing and resolution recommending that the city council adopt the general plan amendment to repeal the 2015-2023 housing element adopt the city of Petaluma housing element of the general plan for the period of 2023 to 2031 with findings that it substantially complies with a state housing element law and including approval of an addendum addendum to the previously approved negative declaration for the 20 2015 to 2023 housing element okay well now um look to see if anybody has any ex parte Communications regarding this agenda item that they'd like to disclose okay I don't see any so we'll now be inviting staff to give the presentation of this item and I think that they'll be either Christina or Heather okay Christina go ahead thank you good evening chair Bauer and Commissioners it is a pleasure to be here with you this evening at this point in our housing element journey and also in person uh we are going Mrs Paul yeah excuse me can you check and make sure your mic is um it's both turned on and is it on would you like it to be closer to my that may be the case yeah thanks hello okay okay is that can
you hear it now let me know okay so um we are going to be reviewing and considering the final housing element and Associated environmental documentation receiving public comment and considering a resolution recommending city council adoption I'm going to be reviewing uh briefly the Planning Commission and city council comments that we got when we came to you a month ago to review proposed changes and policy Direction on the housing element you shouldn't be surprised by what we are about to go through given the comments that we received at that meeting and I do want to note ahead of time that there are no changes to the site inventory or the overall approach to the sites I also want to note that with us for your for questions if you have them we have two members of our Consulting team we have Veronica Tam from Veronica Tam Associates who has been helping with the housing element preparation specifically and then Catherine green who has been helping with the addendum to the negative declaration very quickly for folks who have not been to any housing element meetings yet welcome uh the housing element is a required element of the general plan that is adopted by city council and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development that's what we call hcd one of the primary roles of the housing element is to demonstrate capacity to meet our Regional Housing needs allocation or Arena it gives us an opportunity to reflect on and begin to address housing challenges
across the city of course we are also considering this as part of a general Plan update so this is one part of our housing conversation but a major one in addition to identifying sites for potential development we also identified housing goals priorities and programs which is where a majority of our work happened as part of this element because we did not go for rezoning for any housing sites uh the housing element is on an eight-year cycle uh as are the rest of the rest of the countries and the rest of the cities and other jurisdictions the housing element is made up of these pieces we have the housing element itself which contains the goals policies and action items as well as the needs assessment constraints resources and opportunities review of accomplishments affirmatively furthering fair housing and a summary of public participation that we went through in the process of developing this document all of that is part of the packet and I want to note that one of the main portions of interest is the site's inventory and appendix C we have been working on Gathering feedback for this housing on or on housing in the city since actually 2020 when we asked questions associated with the general plan on where folks were interested in seeing new and different housing and since then we have been working on on elements of that including through the the general Plan update engagement doing analysis of fifth cycle needs constraints and sites we produced an administrative draft housing
element in the summer of last year and reviewed that with the Planning Commission we came back in September to review the public draft and then we have we also came back after submitting to Housing and Community Development to review the preliminary Direction giving given hcd's comment letter or comment letter so far since we have gotten the comment letter we came and talked about what direction the city should take we did that with Planning Commission General plan advisory committee and city council and now we are here to request planning commissions recommendation on the council's direction for this final draft we are anticipating that the council will consider this item next Monday we are on a fairly tight time frame wanting to get a housing element that is in substantial compliance with the state regulations after that we will send it to hcd for their 60-day review talking about the changes that you will have seen since the last draft again there have been no changes to the site inventory all of the sites that we have in our site inventory are currently zoned for housing we haven't increased any densities or or changed any zoning in any way hcd required that we reduce the annual accessory dwelling unit production estimate from 18 to 16 that's because they wanted us to include another year that would be 2018 when I think there were only five adus permitted so that brought down our overall average so that would be the only change that you would see in our projected housing
production estimates in the housing element when we were last here a month ago we went through five policy decision points and I'm going to go through each of those briefly and talk about the changes that we've made in response to comments first hcd pointed out that nowhere in Petaluma our single room occupancy buildings allowed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use so we are stating in the housing element that the city will create a definition of what an SRO is and evaluate allowing that as it in mur4 and R5 districts and consider that potentially in other districts I'm not going to repeat this on the next slide because it's true of all of them but we do anticipate a zoning text Amendment Target date of December 2024 we anticipate getting that work done as we're wrapping up the general plan we also want it we also got feedback to consider minimizing tenancy timelines so that xro occupation is fairly flexible and doesn't have a high bar of Entry hcd pointed out that the city of petaluma's opens or private open space requirements in multi-family buildings are higher than local jurisdiction other local jurisdictions and that they may serve as a barrier to Housing Development so we have drafted language that says that we will evaluate other jurisdiction standards and consider lowering that requirement so that we are not serving or we're not putting that up as a barrier to development updates might also include changes that are more specific around dimensional
requirements so that you're outlining the dimensions of a balcony or something like that or ensuring that there's aggregate open space as part of developments which could be a roof deck or a shared Garden or something like that with the goal of providing livability for residents and ensuring the community character is maintained Point number three we looked at residential care facilities for seven or more people those are currently only allowed in the mu-1 and mu 1A mu1b mu2 C1 and C2 mixed use and Commercial zoning districts but only on upper floors or behind an active use in a mixed-use building that does serve as a barrier to developing this kind of facility so the city will look at appropriate design and operational characteristics for consideration and work to allow those uses in those zones we also were requested to reduce parking requirements again to reduce the barrier to development and the city has already begun much of that work in much of that conversation we reinforce that in the housing element draft and are specifically going to be looking at reducing parking requirements for smaller units and location near Transit and amenities as well as encouraging mode shift and and thinking about which different areas of the city may need different standards finally The Fairly General comment from hcd that they wanted to see more specificity from Petaluma they wanted to see less the city will consider this and more for example in 2025 the city will consider this will make
a decision and then the following year take action relative to that decision so more detail around timelines we also worked to confirm that the city would be in compliance with state law on a variety of different topics we and then we were asked to have some metrics around specifically unit unit development so how many of different kinds of units would we develop and so we made some targets to respond to that query from hcd that's throughout the housing element there's a list of the different uh different sections in the housing element let's see it's three five six seven Etc that have these targets inserted into them in each of these cases we were estimating for example how many senior units there would be how many veteran units there would be special needs farm worker housing and that kind of thing and the Consulting team in working with City staff came up with estimates that we think that represent a moderate level of demand and also development types that we generally see so there are quite a few estimates that are around 50 units which is reflective of that sort of funding sweet spot of around 50 units for an affordable housing development we can talk a little bit about that if you would like but we do want to reinforce that all of those targets can overlap in some ways so for example one unit could be a senior unit and also a veteran unit and also a special needs unit because one person can be all of those things we do want to say that the metrics aren't requirements
but they're a vehicle for us to be reporting to hcd you know yes we made a progress towards this goal or you know we haven't gotten there quite yet there are a couple of examples of current and upcoming projects where you can see this dynamic in place so for example the pep River City Senior Apartments that was recently occupied and that was occupied after the deadline to be counted for this housing element is a 54 unit project it has 43 affordable units 40 50 53 affordable units 53 of them are senior units because it's a senior project then 25 of those units are dedicated to Veterans because of their funding stream similarly so you can see that the funding can drive the housing of some of these special populations similarly the The Mid Penn Washington Square project which is getting put together right now their funding is getting assembled right now um is anticipating that some of their funding will specifically come from a source that funds housing for Farm Workers and so some portion of that project will be Farm worker housing or some of the units in that project will be for Farm Workers so this points out an opportunity for the city to not only establish these estimates but also support work towards housing particular populations by supporting developers as they work to Target funding that serves particular populations several of the current projects including the Meridian at Corona station and Studios at Montera have have focused on permanent Supportive Housing for very
low-income residents which are folks that are very hard to house units that are very difficult to build looking at the housing element appendix updates I just went through all of the somewhat substantive policy amendments that we've made since we got hcd's letter we also looked at the appendices for the housing element and you can see each of those edit areas that we made here largely again focused these are not policy moves but they're focused on making sure that we have current data that we're really affirming that we know about the state density bonus law and we're going to conform to it Etc we really put quite a bit of effort into the site inventory section or appendix mostly to reinforce the logic or the feasibility analysis behind some of the projects to describe the current condition of some of the pipeline projects in particular so that hcd was reasonably certain of our rationale when identifying those sites and then we are working you know as as you update if you update any of the numbers in the table that says how we will meet Rina then an entire appendix has to be updated so we updated the affirmatively furthering fair housing appendix and then are updating the public participation one as we go we have received one written comment letter from transform that was forwarded to the commission earlier today and that is my presentation all right thank you very much Christina it was very thorough we'll now move on to see if any Commissioners have any questions and the way
we did it before the pandemic was we would go in order either from that end of the diocese to that end and so um I guess that's what we'll do again now that we're in person so um we'll start on this end today we'll start with Rick and then go commission commissioner wissman and then go all the way around and ending with commissioner Potter so this is the time that's available for us to ask questions of Staff about the housing element so we'll start with commissioner wissman thank you chair uh I have no questions okay right great thank you commissioner rockason as usual I have a few questions um you know one of the concerns was brought up actually in public comment I've been getting emails about it just to clarify from staff you know since the January 31st 2023 deadline have there been applications for development projects that have explicitly tried to take advantage of or have referenced that we don't have a compliant housing element has that happened because it's been raised as a specter and I just want to see if such things exist yes we do have a previous application that had come in um in 2022 I think it was an SB 330 application had come in that application was revised and re-submitted as two applications one of which citing Builders remedy because it is a residential on a commercially zoned property and I'll just add to just be clear from that public comment we haven't been sued by the Johnsons and um I think staff are currently reviewing those applications and I don't
want to get lost in the Weeds on Builders remedy Dylan but I was doing a little reading and quickly got out of my depth but this Builder's remedy there is a landmark decision I believe coming out of San Francisco if I'm getting that right where it can't be applied until an eir is in play is that so it is when the city submits a substantially compliant or adopts a substantially compliant housing element which I think the plan is next Monday yeah okay okay yeah I was just asking if they can even invoke Builders remedy before we're at the environmental review process again this is some legal precedent document I was reading yeah I'm I would need to look into that council member planning commissioner yeah you would know better than me so I just thought I'd put it out there and then you know given hcd's feedback about using more substantive language I appreciated seeing in there about the annual report there are certain items in appendix e about different programs like targeting 40 of affordable and high resource areas program 25 targeting 20 of new rental units three or more bedrooms what proposed actions are required to keep us in compliance I mean what goals that we've laid out that we're relaying in our reports would put us in danger of coming out of compliance with a housing element you know if we don't meet 40 affordable and high resource areas because that's a tough one is it just land use changes is it inventory numbers what triggers that well I think in general um a lot
of just um your census tracts are a higher resource anyway but I these are good faith efforts and I think the important things is that you demonstrate good faith um and and particularly for example like 20 of your units for for larger units then you may want to um as you implement your housing almond think about incentives or some um or policy requirements that there's a mix of uh housing unit types of size when it's a larger project particularly when you're redeveloping for for example a shopping center with a lot of units in it you do want to have a variety of types and sizes and so that would be one of the ways that you can help achieve uh the 20 but these are primarily good faith efforts that you are committed to doing so to add to that this is part of the general plan which is our overarching strategy from our to the development in the city and it gives us direction for policy development so the housing element itself does not change the zoning code for example that's why it's in a few of those examples we're saying that we're planning on doing that in 2024 so some of that work would happen as part of those updates the fee structures as well I will just add also um that we have worked very closely with affordable housing providers in in our area and a lot of that is also working with them to Target what what does Petaluma need um so looking at that and we have those conversations additionally it's what are what what are the funding availability that's out there so it
might be that there's a round where there's funding for you know large family units which are you know three bedrooms and above and so um a lot of times that's how we get those specific types or specific targets like the veterans housing or the farmworker housing that midpin is targeting some some funding sources that is specifically for farm work or housing and so those ways of you know those Partnerships are also ways we can do that yeah no and I like a lot of the goals laid out and it did strike me that a lot of this work wouldn't necessarily show up necessarily in a written document form so it was hcd it sounds like it's a relatively subjective measure if they think you're using good faith when they read your annual report you'll likely stay in majority compliance okay and then the other question uh just burden-wise for staff I notice a lot of programs timing kind of 2023 some had to be revised from Jan 23 to July some reference 2022 like the water master plan we just had a meeting last night a late meeting with city council about top priorities and there's a lot you know people want to expedite different priorities so you know those timelines do we feel pretty confident in that given those workloads for some of the things we're putting forth I I think it's a balance you know this is a huge priority in our community we have a acute housing crisis and so we want to kind of tow that line between being aggressive and putting out aggressive targets and also being safe so we
meet our targets there's you know there's a balance there so um we definitely had good conversations about the deadlines a number of them like a lot of the zoning you'll see are all December 2024 and that's because we're anticipating a comprehensive zoning code update on the heels of adopting the general plan so that it feels like a lot of work if we were to start doing them one at a time but because we're doing that comprehensive update those will kind of all all get worked into that and then a natural piece of the general plan also is like the fees re re-looking at the fees we'll have new infrastructure priorities coming out of the general plan and so it will be a perfect time for us to re-look at our impact fees so some of those play directly into that so it's kind of late 2024 heavy but that's that's the reasoning behind that okay we're gonna have these big Source documents all coming together at that time uh and in that way my second to last question on objective design standards I see the goal move to July 2023 that's been a big point for folks on this committee and the public do you know when we might see a draft of those given that time we we are really working right now internally to all all the things we've got going and and deadlines so I don't want to give a deadline and not be able to you know but we have a working draft one of the things that the little bit of additional time with that has actually helped because as we're working on different things like most
recently when we're talking about um TDM and aspects of the TDM why don't we put that into the objective design standards so I actually think there's been some benefit for us to have it sit a little bit because we're working on so much that more and more keeps getting kind of added to those objective design standards but um I I would expect soon we also want to go we started that effort with some Outreach and so we want to do some Outreach before we're here before back before the commission as well with some of our local Architects housing providers that kind of stuff to make sure we're we're getting good feedback no that's great news and I know again it's something people have been very passionate about so kind of a preview of Coming Attractions I really liked seeing July 2023 and then um the final question kind of a similar thing for water master plan it references a lot of end of 2022 and obviously that's a huge issue it seems to be in our rearview a little bit as we get deluged but I guess is that progress are we already pretty far along in that process or a great update on the timeline for that I don't know if you do Andrew I've been you do yeah yeah I know that the the planning process is in mid-swing so that's actively getting worked on by Public Works they're the ones who are putting that together those are all my questions thanks great thank you very much commissioner rockerson we'll move on over to commissioner Hooper Vice chair Hooper thank you very much also it's
great to actually be talking to everybody in person um well to kicks things off I do have a few questions as well and one question I have is less about the housing element as it stands with the latest draft and more about the implementation or not the implementation but the timeline for the new izo I I saw that you had in there that in the report that in in concurrence you're looking at updating the zoning code and and the general plan my question was in general terms are we going to be looking at the Planning Commission having comments and feedback on drafts of the Ico leading up to the completion or leading up to the December 20th date is the gpat going to be involved what's that timeline going to look like since so much of that is in the zoning code well I would be very surprised to do a comprehensive zoning code update and like just bring it to you guys and expect it to get recommended and moved on I would you know we're going to have to do a lot of work throughout the process um currently what we've been thinking about is that that process starting once we have some land use Alternatives in play and we're waiting on the land use alternatives for the flooding and sea level rise mapping so it's kind of waiting on one thing to get to the next step and then the next step but in talking with um raymie and Associates that was kind of because what we didn't want to have happen is essentially what did happen with the Ico right that it was the interim zoning ordinance and then
just never got the comprehensive update it needed um so I would assume that once we have some land use Alternatives um and kind of are starting to look at that we will start working on the zoning code update or at least having them kind of start piecing it together so I I don't think I have a perfect answer completely fleshed out yet on that process but I would imagine a lot of iteration and discussion my and I would have been very surprised if all this time ahead you had a timeline in place I guess my real question is I just want to make sure that for the Ico just like with the general plan that there is a public process at some at some point put forward to allow us to know like okay by this month we're going to look at this component of it and by next month we'll look at this the only reason why is because as much as this document has I'm sure provided no end distress once we start getting into parking regulations and actually talking about private community space and really going into it that's where I know emotions are going to get very high and so having a good Runway of discussion I think is going to be really important so I'm just happy to know that there's going to be a clear process laid out at some point thank you and then uh pivoting from that I was looking at comments that were made about sros and private Open Spaces as well as parking minimums for those in particular I think that's where I've gotten the most emails I'm sure others have as well about what that's
going to look like and fully understanding that this in many ways is just a placeholder or a statement of we will do this at this time uh will there be special attention given to those topics when we start to move into the zoning process well I think there needs to be given the feedback we've received I mean especially the private open space one of the biggest you know that was probably the one that had the most kind of emotion or connection and how do you do that while still maintaining you know livability and Community character and all that so we're we're going to need to have um some good conversation about that we're also hopeful that you know when when you do a comprehensive update hopefully who you're working with is has examples from different jurisdictions so we can kind of start bringing the best of different jurisdictions together and then tailoring it to be Petaluma specific will the will the comprehensive update also have its own consultant attached to it um at the moment we were looking at working with raymie because of the seamlessly seamlessness of that okay great so at some point they're going to be able to lay out that whole process to the public as well yeah we'll we'll be getting a scope and and looking at that and making sure we work in plenty plenty of community engagement with it as well thank you if I can add also I just want to note that as we go through the general plan process a lot of these topics will be coming up before we dive into the Ico so
we're going to be bringing up the topics of of land use of community character of natural spaces of you know ecosystem restoration and water and all of these kinds of things so we'll be starting those conversations and beginning that Community dialogue before we get to the point of doing the Ico and getting into those fine details so we'll have a fair amount of background input that time oh good okay no that makes sense and then pivoting a little bit from the izio I have a special fixation on the Ico just given how much happened the last time around so I'm just glad to know that it will be a comprehensive overhaul this time um I saw the and and you flagged it in the report the change in unit goals for both non-residential conversion to 40 and then the drop down for multi-family from 180.
I just wanted to know what was what was the basis for those reductions did I have to do more with comments you received or they have to do with a change in metrics going into it I think Veronica can you speak to that um It's a combination of both um definitely um one if we we have to be conservative to some extent so that we can make sure that we can meet the goals uh um with good faith effort so when I looked at the goals again I again just like um Christina mentioned before a typical affordable housing project is about 50 units and so in in places where I had 200 that or well I looked at and said maybe if we can do two projects over eight years that's a pretty good achievement so that's a hundred um particularly um I think the part that I lowered a lot more is the office conversion um I'm doing similar kind of calculation for the city of Mill Valley and then we were looking at the type of space that could be converted and I I looked at it it's usually um more feasible when uh when when the second floor has at least three thousand square feet or so and so I that that usually that makes it um possible for about two or three units of conversion and so I looked at that and said okay maybe uh for Petaluma having the the number that I originally had means a lot of projects over eight years and that may be too aggressive so that's why I cut it down in terms of some other changes that I I cut down is the illegal legalization of illegal units that you may you know I had a little bit
high of a goal but then again thinking about the city power does not have that many uh illegally permitted units or or that has to go through this that would go through this process so I also cut it down so it's a combination of comments from you and then also rethinking about you know what is more likely to be achievable over eight years so then I pair it down quite a bit so that makes sense it's hard to hear that these are the more realistic goals we can hit but I completely understand um pivoting pivoting away from the reduction of metrics I did see that in program four you modify the requirement or I guess the the goal for minimum density for multi-family and mixed use yeah you modify the language to push for establishing which got me excited because I like minimum standards for things like density I was just curious to know what does a minimum standard look like like okay I have to let me so we actually um in our multi-family zones currently we do have minimum standards so that's like when you have um I think it's 18 8 to 18 units per acre so that's saying you you have to do at least eight um and and so we do have those for the um for the multi-family zones we don't have those for our mixed-use zones so they're up to 30 units per acre but there's no minimum um similar in the smart code area there is unlimited density but there's no minimum so technically you might be able to have you know yeah a four Plex when really you could potentially have I don't know you know
whatever so um and I think the reason those we might also as part of when we're looking at the general plan really be looking at what are the appropriate minimum densities and are there certain districts where we want to raise that threshold or have some kind of unless there's extenuating circumstances raise that because one of the things we have seen is our you know R4 and R5 zoning districts having very kind of low density suburban typology and technically they're meeting the low density threat you know the lower minimum density but is it really high enough are we are we getting the development we want on land that is of short supply so thank you for putting this in because the number of projects we've seen where it's been stated as mixed use and there's not a thing we could do to try and get them to do more I'm glad we're going this route especially for the R4 and R5 zoning and then looking at and I'm I promise I'm almost done looking at the letter that we got I was curious to know I I could have sworn there was going to be a plan parking or parking study that was going to come into play so that that's already happening right that is that's one of the things we're looking at in connection with our private parking so we are looking at that there was something else in here and we are planning to require unbundled parking and um one of the things in here is encourage development to subsidize Transit passes in in the next budget we are looking to make Petaluma Transit free for
everybody so you know there's some of the things that we're kind of already doing that the transform letter talks about so they're they're great Concepts and we're we're working on them currently oh that's fantastic news thank you and then my my last question this just goes back to the parking discussion I know we we will have timelines for the implementing zoning ordinance and I understand that the general plan process is going to bring up a lot of the the meat and potatoes of the actual policy will there be more public workshops on it and I only ask that because I know I get enough comments from people who want to know when they can make their make their comments about what they want from parking will there be more opportunities for more public workshops specifically on parking I would I would imagine definitely I mean when we went to when we had that joint study session with pbac Planning Commission and city council I believe we had envisioned it at that time being the first of three okay um so one of you know then talking about public parking and talking about Transit and active Transportation because they all go so hand in hand so I we don't have a date for those but I would anticipate we'll have other forums like that to talk about the related aspects great thank you thank you very much Vice chair Hooper will now move on to commissioner Caroline thank you good presentation thank you very sissing uh just uh I'm not sure this is way off the subject but why does Petaluma
not have parking meters there must have been some decisions someone made that it's not something we want to do I'm only thinking because it it does deter parking yeah um I I don't know like I don't have I wasn't here when I remember it specific dialogue about them or them being put in or taken out or you know like I remember in Santa Rosa when they were put in it was a big discussion um but I think there is a lot of opposition from Merchants um about about making it more difficult for people yeah it's very nice I love it but it's it's a big money Source I'm surprised of it um I also listened to the um kbyg presentation on affordable housing and the difficulty of affordable housing and what Vienna is doing versus us and given the difficulty of of these affordable sites I mean it's it's funding it's the right Partners it's very very concrete even more so than the site specific it's kind of like how do we get all these other things in line and then we can consider the project and I don't think the state rules even take that into consideration now they're just you know build it figure it out but it's it's a very difficult process can I just add something to that I recently um the city council made changes to our impact fees for affordable housing projects and what we have heard from our affordable housing providers is how what an amazing shift that made for our affordable housing production just I mean it's reduced by millions of dollars the cost of affordability yeah so that
that was yes getting everything in line and getting all of our um you know our our processes and regulations and everything in line so it's easy and we're you know so many of the programs in here are seeking to do that but I just wanted to kind of point out a small victory we had with that last year that we've talked with midpen we've talked with Burbank we've talked with Danko and all of them have just really said it has made such a difference so right the the other thing I realized watching that uh presentation of these these affordable projects I have a force of their own or life of their own they have requirements that they have to and none of those necessarily ensure a great looking project you're an attractive project so somehow I'd like to build into our philosophy that um you know one of the the goals is that we should still aspire to make each project a positive addition to this to the quality of the city and you know that's that's a little nebulous because it involves architecture involves Landscapes it will site land but somehow I think that I don't want to lose because I'm concerned I've mentioned this before the ministerial approvals that means that we may not be involved or so staff requirement and so make sure that there's enough attention spent to making it a good looking project in addition to our city many of the projects I've seen recently built apartments are not to me a great addition to a city they're pretty pretty forceful and not necessarily attentive
to all the edges and how it fits and that concerns me because it solves a housing project but it doesn't doesn't improve the city and I'd like to see the two work together um the other thing I somehow remember in a discussion that 50 units per acre or 50 units was a minimum not a not a Target but a minimum I think it was your presentation um as far as the size of project it would be acceptable no less than 50 acres but typically it so um I think the 50 units we refer to for a couple of the programs we set an objectives for either 50 or 100 units because a typical affordable housing project the ideal size I shouldn't say ideal size most affordable housing projects that are funded by low-income housing tax credit which is the most prolific source of affordable housing funding it's between 50 to 80 units and and and the type of projects that Petaluma has been getting has been around 50 units so a lot of our objectives are set at multiples of 50 and I think at the most I have done it's like two projects or 100 units two projects okay and the other I guess the other question that seems like when you talk about densities of 18 units per acre that's a garden apartment just you know a surface parking Garden Apartment you go to 30 units per acre you start getting different structures and different tuck under parking you go to 50 or 60 units per acre you have garage parking so each one of those is a different type of architectural solution and a different image and different criteria
so it almost seems like the density we got to approach those density plateaus in terms of building type plateaus and build our standards to reflect those because the standards were 20 units were acre entirely different than 50 in terms of sight design setbacks and so on so maybe all this is obvious but um and the other last there's a question that I'm not even sure relates to this but the the fairground site is owned by the city as I understand it and the question is given you know that's pretty valuable Land Is there a way the city can participate in achieving housing by selling that land at a price that someone can afford to buy and develop it or to use it as part of a partnership in building a project on that land but it seems like it's an economic resource the city has it could help this housing issue um there will be a visioning around the around the fairgrounds the the recent process that happened with healthy democracy and um uh Community engagement around the fairgrounds um kind of informing um the current the current um effort to um reclaim management of the fairgrounds and then there will be some visioning over the next several years that was one of the priorities discussed by the council last night as one of their top ten their you know a number of the council members during that process indicated not wanting to break it apart to sell off pieces um so I don't have the answer on what exactly that's going to look like but definitely acknowledging that it's a that it
is a community resource um it just seems like a resource that it's like it's like a Redevelopment resource I mean we have it's cheap you can use the value of it to achieve something the city wants and that's a great location for housing I think it's been talked about quite a bit so somehow see what the city could lead as opposed to waiting for a developer to show up say I'll I'll do all the funding I found you know here's the site City could say here's a site we can participate and make it more attractive question that's my cause thank you very much commissioner Carol and commissioner Potter thank you chair Bauer I just want to acknowledge staff for all the work on this huge milestone that we're about to bring forward to the city council and I think this Planning Commission has heard three or four times in the last few years participated in development and I really appreciate it in the staff report the attachment that showed the track changes that clearly reflected the input from this commission as well as the city council to address the comments that the state had on our draft housing element and I also want to applaud everybody for acknowledging the housing crisis that we have and working on this in good faith I feel proud to be a petaluman because it's not the case in all the communities across California and we continue to learn and make it easier to build housing all of us have seen on this commission projects that were thwarted in one way or another that could have
provided housing and affordable housing and so it is my hope that with these revisions which really nicely incorporate and balance the interests of the various stakeholders that we will begin to remove some of those barriers and reach the goals that we've set for this community so I just want to thank everybody for their participation and efforts on it I know it's it's a big deal great thank you very much commissioner Potter um and I only have one question um on the element and that's the um the area around the the Farm Workers the specific housing for the Farm Workers I I'm just wondering where that came from because you know I uh I know that Farm Workers are underpaid as are a lot of um or service people in our town and I'm just wondering why why are we focused on Farm Workers you know and you know not say you know restaurant workers or laborers or you know there's a lot of other uh professions that could use affordable housing as well um I think your housing element does have that type of focus too when you talk about missing middle housing and and housing for employees but Farm worker housing is state law that we have to address it in the housing element regardless um unless you have absolutely no farming um in your in your in your region but you are located in a region that has farming activities um and so therefore you're obligated to address that in your housing element or as part of being part of the regional solution okay great yeah I just was wondering why that was
a focus in there um okay that's all the questions I have uh thank you very much Commissioners for your um very well thought out and thorough questions and comments so we'll now move on to opening the public hearing and this is the time where we'll allow public comments so um if there is anybody in the public that would like to address the commission I ask that you give your comment card please to the clerk that's okay Mr weeks um we can you can give a comment but then you have to fill out a comment card after the fact and give it to the clerk is that okay that that's totally fine it's it's been a few minutes for all of us yes for all of us okay thank you um miss elliswood you want to start the clock for me thank you okay when you're ready Mr weeks okay perfect thank you um hi everyone Callum weeks polish director with generation housing I just want to say uh color me excited um I am very grateful and impressed and looking forward to working on a number of things that you guys brought up tonight especially as it comes to parking and TDM um you know if you guys choose to bring forward the conversation of parking meters you can expect quite a few more people than just myself in this room that will have your backs 100 it is incredibly important as we move forward in terms of our climate planning and trying to reduce overall traffic flow and obviously increase the different types of you know transportation modalities that we have a available to us so and and I'm sure I speak for
you know Green Bell Alliance transform and all of them when I say that we will be here and we will um certainly be here to amplify your voice so very very uh excited to hear that um and then some of the other things I just want to provide brief comments about um you know we strongly support the city committing to reducing part parking requirements generally as I you know noted but I'm really happy to see it you guys are looking at smaller units in particular and the micro unit Studios and one bedrooms um again very important for reducing BMT um and you know I also almost forgot to mention I was incredibly excited and I'm curious to see how you guys manage to move forward with your plan to make the Petaluma bus or Petaluma Transit free that is very interesting um and I'd be very curious to engage with staff at some point in the near future to discuss that further because that is an exciting prospect um and then I just want to say we also really are in strong support of single room marketing units there used to be quite a few of those in Sonoma County um but then after a certain point they kind of just stopped being created and they are an integral part in terms of the diversity and the affordability of of housing typologies that we don't have available in our community so we're in strong support of that and really look forward to you know creating opportunities in single-family neighborhoods for people to also kind of integrate um you know with with everyone else and and
finally I'd just like to say that um I I know the reducing private open space is is certainly going to be controversial um to some extent but you know centralizing and creating shared spaces is going to be really I think important to all of our projects and I know that's been you know something that you folks have have mentioned the past and and certainly we agree you know including those in our development projects is is integral to to Community Health and to really creating a thriving and integrated community and so it's just you know great generally I think for for resilience and I I know I'm not speaking anything new that you haven't thought about so with that you know I really just wanted to come tonight and just thank you all for for this um for all your hard work um it's been a heavy lift um complete with a fair share of of hurdles and and I do appreciate you guys hanging in there I think I speak for the Consultants when I say we're really happy this is coming to a conclusion soon it's uh been a lot of work um Statewide so so again thank you so much and I look forward to to executing this plan with you great thanks very much and I do remember please to fill out a public comment card thank you okay now we'll be closing public comment and now we'll be moving into our commission consideration and um since we've already seen this item before and because we've already asked our questions if any of the Commissioners have any um comments at this point we could do that
otherwise I'll be looking for a motion to recommend that the city council adopt the general plan Amendment tonight yes commissioner rockerson just one one more question and actually Mr weeks reminded me uh program seven I noticed the edits to open space requirements most specifically I think it kind of downshifted from revising to kind of examining Regional Trends um do you think we should put in there I really like the language in the slide about you know communal space about transition to communal space emphasizing some of those techniques to make sure that in the aggregate there's enough open space on a project is that worth putting in writing does that really come kind of down the track when we start looking at a changing code yeah so a lot of some of that downshifting came from Council comments they were really concerned with wanting to make sure that livability was maintained and Community character was maintained and so the discussion in that meeting was that as we move forward with the objective design standards that we've been talking about uh that we could reflect on that with more with more depth and that we could potentially put some of that language in the housing element but really all of that detail is going to come out as part of that zoning update or the objective design standards work I loved seeing that in there I was big support of that so thank you great thank you very much commissioner rockerson with that um yeah Vice chair Hooper I also had one okay I'm
sorry please um there's just one clarifying comment when I looked at the modifications that were made to talk about uh parking shifting away from the 1.5 minimum to a unit size minimum will that in any way restrict us when we actually have the full conversation about what we want to do with parking so if if we decide we want area specific plans or unbundled parking in a certain area or or no parking minimums in other places we we won't run into any roadblocks because of the language correct okay I don't see any why we would it says we'll reduce parking standards for small units so we'll definitely do that and if we do it for big units or we do it for all units we're going above and beyond not oh perfect so I don't see thank you great thank you very much Vice chair Hooper um looking for a motion that we recommend oh yes okay I will actually make a motion that we move this item awesome great can I have a second second it awesome thank you commissioner Potter and Miss Ellis can we get a roll call Vault please yes Cader Thompson absent whisman yes rockason yes Bauer yes Hooper yes my girl in yes Potter aye six yeses great thank you very much we'll go ahead and close this item thank you very much to everybody who uh participated in all of the hard work that you did moving this forward and we look forward to seeing what the city council has to say um thank you okay now we'll move on to our commission comment and as you'll notice this is in a different order right normally we do
this in the beginning of the meetings but the agenda item order has changed and we'll be doing this um at the um later part of the meeting now which will allow for our public to leave earlier if they so choose which is I think good for them so um with that being said we'll go to commission comment and normally we'd go to our Council liaison Janice Cader Thompson she's not here today so we'll go ahead and move on to our bicycle and pedestrian committee and that would be our vice chair Hooper uh we haven't had a meeting in a little bit but we do have a new one coming up I will say there's been a lot of really good work done with the subcommittees on that on that committee and I do think they have a model they're working with that we might be able to engage in when we're trying to get more of a proactive jump on some of these policy issues especially if it allows us to kind of provide more help to staff as opposed to asking a lot of these questions late and I'm sure staff wants to rip their hair out sometimes dealing with us I think what they've been doing has really been more focused on how do we as Commissioners or in this case committee members help help staff move some of these things along so it's not just us complaining about timelines or bring up the same question so it's just something I wanted to take from that that if there's a way for us to apply here especially with the izo coming up I think it could be a great way to allow us to provide more help and maybe take a
little bit of stress off of folks plates but that's all thank you thank you very much Vice chair Hooper now move on to um comments from uh commissioner mccarlane the three committee as well has not met that we meet tomorrow but our goal is to is focused on digitizing the tree lists with some additions and clarifications with criteria for planting and maintenance as part of that so it's in process but it's a very slow process all right thank you and commissioner wissman don't you do you oversee no no not Okay no Okay um and any other commission comments at this time no okay we'll move on to staff comment and that'll be um done by our planning manager Andrew Tribble great thank you chair Bauer good evening Commissioners uh first I wanted to to acknowledge comments about the minutes at both uh our last meeting on this meeting we have been following up with the city clerk um part of uh one of the formatting issues that we've been facing will be resolved with the transition to the prime gov platform this is the first meeting that's been produced out of the Prime gut platform so the formatting will improve we're also coordinating with the city clerk to better understand how we can provide more nuanced information that would not include providing an entire script of the meeting so they do you know we do consider that we have the videos available online that do provide the full meeting but we'll continue to work with the city clerk and you can anticipate some changes going forward um
second I did want to to note that the East Washington Avenue the midpen project which is an SB 35 project they have submitted a letter of intent to submit an SB 35 project that's required um by ab168 and that initiates a tribal consultation process for an SB 35 project that project is um in a tribal consultation at this point in time they did hold a community meeting on February 28th it was lightly attended so they are planning at least one more community meeting in person and exploring opportunities to provide a virtual community meeting as well to hope to uh increase participation and and uh receive feedback I also want uh to let you know in response to comments that were provided by the commission during the Scannell project study session uh not so long ago that the um the developer has organized a community meeting a community Workshop slash charette and that's scheduled for March 21st that will be held at the Marriott Courtyard at 6 PM I think invitations are being distributed by the end of this week and I'll make sure that you receive email invitations to that event as well because I'm sure that will be of interest uh let's see next of course last evening the council reviewed the top 10 priorities and received in-depth reports on each of those priorities from staff so uh it was a long meeting but a lot of good information was shared it didn't result in um a reordering of the priorities but that wasn't the purpose of the meeting was really to workshop and and check in on
the status of those priorities so if you missed that meeting you may want to go back and and check out that video uh the also going back to a bit of administrative housekeeping the prime gov transition is is rolling out it's going fairly smoothly I think you noticed this evening uh commissioner Potter pointed out that the agenda is not in its typical order and and questioned if she had the right agenda that is correct I think if you have feedback on the agenda please share it with us because we can continue to work right now we're working off of the the first template that's been initiated in Prime gov and I believe we can work with the city clerk to continue to refine that for our purposes uh there also we're looking for some training opportunities uh four Prime gov because Prime gov does have a feature where you can log in and you can annotate staff reports and and attachments and so forth which would be very helpful then you can bring that to the meeting in electronic format um we we don't have we don't quite have the tools ready to share that how to to go about that with you we wanted to make sure that we have some robust support so certainly prior to the next meeting we'll be able to share some tips and techniques with you uh on how to how to fully use the prime gov platform um so talking about upcoming meetings there will not be a meeting on March 28th we don't have any agenda items but you can't anticipate at least one meeting in April I think we'll likely have two
meetings based on what's coming forward and then in may as well so I look forward to a busy a couple of months coming up okay thank you chair great thank you very much Mr triple uh we'll now ask to see if any planning Commissioners have any additional comments to add for the evening uh commissioner Caroline a question um on the the degree of specifics in the minutes and to what degree they're supposed to be direction to the developer and what has he what does he refer to and what does he get I mean because the minutes I read of our of that project were pretty light and soft but the direction was a little more specific and I don't know how do we hold them features of fire whenever we're saying what we want you to do some three alternatives and he said I'm going to do one you know how do we get more force behind what we record and what we're asking for and him following up sure that's a that's a great question uh with regard to minutes contents the direction from the city clerk is to include a key key points or key comments or key actions within the public hearing that would be of interest to city council if it's a public hearing to recommend a project to council or if a project was to come before Council on appeal so if there's a decision to be appealed so so that's the direction we're currently receiving from city clerk as far as how we should think about the contents of of the minutes when we prepare them with regard to the Scannell project study session that it is a study
session and so the comments are made as as recommendations suggestions guidance as opposed to conditions of approval I can tell you with that project that staff did meet internally in the days following the commission review and we went through the comments in great detail and advised them of the expectations of the commission so we do in in study sessions we all are following study sessions we always follow up with the applicant team and drill down into the comments that have been received interpret them and uh for the applicant and help help to give them Direction on how they should proceed [Music] s [Music] should be we don't but this is a great way to start defining it you know certainly when you share with staff what you expect to see or what you want to see in a study session meeting item we can start to build that into the review process and to share that with applicants it would be worth we can um look back on how we might formalize some guidance and because I can see how that would be helpful and perhaps consider how we might be able to create a guiding document um specifically for study sessions but then if there's other points where you're feeling like you're not receiving enough information we can review those as well sure all right thank you Vice chair Hooper I just really wanted to take a moment to thank staff for putting up with all of us throughout the pandemic and still being here as we come back in person I know for me at least I I'd never been involved in
any of this and going through all of this on 8 to 16 to 32 sometimes different squares was quite a bit and you've all been incredibly patient with us I especially wanted to thank you now that we've fingers crossed come to the end of our housing element process which I think was just beginning at least when I rolled on so I just want to sincerely thank all of you for helping us grow on this Commission very true thank you Vice chair Hooper for saying that uh are there any other comments planar triple no that's all from the planning manager thank you I just wanted to say thank you very much to everybody it was a nice and efficient meeting I think we did pretty well today and um I will go ahead and we'll adjourn the meeting at about 8 19 p.m very good thank you everybody have a good night yes