* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          WELL, 
          [00:00:01]
WE ARE AT 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
SIX O'CLOCK, SO WE'RE GONNA GET THINGS ROLLING. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. 
          UH, I WOULD ASK THAT THE CLERK TAKE ROLE. 
          COMMISSIONER BAUER HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCURLEY? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER KUSON. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER WIMAN. 
          HERE. 
          VICE MAYOR CATER THOMPSON. 
          HERE. 
          CHAIR HUBER. 
          HERE. 
          WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND NEXT WE'RE GONNA MOVE STRAIGHT INTO GENERAL 
          [GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT]
PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          DURING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT ARE WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S 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 AND EQUAL SHARES TOTALING NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES. 
          I'M GONNA ASK ANY SPEAKERS WHO WISH TO COME UP TO GIVE THEIR CARDS TO THE CLERK'S DESK IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY. 
          UH, I JUST WANT TO ASK IF THE CLERK HAS RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WE RECEIVED. 
          NO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 
          PERFECT. 
          AND RIGHT NOW I HAVE A CARD FROM LYDIA IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO AND GIVE YOUR COMMENT. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          I'VE GOT MY, UH, UH, MY NAME'S FIRST. 
          FIRST OF ALL, MY NAME'S LYDIA ASLAN. 
          I'M A RETIRED ARCHITECT AND I LIVE ON THE EAST SIDE. 
          UM, I'M WEARING MY READ THINK VOTE HAT TONIGHT BECAUSE IT, THE MESSAGE RUNS PARALLEL TO WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. 
          FOUR WORDS. 
          NO, BEFORE YOU GROW WITH APOLOGIES TO DAVE ALDEN FOR HIJACKING THE NAME OF HIS ORGANIZATION. 
          MY WORDS AREN'T MEANT TO DENIGRATE ALL THE GOOD WORK THEY DO TO KEEP THE URBAN PLANNING IDEAS PERCOLATING. 
          SO, WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE HOTEL AND ABOUT THE OVERLAY? WE KNOW THAT THE HOTEL IS CURRENTLY DESIGNED, DOESN'T MEET PETALUMA'S DOWNTOWN ZONING STANDARDS. 
          WE KNOW THAT THE HOTEL DEVELOPER HAS APPLIED FOR A ZONING OVERLAY TO INCREASE BUILDING HEIGHTS DOWNTOWN FROM 45 FEET TO AS HIGH AS 75. 
          WE KNOW THAT A ZONING OVERLAY IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET THIS HOTEL APPROVED. 
          WE ALSO KNOW THE CITY HAS A HOUSING MANDATE TO MEET BETWEEN NOW AND 2031, MOST OF THEM IN THE VERY LOW INCOME TO LOW INCOME CATEGORIES. 
          AND WE KNOW THAT THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS INCLUDES LOOKING AT MEANS TO HAVE A DENSER DOWNTOWN. 
          SOMEHOW THE HOTEL AND ITS NEED FOR A ZONING CHANGE BECAME A SUBTLE WAY TO APPROVE HIGHER DENSITY IN THESE THREE AREAS. 
          BEFORE WE KNOW ENOUGH CRITICAL DATA. 
          HERE'S WHAT WE DON'T KNOW. 
          WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE FOLKS THAT DON'T PARCELS IN THE ZONING OVERLAY AREAS FEEL ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T YET BEEN ASKED BY THE CITY. 
          WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOUSING UNITS COULD BE ENVISIONED IN THE ZONING OVER LAY AREAS AND HOW FAR THAT NUMBER MIGHT GO TOWARDS MEETING THE HOUSING MANDATE. 
          WE DON'T KNOW THE PARKING AND TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS OF THESE T B D NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS ON T B D PARCELS THAT T B D OWNERS MAY OR MAY NOT BE WILLING TO SELL OFF TO BE DEVELOPED. 
          WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER E K N'S PROMISED TAX REVENUES FOR PEDALLING WILL BE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO REALITY. 
          WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HOTEL WILL NEED TO CHARGE IN TERMS OF ROOM RATES TO MAKE THEIR OPERATING REVENUE PAN OUT. 
          HECK, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THE OVERALL OCCUPANCY RATE ACROSS ALL THE EXISTING HOTELS IN PETALUMA TODAY. 
          UM, WE DON'T KNOW EK'S TRACK RECORD FOR DEVELOPING BOUTIQUE HOTELS BECAUSE THEIR PORTFOLIO IS VERY SLIM. 
          DITTO FOR THE APPALACHIAN FOLKS. 
          LOTS OF WORK IN THE CONCEPT PHASE, NOT SO MUCH IN REAL LIFE. 
          WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS HOTEL PROJECT IS EVEN FEASIBLE FROM A CONSTRUCTION LOAN FINANCING PERSPECTIVE. 
          UM, BASED ON EK N'S ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT. 
          WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE HOTEL MIGHT BE UNTIL WE SEE MORE DATA AND WE CAN'T KNOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF T B D NUMBER OF NEW HOUSING UNITS WITHOUT A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF A T B D MASTER PLAN. 
          SO PLEASE THINK ABOUT HITTING PAUSE ON THE HOTEL PROJECT UNTIL WE, WE ALL KNOW MORE ABOUT THE HOUSING, UH, VISION FOR THE OVERLAY. 
          SO PLEASE READ, THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE, ASK QUESTIONS, DIG DEEPER, KNOW BEFORE YOU GROW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE CLOSING? GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          ALRIGHT, WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'RE GONNA MOVE STRAIGHT INTO OUR FIRST 
          [PRESENTATIONS]
MEETING ITEM, WHICH IS THE PRESENTATION FOCUSED ON OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO START THIS OFF BY THANKING STAFF FOR PUTTING THIS PRESENTATION TOGETHER AND THE DOCUMENTS THEY INCLUDED WITH OUR REPORT. 
          FOLLOWING THE LAST MEETING, GIVEN THE SURPRISE THAT WE HAD ABOUT THE TIMELINE WE'RE LIKELY TO BE WORKING UNDER FOR THE REVIEW 
          [00:05:01]
OF OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, I HAD ASKED THAT STAFF KIND OF PROVIDE US WITH THIS PRIMER SO WE CAN GO THROUGH AND GET THE CONTEXT WE NEED BEFORE WE ACTUALLY SEE THE DRAFT STANDARDS IN NOVEMBER SO THAT MOST OF OUR TIME REVIEWING THOSE STANDARDS CAN BE REALLY FOCUSED ON QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE MATERIAL. 
          SO THE PURPOSE FOR THIS PRESENTATION AND, AND THIS DISCUSSION MORE BROADLY IS TO GO OVER THE GENERAL PURPOSE FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, WHEN AND HOW THEY'RE USED, UH, HIT ON EXAMPLES OR CASE STUDIES THAT WE CAN KEEP IN MIND AND ALSO GO OVER THE BACKGROUND PROCESS THAT THE CITY HAS UNDERTAKEN TO DEVELOP THE CURRENT DRAFT. 
          UH, THE GOAL OF THIS IS REALLY TO GET ALL OF THOSE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS ANSWERED GOING INTO ACTUALLY REVIEWING THE DRAFT. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'LL HAND IT OFF TO ANDREW. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR AND GOOD EVENING, UH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, I APPRECIATE THE, THE INTRODUCTION CHAIR BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE, WE SEEK TO DO THIS EVENING IS, UM, TO, TO BRING CURRENT SORT OF THE, THE BACKGROUND ABOUT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, UH, IN AN EFFORT TO, UM, ESTABLISH EXPECTATIONS AND ESTABLISH A COMMON SHARED LANGUAGE SO THAT WHEN THIS THE DRAFT STANDARDS DO COME FORWARD FOR REVIEW, WE CAN MOVE QUICKLY TO THEM AND HAVE ROBUST DIALOGUE ABOUT THE STANDARDS THAT ARE PROPOSED. 
          UH, JOINING ME THIS EVENING WILL BE MY COLLEAGUE, SENIOR PLANNER, UM, HEATHER GITZ AND, UH, HEATHER'S BEEN, UH, REALLY, UH, FUNDAMENTAL, UM, ON THIS PROJECT, ESPECIALLY OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS AS SHE'S PICKED IT UP. 
          AND AS WE WORK TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE GOAL OF, UH, HAVING A RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE YEAR'S END. 
          AND I'LL, WE'LL GO INTO MORE ABOUT WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT. 
          AND THEN ALSO, UH, HEATHER HINES IS, IS, UH, WITH US THIS EVENING, UH, AND, UH, FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT BACKGROUND AS WELL AS, UH, HOW WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO KIND OF CONNECT US TO WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY. 
          SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN AND BEGIN PRESENTATION. 
          SO THE GOALS OF THE PRESENTATION, AS THE CHAIR INDICATED, UH, ARE TO ESTABLISH THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS BROADLY, AND THEN TO EXPLORE WHEN AND HOW OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE APPLIED. 
          WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT IS QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THIS EVENING, UH, WHICH IS A FAR DIFFERENT OR A SUBSET OF PROJECTS, UH, AS WHEN WE COMPARE TO THE TOTALITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, UH, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEES THROUGH SPAR, UH, YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT. 
          AND THEN CONSIDER SOME RES RELEVANT EXAMPLES AND SHARE THE CURRENT, UH, PROJECT STATUS. 
          SO THE BACKGROUND IS, AS WE ALL KNOW, UH, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN QUITE BUSY IN DEVELOPING AND ADOPTING LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE, UH, THE STATEWIDE HOUSING CRISIS. 
          THREE OF THESE, UH, UM, LEGISLATIVE MEASURES ARE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT. 
          SENATE BILL 35, SENATE BILL THREE 30, AND ASSEMBLY BILL 2162. 
          THESE HAVE ALL BEEN ADOPTED AND IN PLACE FOR, UM, I BELIEVE AT LEAST TWO YEARS NOW, SENATE, UH, SSB 35, UH, MAY EVEN BE GOING ON FOUR YEARS. 
          BUT THE GOALS OF THESE BILLS ARE PRIMARILY TO STREAMLINE OR ELIMINATE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND TO ESTABLISH OBJECTIVE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. 
          AGAIN, THE GOAL FROM THE STATE'S PERSPECTIVE IS TO INCREASE HOUSING PRODUCTION AND, UH, TO DO SO BY ELIMINATING BARRIERS. 
          TWO OF THOSE BARRIERS ARE UNCERTAINTY RESULTING FROM THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS AS WELL AS THE, UH, TIME CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. 
          UH, WHAT WE FIND HERE IN PETALUMA IS THAT AT PRESENT, THE CITY HAS A LIMITED NUMBER OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT CAN BE USED, UH, TO, TO REVIEW QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. 
          AND SO, UM, WE SEEK TO CHANGE THAT THEN BY BRINGING FORWARD SOME, AT LEAST SOME ESSENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO CREATE A MORE ROBUST SET OF DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR EITHER, UM, BE EXEMPT FROM REVIEW OR QUALIFY FOR STREAMLINED REVIEW. 
          SO SOME KEY TERMS AND, AND THERE'S ADDITIONAL KEY TERMS THAT WE SHARED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THAT ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE MINISTERIAL REVIEW, WHICH IS A PROJECT REVIEW FOR PROJECTS NOT SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OR 
          [00:10:01]
A QUASI-JUDICIAL REVIEW BY A REVIEW AUTHORITY. 
          AND THEN DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, WHICH IS THE REVIEW THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDES. 
          UH, LAST WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AGO AT OUR PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP, WE TALKED IN DETAIL ABOUT THESE, UH, TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF REVIEW AND WHY THEY'RE SO IMPORTANT. 
          UH, AND THEN WE BRING FORWARD OBJECTIVE REVIEW, WHICH IS A COMPONENT OF SSB THREE 30. 
          UM, OBJECTIVE REVIEW REQUIRES THAT WE REVIEW ONLY AGAINST OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE. 
          SO IT DOESN'T, UM, IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS, BUT IT DOES SORT OF CONSTRAIN THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS TO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          AND THEN, OF COURSE, AS I'VE MENTIONED, THE QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, AND THAT'S A PROJECT THAT HAS, HAS BEEN, UH, MEETS THE DEFINITION BY STATE LAW. 
          TYPICALLY, WE'RE GOING TO SEE THOSE PROJECTS HAVE, UH, A SIGNIFICANT AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT IN SOME CASES AS HIGH AS A 100% AFFORDABILITY, UH, FOR, FOR A RESIDENTS. 
          SO THEN THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD AS DEFINED BY THE STATE IS, IS A STANDARD THAT CAN BE APPLIED THAT WOULD INVOLVE NO PERSONAL OR SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT WOULD BE A REVIEW AUTHORITY OR CITY, UH, THE CITY STAFF WHO ARE APPOINTED, UH, OR HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE MINISTERIAL PROJECTS AND IS UNIFORMLY VERIFIABLE BY REFERENCE TO AN EXTERNAL AND UNIFORM BENCHMARK OR CRITERION AVAILABLE AND KNOWABLE THAT A STATEMENT, UM, EXTERNAL AND UNIFORM BENCHMARK OR CRITERIA AND AVAILABLE AND KNOWABLE WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED AND IS PUBLISHED. 
          UH, AND THAT'S KNOWABLE TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL. 
          SO I THINK IN THIS CASE, WE COULD THINK OF THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN THE CASE OF AN SB 35 PROJECT FOR WHICH DISCRETIONARY PRO, UH, REVIEW IS WAIVED, UH, IT WOULD GO STRAIGHT TO A BUILDING PERMIT. 
          AND IN THAT CASE THEN THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL WOULD BE THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL WHO ULTIMATELY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE BUILDING PERMITS. 
          SO HERE WE CAN SEE, UH, WE WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT, HOW DOES THAT LOOK THEN IN PRACTICE THIS, THIS IDEA OF DISCRETIONARY OR SUBJECTIVE STANDARD VERSUS OBJECTIVE STANDARD. 
          ON THE LEFT SIDE, WE HAVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, A FINDING THAT YOU AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAKE DURING YOUR, UH, SPAR REVIEW PROCESS. 
          AND WE CAN SEE THAT IT TALKS IN, IN, IN SOME SPECIFICITY ABOUT THE TOPIC OR WHAT IT'S DIRECTED TO, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY SAY, SAY WHAT SPECIFIC MEASURES IT HAS TO ACHIEVE. 
          SO WE TALK ABOUT INGRESS EGRESS ACCESS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE. 
          WELL, THAT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE AS YOU CONSIDER. 
          WHAT IS, WHAT IS A SAFE SITE DESIGN AND HOW, HOW IS IT PROMOTING CONVENIENCE IN THAT CASE AND TO CONFORM TO APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS? SO WE MAY HAVE CITY STANDARDS RELATED TO A SIDEWALK WIDTH THAT WE DERIVE THROUGH OUR ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE NATURE OF THE DESIGN AND THE LOCATION OF THAT PATHWAY MAY VARY. 
          AND, AND YOU WOULD EVALUATE THAT AND CONSIDER IT DURING SPAR REVIEW. 
          UM, ON THE CONTRARY, THEN MINISTERIAL REVIEW WOULD GET MUCH MORE SPECIFIC. 
          SO IN THIS CASE, SPECIFIC TO CROSSWALKS, IT WOULD SAY THAT FOR MIXED USE OR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE INTERNAL STREETS OR SURFACE PARKING AREAS, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO, TO PROVIDE A CROSSWALK ACROSS THOSE INTERNAL STREETS ARE DRIVE AISLES A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF AT 200 FEET BETWEEN EVERY CROSSWALK. 
          SO THERE WE CAN START TO APPLY SPECIFIC STANDARDS TO THE EVALUATION OF THAT GOAL OF ACHIEVING, UM, SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE FOR PEDESTRIANS. 
          SO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, AGAIN, SB 35 AND AB 2162 REQUIRE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, WHEREAS SSB THREE 30, WHICH IS A PRELIMINARY ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION, HAS A VESTING, UM, ACTION INCORPORATED IN IT. 
          AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE REVIEW AGAINST OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT THE SB THREE 30 PROJECT IS DEEMED ELIGIBLE FOR SB THREE 30. 
          SO IN THE CASE OF SSB THREE 30, THE PROJECT IS STILL GOING TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SPAR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, BUT IT WILL BE REVIEWED AGAINST OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE SHOULD A, UH, SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEEK TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT ON THAT PROJECT. 
          UH, THAT PROJECT COULD NOT REDUCE THE 
          [00:15:01]
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT'S PROPOSED OR OTHERWISE LIMIT DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROJECT. 
          AND SO THAT BURDEN THEN GETS PLACED ON THE CITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A, THAT A, UM, PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENT WOULD NOT DO THAT TO THE PROJECT SHOULD THE, THE, UH, PROJECT PROPONENT, UM, MAINTAIN THAT IT WOULD REDUCE DENSITY OR, OR MAKE THE PROJECT OTHERWISE UNDEVELOPABLE. 
          BUT WE DO HAVE SOME BENEFITS. 
          SO, SO WE TALK ABOUT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          WE ALREADY HAVE A VARIETY OF OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN PLACE. 
          THE, THE BUILDING CODE STANDARDS ARE VIRTUALLY, UM, OBJECTIVE BY NATURE CAL GREEN, TIER ONE AND TIER TWO STANDARDS ARE OBJECTIVE. 
          OUR FIRE CODE STANDARDS ARE OBJECTIVE. 
          AND THEN WE DO HAVE, UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE I Z O THEMSELVES RELATED TO DENSITY, LOT SIZE, SITE COVERAGE, F A R, USABLE, OPEN SPACE, MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT AND SO FORTH. 
          THOSE ARE ALL CONSIDERED OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS WELL. 
          SO, SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS PROJECT, IT'S ONE PART OF THE SUM OF ALL OF OUR OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE INCLUDED ACROSS A VARIETY OF ADOPTED ORDINANCES. 
          AND SO THEN THESE WOULD, UH, WE, THESE WOULD AGAIN ONLY APPLY TO, UH, QUALIFYING PROJECTS. 
          SO THE OVERALL PROCESS, WHERE ARE WE? THE, UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED DURING STUDY SESSIONS OF THE INTENT TO BEGIN THE PROJECT, AND THEN, UH, AN INITIAL CONSIDERATION THAT ESTABLISHED, UM, GOALS OR PRINCIPLES FOR THE PROJECT IN JUNE, 2020 AND APRIL OF 2021. 
          THEN GIVEN OTHER PRIORITIES, UH, THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS PROJECT WAS PAUSED A BIT. 
          UH, WE ARE BRINGING IT BACK THEN. 
          UM, BUT DURING THAT TIME WE DID REVIEW, UM, OUR EXISTING OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. 
          UH, WE CONSIDERED BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS. 
          SOME OF THOSE WERE SHARED WITH PLANNING COMMISSION IN, UM, APRIL OF 2021, AS WELL AS AGAIN, THIS EVENING AS ATTACHMENTS. 
          UH, WE SHARED MILPITAS AND SANTA ROSA KIND OF SITTING AT, AT POLLS OF THE, UM, OF, UH, BEST PRACTICES TODAY. 
          AND THEN, UH, WE GENERATED THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE STANDARDS FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BY CITY DEPARTMENTS. 
          AND CURRENTLY, UH, OUR UNDERGOING STAKEHOLDER REVIEW WE'RE RECEIVING COMMENTS FROM STAKEHOLDERS AND INCORPORATING THOSE COMMENTS INTO A, A DRAFT REVISION. 
          SO OUR GOAL THEN IS TO COMPLETE THAT INCORPORATION, UM, AND BRING IT FORWARD TO, IT WILL GO TO A JOINT MEETING OF P A C AND THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 1ST. 
          UM, AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A STUDY SESSION ON NOVEMBER 14TH, IT WILL BE INFORMED BY THE COMMENTS FROM STAKEHOLDERS, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED, BECAUSE IT WILL BE RELEASED AS A PUBLIC DRAFT AND THEN BY COMMENTS FROM PBAC AND ENTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 
          SO WE THINK THAT THAT'S A ROBUST PROCESS TO BRING FORWARD THOSE DRAFT STANDARDS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION DURING A STUDY SESSION IN NOVEMBER. 
          AND THEN FROM THE, UH, NOVEMBER 14TH STUDY SESSION WILL ENDEAVOR TO MOVE FORWARD INCORPORATING, UH, YOUR COMMENTS, PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED, AND OTHER REVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE, UM, THE APPROXIMATE MONTH TIMEFRAME UNTIL A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 12TH, AT WHICH POINT IN TIME PLANNING COMMISSION THEN WOULD BE ASKED TO CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          SO ONE OTHER NOTE ON, ON SORT OF THE EXPEDITED, UM, PROCESS AS WE'RE ENVISIONING IT AS WE CONCLUDE THIS YEAR, WE WANT TO DO SO FOR TWO REASONS. 
          UH, I THINK THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT REASON IS BECAUSE WITHOUT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AS PROJECTS COME FORWARD, THEN WE DON'T HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA. 
          UM, PRIOR TO, UM, WELL, I GUESS WITHIN THE, THE PAST TWO YEARS, WE'VE HAD TWO PROJECTS, TWO SB 3 35 PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          AT PRESENT, WE HAVE AN SSB THREE 30 PROJECT TO RAVINA LANE, WHICH, UH, IS ELIGIBLE FOR SB THREE 30 VESTING. 
          AND SO THAT PROJECT WILL COME FORWARD THROUGH THE DISCRETIONARY PROCESS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THIS DRAFT. 
          AND THEN, UM, THERE'S A, A MID PEN PROJECT ON EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE THAT HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER OF INTENT, UM, TO SUBMIT AN SB 35 PROJECT. 
          UM, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE, WE WOULD HAVE A QUESTION OF IF THAT LETTER OF INTENT WOULD VEST FOR THE PURPOSES OF, 
          [00:20:01]
UM, OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          WE'VE NOT ASKED THAT QUESTION, UH, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN, IT, IT QUITE FRANKLY JUST HASN'T COME UP AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THE LETTER OF INTENT PROCESS. 
          UM, BUT THAT IS A QUESTION THAT WE COULD ASK AND DISCUSS WITH THE LEGAL. 
          BUT NEVERTHELESS, ALL OF THAT TO POINT OUT THAT WE DO HAVE PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING FORWARD. 
          AND SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO GET THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IN PLACE, AT LEAST THOSE ESSENTIAL STANDARDS THAT PROVIDE US WITH THOSE FUNDAMENTAL CRITERIA FOR REVIEW. 
          UH, AND THEN THE SECOND REASON IS, UH, FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT WAS PROVIDED THROUGH AN SB TWO GRANT FROM THE STATE. 
          AND THAT GRANT, UH, DOES CONCLUDE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. 
          SO THE, UH, THE ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 12TH WOULD ALLOW US TO BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THAT GRANT AND, UM, AND TO CLOSE THAT GRANT AT THE YEAR'S END. 
          SO THEN TAKING A SHIFT TO, TO LOOK A BIT MORE CLOSELY AT, AT SOME OF THE ESSENTIALS ABOUT THE, THE, UM, THE DRAFT STANDARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE. 
          UH, THERE, THEY'RE BEING CRAFTED AROUND FIVE GOALS. 
          UH, THE FIRST IS TO STRENGTHEN COMMUNITY CHARACTER IN PUBLIC REALM. 
          THAT THAT'S REALLY A, A DESIGN GOAL AS WE THINK ABOUT HOW THE DESIGN OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITIES, UH, REFLECTS PETALUMA CON, THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY, AND CONTRIBUTES TO, UH, ITS PHYSICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHARACTER. 
          AND THEN WE WANT TO, TO DESIGN FOR PEOPLE. 
          SO WE WANT TO, UH, CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED ENVIRONMENTS, UM, THROUGH AND THE PUBLIC REALM, IT'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE PUBLIC REALM, UM, THROUGH DESIGNS THAT ARE COHESIVE AND COMPLIMENTARY. 
          WE WANT TO DESIGN EQUITABLE PLACES, KEEPING IN MIND THAT, UH, THE PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE, UM, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT WOULD EITHER BE A 100% AFFORDABLE OR HAVE A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF AFFORDABILITY WITHIN THEM. 
          SO WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THOSE DESIGNS ARE EQUITABLE, THAT THEY'RE CREATING QUALITY HOUSING, UH, FOR, UM, HOUSEHOLDS THAT NEED TO BENEFIT FROM QUALITY, UM, PLACES TO LIVE. 
          WE WANT TO SUPPORT CONNECTIVITY, UH, BETWEEN PLACE AND, UM, LOCATIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT, WHETHER IT'S SCHOOL, RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, JOBS, AND SO FORTH. 
          BUT TO MAKE IT EASIER TO MOVE ABOUT, UH, ESPECIALLY THROUGH ALTERNATE MODES SUCH AS WALKING, BIKING, OR PUBLIC TRANSIT. 
          AND THEN DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY, UM, TO SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PRACTICES AND SITE DESIGN APPROACHES, AND ESPECIALLY TO LOOK FORWARD TO, UM, HOW, HOW THE CITY'S, UM, INTENTIONS TO, TO BE MORE SUSTAINABLE, UM, BECOME MORE DIRECTED THROUGH POLICIES IN THE CAR, THE BLUEPRINT FOR CARBON REDUCTION AND OTHER POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES THAT ARE GOING ON. 
          AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT WHILE WE HAVE THESE NUMBERED, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY PRIORITIZED. 
          PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE JUST USED BULLETS OR SOMETHING. 
          THEY ARE, THEY ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT, BUT THEY ALSO COMPETE AGAINST ONE ANOTHER IN SOME SENSES. 
          AND WE'LL SEE THAT LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. 
          BUT THEN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS. 
          SO IF WE HAVE THE GOALS THAT GUIDE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDARDS, WHAT, WHAT CHARACTERISTICS SHOULD THEY ALL EMBODY? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE WANT THEM TO BE ACHIEVABLE. 
          SO WE WANT THOSE QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT WOULD PROVIDE HOUSING TO OUR COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS UNDER THOSE STANDARDS AND TO BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED. 
          SO CERTAINLY THERE'S A COST COMPONENT IN THAT ACHIEVABILITY, UH, THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THESE, UH, QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. 
          AND THEN WE WANT THEM TO BE FEASIBLE. 
          AGAIN, WE LOOK AT A REASONABLE LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY, BOTH IN TERMS OF COST OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEN, UM, THE COST IS WELL FOR RESIDENTS AND THEN IMPLEMENTABLE TO BE ABLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN A VARIETY OF PROJECTS AT A VARIETY OF LOCATIONS. 
          SO THESE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE GREAT TO THINK ABOUT AS YOU MAY REFLECT ON A DESIGN AND BE OR A STANDARD AND SAY, WELL, OKAY, I CAN SEE HOW THAT SUPPORTS SUSTAINABILITY OR CONNECTIVITY, BUT THEN ALSO THINK ABOUT IS IT ACHIEVABLE? IS IT FEASIBLE, AND CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED? SO WITH REGARD TO STRENGTHENING COMMUNICA COMMUNITY CHARACTER IN THE PUBLIC REALM, WE SEE SOME ASPECTS OF THAT, UM, DOING SO THROUGH FACADE DETAILING, UM, BEING SPECIFIC ABOUT TRANSITIONS, ABOUT BUILDING ORIENTATION, AND THEN OF COURSE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, ALL PROJECTS HAVE THOSE NECESSARY ELEMENTS, WHETHER THEY'RE AIR CONDITIONING SERVICE ENTRIES AND SO FORTH. 
          SO TO BE ABLE TO SCREEN THOSE FROM, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC, UH, PERSPECTIVE OR POINT OF VIEW IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ACHIEVING AND STRENGTHENING THAT COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          AND SO AN EXAMPLE HERE, UH, WOULD BE AMASSING BREAK THAT CREATES THAT VISUAL INTEREST 
          [00:25:01]
IN A PROJECT. 
          AND, AND, UH, WE'VE GOT A DIAGRAM HERE, NOT NECESSARILY OF WHAT IS, UM, BEING EXAMINED IN THE DRAFT DOCUMENT, BUT UH, COULD BE SEEN IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          AND THEN DESIGNING FOR PEOPLE. 
          SO ENSURING THAT IN OUR MIXED USE PROJECTS, WE HAVE GROUND LEVEL ACTIVATING STRATEGIES THAT WE HAVE THOSE PRIMARY ENTRIES, UH, FACING THE PUBLIC STREET SO THAT THEY'RE EASILY IDENTIFIABLE, UH, THAT WE'RE, AND IN OUR MIXED USE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY AT THE STREET LEVEL, BOTH, UH, SO PEOPLE INSIDE CAN SEE OUT, BUT THEN TO CREATE THAT VISUAL INTEREST FOR PASSERS BY AND THEN TO PROHIBIT OBSTRUCTIONS, UM, IN FRONT OF OR NEAR GROUND FLOOR WINDOWS. 
          UH, THESE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW WE WOULD THINK ABOUT DESIGNING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE EXPERIENCING, UM, THAT BUILT ENVIRONMENT. 
          AND SO AN EXAMPLE OF THAT STANDARD HERE IS, UH, LOOKING AT THE, THE LEVELS OF TRANSPARENCY REQUIRED, UM, ON A GROUND FLOOR, AND WE CAN SEE HOW THAT WOULD BE MEASURED THEN BY CALCULATING THE TOTAL OF THE, UM, AND OR SUMMING RATHER THE, UH, SURFACE AREA. 
          SO DESIGNING FOR EQUITABLE, EQUITABLE PLACES, CREATING THOSE, THOSE, UH, BUILT ENVIRONMENTS THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF HEALTHY LIFESTYLES FOR ANYONE WHO LIVES THERE. 
          AN EXAMPLE HERE IS USABLE OPEN SPACE. 
          THIS, AGAIN, IS, IS NOT A STANDARD THAT, UH, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE BEING REFLECTED IN THE DRAFT STANDARDS, BUT THAT IDEA OF, OF A STANDARD THAT WOULD SPECIFY, UM, AT LEAST 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OPEN SPACE PER UNIT AND THEN PROVIDE DIMENSIONS. 
          SO IN THIS CASE IT MIGHT BE A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF, UM, 10 FEET TO SUPPORT CONNECTIVITY FOR BOTH, UM, PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLES, AS WELL AS ALSO CONNECTING THOSE FACILITIES TO PUBLIC TRANSIT. 
          UH, THOSE IDEAL LOCATIONS FOR QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, UH, WOULD BE IN EITHER TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS OR TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE AREAS, UH, WHERE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT. 
          AND HERE WE CAN SEE AN EXAMPLE OF AN INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN NETWORK ON A LARGER PROJECT, UH, WHERE WE WOULD ENSURE THAT ALL OF THE BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED, UH, BOTH TO THE PUBLIC STREET, BUT THEN INTERNALLY BETWEEN ONE ANOTHER. 
          AND THEN WE SEE THE CROSSWALKS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AS WELL FOR SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE. 
          THEN DESIGNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY, I THINK THIS IS, UH, AN ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT GOAL. 
          AND, UM, ONE IN WHICH THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT, UH, APPROACHES THAT CAN BE TAKEN. 
          UM, DESIGNING DEFENSIBLE SPACE. 
          SO TO LOOK AT THE, UH, BEING IN, IN FIRE PRONE AREAS AND THINKING ABOUT, UM, HOW WE, WE DO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, UM, TO PREVENT, YOU KNOW, UH, DAMAGE BY FIRE. 
          UM, ALSO LOOKING AT PROHIBITING PLANTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AS INVASIVE, USING MORE NATIVE PLANTS AND SO FORTH, AND BEING ABLE TO, UM, MAKE THOSE REQUIREMENTS CLEAR. 
          SO I THINK THIS IS A, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE AGAIN OF WHERE WE, WE HAVE AN EXISTING LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINE, BUT, AND WE SEE WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE TO IT. 
          SO WE TALK ABOUT THOSE PARCELS LOCATE ALONG ARTERIAL ROADS OR HIGHWAY ENTRANCES SUCH AS THAT, THAT'S LANGUAGE THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET OR, OR DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND SAY, WELL, DO I HAVE ONE OF THOSE PARCELS? YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK TO OUR STREET CLASSIFICATIONS AND IDENTIFY ARTERIAL ROADS, BUT BUT HIGHWAY ENTRANCES TO THE CITY, DO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THOSE ARE LOCATED SO THAT A PARCEL A DEVELOPER COULD UNDERSTAND AND SAY, OKAY, I HAVE A PARCEL THAT'S CONSIDERED TO BE AT A HIGHWAY ENTRANCE. 
          AND THEN IT, AND THEN THIS PARTICULAR DESIGN GUIDELINE GOES ON TO SAY, SHALL BE DESIGNED WITH GREATER THAN AVERAGE QUALITY LANDSCAPING. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE. 
          AND I THINK THAT AS, UH, AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, YOU COULD HAVE QUITE EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT'S CONSIDERED GREATER THAN AVERAGE LANDSCAPING, AND THEN WHAT'S CONSIDERED QUALITY LANDSCAPING. 
          SO RIGHT THERE WE'RE GETTING INTO THAT VERY SUBJECTIVE NATURE. 
          AND THEN THE, THE REASON WHY TO VISUALLY ACCOMMODATE THE HIGH VOLUME OF PASSING MOTORS. 
          BUT THE CHALLENGE HERE IS THAT THE GUIDELINE IS NOT OBJECTIVE. 
          SO IF WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO APPLY THIS STANDARD, WHICH IS REALLY A STANDARD TO INCREASE THE VISUAL AESTHETIC, THEN WE NEED TO CREATE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OUT OF IT. 
          SO ONE WAY TO DO THAT IS, UH, WE CAN THEN START TO SPECIFY IT. 
          SO WE CAN SAY THAT THOSE PARCELS ARE LO LOCATED ALONG ALL ARTERIAL ROADS OR HIGHWAY ENTRANCES TO THE CITY. 
          I HIGHLIGHTED THAT BECAUSE THAT MAY STILL BE UNCLEAR. 
          [00:30:01]
WE MAY STILL NEED TO DRILL DOWN ON THAT A BIT AND, AND ASK THAT QUESTION. 
          WELL, WHAT IS A HIGHWAY ENTRANCE? DO WE DEFINE IT SOMEWHERE? AND IF SO, THEN WE NEED TO POINT TO THAT AND ENSURE THAT THAT'S SPECIFIC. 
          BUT WE DO GET MORE SPECIFIC THEN WHEN WE THINK ABOUT, WELL, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE CREATE GREATER THAN AVERAGE LANDSCAPE QUALITY? WE CAN REQUIRE A LANDSCAPE STRIP OF NO LESS THAN FIVE FEET IN WIDTH BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY. 
          THEN WE CAN TAKE AND APPLY ADDITIONAL SPECIFICITY OR, OR, UM, CRITERIA TO THAT LANDSCAPE STRIP IN THE FORM OF ONE TREE EVERY 30 LINEAR FEET. 
          NOW, A QUESTION MAY BE, WHAT SIZE OF TREE IS REQUIRED? IS IT IS, DOES A 15 FOOT CREPE MYRTLE SUFFICE, OR DO YOU WANT IT TO BE A 30 FOOT OR TALLER NATIVE SPECIES? AND THEN WE CAN ADD OTHER CRITERIA RE REGARDING SHRUBS AND OTHER CRITERIA ABOUT PLANTINGS. 
          AND SO IN DOING SO, THEN WE CAN CONVERT THAT GUIDELINE TO A STANDARD THAT GIVES US GREATER SPECIFICITY AND GREATER ASSURANCE THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET WHAT WE WANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          THEN WE WANT TO EXAMINE THAT STANDARD AND SAY, IS IT ACHIEVABLE? OR ASK THE QUESTIONS RATHER, IS IT ACHIEVABLE? IS IT FEASIBLE? AND CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED? SO THEN THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONTEXT OF, OF THIS ACHIEVABLE, FEASIBLE, AND IMPLEMENTABLE, BECAUSE THERE ARE COMPETING NEEDS AND COMPETING GOALS. 
          WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR CLIMATE GOALS, OUR HOUSING GOALS, OUR GOALS ARE, ARE AESTHETIC GOALS THAT ENHANCE, STRENGTHEN COMMUNITY CHARACTER IN THE PUBLIC REALM, AND THEN OUR GOALS RELATED TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE IN THE FORM OF FIRE CODE. 
          AND WE SEE THAT, THAT THESE COMPETE AGAINST ONE ANOTHER. 
          AND SO AS WE START TO ZERO IN ON THAT SWEET SPOT, IF YOU WILL, THAT POINT WHERE IDEALLY WE CAN AT LEAST ACHIEVE OUR GOALS IN ALL OF THOSE AREAS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ENSURING THAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE ACHIEVABLE, FEASIBLE, AND IMPLEMENTABLE CAN BE QUITE CHALLENGING. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHAT, UH, WE ARE WORKING THROUGH RIGHT NOW. 
          AND, UH, THEN AS THOSE DRAFT STANDARDS COME FORWARD, I THINK YOU'LL SEE CLEARLY SOME AREAS WHERE THAT TENSION IS VERY REAL AND, UM, WHERE WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS IS A HIGHER PRIORITY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIFIC STANDARDS. 
          SO WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DESIGN IS SUBJECTIVE BY NATURE, YOU KNOW, TO, TO DEFINE EXCEPTIONAL DESIGN OR, OR TO DEFINE A GREATER THAN QUALITY DESIGN OR HIGH QUALITY DESIGN IS GOING TO BE SUBJECTIVE. 
          AND, AND OUR DESIGN PREFERENCES WILL VARY. 
          I THINK THAT WE SAW THAT WITH OYSTER COVE WHERE, UH, WHEN OYSTER COVE SAID IN ADVANCE OF PHASE TWO, THE APPLICANT SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'D LOVE SOME INPUT ON WHAT SORT, WHAT DESIGN APPROACH YOU MIGHT WANT TO SEE OR YOU MIGHT THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION. 
          AND IT, THERE WERE VARIED RESPONSES ABOUT WHAT YOUR PREFERENCE MIGHT BE. 
          SO IT IS, IT IS VERY SUBJECTIVE, UH, BUT THIS PROCESS THEN IS TRYING TO AT LEAST IDENTIFY SOME FUNDAMENTAL OR CENTRAL DESIGN COMPONENTS THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE UPON THAT WOULD GIVE US GOOD QUALITY DESIGN AND, AND STRONGER PROJECTS OVERALL WHEN THEY MAY NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS. 
          SO, UH, THAT'S A, A SNAPSHOT OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE. 
          UM, BUT THEN ALSO LOOKING FORWARD TO, UM, AS OCTOBER WINDS DOWN AND WE GO INTO NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, UM, WHERE WE'LL BE ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO START THEIR WORK, UH, BOTH IN STUDY SESSION REVIEW AND THEN AS WELL AS PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SO, UM, HEATHER AND HEATHER,  AND ANDREW, WE'RE ALL THREE, AND DYLAN WE'RE ALL AVAILABLE TO, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANDREW. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE'RE GONNA START BY TAKING COMMISSIONER QUESTION. 
          UH, I'M GONNA START WITH, UH, VICE MAYOR, I THINK. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          UM, ACTUALLY I KIND OF WANNA GO BACK TO LIKE THE FIRE MARSHAL, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE CODE CLIMATE HOUSING AESTHETIC AND WITH THE FIRE CODE. 
          SO EXPLAIN HOW THEY ARE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. 
          AND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FIRE CODE, IT SEEMS TO BE THE ONE THAT COMES UP ALL THE TIME WITH EVERYBODY MM-HMM. 
           APPLYING OR COMPLAINING, WHICH IS FINE. 
          UM, BUT IT'S ABOUT FIRE CODE. 
          SO IS THAT MORE MALLEABLE THAN, I MEAN, IS THAT SET IN STONE THE CODE OR CAN WE HAVE A DIFFERENT CODE? DO DIFFERENT CITIES HAVE DIFFERENT CODES AS FAR AS FIRE? THAT'S, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. 
          I I BELIEVE THAT, UH, UH, MUCH OF THE CODE 
          [00:35:01]
IS DIRECTED BY THE STATE FIRE CODE, AND SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE CITY HAS DISCRETION TO BE ABLE TO MODIFY THOSE, THOSE, UH, STATE REQUIREMENTS TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE OR LESS RESTRICTIVE. 
          DYLAN, IT, IT  YEAH, I CAN TRY ANSWERING THAT. 
          SURE. 
          SO ANDREW'S RIGHT, THE FIRE CODE, IT COMES FROM THE STATE, THE CITY AND EVERY CITY THAT I KNOW, UH, ADOPTS THAT WHOLESALE, EXCEPT WE ARE ABLE TO DO, UM, MAKE LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE FIRE CODE, MAKE LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING CODE IF WE FIND SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATIONS BASED ON LIKE OUR GEOGRAPHY, OUR TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE THAT JUSTIFIES STRICTER. 
          SO, HEATHER, WHEN WE DID THE ALL ELECTRIC, THAT WAS A MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, BUT IT'S, UH, WAS MORE STRICT AND WE WERE ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONAL, UH, RESTRICTIONS THERE BECAUSE OF THE CITY'S UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND CLIMATE. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO AMEND, UH, FIRE CODE. 
          AND, AND I'M GONNA, I'LL ADD THAT HEATHER G I THINK IS GOING TO GIVE US A VERY CURRENT EXAMPLE THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH, UH, RIGHT NOW MM-HMM. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, YOU DEFINITELY HIT ON A REALLY KEY AND POIGNANT TOPIC BECAUSE, UM, FOR AESTHETIC REASONS AND FOR BOTH CLIMATE REASONS, YOU WANT TO HAVE THINGS LIKE TREES NEAR THE BUILDING WHICH SUPPORT COOLING INSULATION. 
          UM, BUT HAVING A TREE CANOPY, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL IS TO FOLLOW THE COMMUNITY FIRE PLAN STANDARDS THAT COME FROM THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL, UM, HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. 
          UM, WHICH SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A CANOPY OF A TREE CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO A STRUCTURE. 
          UM, AND WHEN WE TALKED WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, ORIG INITIALLY, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PERCEPTION THAT YOU ONLY NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THIS IN A WIRE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE ZONE, OR A VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD ZONE. 
          AND WHAT THE FIRE MARSHAL WAS EXPLAINING IS THAT WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN RECENT FIRES IS THAT FIRES DON'T UNDERSTAND THESE BOUNDARIES AND THAT THEY ARE, UM, CROSSING THEM. 
          AND SO SHE, HER OPINION WAS, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY VEGETATION, UM, YOU KNOW, UP AGAINST THE BUILDING. 
          SO A TREE SHOULD HAVE A 10 FOOT, UM, BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE CANOPY AND THE CROWN AND A BUILDING AND YOU KNOW, THOSE NICE LITTLE VEGETATIVE STRIPS THAT ARE VERY AESTHETIC AND ADD THAT SOFTENING TO A STRUCTURE, UM, SHOULD NOT BE WITHIN FIVE FEET OF A BUILDING. 
          AND SO IT, YEAH, IT, IT'S , IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UM, I, I'M STILL DIGESTING THAT BECAUSE, UM, AND I, I THINK YOU, YOU GUYS GET THE JOY OF THE HARD ANSWER HARD QUESTIONS IN SOLVING THEM. 
          UM, BUT NO, UM, IT, IT IS A CONUNDRUM FOR SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, AND IT IS A CONUNDRUM BECAUSE WHEN YOU DRIVE AROUND, YOU'RE GONNA SEE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING EVERYWHERE. 
          UM, AND WELL, LET ME JUST GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. 
          SO IF SOMEBODY'S BUILDING A HOME MM-HMM. 
          , SO YOU WOULD DETERMINE THEIR LANDSCAPING. 
          SO THESE, AGAIN, THESE ONLY APPLY TO QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SB 35 PROJECTS, UM, OR, YOU KNOW, THE SB THREE 30 VESTING PROJECTS, UM, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY MULTI-FAMILY WITH AFFORDABLE COMPONENTS. 
          SO NO, IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO SAY SOMEBODY'S JUST DOING THIS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 
          IT'S WHAT WE'RE RESTRICTED TO. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, IT WOULD APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY THAT QUALIFIES. 
          UM, BUT HOW DO ADUS WITH A DESIGN STANDARD COME IN? SO I MEAN, THAT THOSE, THEY DON'T DO THEY, THEY DON'T QUALIFY 'CAUSE IT'S JUST A SINGLE USE. 
          YEAH. 
          THESE WOULDN'T APPLY TO AD USE. 
          AND IF, IF DYLAN THINKS WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE CODE MORE EXPLICITLY, WE CAN BUT , BUT NO, THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO AD USE, BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT UNLESS, SO THESE, THESE, THOSE WOULD BE DIFFERENT DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WE THE CITY COULD DO. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND I CAN'T ANSWER THE A D U QUESTIONS 'CAUSE THAT'S OUTTA MY, YEAH, I'LL LET HEATHER RESPOND, BUT I DON'T THINK ADUS IN AND OF THEMSELVES, WE HAVE THE A D U ORDINANCE THAT'S BEEN ADOPTED BY THE STATE AND IT DOES HAVE SOME PRETTY SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR A D I DON'T THINK AT PRESENT THERE'S ANY STATE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ESTABLISH QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AS INCLUDING ADUS. 
          SO PRESUMABLY YOU COULD HAVE A QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL 
          [00:40:01]
PROJECT, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOP IT AND THEN TURN AROUND AND ADD ADUS ON AFTERWARDS. 
          BUT THEN I THINK THAT THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA OF THE, UH, A D U ORDINANCE. 
          I, I AGREE WITH THAT, ANDREW. 
          UM, I ALSO THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LAST UPDATED OUR A D U ORDINANCE, WE DID INCORPORATE SOME OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED WAS WE WERE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO REQUIRE HISTORIC SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR, UM, ADUS GOING INTO HISTORIC DISTRICTS. 
          UM, AND SO THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO IS HAVE SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN THAT ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT HAD TO BE ABLE TO BE APPROVED THROUGH A MINISTERIAL PROCESS. 
          SO WE KIND OF WENT THROUGH A MINI, YOU KNOW, EXERCISE TO TRY TO PUT, INCORPORATE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS INTO OUR A D U ORDINANCE TO UPDATE, UM, IN, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. 
          W WITH THAT, ARE THERE, DID YOU REVIEW, UM, SETBACKS? BECAUSE YOU KNOW, IN SOME AREAS YOU, YOU CAN'T PUT SOMETHING FIVE FEET BY YOUR FENCE, BUT YOU CAN PUT IT FOUR FEET FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE, WHICH I'VE SEEN. 
          WELL, STATE LAW IS VERY, UM, VERY PRESCRIPTIVE WITH THINGS LIKE HEIGHT SETBACKS, UM, FOR ADUS, UM, PARKING, THOSE, THOSE THINGS ARE PRESCRIBED AS OBJECTIVE STANDARDS BY STATE LAW. 
          SO THOSE ARE IN THERE AND THOSE DO DIFFER FROM OUR STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS. 
          I THINK IT'S FOUR FEET AND FOUR FEET. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND THE OTHER THING IS, UM, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS WAS DURING THE GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION THAT WE, 'CAUSE IT WAS ABOUT THE WASHINGTON STREET, UM, PROJECT AND THAT THERE YOU WOULDN'T PUT, UM, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PUT DECKS, YOU KNOW, OR OFF THE UNITS. 
          AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH TO ME THAT'S BECAUSE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU GET MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE MM-HMM. 
           MM-HMM. 
           WAS THE, THE THOUGHT BEHIND IT. 
          BUT IT SEEMS TO ME BY DOING THAT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ELIMINATING PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE FRESH AIR AND BE ABLE TO GO OUTSIDE EVEN IF IT'S A DECK, YOU KNOW, OFF. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE THE SITE THAT I'M LOOKING AT LIKE A, LIKE A 10 BY A BALCONY OR BALCONY THAT, LIKE A BALCONY THAT 40 SQUARE FEET OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          FROM THE, FROM THE PROJECT THAT THE CURRENT PROJECT, OR WAS IT THE PREVIOUS PROJECT? DO YOU RECALL IT? I, I THINK WE, IT WAS A DISCUSSION, DOREEN, I THINK THE GENERAL PLANNED MM-HMM. 
           PROCESS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AND, AND IT WAS FOR MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT YET YOU'RE, THE QUALITY OF SOMEONE'S LIFE IS A LOT LESS WITHOUT THOSE BALCONIES. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER THAT SPECIFIC WASHINGTON, BUT I KNOW WE DID TALK ABOUT IT AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT. 
          'CAUSE YOU'LL, MAYBE THAT'S WHERE IT WAS. 
          REMEMBER THAT, UM, H C D GAVE US COMMENTS ABOUT OUR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY. 
          AND WE HAVE A PROGRAM IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT THAT SAYS WE WILL COME BACK AND AMEND THAT TO REDUCE THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE UP AT LIKE THREE OR 400 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT IN SOME OF OUR MULTIFAMILY, OUR FOUR AND R FIVE. 
          AND SO WHAT H C D SAID WAS, HEY, THIS IS REALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, PROHIBITING, UM, OR, YOU KNOW, AN OBSTACLE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO IT'S SOMETHING WE AGREED TO A PROGRAM POLICY AND WE'LL BE COMING BACK TO THAT DISCUSSION. 
          SO MAYBE THAT'S WHERE IT'S, I THINK THAT'S WHERE PERCOLATING, THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE IT'S FROM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          BUT, BUT AS A, AS A POINT THERE, WE CURRENTLY HAVE THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RIGHT NOW. 
          SO THOSE COULD BE APPLIED TO QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS LAYERED ON WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          WHEN WE GO BACK THROUGH, THROUGH THE, THE REVIEW PROCESS THAT HEATHER JUST DESCRIBED, AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF YOU REMEMBER, 'CAUSE I SAW A LOT OF HEAD NODDING, UM, THEN WE WOULD MODIFY THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BUT THE, BUT AT THAT POINT, ADOPTED OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD NOT NEED TO BE MODIFIED. 
          SO THEY, THEY DO KIND OF WORK IN LAYERS ACROSS ONE ANOTHER AND BUILD UPON EACH OTHER. 
          AND SO THERE, THERE IS SOME MANEUVERABILITY IN TERMS OF, UM, HOW, HOW WE GO THROUGH AN AMENDMENT PROCESS OR CHANGE THEM ONCE THEY ARE ADOPTED. 
          OKAY. 
          AND 
          [00:45:01]
THEN, UM, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS GREEN SPACE. 
          YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE LIKE TOT LOTS, BUT AT LEAST, UM, COMMUNITY GARDENS, UM, SPACE IN, UM, WITH THESE PROJECTS. 
          UM, 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY'RE VEA IS, IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WASHINGTON STREET AS FAR AS, UM, ABILITY TO FEEL LIKE YOU'RE REALLY OUTDOORS AND IN A MORE HEALTHY AREA. 
          UM, SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT LIKE A, LIKE WINDOWS COULD BE SET BACK SO YOU COULD HAVE DIFFERENT DESIGNS FOR, SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S JUST A STRAIGHT BUILDING. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THAT IS ONE OF THE STANDARDS AS UNDER REVIEW RIGHT NOW BY THE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE. 
          THE STAKEHOLDERS, UH, GROUP IS, INCLUDES DESIGN AND LAND USE PROFESSIONALS, UH, AS WELL AS, UH, REPRESENTATIVES OF COMMUNITY GROUPS. 
          AND, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT THEY'RE REVIEWING AS A REQUIREMENT TO RECESS A WINDOW AND, AND WHEN, WHEN YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE, THE THE EXACT DIMENSIONS, THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS, I MEAN, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE WITH VENA, IT'S KIND OF IN A SOMEWHAT ESTABLISHED, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY AND PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE IT'S GONNA BE, UM, BUILT. 
          HOW IS, UM, I GUESS WHAT'S MY QUESTION? UM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN SSB 35, YOU STILL WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO GET INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, CONCERNS AND TRY AND CAN WE WORK THAT OUT? OR IS IT JUST SET IN STONE? WELL, THERE'S CERTAINLY DISCRETION ON BEHALF OF THE, UM, THE APPLICANT OR DEVELOPER PROVIDED THAT THEY MEET A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IF IT'S ESTABLISHED. 
          SO GOING TO THAT, GOING TO THAT WINDOW RECESS AS AN EXAMPLE, UM, LET'S, LET'S SAY THAT THERE, THE ADOPTED STANDARD IS THAT WINDOWS MUST BE RECESSED A MINIMUM OF THREE INCHES. 
          THE DEVELOPER COULD SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD LOOK REALLY GOOD IN THE COMMUNITY, WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF WE RECESS SIX INCHES AND THEN ADD, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ADD A DENTAL TO IT OR SOMETHING. 
          AND THEY CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH THAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. 
          BUT THE, I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE MECHANISM OF THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TO ADDITIONALLY REQUIRE THAT. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT. 
          AND, AND I BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN FORTUNATE THAT WE'VE HAD DEVELOPERS, ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN BUILDING A QUALITY PRODUCT AND WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY DURING THEIR DESIGN PHASE TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE AT LEAST ACHIEVING THAT BALANCE BETWEEN COMMUNITY WANTS AND NEEDS QUALITY DESIGN AND THEN A PROJECT THAT CAN BE BUILT. 
          SO THERE'S STILL A DESIGN PHASE THEN, CORRECT? OH, WELL, UH, BUT NOT NECESSARILY WITH A BODY. 
          RIGHT? YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          I I, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD, ANDREW TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT WE HAVE HAD THREE, UM, HOUSING PROJECTS TO DATE, I BELIEVE, THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED THROUGH SSB 35 OR AB 2162. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , AND THAT'S THE MID PIN ON PETALUMA BOULEVARD. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , IT'S THE DANCO PROJECT. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AT CORONA AND MCDOWELL, AND IT'S THE BURBANK PROJECT THAT'S ABOUT TO GO UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT, UH, BOULEVARD, SOUTH BOULEVARD, THE ROUNDABOUT, ALL THREE OF THOSE, THEY WERE REALLY GREAT COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND THEY WANTED TO TALK TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          I THINK ALL OF THEM WERE AGREEABLE TO COMING AND PRESENTING TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND OR COUNCIL TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE HERE. 
          WE WANNA BE DOING THIS. 
          WE'RE OPEN TO FEEDBACK. 
          UM, I REMEMBER MID PENN HAS THEIR OWN, UM, PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS THEY GO TO. 
          SO WE'VE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE GREAT COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT WANTED TO HEAR THE COMMUNITY WANTED TO HEAR PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL STAFF, AND WORK TOWARDS A PROJECT THAT THEY FELT LIKE EVERYONE WOULD BE PROUD OF. 
          BUT TO ANDREW'S POINT, IF PUSH CAME TO SHOVE, STATE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM SAYING, YOU MUST GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT AT LEAST THE BASIC OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN PLACE TO GUIDE THAT SHOULD WE BE IN THAT SITUATION. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          EXCEPT I DO WANNA POINT OUT THOUGH, AND MAKE SURE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO 
          [00:50:01]
MIGHT BE WATCHING TWO, VEA LANE IS AN SSB THREE 30 PROJECT. 
          AND SO WITH THE SSB THREE 30 PROJECT, THEY SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION AND IF ELIGIBLE, THEN THEY VEST IN THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT THEIR ELIGIBILITY WAS DETERMINED OR ESTABLISHED. 
          SO TWO VENA LANE WOULD COME FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SPAR REVIEW, BUT IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAW A, A DESIGN CHANGE THAT WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN, THAN THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD, THEN THE APPLICANT COULD RESPOND THAT THAT WOULD MAKE THE PROJECT INFEASIBLE OR COULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT'S PROPOSED. 
          AND THAT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER SB THREE 30. 
          SO, SO WHY IS RIAN A SB THREE 30 AND NOT 'CAUSE THAT'S THEIR, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. 
          THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. 
          OKAY. 
          SURE. 
          SURE. 
          SO, UH, WITH, WITH, UM, 100% AFFORDABLE PROJECTS, UM, THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO HAVE A CHOICE. 
          I MEAN, THE APPLICANT ALWAYS HAS A CHOICE TO, TO UNDERGO DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, BUT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WOULD OPT TO, TO SUBMIT A PROJECT UNDER SSB 35, IN PART BECAUSE IT ELIMINATES C Q A REVIEW, WHICH IS COSTLY AND CAN BE TIME CONSUMING, UM, OR UNDER SSB THREE 30, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO BE VESTED UNDER THE, THE, THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THAT THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE SO THAT THE A A JURISDICTION CANNOT GO AND CHANGE THE REGULATIONS TO BECOME MORE RESTRICTIVE FOR A PROJECT IF THEY SEE A PROJECT THEY DON'T LIKE OR SOMETHING ABOUT A PROJECT THAT THEY WOULDN'T WANT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SURE. 
          I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO IS WHEN WE BRING FORWARD THE DRAFT STANDARDS, WE'LL HAVE A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS LAID OUT AND ROLL THROUGH THEM SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO, TO EXPLORE THESE VARIOUS OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE REALLY, AS, AS THE CHAIR KNOWS, THEY'RE VERY POWERFUL, UM, IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. 
          SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND RICK. 
          YEP. 
          UM, UH, FIRST OF ALL, THANKS FOR THEIR PRESENTATION. 
          VERY, VERY THOROUGH AND, UH, REALLY, UH, SET THE FOUNDATION FOR, UH, THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH I KNOW WILL CONTINUE TO GO ON HERE. 
          SO THIS IS A GOOD FIRST STEP. 
          UM, I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS AND I THINK WE DANCED AROUND IT WITH ABOUT THREE YOUR LAST COMMENTS. 
          UM, AND I'LL GO BACK AND I'LL USE YOUR, UM, YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE, UH, RECESSED WINDOWS AS KIND OF A CASE IN POINT. 
          YOU SAID AFTER THAT, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, WE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE A H A COULD NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, FORCE THE APPLICANT TO DO ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT'S IN THE STANDARD. 
          TURNING THAT AROUND, IS THERE ANY KIND OF LINE ITEM DISCRETIONARY PATHWAY THAT AN APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO ASK, CAN I BE EXCUSED FROM THIS SINGULAR RECESSED WINDOW ITEM WITHOUT OPENING UP THE REST OF THE PROJECT TO FULL DISCRETIONARY VIEW? I KNOW IT'S KIND OF A CAKE AND EAT IT TOO, BUT, BUT I JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S, THAT'S AVAILABLE THAT, I'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          , I, I WOULD SAY THAT THEY COULD, YOU WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WOULD QUALIFY FOR DENSITY BONUS, AND DENSITY BONUS DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT YOU TAKE THE BONUS UNITS. 
          SO YOU COULD QUALIFY FOR DENSITY BONUS, NOT TAKE THE ADDITIONAL UNITS, BUT USE THE CONCESSIONS. 
          AND IN THAT WAY, IN A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS, THEY COULD APPLY A CONCESSION OR A WAIVER TO A, TO A PARTICULAR STANDARD THAT, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, MIGHT GET IN THEIR WAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, SO I THINK I, I COULD HAVE ENVISIONED THAT HAPPENING. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UM, AND CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS, WELL, DENSITY BONUS I, I ALSO USE AS THE TERM INCENTIVES, BUT WE TYPICALLY THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE QUITE ROBUST AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND, YOU KNOW, A A HUNDRED PERCENT, UH, AFFORDABLE PROJECT IS GOING TO GET FOUR CONCESSIONS AND UNLIMITED WAIVERS. 
          SO YOU CAN LAYER THOSE IN A WAY THAT COULD BE PRETTY AGGRESSIVE AND, UM, COULD BE PRETTY LIMITING TO A DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS. 
          SO I THINK ONE THING YOU COULD DO IS YOU HAVE AN SB 30 35 PROJECT, LET'S SAY IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE. 
          YOU, YOU INITIALLY GO, OH, I THINK I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE SB 35 PROCESS. 
          YOU START DESIGNING 
          [00:55:01]
AND DECIDE THAT YOU DON'T LIKE SOME OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, THEY'RE NOT WORKING REALLY WELL FOR YOU. 
          SO WHAT YOU WOULD DO THEN IS YOU COULD SWITCH OVER AND GO THROUGH AN SB THREE 30 AND THEN DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS, DEMONSTRATE YOUR DENSITY BONUS ELIGIBILITY, THEN LAYER ON YOUR CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS TO LIMIT WHAT IT IS THAT THE REVIEW AUTHORITY MAY BE ABLE TO REVIEW IN YOUR PROJECT. 
          UM, TYPICALLY WE'RE GONNA SEE CONCESSIONS IN BUILDING HEIGHT. 
          WE USED TO SEE THEM QUITE OFTEN IN PARKING, EXCEPT THAT NOW THE STATES, UM, REALLY FACILITATED PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS. 
          BUT, UH, THOSE WOULD BE SOME, SOME EXAMPLES. 
          GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          HEATHER, DID YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING? I THINK IN ADDITION TO THAT, SOMETHING THAT IS, WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH WITH SOME OF THE ARCHITECTURAL EXPERTS WAS INSTEAD OF BEING PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT YOU MUST HAVE WINDOWS SETBACK, THAT YOU HAVE TO INCORPORATE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DESIGN ELEMENTS SO THAT IT PROVIDES THE ABILITY FOR ARCHITECTS TO HAVE CREATIVITY. 
          AND WHILE DESIGN IS SUBJECTIVE, IT REQUIRES DESIGN SO THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THERE. 
          SO THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH AS LONG AS THE BUILDING IS DESIGNED TO BE AN AESTHETIC STYLE, IT WOULD MEET OBJECTIVE STANDARDS WITHOUT BEING PRESCRIPTIVE TO THOU SHALT HAVE TWO FEET SETBACKS EVERY 30 FEET. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT MIGHT BE GOING IN THE WAY OF MY, MY SECOND QUESTION. 
          UM, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE, AMY, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE COMPETING GOALS AND THE COMPETING INTEREST AND THOSE GOALS, AND THERE'S ALWAYS TRADE OFFS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          IN YOUR ESTIMATION, WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE TO HAVE A SCORING SYSTEM WHEREBY THOSE GOALS ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE FIVE OF 'EM, SO THEY, THEY'RE 20 POINTS EACH. 
          YOU HAVE A MINIMUM STANDARD, YOU CAN'T GO LOWER THAN 10 ON EACH, BUT MM-HMM. 
          , THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TRADE OFF BETWEEN THOSE SO THAT YOU COULD STILL HIT AN ACCEPTABLE SCORE. 
          YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU LACK SOMETHING ON THE LANDSCAPING, BUT YOU MAKE IT UP IN TERMS OF SOMETHING ELSE. 
          OH, YOU MEAN FOR THAT BUILT INTO THE ORDINANCE OR, OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING COMMISSION, REVIEWING THE ORDINANCE AND SORT OF HAVING A TOOL FOR, FOR MAKING DECISIONS ON SOME OF THE MORE, UM, CONFLICTED STANDARDS. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I THINK YES,  YES AND YES. 
          YEAH. 
          YES AND YES. 
          I, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT IS, IS ALLOW FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY MM-HMM. 
          , BUT STILL HAVE IT BE OBJECTIVE, RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, A DEVELOPER KNOWS THAT, OKAY, IT'S OBJECTIVE BECAUSE I'M GONNA LOSE A FEW POINTS HERE. 
          I KNOW I'M GONNA LOSE THREE POINTS THERE, BUT I KNOW I CAN MAKE UP THREE POINTS HERE MM-HMM. 
          , SO THEY CAN STILL KNOW WHAT THEIR NET GOAL NEEDS TO BE AND THEY CAN ACHIEVE IT. 
          BUT IT'S NOT, YOU'RE NOT REALLY HORSE TRADING AT THE TABLE. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE GIVE AND TAKES ARE. 
          SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          I'VE GOT YOU. 
          I THINK WE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN A SCORING SYSTEM, BUT THERE'S A COUPLE OF PLACES WHERE, WHERE WE USE TECHNIQUES OF, YOU MUST ACHIEVE THREE OF X X NUMBER OF DESIGN COMPONENTS OR MM-HMM. 
          , YOU CAN DO THIS OR THAT, OR, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S WAYS THAT WE DO ALLOW, BUILD SOME FLEXIBILITY INTO CERTAIN STANDARDS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THERE IS A JURISDICTION THAT OUR SOUTH BAY TEAM HAD LOOKED AT THAT I KNOW IS DOING THAT. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER EXACTLY WHICH JURISDICTION IT WAS, BUT IN TALKING WITH OUR SOUTH BAY TEAM ABOUT TRYING TO DO A SCORING SYSTEM, IT, HE'D REALLY STEERED US AWAY FROM THAT SAYING THAT IT AS A FUNCTIONAL, UM, SYSTEM, IT WASN'T, I THINK GOING AS WELL AS THEY'D HOPED. 
          AND THERE IS THE, WE CAN WRITE THE STANDARDS TO BE OBJECTIVE AND FLEXIBLE, UM, BY GIVING RANGES. 
          AND LIKE ANDREW SAID, BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, MUST INCORPORATE X, Y, Z OF THE FOLLOWING MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, SO I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE FLEXIBLE WITHOUT, WHILE STILL BEING OBJECTIVE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          THIS IS MY ONLY TWO. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU DARREN. 
          YEAH, THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. 
          UH, I'LL START WITH MY FIRST QUESTION ABOUT THE SB TWO GRANT AND TIMELINE. 
          I KNOW, UM, AT LAST MEETING WHEN I FIRST HEARD THE QUICK TURNAROUND, I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THAT MIGHT INHIBIT OUR ABILITY TO CREATE THE BEST POSSIBLE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          BUT I THINK THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT IF YOU HAVE THE PEOPLE, THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, YOU CAN JUST PUSH THE PROJECT FORWARD. 
          BUT IN THAT VEIN, DO WE KNOW THE, I'M SURE WE DO THE GRANT AMOUNT THAT WE RECEIVED, UH, AND HOW FLEXIBLE WE ARE IN DIVORCING THE DELIVERABLE OF THESE STANDARDS FROM THAT GRANT IF IT'S DEEMED BENEFICIAL. 
          IF WE GET A HUGE OUTPOURING FROM STAKEHOLDERS 
          [01:00:01]
THAT SAY THEY NEED MORE TIME, THEY NEED MORE REVIEW, IS, IS THAT FEASIBLE OR HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD WE KIND OF BE AT RISK TO LOSE OR, UM, I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT EXACTLY. 
          OUR SSB TWO GRANT DID HAVE SEVERAL THINGS IN IT, UM, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND WE HAVE DONE SOME SHIFTING AS SOME THINGS AS WE DUG INTO IT, UM, DIDN'T SEEM LIKE, LIKE, WOW, THIS IS A LOT MORE THAN WE HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT. 
          OR THIS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S GONNA GIVE US THE BANG FOR OUR BUCK THAT WE THOUGHT IT WERE WAS GOING TO. 
          SO WE HAVE DONE SOME, THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY TO SWITCH THOSE AROUND. 
          UM, I'M, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK THIS AT THIS POINT IN THE GAME. 
          UM, AND I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THE TOTAL SSB TWO GRANT, IT HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          WE HAD A D U, UM, WORK THAT WE DID UNDER OUR SB TWO GRANT AND WE HELPED, UM, FUND, UM, THE ACCELERATOR PROGRAM AND MADE SOME SHIFTS THERE. 
          IT IS GOING TOWARDS, UM, IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR PERMIT CENTER, UM, TO FACILITATE THINGS. 
          UM, IT HAD A REZONING, CITY OWNED PROPERTY REZONING, SO IT WAS MADE UP OF A NUMBER OF COMPONENTS. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT I CAN ANSWER. 
          THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS, AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN PETALUMA , UM, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THIS CASE IS NOT NECESSARILY CREATE NEW STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS WE HAVE NOW ARE TRANSITION TO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS SO THAT WE CAN STILL APPLY THEM. 
          AND THEN AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, WE ARE GONNA BE, UM, ALSO DOVETAILING THAT WITH A ZONING UPDATE, A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING UPDATE. 
          UM, AND THAT WILL GIVE US A CHANCE TO GET SOME OBJECTIVES IN PLACE AND THEN REVISE THEM AS WE GO THROUGH THOSE PROCESSES. 
          SO, UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO THINK OF THEM AS LIKE SET IN STONE TO THINK OF 'EM AS GETTING, BRIDGING THAT GAP BETWEEN OUR SUBJECTIVE THAT WE CAN'T APPLY RIGHT NOW TO, AND GET, GET SOME CONTINUITY THERE, AND THEN THINKING OF THEM BEING UPDATED ALSO AS WE FINISH A GENERAL PLAN AND WE DO THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE. 
          WELL, AND SOME OF THIS I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH, BUT, UM, FOR THE, UH, ITEMS OUTSIDE OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT GRANT FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED FOR, ARE THOSE UNDER THREAT IF WE DON'T MEET THIS DELIVERABLE? I MEAN, WAS ALL THAT MONEY PACKAGED TOGETHER OR SOME OF THAT MONEY SPENT ON SOME OF THOSE OTHER OBJECTIVES KIND OF SAFE? I THINK IT'S SAFE. 
          I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE, I DON'T THINK ALL OF IT IS TIED UNDER MISSING ONE OF MULTI-PRONGED. 
          AND YOU ANSWERED THAT NEXT QUESTION, WHICH WOULD BE, HOW FREQUENTLY CAN WE UPDATE THESE, UH, TO HARMONIZE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND I Z O? YEAH. 
          UH, SO IT'S GREAT HEARING THAT. 
          WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE WE WOULD NEED MORE FUNDING? WOULD THAT JUST BE BAKED INTO OUR PLANNING BUDGET? WE WOULD JUST, I THINK THAT, I MEAN THE, THE, THE CONCEPT IS RIGHT NOW IS ONCE WE ARE A LITTLE FURTHER ALONG IN THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, 'CAUSE ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED WITH THE LAST GENERAL PLAN IS THERE WAS THE, UM, INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH BECAME THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE WITHOUT THE NEEDED UPDATES. 
          UM, BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN IN 2008 AND WHAT WAS HAPPENING, UM, IN OUR ECONOMICS, IT, IT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 
          UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS TRYING TO START THAT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING UPDATE KIND OF WHILE WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS. 
          SO ONCE WE HAVE ENOUGH FORM, UH, LIKE OUR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES AND OUR POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND THOSE KIND OF FUNDAMENTAL PIECES OF OUR GENERAL PLAN, STARTING THAT ZONING CODE UPDATE SO THAT THEY ARE MORE IN LINE AND HAPPENING TOGETHER INSTEAD OF COMPLETELY FINISHED THE GENERAL PLAN AND THEN JUST START ON THE ZONING CODE UPDATE. 
          AND YOU'VE GOT THIS DISCREPANCY WHILE YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          SO OUR GOAL IS TO TRY TO DO THAT MORE STREAMLINED. 
          WELL, AND IDEALLY THIS WOULD BE THE NEXT PHASE IN THAT DAISY CHAIN FROM GENERAL PLAN TO I Z O TO, TO THESE STANDARDS, UH, BEING UPDATED. 
          UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          AND YOU, I, WELL, I BELIEVE, JUST NOT TO INTERRUPT, BUT I BELIEVE THE IDEAS FOR THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS TO LIVE IN THE ZONING CODE, RIGHT. 
          SO IT WOULD BE PART OF THAT PROCESS PARCEL TO UPDATE THEM. 
          I MEAN, HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOME GOOD STANDARDS AND SOME OF THEM WILL STAY, SOME OF THEM WILL AUGMENT, SOME NEW ONES WILL COME IN. 
          UM, BUT IT'LL 
          [01:05:01]
BE THE BASIS TO, YOU KNOW, RE-LOOK AT 'EM AS PART OF THAT. 
          WELL, AND THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH WE'RE HARMONIZING THE DISCRETIONARY AND THE MINISTERIAL. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS CLOSE AS WE CAN. 
          I NOTICED IN SANTA ROSA STANDARDS, I, I GUESS I'LL JUST ASK IT OUTTA THE GATE, SANTA ROSA, MIL PDI, YOU SAID THEY'RE KIND OF DIFFERENT POLLS OF STANDARDS. 
          MILPITAS BEING EXTREMELY DETAILED AND ALMOST PRESCRIPTIVE. 
          SANTA ROSA BEING VERY BARE BONES OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. 
          WHICH WAY ARE WE LEANING RIGHT NOW? BECAUSE WHEN I READ MIL PDIS, I THINK OF THE LEGISLATION AND I THINK PRO, UH, APPLICANTS COULD ARGUE THIS IS TOO ONEROUS OR TOO PRESCRIPTIVE, UH, AND BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE STANDARDS. 
          UM, SO I GUESS, WHICH WAY ARE WE LEANING RIGHT NOW? HAVE WE FOUND ANY KIND OF NICE THROUGH LINE THERE? WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE . 
          I, I THINK THAT, BUT I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING WHEN WE LOOK AT THEM THOUGH, BECAUSE, UH, SANTA ROSA WAS ALSO VERY EARLY OUT OF THE GATE AND, AND RESPONDED VERY QUICKLY TO THE SSB 35 NEED FOR, UM, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          AND SO THE PROCESS THAT THEY WENT THROUGH WAS REALLY TO JUST OBJE, YOU KNOW, CREATE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FROM THOSE OTHERWISE SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          THEY ALSO HAD DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND SO THEY WORKED THROUGH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO SEE WHERE THEY COULD ALSO CREATE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FROM THOSE. 
          UM, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT THAT WAS, AGAIN, IT WAS DRIVEN BY THE RESPONSE TO, TO RESPOND TO SSB 35. 
          AND FROM THAT VERY EARLY PERSPECTIVE THAT IN SENSE, IN A SENSE, THAT CONCERN THAT SO MANY HAD ABOUT THE LIMITING EFFECTS OF THE EXEMPTION FROM THE DISCRETIONARY PROCESS. 
          AND WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT? I THINK MANY JURISDICTIONS NEVER HAD THAT, YOU KNOW, SITUATION BEFORE WHERE YOU COULD HAVE DEVELOPMENT, NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND ESPECIALLY MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SUCH THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS. 
          SO I THINK SANTA ROSA REPRESENTS THAT SORT OF IMMEDIATE RESPONSE. 
          WHILE MILPITAS GOES FURTHER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF, UM, MAYBE NOT HAVING THE PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THEM AND, AND THINKING ABOUT ACHIEVABILITY FEASIBILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THEIR, AT THEIR, UH, DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN TERMS OF THE, THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 
          BUT, UH, IT, IT COULD BE THAT THEIR PRINCIPLES WERE DIFFERENT, WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IS DIFFERENT. 
          AND SO IT ENDED UP BEING A, A MORE DENSE, UM, SET OF REQUIREMENTS. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, IT WAS PRETTY CLOSE TO BLUEPRINTS FOR SOME OF THOSE. 
          IT FELT LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, IN TALKING ABOUT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, I NOTICED SANTA ROSA DOES REFERENCE, MAYBE IT'S THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES, BUT THEY REFERENCE BOTH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN STANDARDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. 
          DO WE HAVE, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT LIKE THE RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS LIKE THE C P S P, ARE THOSE ALREADY OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS? AND THEN HOW DO THOSE KIND OF ENGAGE WITH, UM, THE MINISTERIAL DESIGN STANDARDS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? I'LL LET, UH, HEATHER G ANSWER THAT. 
          AND THEN ALSO HEATHER HEINZ, BECAUSE I THINK SHE'S, SHE'S GOT A WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN AND SUCH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THE ANSWER IS YES AND NO  THAT, UM, SO THIS, AND, AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY THINGS WITH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SMALL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE. 
          SO IN SOME WAYS, YOU LOOK AT EDSS AND THINK, WOW, THEY HAVE WAY MORE STANDARDS. 
          BUT THE TRUTH IS YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR OBJECTIVE TO SIGN STANDARDS, NOT NECESSARILY THEIR ENTIRE ZONING CODE. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, ALL THE STREET SCAPE STUFF WITH HOW WIDE A STREET SHOULD BE IN A SIDEWALK SHOULD BE, WE HAVE ALL THAT STUFF, BUT IT'S IN OUR MUNICIPAL CODE UNDER THE PUBLIC WORK STUFF. 
          AND THEY, THEY DO THAT. 
          UM, AND WE DID TALK WITH THEM AND COORDINATE WITH THEM TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT, OKAY, ARE THERE THINGS MISSING? ARE THERE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO ADD SO THAT WE HAVE THESE? UM, AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT PETALUMA'S AND YOU SEE, OH, THEY DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THEY DON'T HAVE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          IT MAY MEAN THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE, AS THEY LISTED THAT WHOLE SECTION, THEY ALREADY HAVE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN THOSE OTHER SECTIONS. 
          AND SO, UM, THE STARTING POINT FOR EVERY JURISDICTION IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. 
          IN THE CASE OF PETALUMA, WHAT WE DID WHEN WE WERE LOOKING THROUGH IS WE DID GO THROUGH THOSE DOCUMENTS, THE RIVER ENHANCEMENT PLAN, THE SPECIFIC PLANS, AND LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE THE SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE OBJECTIVES SO THAT THEY APPLY. 
          SO THERE IS A SECTION THAT LOOKS AT RIVER FRONTING PARCELS. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE DO REFERENCE IN THERE, WE 
          [01:10:01]
HAVE, WE HAVE OUR LIST OF REFERENCES AS WELL OF ALL THE OTHER DOCUMENTS, UM, WHICH INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THAT PROVIDE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          AND I'LL JUST ADD, SO, UM, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE MID PEN PROJECT AND THE BURBANK PROJECT, BOTH SSB 35 PROJECTS WERE BEING PROCESSED VERY SIMILAR TIMELINES. 
          UM, ONE WAS ALONG THE RIVER, ONE WAS, UH, IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SMART CODE. 
          ONE WAS THE I E O. 
          SO MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT WE LOOK THROUGH ALL APPLICABLE PLANS, SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, SMART CODE, I E O, RIVER ENHANCEMENT PLAN, ALL OF THE THINGS, AND LOOKED FOR THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT WERE IN THOSE PLANS AND APPLIED THEM TO THE PROJECT. 
          SO IT WASN'T, IT DID, SO IF THE RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN SAID, YOU SHALL HAVE A SETBACK OF AT LEAST X OR YOU SHALL HAVE A PUBLIC WALKWAY, THOSE WERE INCORPORATED IF IT SAID SOMETHING LIKE, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THIS OR THAT, THAT'S NOT AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD AND WE COULDN'T APPLY 'EM. 
          BUT I, I REMEMBER THE PLANNERS LOOKING THROUGH ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS TO CULL OUT ALL OF THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT PLANS. 
          IS THAT, YEAH, THAT IS A GREAT ANSWER. 
          YOUR QUESTION. 
          THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE. 
          AND YOU HIGHLIGHTED HOW IMPORTANT THE WORD SHELL IS IN THIS PROJECT, OR SHALL HOWEVER YOU WANNA PRONOUNCE THAT. 
          UM, YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. 
          I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE REALLY FRAMED SOME OF THIS EXERCISE AS TAKING THE GUIDELINES WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ARE SUBJECTIVE, POINTING TO THOSE OR REFERENCING THOSE, AND THEN CONVERTING THOSE OTHER, OR EXCUSE ME, THOSE THAT ARE OBJECTIVE AND THEN POINTING THOSE OR CONVERTING THOSE SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS TO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          SO WE GET KIND OF A TRANSLATION OF THE EXISTING STANDARDS WE HAVE FOR THIS MINISTERIAL PROCESS. 
          UH, AND THEN HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE REVIEW OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, THERE'S ALWAYS KIND OF HOW WE GROUP PROJECT TYPES, WHETHER IT'S ZONING, BUILDING TYPES, SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. 
          UH, AT LEAST MILPITAS SEEM TO IDENTIFY CERTAIN SCENARIOS. 
          UH, IF A BUILDING IS THIS TYPE OF BUILDING OR IF IT'S ADJACENT TO THIS NATURAL FEATURE. 
          UH, I NOTICED THAT NONE OF THEM DO LIKE SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS, WHICH I KNOW PETALUMA, WE KIND OF HAVE IN SOME AREAS PRETTY WELL-DEFINED NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE BREWSTER AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          UM, HOW ARE WE THINKING ABOUT GROUPING THINGS? DO, ARE WE DOING KIND OF ZONING, BUILDING TYPES, NEIGHBORHOODS? DO WE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT? THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, THEY, THERE ARE, UM, DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CERTAIN OBJECTIVE OR FOR SOME OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY THE HISTORIC ONES. 
          UM, BUT BASICALLY AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE THE CONSTRUCT FOR GOOD DESIGN. 
          UM, AND SO THERE'S DEFINITELY THE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES DOWNTOWNS OR DIFFERENT AREAS INTERESTING IS THAT AS DIFFERENT BUILDINGS DEVELOP OVER DIFFERENT TIMES, THERE'S DIFFERENT STYLES, THERE'S DIFFERENT STRUCTURES. 
          AND SO IT'S NOT ABOUT UNIFORMITY IN EVERY SINGLE BUILDING, HAVING THESE PROJECTIONS OR SETBACKS. 
          IT'S ABOUT ALLOWING FOR DIFFERENT FORMATIONS AND FOR SOME, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, GIVING THE ARCHITECTS THE ABILITY TO BE CREATIVE AS LONG AS THERE IS DESIGN. 
          DOES THAT IT MAKE SENSE? BECAUSE AGAIN, AESTHETIC, I, I LIKE MY FAKE SHUTS . 
          SO THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE, THEY'RE APPARENTLY NOT AESTHETIC, BUT I LIKE THEM. 
          WELL, OKAY. 
          WELL, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          AND I, AND I WON'T GO TOO FAR DOWN BECAUSE THIS IS KIND OF WHEN WE REVIEW THE DRAFT. 
          UM, AND THEN THE LAST COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE, GET A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC. 
          UM, CAN WE DO ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, ONE, UH, ISSUE THAT'S COME UP BEFORE OUR CITY REQUIREMENTS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AROUND SOLAR OR OTHER KIND OF SUSTAINABILITY, GOLD ORIENTED, UH, REQUIREMENTS LIKE THAT. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO IN OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR, UH, I MEAN, NOT BIKE RACKS AND SOLAR AREN'T THE SAME, OR DOES THAT GET WRAPPED INTO GREEN BUILDING CODES OR, I, I THINK HEATHER'S GOT GOING TO HAVE A RESPONSE FROM SOME STANDARDS, DRAFT STANDARDS THAT WE'VE ALREADY DEALT WITH. 
          BUT THEN I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME THOUGHTS ON HOW SAY THE, THE BLUEPRINT FOR CARBON REDUCTION AND SO FORTH THAT ARE COMING FORWARD WOULD ALSO IMPACT THE STANDARDS. 
          BUT YET WE MAY, YOU MAY NOT SEE THOSE REFLECTED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT POLICY BASIS TO APPLY IT TO ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND SO WE WANT 
          [01:15:01]
TO THINK AGAIN ABOUT THESE QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND IS IT ACHIEVABLE FOR THAT SUBSET OF PROJECTS, WHICH IS ANTICIPATED TO BE, UM, HAVE SOME COMPONENT OF AFFORDABILITY? YEAH, I WOULD ADD THAT WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS. 
          UM, AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS NOT HAVING NEW OR HIGHER REQUIREMENTS, MORE EXPENSIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. 
          'CAUSE THIS IS REALLY WHAT THESE ARE APPLYING TO, ARE PROJECTS THAT HAVE THAT COMPONENT OF, OF THAT HIGHER COMPONENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING RIGHT. 
          INCORPORATED INTO THEM. 
          NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE MORE GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, SIMULTANEOUSLY WE ARE LOOKING AT REACH CODES FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 
          WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, A DEVELOPER CHECKLIST WITH OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. 
          YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT OTHER AVENUES. 
          SO IT'S NOT THAT WE AREN'T WORKING TOWARDS THAT, BUT WE WANNA DO THAT WHERE IT WOULD APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD TO ALL PROJECTS LIKE OUR ALL ELECTRIC OR OUR VISITABILITY OR, YOU KNOW, UM, THE TIER ONE CAL GREEN TIER ONE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR BUILDING CODE. 
          WE WANT THOSE TO APPLY TO EV ALL PROJECTS NOT KIND OF JUST RANDOMLY APPLY TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO FACILITATE THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THIS IS TO DECREASE COSTS AND TIME TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS BUILT TO ADDRESS OUR HOUSING NEEDS. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHERE SOME OF THOSE, THOSE, YOU KNOW, GOALS KIND OF OVERLAP AND YOU THINK, OH, THIS IS THE PLACE TO DO LOW LOW CARBON CONCRETE REQUIREMENT, BUT THEN YOU THINK, SHOULD WE BE DOING IT HERE OR SHOULD WE BE DOING IT OVER IN THE BUILDING CODE, YOU KNOW, TO APPLY TO ALL PROJECTS. 
          SO IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT A GREAT EXAMPLE AND THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST PLACE FOR TONS OF NEW STANDARDS. 
          THAT REALLY SHOULD BE SOMETHING WE LOOK AT CITYWIDE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          UH, AND THEN KIND OF AS A FOLLOW UP, DO WE HAVE ANY LEEWAY TO ASK FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFITS WITH DEVELOPMENTS? AND I'M THINKING STREET IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSIT STATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WE MIGHT ASK IN A SUBJECTIVE CONTEXT? I DON'T KNOW IF WE ALREADY ASKED FOR ANY OF THAT IN A MINISTERIAL CONTEXT, AND IF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS COULD HAVE LANGUAGE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE IN A CERTAIN AREA THAT'S BEING SERVED BY A TRANSIT ROUTE SOMEHOW TO FACILITATE THAT, OR I DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING LIKE THAT HAS COME UP. 
          WELL, UH, TYPICALLY WE WOULD LOOK TO, TO THE TRANSIT PLAN TO IDENTIFY WHERE THOSE STATIONS WOULD BE OR BUS STOPS WOULD BE REQUIRED. 
          AND, AND THEN IF THEY'RE REQUIRED ON ANOTHER PLAN, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED OF THE PROJECT. 
          SO I THINK A LOT OF THOSE, THOSE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE GONNA BE DRIVEN BY, UH, EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT OR EXISTING PLANS THAT ARE IMPLEMENTED BY, UH, PUBLIC WORKS AND THE CITY ENGINEER. 
          UM, THE, THE OTHER, OTHER, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WOULD STILL APPLY. 
          UM, PARK REQUIREMENTS WOULD STILL APPLY, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO IT DOESN'T HAVE THE EFFECT OF ELIMINATING THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC BENEFITS OR, OR ESSENTIAL TO A GOOD QUALITY UM, DEVELOPMENT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, HEIDI. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, CHAIR HOOPER. 
          UM, I HAVE ONLY A COUPLE QUESTIONS 'CAUSE UM, ACTUALLY, UH, COMMISSIONER RASON TOOK MOST OF THEM, BUT , UM, ONE IS, I'M JUST CURIOUS, UM, I KNOW YOU SAID THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL IS GOING TO BE THE ONE TO REVIEW THE, UH, MINISTERIAL PROJECTS. 
          WHO IS THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL? UH, JEROME HOBERG. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, RIGHT. 
          SO THEY WOULD REVIEW THE MINISTERIAL PROJECTS AND I JUST THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, THEY USE THAT TERM PUBLIC OFFICIAL MM-HMM. 
           IN THE STATE DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S, UH MM-HMM. 
          , I THINK WOULD BE THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN THIS CASE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          MM-HMM. 
           JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT. 
          AND THEN I JUST WANNA, UM, CIRCLE BACK ON WHAT COMMISSIONER KUSON WAS SAYING ABOUT, UM, REQUIRING, UM, SUSTAINABILITY, UM, ADD-ONS TO THESE, UM, PROJECTS. 
          AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULDN'T BE APPLYING THOSE TO THESE PROJECTS WHEN WE'RE NOT APPLYING IT TO OTHER PROJECTS, MARKET RATE PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN. 
          BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S STILL, UM, WE DO HAVE A CLIMATE CRISIS AND YOU DON'T WANNA IGNORE THE CLIMATE CRISIS FOR THE HOUSING CRISIS. 
          SO SOMEHOW I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO BOTH. 
          AND I KNOW WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS REQUIRING THESE OTHER SUSTAINABLE, UM, 
          [01:20:01]
NEEDS TO ALL PROJECTS. 
          SO MAYBE BECAUSE OF THIS WE SHOULD, UH, GET A MOVE ON THOSE A LITTLE BIT. 
          ESPECIALLY LIKE REQUIRING SOLAR AND EV CHARGING STATIONS AND OTHER THINGS THAT, UM, WE FEEL IS REQUIRED. 
          'CAUSE I JUST, I DON'T WANNA KIND OF, UM, BE, YOU KNOW, PENNY WISE AND POUND FOOLISH HERE AND HAVE ALL THESE PROJECTS APPROVED THAT DON'T HAVE THE, UM, SUSTAINABILITY, UM, THINGS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE. 
          SO, JUST A COUPLE THINGS. 
          WE ARE WORKING ON THEM. 
          UM, WE ARE WORKING ON A LOT. 
          UM, THERE IS A LOT GOING ON. 
          SO I, I DON'T WANNA UNDER, YOU KNOW, UNDEREMPHASIZE HOW MUCH IS IN MOVEMENT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, THE OTHER THING I WANNA REALLY CLARIFY IS THESE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WOULDN'T LESSEN ANY OF OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO WE HAVE AN ALL ELECTRIC CODE. 
          UM, WE DO REQUIRE EV SPACES AS PART OF OUR TIER ONE CAL GREEN TIER ONE REQUIREMENT. 
          WE DO REQUIRE SOLAR AS PART OF OUR, UM, SO I DON'T, I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD 'CAUSE IT DOES LIVE IN THE BUILDING CODE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UM, I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY LIKE, OH, FOR A 25 UNIT MULTIFAMILY IT WOULD BE REQUIRED THIS MUCH SOLAR. 
          BUT WE DO HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND THOSE STILL WOULD COMPLY. 
          AND JUST AS A KIND OF SIDE NOTE, AND HOPEFULLY ANDREW DOESN'T KICK ME BEHIND THIS PODIUM, BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH, UM, OUR, OUR BUILDING DIVISION TO TRY TO KIND OF DAYLIGHT SOME OF THOSE DURING THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS. 
          BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE REALIZED IS THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT'S REQUIRED DURING THE BUILDING STAGE THAN IS PRESENTED AT THE ENTITLEMENT STAGE. 
          AND IT, AND, AND THEN SOMETIMES YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, WE'RE NOT THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, EXPERTS HERE OF THE BUILDING CODE. 
          AND SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH OUR BUILDING, UM, CODE COLLEAGUES, OUR BUILDING DIVISION COLLEAGUES ABOUT, IS IF THEY COULD HELP US KIND OF GIVE A CLEAR BASED ON THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OF, YOU KNOW, THIS USE THIS SIZE OF A BUILDING HERE, SOME OF THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, SUSTAINABILITY THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED JUST TO SHARE THAT KIND OF KNOWLEDGE SO YOU HAVE A BETTER, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS BEING REQUIRED FROM OUR EXISTING CODE BECAUSE THERE IS QUITE A BIT BEING REQUIRED UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE. 
          I THOUGHT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR, I THOUGHT IS THAT WE DO, MY UNDERSTANDING IS UNDER, UM, CAL GREEN TIER ONE THAT THERE ARE SOLAR REQUIREMENTS. 
          I UNDERSTAND NOW. 
          IT MIGHT NOT BE ALL THAT WE WANT. 
          MAYBE WE WANT MORE OR, UM, AND THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          BUT THAT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS AND HOPEFULLY I'M NOT SPEAKING OUT OF TURN. 
          BUT, UM, SO WE WILL WORK ON, WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD, UM, DISCLOSURE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT SOME OF THOSE ARE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN IF WE DO, UM, WORK TOWARDS GETTING MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS ON ALL PROJECTS THROUGHOUT PETALUMA, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR US TO THEN, UM, AND TAKE, INTEGRATE THOSE INTO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS? THEY WOULD ALREADY BE REQUIRED. 
          THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE, YEAH, AUTOMATICALLY, BECAUSE THEY ARE OBJECTIVE, THEY'RE THE BUILDING CODE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THERE ARE, THEY'RE THE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THEY, THEY ARE APPLYING. 
          SO AS THOSE COME ONLINE AND WE ARE LOOKING AT A SUITE OF REACH CODES WITH OUR BUILDING DIVISION COLLEAGUES, UM, TO BRING FORWARD. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          GREAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          I'M GOING TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF A SEGUE FROM THE MAIN KIND OF GIST OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD BECAUSE I DID WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH ONE OF THE POINTS THAT THE VICE MAYOR RAISED REGARDING FIRE CODE. 
          UH, I APPRECIATED THAT DISCUSSION BECAUSE ONE THING THE STATE HAS BEEN PUSHING AGGRESSIVELY IS JUST HOW FAR EMBERS TRAVEL DURING A HIGH FIRE EVENT. 
          AND AT THIS POINT, THERE'S NO MEANINGFUL DISTINCTION BETWEEN BEING NEAR A FOREST AND BEING WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU'VE GOT FOLIAGE ESSENTIALLY CONNECTING TO YOUR HOME. 
          UH, BUT I DID WANT TO ASK, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT FOR MANY REASONS, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF WHO WE ALSO HAVE ON THE COMMISSION THAT STREET TREES AND OUR, HOW WE LANDSCAPE IS A REALLY BIG DISCUSSION HERE. 
          HOW, HOW EFFECTIVE WILL LIKE FIRE ZONE, LIKE FIRE SMART, UH, LANDSCAPING AND MORE NATIVE PLANTS IN THAT VEIN MAKE IT SO THAT THERE CAN STILL BE A HAPPY MEDIUM BETWEEN THE 10 FEET OF NOTHING AND HAVING SOME LANDSCAPING, BECAUSE I, I KNOW 
          [01:25:01]
CAL FIRE'S GOT A FEW DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAT DO ALLOW FOR PLANTS, THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE ISOLATED. 
          I WAS JUST WONDERING IF, IF OUR I ZS G OR NOT, I Z O SORRY, IF OUR STANDARDS ARE GONNA REFLECT THAT. 
          UM, WELL AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS AN, I WOULD CALL THIS AN UNRESOLVED TOPIC IN OUR STANDARDS AT THIS POINT. 
          UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S UM, UH, IT, IT IS COMPLICATED. 
          UM, AGAIN, THE FIRE MARSHAL, AND AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE IT'S REALLY GONNA COME DOWN TO THE COMMISSION NEEDING TO KIND OF, I MEAN, WE'LL PROVIDE OUR BEST RECOMMENDATION AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BUT THE FIRE MARSHAL BASICALLY CAME OUT AND SAID ZERO TO FIVE FEET, THERE SHOULD BE NO LANDSCAPING. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND AGAIN, THE TREE CANOPY SHOULD NOT BE MM-HMM. 
           10 FEET CLOSER. 
          AND AGAIN, THERE ARE PLACES IN THE CITY WHERE THAT IS, THAT WOULD MEAN NO LANDSCAPING AND NO TREES. 
          AND THERE ARE PRETTY SEVERE CLIMATE IMPACTS TO, IF YOU START TAKING OUT YOUR URBAN TREES, WE NEED THE URBAN FOREST. 
          UM, SO I, I, I UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER TO WHERE THAT'S GONNA GO, BUT IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE, I'M HAPPY TO. 
          I DO. 
          AND I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SHARE IT OFFLINE. 
          I WON'T TAKE UP MEETING TIME, BUT I THINK THERE'S A FEW WAYS WE COULD APPROACH IT. 
          UM, BUT THANK YOU. 
          GOING BACK TO, I DO THINK THOUGH CHAIR, QUICKLY, I THINK THIS, THIS, WHAT WHAT I'M THINKING IS AS WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IS HOW WE BRING SOME OF THESE ISSUES TO YOU IN A WAY THAT, THAT THAT YOU CAN WORK THROUGH THEM. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING IS SPOTLIGHTING HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND, AND BEING SURE THAT WE BRING THEM TO YOU IN A MANNER THAT YOU CAN WORK THROUGH IT, UH, TO, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE. 
          WELL, AND ACTUALLY RELATED TO THAT, I WAS GONNA MAKE THIS IN A COMMENT, BUT ONE REQUEST I WAS GOING TO HAVE IS THAT WHEN WE GET THE DRAFT, IF YOU CONFRONT LOAD AREAS OF CONTENTION OR AREAS WHERE THERE'S CONFLICT, OBVIOUSLY THE DRAFT WILL TAKE THE FORMAT IT TAKES, BUT JUST AT THE FRONT, SO WE KNOW, I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR OWN PRIORITIES, BUT TO KNOW WHERE STAFF REALLY NEEDS SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND TO ALSO GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY START TO DO THE BACKGROUND RESEARCH GIVEN SOME OF THESE AREAS, I'M SURE WE'LL BE A LITTLE MORE OBSCURE THAN WE'RE USED TO. 
          SURE. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, SO WHEN I, WHEN I STARTED LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU FORWARDED OVER, ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT THE, THE TWO CASE STUDIES, BUT ALSO THE TOOLKIT AND THE TOOLKIT WAS VERY HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, I REALIZED THAT WHEN I STARTED THINKING ABOUT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, I WAS THINKING OF MORE LIKE AN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN. 
          SO SOMETHING LIKE WHAT MILPITAS HAD MADE SENSE TO ME RIGHT AWAY OVER TIME. 
          AND OVER THE COURSE OF THIS DISCUSSION, IT'S APPARENT TO ME THAT THIS IS MORE LIKE A TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
          YOU'RE GOING, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH AND REFERENCING PARTS OF THE EXISTING CODE AND THEN ADDING WHAT'S MISSING GIVEN THE, THE CONVERSION FROM SUBJECTIVE OR FROM SUBJECTIVE TO OBJECTIVE. 
          UM, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD THOUGH, I RECOGNIZE WHY YOU WANT THE PRIORITY TO BE, WE JUST HAVE TO WORK ON WHAT WE HAVE. 
          WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT CONVERSION. 
          AND I IMAGINE THAT'S GOING, THAT'S A GREAT DEAL OF TIME ALL BY ITSELF. 
          UH, WHEN WE GET THE DRAFT, WILL THERE BE SOME KIND OF IDENTIFICATION FOR IT IN TERMS OF, HEY, THIS IS REFERENCING BUILDING CODE HERE AND HERE WE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ARE MAYBE NOT THE STANDARDS WE WANT NOW WE PREDICT THIS WILL GET DEALT WITH IN THE I Z O UPDATE. 
          WE PREDICT THIS WILL ACTUALLY REQUIRE US TO REALLY INVEST IN UPDATING AN ORDINANCE. 
          WILL THAT, WILL THAT INFORMATION BE, UH, PROVIDED? I ONLY ASK BECAUSE I THINK THAT'LL ALSO HELP US REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION TIME AS WELL. 
          SURE. 
          I, I THINK IT'S A, A GREAT IDEA TO, TO MAP ON EXISTING STANDARDS. 
          SO, SO WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A PERCEPTION THAT THERE'S A GAP, IF THERE'S A STANDARD IN THE BUILDING CODE OR SUBDIVISION STANDARDS THAT WOULD FILL THAT GAP WILL WE'LL MAP THAT IN AND SHOW YOU, UM, WHERE THAT STANDARD EXISTS ELSEWHERE IN, UM, IN THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE. 
          I THINK THAT WE, WE MAY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY SOME, SOME, I DON'T WANNA CALL THEM GAPS, BUT, BUT SOME AREAS WHERE WE MIGHT BE INCLINED TO WANT MORE DETAILED STANDARDS, BUT YET BE ABLE TO SAY THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE, BE, UH, SORT OF PARKED FOR FUTURE YEAH. 
          WORK, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CODIFICATION PROCESS OR A SEPARATE PROCESS. 
          UM, AND THEN I THINK THROUGH THE 
          [01:30:01]
COURSE OF REVIEW, WE'LL ALSO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT WE'LL WANT TO EARMARK FOR ADDITIONAL WORK. 
          SO I THINK BY THE END OF IT, WE'RE LIKELY TO HAVE A PRETTY CLEAR ROADMAP FOR WHERE WE NEED TO GO, YOU KNOW, AS NEXT STEPS, UM, TO WORK TO INCORPORATE POLICY DOCUMENTS THAT CURRENTLY ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR TO INITIATE NEW WORK TO, TO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO GET AREA SPECIFIC IF YOU WILL. 
          YOU KNOW, AND HOW DOES THAT LOOK AND HOW DO WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT? THANK YOU. 
          BECAUSE THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE DISCUSSION WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER KUSON, THAT'S WHAT KEPT COMING TO MIND. 
          I SUSPECT JUST GETTING THROUGH THE DRAFT OF WHAT'S BEEN CONVERTED WILL TAKE SOME TIME. 
          SO JUST KNOWING WE HAVE A ROADMAP. 
          'CAUSE THE THING I DON'T WANT TO COME AWAY FROM THIS WITH IS THIS IDEA THAT, OH YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS SOLAR STANDARDS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS TRANSIT INTERSECTIONALITY AND, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A ROADMAP. 
          SO IT FEELS LIKE IT'S FAR OFF IN THE DISTANCE. 
          IF WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO COME UP IN GENERAL PLAN VERSUS I Z O VERSUS HEY, THIS NEEDS A FRESH ORDINANCE, THAT'LL, THAT'LL BE VERY HELPFUL. 
          UM, I ALSO, AND I REALIZE THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, ABOUT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN GENERAL, BUT I THINK YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB ANSWERING A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS. 
          SO I DID WANT TO JUST MAKE THE REQUEST WHILE WE'RE HERE, UM, IF THERE ARE AREAS WHERE AHEAD OF TIME, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA WANT US TO PARK. 
          SO THERE'S AREAS WHERE YOU'RE LIKE, HEY, WE KNOW THIS DOESN'T LOOK GREAT. 
          WE, WE KNOW YOU BASED ON PAST DISCUSSIONS THAT THERE'S GOING, YOU WANT TO HAVE A MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION. 
          IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THAT, LET US KNOW. 
          AND THEN JUST GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHEN YOU THINK THOSE DISCUSSIONS COULD TAKE PLACE. 
          SO WE HAVE AN IDEA AND A ROADMAP, AND THEN WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE CAN REALLY FOCUS ON OUR TIME ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. 
          SURE. 
          WILL DO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN, UH, ONE LAST QUESTION, WHICH IS, HOW MANY SCENARIOS DO YOU THINK WILL BE INCLUDED WITH THE DRAFT? BECAUSE GOING THROUGH MILPITAS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHILE YES, I, I CERTAINLY DON'T SEE HOW THAT ACHIEVED FEASIBILITY OR WAS VERY IMPLEMENTABLE. 
          UH, THE SCENARIOS WERE QUITE HELPFUL IN DIVING THROUGH WHAT, WHAT A SECTION OF THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN ACTUALLY REQUIRED. 
          WILL OURS TAKE THAT APPROACH AS WELL? OR WILL IT BE A LITTLE MORE BARE BONES LIKE SANTA ROSA WAS? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          UM, I  I'M NOT, I, I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT. 
          OH, FAIR ENOUGH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN I KNOW I SAID ONE LAST QUESTION, BUT I REALIZE I MISSED ONE. 
          UH, WILL WE AT SOME POINT GET A LIST OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT YOU REACHED OUT TO? I JUST WANT HAVE AN IDEA 'CAUSE MM-HMM. 
          , I DON'T WANT US TO COME OUT OF THIS AND, YOU KNOW, WE HEAR, OH, SOMEBODY WASN'T REACHED OUT TO, OR SOMEBODY WANTED TO BE REACHED OUT TO. 
          IT'S JUST EASIER IF WE KNOW AHEAD OF TIME. 
          SURE. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THAT'S ALL FOR NOW, ROGER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I, I'M APPRECIATE THE, UM, THE SLIDESHOW AND THE GRAPHICS THAT I'M SITTING HERE STARING AT THESE TWO IMAGES OF A, BOTH OF 'EM ARE HORRIBLE IMAGES OF WHATEVER. 
          I'M NOT SURE, I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE GOOD EXAMPLES OR BAD EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE WANT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO THINK HARDER ABOUT WHAT WE SHOW THAT REPRESENTS WHAT, BECAUSE THESE ARE BOTH, YOU KNOW, PRETTY, PRETTY, UH, JUNKY BUILDINGS, EVEN THOUGH , BUT I THINK TO BE, BE FAIR, THE INTENTION WASN'T TO SHOW NECESSARILY EXCEPTIONAL DESIGN, IT WAS TO POINT OUT THE SUBJECTIVENESS OF, BUT MANY OF YOUR PROJECTS SHOW NO LANDSCAPING. 
          I MEAN, I THINK WE NEED TO GET A LITTLE MORE SENSITIVE TO WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO. 
          UM, AND, AND TO DARREN, UH, AND HEIDI'S POINT, SOLAR ENERGY SAVES THE HOMEOWNER MONEY. 
          AND SO IF THIS IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I THINK THERE'S GOTTA BE WAYS TO BUILD IN SYSTEMS. EVEN IT MAY COST A DEVELOPER SOMETHING, BUT IT IS MORE AFFORDABLE FOR THE RESIDENT. 
          SO SOMEHOW THE TYING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER, I THINK WOULD BE WORTH LOOKING AT. 
          UM, I LIKED THE IDEA OF, UH, MILL MIL PITA, I THINK IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY MORE EXPENSIVE OR MORE EXTENSIVE THAN WE CAN EXPECT, BUT IT'S A GOOD OUTLINE. 
          AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF WHATEVER WE'RE BUILDING HERE WITH, UM, OBJECTIVE CAN EXPAND INTO OBJECTIVE PLUS OBJECTIVE. 
          I MEAN, THE LOW HANGING FRUIT IS OBJECTIVE AND THEN HIGHER UP IN THE FREE, WE COULD GET INTO WHAT WE WANT. 
          WE CAN AFFORD ON MORE EXPENSIVE PROJECTS. 
          SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT OUGHT TO BE A FRAMEWORK THAT WE CAN, CAN EXPAND. 
          AND I THINK YOU'RE TALKING THAT WAY ANYWAY. 
          [01:35:01]
UM, ARE, ARE THERE MINISTERIAL REVIEWS REQUIRED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OR ONLY IF IT HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LOW INCOME RESIDENTIAL, BUT A MIXED USE PROJECT IF IT'S NOT, DOESN'T QUALIFY, IT'S NOT MINISTERIAL REVIEW, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THERE IS, UM, MINISTERIAL PROJECTS HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN, THEY HAVE TO MEET A CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL THRESHOLD IN ORDER TO QUALIFY. 
          AND IT CAN'T, TWO THIRDS COMES TO MIND, BUT THAT'S NOT, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A DIFFERENT CALCULATION, BUT THERE IS, THERE, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE TECHNICALLY A MIXED USE PROJECT, BUT HAVE A MAJORITY OF THAT BE COMMERCIAL AND THEN THAT WOULD NOT BE A QUALIFYING RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION IS, OKAY, IF A, IF A DEVELOPMENT QUALIFIES, BUT IT'S, IT'S AN UNINSPIRING DEVELOPER OR UNEXPERIENCED DEVELOPER OR A, YOU KNOW, IT, IT MEETS ALL THE MILESTONES, BUT IT'S STILL AN UNINSPIRING PROJECT. 
          I MEAN, TO WHAT DEGREE DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HELP, UM, SHAPE THAT? UM, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN SOME PROJECTS COME THROUGH HERE THAT ARE VERY, THE DEVELOPER HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE IS DOING, AND HIS CONSULTANT HAD SOME IDEA. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, SO THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE RAISE THE ATTENTION LEVEL OR THE EXPECTATION LEVEL? SO AT LEAST IT'S A DECENT CRACK AT DESIGN AND NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT KIND OF MINIMUM. 
          UM, A QUESTION ABOUT TRAFFIC. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A 200 FOOT CROSSWALK REQUIREMENT AND THAT IMPACTS TRAFFIC FLOW, WHAT HAPPENS? YOU MENTIONED THAT IN THE, A OBJECTIVE DESIGN WOULD BE, IS A CROSSING EVERY 200 FEET, BUT IF THAT HAS TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS OR SAFETY IMPLICATIONS, WHERE DOES THAT COME UP? THAT WOULD COME UP DURING THE REVIEW? IF THE CITY ENGINEER FELT THAT THAT CREATED A, A SAFETY ISSUE, THEN UM, I BELIEVE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT REQUIREMENT BASED UPON PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY. 
          OKAY. 
          THE, THE OTHER THING REGARDING THESE PHOTOS, IT SEEMED LIKE PHOTOS WOULD BE A VERY OBJECTIVE WAY OF SAYING THIS. 
          AND NOT THAT I MEAN THIS AND NOT THAT. 
          IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A VERBAL DESCRIPTION, IT'S A PICTURE, AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU WANT, WHAT YOU DON'T WANT. 
          WOULD THAT QUALIFY AS OBJECTIVE? WELL, I THINK THAT THE STATE LAW AND, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND GET OFF OF THE THAT PICTURE FOR YOU, , UM, IF WE GO BACK TO THE DEFINITION, AN EXTERNAL AND UNIFORM BENCHMARK OR CRITERIA AVAILABLE AND KNOWABLE BY THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL. 
          SO I THINK IF THERE WAS DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHETHER THOSE IMAGES EFFECTIVELY INFORMED AS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD, YOU KNOW, SAY THE APPLICANT DISAGREED AND SAID THAT IT DOESN'T, BUT THE CITY CONTINUED TO ENFORCE IT, THEN WE, THEN IT WOULD PROBABLY GO ON TO A LEGAL PROCESS, UM, TO DISPUTE THAT IT'S, IT'S A UNIFORM BENCHMARK THAT, OR CRITERIA THAT'S AVAILABLE AND KNOWABLE. 
          SO IT WOULD DEPEND, I THINK, ON WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO, TRYING TO DO WITH THOSE IMAGES, WHAT STANDARD YOU'RE TRYING TO INFORM ABOUT AND THEN HOW INDISPUTABLE IS THAT INFORMATION? YEAH. 
          BUT JUST SEEMED LIKE A, A, A PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT YOU WANT IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. 
          SO, UM, THE, THE FIVE ITEMS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, STRENGTHEN THE CHARACTER OF A PUBLIC REALM DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE. 
          DESIGN, UH, EQUITABLE PLACES, SUPPORT THE, UH, COMMUNITY IN WALKING, UH, UH, AND, UM, SUSTAINABLE. 
          ALL OF THOSE INVOLVE STREET TREES. 
          ALL OF THOSE INVOLVE THE PUBLIC CORRIDOR FOR STREET TREES. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S GOTTA BE IN HERE. 
          AND, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE UP TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. 
          IT SHOULD NOT BE UP TO PUBLIC WORKS. 
          IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT WE WANT ACHIEVE. 
          UM, THE OTHER, THE OTHER THING I, I GUESS IS, IS I, I I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT AND I'M NOT CRITIQUING IT, BUT STAFF IS DOING THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THESE DEVELOPERS. 
          AND SO I, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE MAKE SURE STAFF IS WELL INFORMED AND WHO'S, AND THERE'S SOME OVERVIEW THAT HELPS 
          [01:40:01]
MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THE STAFF IS NOT JUST OPERATING FROM THEIR EXPERIENCE. 
          UM, 'CAUSE I'VE SEEN A PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED BY STAFF SOMEWHERE THAT IS NOT WORKING TOO WELL. 
          IT'S LOW, LOW INCOME HOUSING. 
          SO HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT SORT OF OVERVIEW DOESN'T, DOESN'T HAPPEN? WELL, I THINK THE FIRST STEP IS TO STRENGTHEN YOUR STANDARDS BECAUSE WE, WE REVIEW AGAINST THE, THE, THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT IN PLACE, AND THE PROJECT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS 16 0 1 PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THAT WAS REVIEWED AGAINST THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          SO I THINK THAT PART OF THE GOAL IS TO CREATE MORE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS SO THAT WE HAVE MORE REVIEW CRITERIA, UM, TO, TO ACHIEVE GOOD QUALITY DESIGN. 
          IT MAY NOT BE EXCEPTIONAL DESIGN DEPENDING ON HOW YOU, UH, VIEW IT. 
          NO, AND I'M NOT CRITIC, CRITIC CRITIQUING STAFF. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S A, BECOMES A REALLY CRITICAL COMPONENT OF MAKING THIS WORK. 
          UM, THE OTHER QUESTION, LIKE THE SACRAMENTO HAS A A TREE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING LOTS AND IT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL PLANT TREES TO ACHIEVE SHADE, 70% SHADE IN 10 YEARS. 
          THAT, TO ME, THAT'S VERY OBJECTIVE. 
          IS THAT, WOULD THAT KIND OF, WOULD THAT FIT WITH THE, UH, OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD? OR DOES THAT OVERKILL? YEAH,  GOOD. 
          WELL, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, WE, WE ARE EXPLORING SOME OF THAT WITH THE, UM, WITH WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR TREE ORDINANCES, UM, AND OUR URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN, UH, THERE'S BEEN SOME TALK ABOUT DO WE SET A PERCE DESIRED PERCENTAGE? WHERE ARE WE AT? WHERE DO WE WANNA BE? WHAT'S A COMPARABLE CITY THAT WE THINK HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB? AND THEN DO WE SET SOME OF THOSE GOALS, UM, IN, FOR INSTANCE, OUR TREE ORDINANCE? SO, UM, THERE'S SOME OF THAT DISCUSSION HAPPENING AS PART OF THAT IS SETTING A PERCENTAGE. 
          AND SO THEN THEORETICALLY YOU'D HAVE SOMETHING LIKE NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, SHALL BE DESIGNED TO ENSURE 30% TREE CANOPY COVERAGE OR, YOU KNOW, AND, AND DISPLAY IT THROUGH LAND STATE PLANS OR SOMETHING. 
          MY QUESTION, CAN WE EX, CAN WE SAY THAT THAT'S A OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD AND HAVE IT IN THIS TYPE OF ORDINANCE? WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING, UH, UM, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T LIVE IN THESE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY, IF THERE ARE, I THINK IF THERE ARE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN OTHER SECTIONS OF OUR CODES, CORRECT? MM-HMM. 
          , THEY, THEY STILL APPLY. 
          SO IF WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE ADOPT IN OUR TREE ORDINANCE CHAPTER 17, UM, AND IT'S NOT IN OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION OF THE CODE, BUT IT IS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD, IT WILL STILL APPLY TO A DEVELOPMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THERE WERE LANDSCAPE STANDARD THERE, LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES ASSOCIATED AS FAR THAT DID LOOK AT PARKING, PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING. 
          AND SO WE DID INCLUDE LANGUAGE ABOUT PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING. 
          AND, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS WAS, UM, THAT THE DESIGNERS AREN'T CRAZY ABOUT HAVING TO PUT IN THE SIX FOOT STRIPS EVERY EIGHT OR NINE SPACES. 
          AND THAT AN OPTION MIGHT BE TO HAVE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE COVERED. 
          SO IT MAY BE THAT PERCENTAGE IS THE DIRECTION TO GO. 
          AND YES, AS LONG AS WE SPECIFY IT, THAT WOULD BE OBJECTIVE. 
          I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT TOO, ROGER. 
          I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU, IT WOULD BE WAY MORE SUBJECTIVE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, X AMOUNT OF TREES PER SQUARE FEET. 
          I WOULD THINK, AND MAYBE WE NEED TO PULL UP THAT OBJECTIVE STANDARD DEFINITION OF, AGAIN, BUT MAYBE IT'S SUBJECTIVE UNLESS WE SPECIFICALLY SAY THIS TYPE OF A TREE WE CONSIDER COVERS X AMOUNT OF FEET, AND THEN THAT WAY WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PARKING LOT IS, AND IF IT HAS X AMOUNT OF FEET PER THE TREES, YOU COULD DO THE MATH THAT WAY. 
          UM, BUT WITHOUT THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS TYPE OF TREE THAT WITHOUT THE EXPLICIT DEFINITION OF HOW MUCH CANOPY FEET WISE, THAT IT COULD BE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD SAY LIKE, X AMOUNT OF ORANGE TREES OR APPLE TREES OR WHATEVER THAT EQUALS PERCENTAGE WITHOUT SAYING WHAT THE ACTUAL CANOPY WE THINK IT IS. 
          UM, WELL, THIS, I THINK SACRAMENTO IS, IS MORE OF PERFORMANCE. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT YOU, THEY 10 YEARS THEY'LL CHECK AND SEE IF THE TREE, IF THE CANOPY IS PROVIDING THAT. 
          SO IT'S MORE, IT'S MEASURABLE AND IT'S, IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO DECIDE WHAT TREE HE WANTS TO USE AND WHAT SPACING HE 
          [01:45:01]
WANTS TO USE. 
          SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT, IT'S A LITTLE MORE, UM, ASSUMING SOMEONE'S GONNA GO OUT THERE 10 YEARS AND MEASURE WHAT HAPPENED. 
          BUT, BUT I, AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IF IT, IF IT MAY NOT EVEN SACRAMENTO, IF THEY MAY NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD, THEY AT LEAST HAVE A POLICY THAT PROVIDES DIRECTION. 
          YEAH, AND I THINK SOMETIMES IN DEVELOPING THE DRAFT STANDARDS, WE ENCOUNTERED SITUATIONS WHERE WE'D SAY, WELL, THIS IS, THIS IS A STANDARD WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY POLICY THAT DIRECTS ESTABLISHMENT OF THAT STANDARD? YEAH. 
          BECAUSE THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO IS WE MOVE, YOU KNOW, WE MOVE FROM PLANNING TO POLICY TO, UH, TO STANDARDS TO CODIFICATION. 
          AND SO WITHOUT THOSE POLICIES IN PLACE, WE'RE KIND OF MISSING THAT STEP. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, FIRE MARSHAL , I I WAS PART OF A, ANOTHER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND, UH, THERE'S MANY, MANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THERE'S MANY FIRE MARSHALS WITH DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS. 
          UM, AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION AND I DON'T THINK ONE GUY OUGHT TO SAY, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE WELL RESEARCHED AND WELL SUPPORTED BY EXPERTS. 
          UH, AND THERE ARE FAR EXPERTS THAT TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ROLE OF DESIGNING BUILDINGS TO NOT BURN, WHICH IS A BIG PART OF, UH, OF THE DEAL BECAUSE EMBERS DO TRAVEL AND IT'S WHETHER IT'S 10 FEET FROM YOU OR 40 FEET, IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE IT'S NOT GOING TOUCH YOUR ROOF OFF. 
          SO, I MEAN, BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND ROOF REQUIREMENTS AND, YOU KNOW, FLASHING AND ALL THAT STUFF ARE AS IMPORTANT AS TREES. 
          AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE A FIRE MARSHAL'S DECISION TO ELIMINATE STREET TREES BECAUSE OF THE, OF THE SETBACK. 
          UH, AND FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN ON THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, THERE'S A LOT OF PROPOSALS FOR EXPANDED, UM, UH, SETBACK OR NO SETBACK, AND THEN EXPANDED BALCONIES THAT WOULD PREVENT A STREET TREE FROM BEING, IT WOULD BE CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO THAT BUILDING. 
          UH, SO WE'RE BUILDING INTO A DESIGN THAT MAY IMPACT A BIGGER DESIGN. 
          UM, THE OTHER QUESTION, UH, YOU MENTIONED THAT ON, UH, A LOW INCOME PROJECT COMING UP IN RIVERFRONT RIVER, AS I RECALL LOOKING AT THE RIVERFRONT, UM, PLAN  OR THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, UM, THEY, THEY HAVE SECTIONS THAT SAY, UM, 30 TO 60 FOOT SETBACK. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S NO DIMENSION THAT SAYS 10 FEET OR 30 FEET OR 60, IT SAYS 30 TO 60 FEET SETBACK. 
          AND THE, THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OF WHAT DETERMINES THAT 30 OR 60 FEET. 
          AND I THINK THE DEVELOPER GETS TO CHOOSE WHAT HE WANTS TO BE PUNISHED WITH. 
          AND IT DEPENDS IF IT'S A PARKING LOT OR IF IT'S A BUILDING OR IF IT'S A PATIO OR IF IT'S PART, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE DIMENSIONS, THEY, THEY NEED TO GET MORE DEFINED AND I DON'T KNOW WHO DECIDES WHAT DIMENSION WE SHOULD USE IF THAT'S A STAFF DECISION OR IF THAT'S A DEVELOPER DECISION OR HOW, HOW DOES IT WORK OUT? THE RIVER ENHANCEMENT PLAN IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WAS MY QUIZZICAL LOOK. 
          I WASN'T SURE WHAT YOU . 
          UM, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 
          YOU KNOW, I CAN'T, 'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCES IN THE RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN WITH THOSE. 
          UM, SO I CAN'T, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT OFF THE TOP, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT IT AND UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I DO THINK THAT, THAT, I THINK THE RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN IS AN AMAZING PLAN, AND IT HAS BEEN AN AM HAD SUCH A LONG LIFE OF APPLICABILITY, YOU KNOW, WE GET OTHER SPECIFIC PLANS OR OTHER PLANS THAT KIND OF GO THROUGH THEIR LIFE AND THEN YOU'RE LIKE, OH, THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE AND THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE. 
          THAT ONE HAS A PRETTY LONG LIFE. 
          I THINK IT WAS THE NINETIES THAT, THAT WAS A ADOPTED SIXTIES. 
          SIXTIES, MM. 
          I THINK IT WAS THE EARLY NINETIES. 
          I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S 96. 
          I RECALL. 
          I HAVEN'T SEEN IT FOR ONCE, BUT, OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS A, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE MID NINETIES, EARLY NINETIES. 
          BUT, UM, BUT I DO THINK THAT PLAN WOULD, COULD BENEFIT FROM AN UPDATE NOW TOO, YOU KNOW, TO IDENTIFY SOME OF THOSE THINGS. 
          WE HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT CLIMATE WITH THE STATE REGULATIONS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED, WE'VE GOT AREAS WHERE WE HAVE DONE TERRACING OR, YOU KNOW, UM, I MEAN THE, THE FLOOD 
          [01:50:01]
PROJECT HAS BEEN FINALIZED SINCE THAT PLAN. 
          SO THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED. 
          UM, IT WOULD NICE BE NICE TO HAVE A DIGITAL VERSION , UM, BECAUSE IT'S LITERALLY THE P D F IS LIKE PHOTOCOPIED IN ONTO THE WEBSITE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A DIGITAL VERSION OF IT. 
          SO, UM, BUT IT IS AN AMAZING PLAN THAT HAS HAD A REALLY, UM, A LOT OF APPLICABILITY. 
          SO I CAN'T, I CAN'T SPEAK TO A SECTION OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT IT. 
          AND MY ONLY, I GUESS MY ONLY POINT WAS THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A RANGE, THERE'S A DIMENSION GIVEN, BUT THERE'S NO ABSOLUTE OF WHICH, WHICH DIMENSION SHOULD YOU CHOOSE OR WHO GETS TO DECIDE THAT MM-HMM. 
           AND WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE, YOU KNOW? SO I AGREE WITH THE PLAN. 
          THERE'S A BEAUTIFUL ATTITUDE, BUT IT REALLY NEEDS A LOT MORE SPECIFICS MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND MAYBE THAT COULD BE PART OF THE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I, I MEAN, MOST OF THE PLANS THAT COME HAVE THAT IN THEIR, UM, YOU KNOW, COME THROUGH A DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS. 
          SO LOOKING AT THE INTENT, WHAT DO WE, WHAT'S THE INTENT OF THAT REGULATION? AND ON THIS PROPERTY, CAN THEY DO THAT ON 30 FEET OR DO THEY NEED 50 FEET? AND ON THIS ONE, THEY DEFINITELY NEED 60 FEET BECAUSE OF SPECIFICS ON THE, ON THE ACTUAL PROPERTY THAT THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED ON. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M DONE. 
          WE HAVE THE OPTION TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ITEM, BUT I WAS JUST GOING TO TAKE A QUICK POLL TO SEE, DOES ANYONE HERE ACTUALLY HERE TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM OR A DIFFERENT ITEM? I MEAN, IF FOR THIS ITEM THAT WASN'T WHY CAME I SAY SOMETHING VERY BRIEF, NO PROBLEM. 
          WE WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE CLERK IF WE'VE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING ON THE SUBJECT ITEM WE RECEIVED. 
          NO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING FOR THIS ITEM. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR IN-PERSON SPEAKERS TO COME UP. 
          AND ALSO PLEASE GIVE YOUR CARD TO THE CLERK, WHICH YOU CAN GIVE AFTER. 
          OH. 
          AND PLEASE, UH, INTRODUCE YOURSELF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HI, PAM GRANGER. 
          UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THIS HAS BEEN QUITE AN EYE-OPENING THING SINCE I CAME FOR SOMETHING ELSE. 
          UM, I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF THIS IS GONNA RESIDE IN THE IZO, UM, WHICH I THINK IS GREAT BECAUSE I, AS A, UH, IF I WERE WANTING TO EVALUATE A PLAN, UH, I WOULD WONDER, UH, FOR SOME THINGS LIKE AN SB 35 PROJECT, AND I THINK IT'S, IT WAS A THREE 30 OR SOMETHING, SO IT'D BE GOOD IF THAT WAS SOMEPLACE THAT WAS EASILY ACCESSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC. 
          UH, AND THE OTHER THING, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE, UM, LANDSCAPING. 
          NOW IT'S COMING TO MIND BECAUSE I GOT A LOVE NOTE FROM MY INSURANCE COMPANY, SINGLE FAMILY HOME, SAYING I NEEDED TO, UH, UM, UH, TO CUT BACK TREES. 
          AND I, AND IF YOU LOOKED AT THEIR PLAN, I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY LANDSCAPING NEXT TO MY HOUSE, THE BUSH THAT'S PRICKLY, AND I PUT THERE THAT NOBODY WOULD GO INSIDE THAT, YOU KNOW, TRY AND BREAK IN THAT WINDOW, YOU KNOW, IS, IS SUDDENLY PERSONA AND GRATA. 
          IT'S STILL THERE. 
          UM, SO SOMEBODY MIGHT WANNA CHECK WITH WHOEVER'S INSURING THESE PUBLIC BUILDINGS TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT THEY'RE GONNA RUN INTO. 
          I KNOW THINGS CHANGE. 
          UM, BUT THAT WOULD BE JUST SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT LOOK AT, WHICH IT SEEMS LIKE BASED ON THE DESIGN, THAT THE DOCUMENTS I GOT WITH PICTURES, THAT THE, THE FIRE STANDARDS MIGHT BE AT PLAY IN MY HOUSE TOO. 
          THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THINGS THAT I OBSERVED. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM. 
          UH, WE JUST GOT THROUGH COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. 
          TECHNICALLY WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER ROUND FOR COMMISSIONER COMMENT. 
          WHAT I WANTED TO ASK EACH COMMISSIONER TO DO IN THIS CASE THOUGH, IS NOT ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT, UH, GIVE STAFF ANY REQUESTS THAT YOU HAVE BASED ON THE DISCUSSION SO FAR THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU WHEN WE ACTUALLY GET TO THE DRAFT. 
          I JUST WANT THEM TO HAVE THIS IN MIND, THINGS BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP YOU IN EVALUATING THIS MORE QUICKLY, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH TIME WITH IT. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'M GONNA START WITH ROGER THIS TIME. 
          WELL, I THINK I'VE, I'VE SAID EVERYTHING I NEED TO SAY. 
          I, I, I WOULD LIKE THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING. 
          UM, I'D LIKE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE, UH, OUTWARD GOAL WITH A STEP IN BETWEEN FOR THE OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES. 
          IT'S, BUT A HOLISTIC GUIDELINE APPROACH, BUT WITH, WITH A LOW FRUIT BEING THE OBJECTIVE. 
          UM, 
          [01:55:01]
AND I THINK I, I WOULD LIKE TO, I TRY TO INCLUDE STREETS AS PART OF A PROJECT. 
          I KNOW PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC WORKS DECIDES STREETS DIMENSION, BUT THEY DON'T DECIDE MUCH BEYOND THAT FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN WALKS, STREET TREES, UH, AS PART OF THE GUIDELINES. 
          UM, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE PHOTO ILLUSTRATIONS OF GOOD IMAGES THAT YOU WANT AND OUR EXAMPLES, UH, AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. 
          UM, I'LL GO THROUGH MINE QUICKLY. 
          UH, IF WE COULD GET A SET SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS THAT LEAD TO, TO MINISTERIAL AND OBJECTIVE REVIEW BASED ON, LIKE, THIS IS AN SSB THREE FIVE VERSUS AN SSB THREE 30 AND SOME VISUAL EXAMPLES WOULD BE GOOD. 
          I RECOGNIZE WE'RE PRO A LOT OF THESE ARE PROBABLY GONNA BE INFILL PROJECTS. 
          AND IT'S ALSO A GOOD REMINDER FOR US AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DRAFT THAT THIS PRIMARILY AFFORD AFFORDABLE PROJECTS TO HELP US KIND OF FRAME THE FOCUS OF THE DISCUSSION. 
          UM, AS I ASKED EARLIER, IF WE COULD DO, UM, FRONT LOAD, THE AREAS OF CONFLICT OR CONTENTION THAT MIGHT BE COMING UP THAT YOU NEED US TO LOOK AT RIGHT AWAY SO WE HAVE MORE TIME TO KIND OF DO OUR BACKGROUND RESEARCH. 
          UH, I THINK DEFINING THE SCOPE IS GONNA BE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT JUST BASED ON THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS WE'VE ALL HAD THUS FAR. 
          SO REALLY HELPING US IDENTIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN HERE, WHAT'S ACTUALLY AN I Z O TOPIC, WHAT'S ACTUALLY A NEW ORDINANCE DISCUSSION. 
          UM, AND WHAT, WHAT'S ACTUALLY AT AND ROGER'S SURFACE THIS ONE, WHAT'S ACTUALLY DISCUSSION OF, SAY, UPDATING A SPECIFIC PLAN. 
          UH, THE QUICKER WE'RE ABLE TO SURFACE THOSE DISTINCTIONS, THE QUICKER WE CAN PARK THINGS. 
          NOT TO, NOT TO LOSE TRACK OF IT, BUT JUST TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND MOVE, MOVE THROUGH WHAT WE NEED TO MOVE THROUGH WITH THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          UH, AND WITH THAT, THAT'S, THOSE ARE MY REQUESTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CHAIR HOOPER. 
          I ONLY REALLY HAVE TWO. 
          AND, UM, THAT IS TO SEE WHAT WE CAN REASONABLY WORK IN, IN TERMS OF GREEN FEATURES. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S ONE THING THAT IS IMPORTANT AS WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          SO WE DON'T BUILD THINGS THAT ARE, WE'RE GONNA LOOK BACK ONE DAY AND WISH WE HAD PUT THINGS ON THAT SHOULD HAVE HAD ON. 
          AND THE OTHER THING IS, UM, JUST TO, UM, YOU KNOW, FOCUS ON LIKE THE FACADES AND FENESTRATIONS OF THE BUILDINGS AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT LIKE, JUST BIG HUNKS OF CONCRETE, YOU KNOW, AND I'VE SEEN THOSE BEFORE. 
          AND JUST TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NICE DETAIL IN THERE AND THAT IT'S, IT LOOKS ATTRACTIVE TO THE OCCUPANTS AND TO THE NEARBY RESIDENTS TOO. 
          THAT'S GREAT. 
          THANK YOU, DARREN. 
          YEP. 
          UH, I LIKE ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. 
          I THINK AS A RECOMMENDATION BEFORE IT COMES TO TREE COMMITTEE IS OBVIOUSLY PLUMBING THE DEPTHS OF THIS FIRE MARSHAL GRAY AREA AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT DISCUSSION WON'T GET VERY FAR IF WE, IF WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH AS WE CAN IN THAT AREA. 
          UH, I THINK EXPLAINING THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OVERLAP AND POTENTIALLY HAVING REFERENCES, I WOULD IMAGINE THERE'S A WORKING DOCUMENT OF REFERENCES YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED OF OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ON THE BOOKS. 
          I THINK HAVING THAT REFERENCE LIST OR SOMETHING LIKE IT, SO WE CAN ALL CONCEPTUALIZE WHERE THESE OTHER PIECES THAT WE'RE GONNA BE POINTING TO. 
          UH, AND THEN THE THIRD THING WOULD BE THE, UH, STAKEHOLDER LIST, UH, CHAIR HOOPER MENTIONED. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT REFERENCE POINT TO THANKS. 
          SURE. 
          THANK YOU, RICK. 
          UH, YEAH, UH, LIKE DARREN, I'D, UH, DRAFT OFF A COUPLE OF, UH, PREVIOUS COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS. 
          FIRST BEING I, I, UM, SECOND WHAT, UH, ROGER SAID EARLIER ABOUT BALANCING, UM, FIRST COST WITH OPERATING COSTS IN TERMS OF DEFINING AND GETTING TO AFFORDABILITY. 
          UM, THINGS LIKE EV CHARGING THINGS LIKE, UM, SOLAR, THEY DO, UM, OB YOU KNOW, OBJECTIVELY INCREASE FIRST COST MM-HMM. 
          , BUT THEY MOST CERTAINLY LOWER OPERATING COSTS FOR THE BENEFIT, LONG-TERM BENEFIT, 20, 30 YEARS OF THE OCCUPANT. 
          SO, UM, JUST KEEP AN EYE ON THAT AND BALANCE, FIND SOME WAY TO BALANCE THOSE, THOSE TWO COMPETING INTERESTS. 
          UM, SECONDLY, WHAT, WHAT, HOW BLAKE REFERRED TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCEPT AND HAVING, UM, THE, THE, THE CODE READ, LIKE A, A REFERENCE TO THE REST OF, YOU KNOW, THE BODY OF THE I Z O AND, AND OTHER STANDARDS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST, I THINK MAKES IT MORE NAVIGABLE BOTH FOR APPLICANTS AND FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND BEING ABLE TO SEE CONFORMITY, UM, AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENCY AND OBJECTIVITY. 
          SO ONLY TWO COMMENTS. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU VICE MAYOR. 
          I'M ACTUALLY FINE. 
          [02:00:01]
OKAY. 
          WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE OUT THIS ITEM. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO OUR WONDERFULLY PATIENT PRESENTERS. 
          UH, I AM GOING TO CALL FOR A FIVE MINUTE BIO BREAK FOR EVERYONE BEFORE WE GET TO OUR NEXT ITEM THAT WE ARE IN RECESS. 
          OH, HELLO EVERYBODY. 
          WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK FROM OUR BRIEF RECESS, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY, WE'RE GONNA 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
MOVE TO THE MOST DIFFICULT PART OF THE NIGHT, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS OUR NEXT ITEM. 
          UH, THIS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2023. 
          I WANTED TO ASK IF ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD AMENDMENTS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          PERFECT. 
          UM, I, I TAKE, I ALWAYS WANT TO SAY WE CAN DO THIS BY ACCLIMATION, BUT IT'S A ROLL CALL VOTE, ISN'T IT? OKAY. 
          UH, IF YOU COULD CALL ROLL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER BAUER. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCURLEY. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER KUSON. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WIMAN. 
          YES. 
          VICE MAYOR CATER THOMPSON. 
          YES. 
          CHAIR HOOPER. 
          YES. 
          THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 
          WONDERFUL. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE'LL 
          [PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION]
MOVE ON TO ITEM ITEM THREE, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SCOTT RANCH RED BARN COMPLEX LANDMARK DESIGNATION. 
          AND WITH THAT, I WILL LET STAFF GET STARTED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          CHAIR HOOPER, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, SO HOPEFULLY THIS IS GOING TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT FAMILIAR TO ALL OF YOU. 
          UM, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IN THE PIPELINE FOR SOME TIME. 
          UM, AND TONIGHT WE ARE HERE TO JUST TALK ABOUT ONE SPECIFIC ASPECT OF THE SCOTT RANCH PROJECT, WHICH IS THE LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE RED BARN COMPLEX. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA TOUCH REALLY FOLLOWING THE STAFF REPORT, TOUCH ON, UM, THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCESS, A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND STAFF ANALYSIS, C Q A REVIEW, UM, OUTREACH AND PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, SO STARTING WITH LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCESS, WE DON'T DO A, A LOT OF LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS. 
          UM, SO OUR LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCESS IMPLEMENTS, UM, THE GENERAL PLAN, AND THAT'S REALLY CHAPTER THREE OF GENERAL PLAN, UM, TALKS ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND TALKS ABOUT ENSURING, UM, THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF OF RESOURCES. 
          UM, AND THEN OUR IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 15 IS THE ORDINANCE, THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT ADDRESSES HISTORIC RESOURCES, INCLUDING OUR LOCAL LANDMARKS. 
          UM, AND DRILLING DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, SECTION 15.040 IS, UM, THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT ESTABLISHES THE PROCEDURES AND THE PROCESS FOR DESIGNATING, UM, UH, HISTORIC RESOURCES AS LOCAL LANDMARK. 
          UM, MORE SPECIFICALLY, IT TALKS ABOUT WHERE INITIATION OF, UM, A DESIGNATION REQUEST CAN COME FROM. 
          UM, AND IN THIS CASE, STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THIS REALLY AS, UM, BEING INITIATED BY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN THAT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING, UM, THE SCOTT RANCH PROJECT HAD A SPECIFIC CONDITION, UM, THAT ASKED FOR THIS PROCESS TO HAPPEN, AS WELL AS, UM, GENERAL PLAN POLICY TWO P 68, WHICH ALSO CALLS FOR DESIGNATION OF THE RED BARNS. 
          UM, SO IN TERMS OF PROCESS, UM, WHOOPS, UM, UH, DESIGNATION PROCESS, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE H C P C, THE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEN A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL ULTIMATELY BEING, UM, THE DECISION MAKER. 
          AND REALLY THE ACTION FALLS UNDER ZONING AMENDMENT BECAUSE WHAT IS HAPPENING WHEN WE DESIGNATE A LOCAL LANDMARK IS WE ARE APPLYING THE H OVERLAY TO THE PROPERTY. 
          AND WE ARE ALSO ADOPTING KIND OF A UNIQUE PARCEL SPECIFIC, UM, ZONING DOCUMENT. 
          UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY IT FOLLOWS, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT. 
          SO IN TERMS OF YOUR ROLE THIS EVENING, UM, YOUR ROLE IS TO CONSIDER THE H C P C RECOMMENDATION, WHICH I WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT, UM, CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 25 OF THE CODE, WHICH, UM, REGULATES ZONING AMENDMENTS. 
          IT'S TO DETERMINE IF YOU CAN MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A ZONING AMENDMENT. 
          AND THOSE REQUIRED FINDINGS 
          [02:05:01]
REALLY TOUCH ON TWO THINGS CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN 2025 AND CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE. 
          THIS IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING, SO OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND ULTIMATELY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. 
          IN TERMS OF BACKGROUND, UM, IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE ENTITLEMENTS FOR SCOTT RANCH AND PART OF THOSE ENTITLEMENT, THERE WAS THREE RESOLUTIONS THAT DIRECTLY RELATE TO OUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. 
          ONE WAS THE RESOLUTION THAT CERTIFIED THE E I R ONE WAS THE RESOLUTION THAT APPROVED A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT THAT MODIFIED POLICY TWO P 68, AND ONE WAS THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP. 
          SO LOOKING AT EACH OF THOSE AND HOW THEY RELATE TO TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION ABOUT LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION WHEN, UH, THE COUNCIL CERTIFIED THE PROJECT LEVEL E I R THAT, UM, INCLUDE DETERMINATION THAT THE RED BARN COMPLEX WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGNATION UNDER CALIFORNIA, UM, REGISTRY CRITERIA NOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA. 
          BUT IT DID INCLUDE DESIGNATION AS PART OF THE OVERALL PROJECT SCOPE BECAUSE OF THAT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICY. 
          UM, AND SO THAT, THAT CERTIFI CERTIFIED E I R DOES INCLUDE DESIGNATION, AND IT ALSO ANALYZED, UH, RELOCATION OF THE BARNES TO FACILITATE STABILIZATION. 
          SO IT DIRECTLY TOUCHED ON, ON THIS ACTION THAT IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT, THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE SCOTT RANCH PROJECT, UM, AMENDED AN EXISTING, UM, GENERAL PLAN POLICY THAT WAS VERY SITE SPECIFIC. 
          IT WAS A LIST OF BULLETS SPECIFIC TO THE SCOTT RANCH PROPERTY, AND ONE OF THOSE, UM, BULLETS, UM, THAT WAS MODIFIED NOW READS, PRESERVE THE BARN COMPLEX, DESIGNATE THE COMPLEX HISTORIC, AND ENCOURAGE THE INCORPORATION OF A NATURE STUDY AREA AND RELOCATION IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA OF THE BARNS FOR PURPOSES OF STABILIZATION AND PRESERVATION SHALL BE ALLOWED. 
          SO THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC TO THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, UM, THE RESOLUTION THAT APPROVED THE VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, UM, INCLUDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 10, WHICH CALLS REQUIRES THE CITY COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION ON LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE RED BARN COMPLEX. 
          SO WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THIS ACTION WILL GO UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AND ULTIMATE DETERMINATION. 
          SO, JUST AS A LITTLE BACKGROUND TO KIND OF GET YOU SETTLED BACK AT THE SITE, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. 
          UH, THE, THE ONE GRAPHIC SHOWS THE ENTIRETY OF THE SCOTT RANCH PARCEL, UM, PROJECT SITE. 
          THE NEXT, UM, ONE, THE SCHEMATIC SHOWS PARCEL B, WHICH IS THAT LARGE, IT'S ABOUT A 47 ACRE PARCEL THAT IS CREATED BY THE SUBDIVISION. 
          UH, THAT IS THE PARCEL THAT THE BARN COMPLEX, UM, IS LOCATED. 
          UM, AND YOU'LL SEE THE 28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS CLUSTERED, UM, UP AT WINDSOR DRIVE. 
          KIND OF A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC, THESE GRAPHICS SHOWING, UM, EXACTLY WHERE THE BARN COMPLEX, THEY'RE ACTUALLY SET A KELLY CREEK KIND OF CLOSER TO D STREET. 
          UM, AND IT'S, THE BARN COMPLEX IS MADE UP SPECIFICALLY OF THREE, UM, THREE BARNS. 
          UM, UH, WITHIN THAT SETTING, THAT VISUAL CORRIDOR, UM, FROM D STREET, THE ROLLING HILLS BEHIND, AND THAT KIND OF, UM, THAT, UM, THAT EVOKES UH, THE, THE HISTORY OF PETALUMA AND ITS AGRICULTURAL, UM, HERITAGE, THE BARN COMPLEX. 
          THIS, THIS SITE WAS HISTORICALLY COMPRISED OF RURAL, AGRICULTURAL AND RANCHING LANDS. 
          UH, THAT PARCEL B THAT I JUST, UM, POINTED OUT IS PART OF THE APPROVED SCOTT RANCH SUBDIVISION. 
          UH, THAT PARCEL B ONCE IT IS, UM, CREATED, WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE. 
          UM, AND THEY WILL BECOME OWNERS OF THAT PROPERTY. 
          AND, UM, THEY WILL BE COMPLETING WHAT IS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS PHASE ONE PARK IMPROVEMENTS, UM, WHICH INCLUDES STABILIZATION OF THE RED BARNS. 
          UM, AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENTS, THAT PARCEL B WILL THEN IN TURN 
          [02:10:01]
BE, UM, DEDICATED TO SONOMA COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS FOR EXPANSION OF HELEN PUTNAM REGIONAL PARK. 
          UH, THIS GRAPHIC, UM, IS SHOWING THE, UH, THE CONCEPT PARK PLAN, UM, AND SPECIFICALLY AROUND THE RED BARNS, UM, SHOWING THE RED BARNS AND THE REUSE OF THE RED BARNS, UM, AS PART OF THAT NATURE STUDY AREA. 
          AND, UM, KIND OF AN, AN ENTRY, UM, TO, TO THE PARK EXPANSION, UM, AND CONNECTING WITH THE, UM, TRAILS THAT ARE PLANNED. 
          SO ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, THE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION COMMITTEE, UH, REVIEWED THE APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, AND THEY APPROVED A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMEND DESIGNATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS PART OF THEIR DISCUSSION. 
          THERE WAS, UM, A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WERE REALLY TOUCHED ON AND, UM, UM, DISCUSSED. 
          ONE WAS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THE RED BARN COMPLEX IS NOT A TYPICAL HISTORIC RESOURCE. 
          UH, IT'S NOT TYPICALLY WHAT WE'RE USED TO SEEING FOR A LANDMARK DESIGNATION, IN THAT IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED NOT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE OR FEDERAL, UM, LISTING BASED ON THEIR CRITERIA. 
          BUT IT WAS ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THE RED BARN COMPLEX IS A UNIQUE LOCAL OF UNIQUE AND LOCAL IMPORTANCE IN PROVIDING AESTHETIC AND CULTURAL CONTRIBUTION TO PRESERVING A VISUAL REMINDER OF PETALUMA'S AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE. 
          UM, SO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT DO WE NEED LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION? ARE THERE OTHER WAYS WE CAN PROTECT THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE KIND OF TYPICAL, UM, HISTORIC RESOURCE. 
          AND WE DID TALK, UM, ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY, UM, BECAUSE OF THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND SOME OF THE GRANT FUNDING THAT IS COMING FROM THE, UM, OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. 
          UM, SO WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT AS IS COULD THAT BE ADEQUATE ASSURANCE THAT THE RED BARN COMPLEX IS GONNA BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED? AND THE H C P C FELT LIKE THAT WASN'T KIND OF ENOUGH AND WASN'T FOCUSED ENOUGH ON THE RED BARN COMPLEX, UM, AS A RESOURCE. 
          UM, AND SO ULTIMATELY THEY FELT LIKE THE LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION WAS THE BEST TOOL THAT WE HAD AT THE LOCAL LEVEL TO ENSURE THAT THE RED BARN COMPLEX IS PRESERVED. 
          SO WITH THE HCPCS RECOMMENDATION FOR LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION, THEY INCLUDED A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR THE PC AS WELL AS THE DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, INCLUDING THAT THE RED BARNES COMPLEXES PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE WAS FROM THE, IS FROM THE LATE 19TH CENTURY TO MID 20TH CENTURY. 
          IT'S BASED ON ITS VISUAL PROMINENCE AS A NOTABLE FEATURE AT THE GATEWAY ON D STREET. 
          WITHIN THAT SETTING OF THE ROLLING HILLS AND FOR ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THE AGRICULTURAL PAST OF PETALUMA, THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BARN IS NOT BASED ON UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OR, UH, WORK OF A MASTER CRAFTSMAN. 
          UM, SO THOSE, THOSE DETAILS WERE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS YOU MIGHT, UM, TYPICALLY HAVE WITH A LOCAL LANDMARK. 
          IT WAS MORE ABOUT PRESERVING THAT VISUAL CORRIDOR AND THAT AESTHETIC THAT'S SO IMPORTANT TO EVOKING THE FEELING THAT THAT, THAT THAT VIEW SHED EVOKES. 
          UM, BASED ON THAT, THEY DID FIND THAT THE CONTRIBUTING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LANDMARK IS REALLY THE GROUPING OF THE THREE EXISTING BARNS, THEIR GENERAL PROXIMITY TOGETHER, UM, AS WELL AS HOW THEY'RE CITED ON THE LARGER PROPERTY, THE HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING, THE GABLE ROOF, THE WOOD FRAME WINDOWS, OPENINGS OF WINDOWS AND DOORS. 
          UM, SO THOSE ARE ALL OUTLINED IN THE, UM, DRAFT DESIGNATION ORDINANCE. 
          SO IN TERMS OF STAFF ANALYSIS, UM, AS MENTIONED, UM, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A ZONING AMENDMENT, THEY NEED TO MAKE A FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. 
          SO WE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, UM, OBVIOUSLY POLICY TWO P 68, WHICH DIRECTLY SAYS DESIGNATE THIS RESOURCE. 
          UM, SO DESIGNATING THAT RESOURCE IS, UM, PRESERVING THE BARN COMPLEX. 
          IT FACILITATES THE CREATION OF THAT NATURE STUDY AREA AS PART OF THE FUTURE PARK, UM, AND APPROVES RELOCATION OF THE BARNS IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA, WHICH ACTUALLY HELPS MAINTAIN AND, UM, INCREASE THE LONGEVITY OF THE BARNS. 
          [02:15:01]
UM, POLICY ONE P THREE, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH AT FIRST YOU MIGHT THINK HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? BUT BY PRESERVING THIS AREA, UH, AND CLUSTERING THOSE, UM, 28 LOTS UP ON WINDSOR DRIVE, WE PROTECT THE VIEW SHED, UH, AND WE MAINTAIN THAT EXISTING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. 
          AND THEN POLICY THREE P ONE, WHICH, UM, DESIGNATING THE BARN COMPLEX, IDENTIFIES, RECOGNIZES, AND PROTECTS A RESOURCE THAT IS PART OF OUR UNIQUE AND IRREPLACEABLE CULTURAL HERITAGE. 
          IN TERMS OF THE SECOND, UM, FINDING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL WILL NEED TO MAKE IT IS, UM, RELATED TO PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, AND WELFARE. 
          UM, AND SO LOOKING IN THAT FINDING THAT DESIGNATING THE BARN WILL SERVE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, AND WELFARE THROUGH THE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF A COLLECTION OF BARNS WITHIN A VISUAL BACKDROP OF ROLLING HILLS AT THE EDGE OF PETALUMA, THAT SERVES AS A REMINDER OF OUR AGRICULTURAL PAST, AND IT FURTHERS, UM, AND IMPLEMENTS HISTORIC PRESERVATION OBJECTIVES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          UH, THIS ALSO KIND OF TOUCHING ON SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED, BUT, UM, CONSISTENCY WITH THE I Z O IN TERMS OF THE, UH, CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION. 
          UM, AND, YOU KNOW, OUR LOCAL LANDMARK, UM, DESIGNATION IS A LOT LOOSER THAN STATE OR, UM, FEDERAL CRITERIA IN THAT THERE'S WORDS LIKE SPECIAL AND UNIQUE, UM, AS OPPOSED TO KIND OF THE MORE STRICTER CRITERIA THAT ARE IN THE, UM, FORMAL REGISTRIES. 
          SO FINDING THAT, UM, THE RED BARN COMPLEX AND THAT SETTING IS VERY UNIQUE AND, AND VERY SPECIAL TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          UM, AND SO, UM, CONSISTENT WITH THOSE FINDINGS, CONSISTENT, WE MADE THE REQUIRED DETAILED FINDINGS, UM, FOR THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. 
          AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THIS ACTION WOULD IMPLEMENT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, UM, FROM THE SCOTT RANCH PROJECT. 
          AND IT DOES ALSO INCORPORATE THE, UM, DESIGNATION ORDINANCE THAT IS, UM, PART OF YOUR PACKET, UH, INCORPORATED MITIGATION MEASURES THAT, UM, DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH CULTURAL, UM, RESOURCES. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF, UM, MAKING SURE THE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT ANY PLANS FOR ANY RELOCATION OF THE BARNS, MAKING SURE THE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE ON SITE WHEN WORK IS DONE. 
          UM, AND THAT PROCEDURES FOR ANY, UM, DISCOVERY ARE FOLLOWED THROUGHOUT ANY, ANY WORK ON SITE. 
          UH, IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THERE WAS, AS I MENTIONED, A CER. 
          THERE IS A CERTIFIED E I R FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT, WHICH DID INCORPORATE DESIGNATION OF THE BARN COMPLEX, SO, UH, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, UM, DOCUMENTS WERE NEEDED. 
          UM, AND IN ADDITION, WE FOUND, UM, THAT IT WAS, UM, CONSISTENT WITH A CLASS EIGHT, UM, EXEMPTION UNDER C A. 
          UH, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS, UM, PROJECT. 
          WE DID DO ALL THE REQUIRED NOTICING, INCLUDING PUBLICATION MAILED NOTICES AND SIGNS POSTED ON SITE CONSISTENT WITH OUR ORDINANCE. 
          AND SO, FINALLY, UH, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A ZONING AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE THE RED BARN COMPLEX LOCATED ON PARCEL B OF THE APPROVED SCOTT RANCH SUBDIVISION, CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICY TWO P 68, THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 10 FROM THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION, AND IS RECOMMENDED BY THE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE A COUPLE, UM, REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS TO, UM, THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE. 
          UM, ONE BEING, UM, ON ATTACHMENT A EXHIBIT ONE, SECTION THREE, THERE IS REFERENCE TO A DEEDED RESTRICTION AND, UM, REQUESTING THAT, THAT ACTUALLY BE CHANGED TO READ CONSISTENT WITH I E O SECTION 1504 OH J UPON DESIGNATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          THE CITY CLERK SHALL CAUSE A COPY OF THE DESIGNATING ORDINANCE OR NOTICE THEREOF TO BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY THE LANGUAGE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE ORDINANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT. 
          THE, UM, THE DEEDED RESTRICTION WAS A, UM, A CARRYOVER FROM A DIFFERENT PROJECT THAT HAS SOME DIFFERENT CONTEXT TO IT, UM, AND IN THIS CASE NOT NEEDING, UM, A DEEDED RESTRICTION JUST FOLLOWING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          AND THEN ALSO UNDER, UM, M UM, IN BOTH ATTACHMENT A AND ATTACHMENT A EXHIBIT ONE, UM, THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT 
          [02:20:01]
SAY COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS, BUT IT DOES SAY CONSIDERATION OF, SO JUST AGAIN, MATCHING THAT LANGUAGE TO THE WAY THE I Z O SECTION READS. 
          AND WITH THAT, UM, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. 
          WE DO HAVE A COMPLETE COMPLIMENT OF, UM, THE APPLICANT TEAM AND I BELIEVE, UM, SOME PRESENTATION THAT'S DESIRED FROM THE APPLICANT TEAM. 
          UM, CHAIR, WHEN YOU'RE READY FOR THAT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UM, BEFORE WE GET TO THE APPLICANT TEAM'S PRESENTATION, I JUST WANTED TO CHECK TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAD IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS FOR HEATHER, BUT BEFORE THAT I REALIZED I WAS REMISS IN NOT ASKING FOR COMMISSIONERS TO, UH, DISCLOSE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM. 
          UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN IMMEDIATE QUESTION FOR HEATHER BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION? DARREN? UH, I'LL JUST ASK ONE QUESTION AND, AND, UH, THIS IS WHEN I READ, READ THE, UM, HOLD ON. 
          THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT ENCOURAGE INCORPORATION OF A NATURE STUDY AREA. 
          UM, IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO WITH THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION TO EMBODY THAT? I MEAN, IT SAYS ENCOURAGE, MAYBE THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN PUT INTO WRITING. 
          UM, BUT HAVE WE THOUGHT ABOUT HOW WE CAN KIND OF MAKE THAT POLICY OR THAT GOAL A, A REALITY AS STATED THERE? UM, I'LL LET, I'LL LET THE APPLICANT TEAM RESPOND TO THAT, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL BE COMING FORWARD IS THE FULL, UM, CONCEPT PLAN FOR, UM, THE, THE PARK AREA, WHICH DOES INCLUDE ACTIVITIES, UM, IN THAT AREA. 
          SO I THINK THEY'D BE BETTER AT KIND OF DISCUSSING WHAT, WHAT IS IN THE WORKS AND BEING PROPOSED. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UH, MY LAST QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR OLIVIA, BUT I RECALL THAT THERE WAS MENTION IN THE F E I R OF THE BARN POTENTIALLY IS HABITAT FOR ANY EXISTING LIKE BATS OR BIRDS, I DON'T KNOW IF A MITIGATION WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THERE THAT WOULD COVER THAT, OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN PUT IN THERE AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOMEONE CONSULT IF THIS RELOCATION OCCURS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT. 
          THERE IS A MITIGATION THAT REQUIRES A PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY PRIOR TO ANY PHYSICAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION OR, UM, REHABILITATION. 
          OF COURSE, THIS ACTION TONIGHT IS JUST DESIGNATING IN A LANDMARK, SO. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU VICE MAYOR, I JUST WANT A QUICK CLARIFICATION ON THE EARTH INSTITUTE ISLAND INSTITUTE VERSUS THE COUNTY. 
          SO WHO WILL BE OVERSEEING THE RED BARN? IS IT PART OF THE COUNTY? WELL, ULTIMATELY THIS COUNTY WILL OWN THE PROPERTY AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OF THE RED BARN COMPLEX. 
          OKAY. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE AND SONOMA COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS IS BEFORE SONOMA COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS ACCEPTS DEDICATION OF THE PARCEL THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN, CERTAIN TASKS THAT EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE IS GOING TO COMPLETE. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME, UM, BASIC STABILIZATION OF THE BARNS IS PART OF THAT PHASE ONE BEFORE IT GETS, UM, DEDICATED TO THE PARKS. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OH, AND UH, QUESTION FROM RICK. 
          YEAH. 
          SLIGHTLY RELATED QUESTION. 
          UM, LANDMARK STATUS THAT WE'RE GRANTING TODAY, DOES THAT, ARE THERE ANY CONTINGENT LIABILITIES, RESPONSIBILITIES THAT COME BACK TO THE CITY FROM THIS ACTION? NO, NOT THAT I CAN THINK OF. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND I THINK WE'RE READY NOW FOR THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT TEAM. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          THANK YOU ALL, UH, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE THREE, UH, BARNES ON SCOTT RANCH. 
          MY NAME IS JARED EMERSON JOHNSON. 
          I'VE TAKEN OVER AS THE, UH, DIRECTOR OF THE KELLY CREEK PROTECTION PROJECT OF EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE RELIEVING GREG COLVIN AFTER NEARLY 20 YEARS OF LOOKING AFTER THIS LAND AND TRYING TO MAKE, MAKE THIS ALL HAPPEN. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ENTERING THIS SORT OF TRANSITIONAL PHASE IN THE PROJECT WHERE WE'RE REALLY GETTING READY TO DO ALL THESE RESTORATIVE THINGS THAT ARE PART OF THE PHASE ONE, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE PROJECT. 
          AND, UM, BUT OVERARCHING ALL OF THAT TO WHAT HEATHER WAS JUST SAYING, UH, YOU KNOW, REALLY WE'RE ULTIMATELY LOOKING TO GIVE THIS TO SONOMA COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS, UM, AS SOON AS ALL OF THAT IS COMPLETED. 
          AND, UM, WITH THAT IN MIND, I THINK IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO HAVE STEVE ETT, UH, COME UP, IF I MAY INVITE HIM UP TO JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ASPECTS OF THIS THAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT TO REGIONAL PARKS AND, 
          [02:25:01]
YOU KNOW, WAYS TO, UH, EMPOWER THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DO BEST IN STEWARDING, YOU KNOW, THESE LANDS AND STRUCTURES LIKE THIS. 
          SO STEVE, IF YOU WANNA COME UP. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          THANK YOU FOR HAVING US. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          MY NAME IS STEVE T I'M THE PLANNING MANAGER WITH SONOMA COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS AND BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT FOR, UM, CLOSE TO TWO DECADES. 
          UM, SO IT'S GREAT TO FINALLY BE AT THIS STAGE. 
          SO I WANTED, UM, START BY POINTING OUT WHAT, UH, KELLY CREEK OFFERS, AND THAT IS A FRONT ENTRANCE TO THE CITY. 
          AND THIS IS A HUGE BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM AND ALL THE YOUTH IN THE AREA. 
          IT SAVES TIME WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE ALL THE WAY BACK TO CHILENO VALLEY. 
          IT SAVES, UH, VM TS IT'S, IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYBODY. 
          AND WHAT THE, UM, UH, WHAT FACES THE CITY IS, UH, THIS RED BARN COMPLEX ON THIS VISUAL CORRIDOR. 
          AND IT EVOKES A FEELING AND WE SUPPORT THAT. 
          WE EMBRACE THAT WHAT WE CAN DO HERE IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE CAN DO AT ANY OF THE OTHER SOUTHERN ENTRANCES. 
          WE CAN'T DO THAT AT OXFORD. 
          WE CAN'T DO THAT AT WINDSOR DRIVE. 
          WE HAVE RESTRICTIONS. 
          WE HAVE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON WINDSOR DRIVE. 
          IT'S EXTRAORDINARILY LIMITED. 
          OXFORD A WHOLE, YOU KNOW, ALSO VERY LIMITED. 
          UM, SO IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO KELLY CREEK AS FAR AS US BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING. 
          AND THE MASTER PLAN EMBRACES THAT. 
          AND WE'RE DELIGHTED, WE'RE THRILLED. 
          UM, JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, WE OPERATE THE LARGEST ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM IN THE COUNTY, ABOUT 25,000 STUDENTS A YEAR. 
          WE HAVE ACCREDITED TEACHERS. 
          WE EMBRACE THE, UH, THE STEM, UH, CURRICULUM, AND WE ALSO OFFER SUBSIDIZED SCHOOL BUS PROGRAMS SO THAT ALL YOUTH CAN ATTEND. 
          UM, SO WE'RE BIG BELIEVERS AND, AND WE, WE WALK OR TALK THE, UM, WE, WE ZOOM INTO THE PROJECT SITE. 
          UM, WHAT WE KNOW IS WE'RE GONNA HAVE TWO OVERLAPPING CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. 
          ONE FROM OUR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND THE OTHER FROM STATE, UH, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, OR SORRY, THE, UM, US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 
          SO THERE'S GONNA BE TWO CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. 
          AND OF COURSE WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE FROG. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT RIPARIAN HABITAT. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT EVERYTHING. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO DO ALL THIS RESTORATION. 
          AND WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS THERE'S GONNA BE A BUILDING ENVELOPE THAT IS GONNA ENCOMPASS THE RED BARN COMPLEX AND, AND THE STRUCTURES AROUND THERE. 
          AND THERE'LL BE ANOTHER LITTLE ONE, UH, FOR THE PARKING AREA RIGHT OFF D AND THAT'S WHERE THE ONLY THINGS WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY DO STUFF OTHER THAN JUST WALK AROUND. 
          UM, SO EVERY, ALL OF OUR USE GETS FOCUSED ONTO THESE TWO LITTLE AREAS. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS FLEXIBILITY AND WHAT, UM, WHAT THE STAFF REPORT, WHAT THE AMENDED CHANGES DO IS PROVIDE US THAT FLEXIBILITY TO BALANCE THESE USES AND WE SUPPORT THAT. 
          AND WHY DO WE NEED FLEXIBILITY? WELL, LET'S GO BACK TO AGENDA ITEM ONE. 
          AND, UH, THIS COMMISSION, UM, TOTALLY GOT IT RIGHT. 
          YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THESE COMPETING CODES. 
          SO YOU'VE GOT DESIGN STANDARDS, YOU'VE GOT FIRE CODE, YOU'VE GOT CHANGES IN FIRE CODE. 
          WHAT DO YOU DO? SO THAT'S THE WORLD WE LIVE, LIVE IN IS CHANGING CODES ALL THE TIME IN UNFORESEEN ACTIONS. 
          SO THE MASTER PLAN IS A SNAPSHOT. 
          IT'S APPROVED, UM, BUT IT CAN'T PREDICT EVERYTHING. 
          IT CAN'T PREDICT THE WAY THE FIRES HAVE CHANGED FIRE CODE ON US, WHICH MADE REBUILDING OTHER BARNS REALLY DIFFICULT FOR US, ACTUALLY. 
          UM, IT CAN PREDICT, UM, SECURITY EVENTS OF, UH, VANDALISM AND OTHER THINGS WE MAY NEED TO DO TO MAKE THE SITE A LITTLE MORE SECURE. 
          I CAN'T PREDICT, UH, THE EROSION THAT MIGHT HAPPEN ON THE BANK WHEN THESE BUILDINGS OVERHANGS THE BANK. 
          UM, WE, UH, DON'T THINK WE WILL, BUT WE COULD ENCOUNTER SUBSURFACE, UM, CULTURAL DEPOSITS THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME TO US THIS DAY AND AGE. 
          THERE'S ALL THESE REASONS, UM, OF WHY WE WANT THIS FLEXIBILITY. 
          'CAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE DON'T WANT THESE, THESE VISUAL GOALS THAT ARE REALLY SET FROM AFAR FROM, FROM THE D STREET CORRIDOR TO COMPETE WITH THESE OTHER GOALS OF SUSTAINABILITY. 
          THESE OTHER GOALS OF TRYING TO PROVIDE PROVIDES A DOUBLE PANE WINDOWS. 
          SO WHEN WE'RE REUSING A BUILDING, SO WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE IT BE ENERGY EFFICIENT AS ONE OF MANY, MANY EXAMPLES OR ACCESSIBILITY, HISTORIC CODES OFTEN BUMPING INTO A D A ALL THE TIME. 
          SO THAT'S IT. 
          IT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE. 
          WE JUST WANT FLEXIBILITY AND WE APPRECIATE, UM, FOR UNFORESEEN UH, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          UH, WE REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF, UM, FOR WORKING WITH US TO 
          [02:30:01]
THIS POINT AND OUR ENTIRE TEAM TO TRY TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE IN, IN, UH, THE PUBLIC GOOD WITH ALL THESE DIFFERENT, UM, UH, OVERLAPPING GOALS. 
          THANK YOU. 
           BEFORE WE MOVE INTO DISCUSSION, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS FOR YES, VICE MAYOR. 
          SEE CLARIFICATION? DID I HEAR THAT THE BUILD, THEY COULD BE MOVED THE BUILDINGS ON THE ENVELOPE, SO THAT'S, AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA BE REFURBISHED. 
          IS THAT THE PLAN THAT THEY ARE GONNA BE MOVED? I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION. 
          I'M FINE WITH THEM BEING MOVED. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE DID, UM, WE DID BUILD IN SOME FLEXIBILITY, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INCREDIBLY STABLE. 
          LIKE ONE OF 'EM OVERHANGS THE CREEK BED. 
          UM, SO THEY, THEY MAY BE MOVED SLIGHTLY. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHY WE WROTE, UM, THE ORDINANCE AWAY. 
          IT IS SO THAT THEY COULD BE MOVED SLIGHTLY IN ORDER TO STABILIZE AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT ERODING INTO THE CREEK, BUT THAT THEY ALSO ARE MAINTAINING THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER AND YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY ARE. 
          SO IN THAT KIND OF ENVELOPE THAT, UM, STEVE REFERRED TO. 
          OKAY, THAT'S GREAT BECAUSE I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE CREEK AND I'D BEEN ON THE PROPERTY AND DID I, WAS I ON THE PROPERTY WITH YOU, STEVE? WE WERE ALL, YEAH. 
          YEAH, I THINK, OKAY. 
          YOU, YOU LOOK FAMILIAR . 
          JUST, JUST TO CONFIRM, THE WAY THE DESIGNATION IS, UH, WORDED RIGHT NOW PROVIDES THE FLEXIBILITY THAT THE REGIONAL DEPARTMENT, THE REGIONAL PARKS DEPARTMENT IS LOOKING FOR, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST AS LONG AS WE DON'T MESS WITH, WE MESS, MESS WITH IT, WE WORKED BACK AND FORTH. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , THAT'S WHY YOU'LL NOTICE THAT, UM, THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS INCLUDING MOVING, SOME CAN BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY AND THEN MORE MAJOR CHANGES WOULD REQUIRE THE H C P C REVIEW, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF OUR LANDMARK PROPERTIES. 
          AWESOME. 
          GREAT. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          IF THERE ARE NO IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM. 
          BEFORE WE MOVE INTO DISCUSSION, I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A AUDIENCE CHECK. 
          WAS ANYBODY HERE TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM? EXCELLENT. 
          I WILL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT NOW. 
          UH, PLEASE GIVE YOUR COMMENT CARD TO THE CLERK AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. 
          I WILL. 
          OH, AND DID WE GET ANY PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? WE RECEIVED NO PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THIS ITEM. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WASN'T ANYTHING I WAS PLANNING ON COMMENTING ON? MY NAME IS NICOLA FRY AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF PETALUMA. 
          UM, THE ONE LINE ABOUT A D A, UM, REQUIREMENTS, UM, I KNOW THAT THIS DESIGNATION DOESN'T ESTABLISH THAT, BUT IT IS A CONCERN THAT WE HAVE OF ANY PARK OR ANY PUBLIC ACCESS AREA IN PETALUMA ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE, UM, FOR MOBILITY IMPAIRED FOR THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE IN WHEELCHAIRS, WALKERS, CANES, UM, ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. 
          SO IF THAT COULD ALSO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS CONTEXT, WE'D GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, WITH THAT WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          AND, UH, JUST BEFORE WE GET INTO DI DISCUSSION, I DID WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND I SUSPECT THAT'S WHY YOU WERE TALKING. 
          SO YEAH, JUST, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT COMMENT. 
          UM, THE PATH ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CREEK THAT IS PROPOSED AS PART OF THE MM-HMM. 
           OF THE PLAN IS A D WILL BE A D A COMPLIANT. 
          UH, SO THERE HAVE BEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS ACCESS FOR MOBILITY, UH, LIMITED MOBILITY SITUATIONS. 
          AND, UM, SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THAT THERE WON'T BE A D A, IT'S, IT'S, IT IS BEING PLANNED INTO THE, TO THE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          I KNOW THIS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF, OF THIS ITEM, BUT IS THERE A D A PARKING ALREADY INCLUDED FOR THE SITE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THE NEW PARKING LOT WOULD NEED TO HAVE A D A. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND NOW WE WILL PIVOT TO COMMISSIONER COMMENT. 
          AND SINCE I TYPICALLY START ON ONE END OR THE OTHER, I'M GONNA START IN THE MIDDLE THIS TIME AND GO WITH HEIDI. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR HOOPER. 
          I HAVE NO COMMENTS OTHER THAN I SUPPORT THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION. 
          GREAT. 
          GREAT. 
          DARREN? YEAH, UH, ONE POINT IN PARTICULAR AND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE 
          [02:35:01]
OF I SUPPORT THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION, I LIKE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUT FORTH BY H C P C. 
          I THINK THEY WERE VERY WELL CONSIDERED. 
          UH, IT SEEMS TO WEAKEN IT A BIT TO MOVE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS TO CONSIDER. 
          UM, CAN WE, CAN YOU EXPLAIN JUST THE, THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT? I MEAN, WE WANNA OFFER THE FLEXIBILITY, BUT YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A, A GREAT RESPECT FOR HCPCS INPUT. 
          UH, AND SO, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDING A CHANGE FROM WHAT THEY'VE PUT FORTH. 
          JUST WANNA KNOW KIND OF WHAT THE REASONING WAS. 
          THE, WHAT ACTUALLY THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT H C P C. 
          UM, UH, THE CONCERN ABOUT THE FLEXIBILITY, UM, WHAT IT READS, WHAT THE APPLICANT BROUGHT UP TO ME WAS JUST TO QUOTE FROM THE CODE, WHICH WAS ACCURATE. 
          WHAT, WHAT IT SAYS IN THE, UH, SECTION 1504 OH, WHATEVER THE SECTION IS, IT SAYS WHEN, UM, A PERMIT FOR CHANGE TO A LANDMARK IS CONSIDERED BY THE H C P C, THEY SHALL CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY, SECRETARY INTERIOR STANDARDS. 
          AND IT KIND OF LISTS A COUPLE THINGS. 
          AND SO IT WAS JUST, JUST TRACKING WITH THAT CODE LANGUAGE. 
          UM, AND ONE OF THE THINGS, ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT TOO IS THIS IS A UNIQUE RESOURCE. 
          SO WHERE STRICTER COMPLIANCE WITH SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, THERE MIGHT ALSO BE AREAS WHERE IT'S NOT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A TYPICAL HISTORIC RESOURCE. 
          AND SO BY CONSIDERING IT, IT GIVES THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO CONSIDER AND REQUIRE CONSISTENCY WITH SOME AND NOT OTHERS, DEPENDING ON HOW IT IS OR IS NOT APPROPRIATE. 
          WELL, AND AND JUST WHEN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, YOU KNOW, H C P C HAS TO CONSIDER THOSE STANDARDS AND THEN WE'RE SAYING THE APPLICANT APPLICANT TO CONSIDER, THOSE ARE KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS IN MY MIND OF, YOU KNOW, A COMMISSION CONSIDERING STANDARDS TO GAUGE, UH, UH, THE MERITS OF A PROJECT VERSUS SOMEONE GAUGING HOW THEY'RE GONNA COMPLY WITH A SET OF STANDARDS. 
          OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING THAT? BECAUSE IT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND I GUESS WHEN I READ CONSIDER IT'S LIKE, YEAH, WE CONSIDERED IT, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO ANY OF THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE WORST CASE SCENARIO. 
          SO, AND, AND I'M SURE THAT'S NOT THE APPLICANT'S INTENTION, BUT, UM, JUST THAT, THAT PIECE OF LANGUAGE THAT , THIS IS ACTUALLY PERTAINING TO THE HCPCS REVIEW. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO IT'S SAYING MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE RED BARN COMPLEX SHALL REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE H C P C CONSISTENT WITH SECTION I Z O, SECTION 1505 OH AND SHALL CONSIDER COMPLIANCE WITH CIRCUM INTERIOR STANDARDS. 
          UNDERSTAND. 
          SO IT'S IT'S NOT, IT'S BOTH ABOUT THEIR CONSIDERATION. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          UH, THEN YEAH, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE DESIGNATION AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 
          GREAT. 
          RICK, NO COMMENT. 
          AND I'M SUPPORTIVE. 
          VICE MAYOR. 
          I ALSO, UM, SUPPORT THIS, AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE AND I KNOW THAT I SAID IT TO, UM, STEVE AND DARREN, UM, MY MOTHER WHO WILL BE 101 IN NOVEMBER, BUT SHE'S BEEN GONE FOR SEVEN YEARS, HAS DID THIS BOOK OF HELEN PUTNAM PARK OF ALL THE NATIVE SPECIES. 
          AND HER HANDWRITING IS PERFECT. 
          IT'S THIS BEAUTIFUL, UM, WOULD, YOU KNOW, COVER AND I CAN'T WAIT TO DONATE IT TO THE RED BARN. 
          AND WHEN THAT TIME COMES, AND I KNOW THAT SHE'D BE THRILLED. 
          AND JUST BEFORE SHE DIED, SHE'D SHOWED ME THIS AND TOLD ME THAT WHEN SHE WAS A KID, SHE WENT UP THERE 'CAUSE SHE LIVED ON CHAPMAN LANE, WENT TO MARIN SCHOOL, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY PLAYED. 
          AND SO I CAN'T WAIT TO BE ABLE TO DONATE IT. 
          R ROGER. 
          YES. 
          UM, WELL, THE BARNES ARE SUCH A SYMBOLIC PART OF THAT PROPERTY, UM, AND THAT HISTORIC PERIOD UP TILL TODAY. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S HISTORIC, BUT IT'S ALSO PRESENT DAY. 
          UM, UH, AND UH, IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE BARNS, I REALLY WONDER IF WE WOULD'VE PRESERVED AS MUCH PROPERTY AS WE DID FOR PETALUMA BECAUSE THE, THE BARNS WERE THE SYMBOL THAT EVERY, EVERYBODY WAS REACTING TO. 
          AND I THINK THE LAND CAME AFTER THE BARNS. 
          YOU KNOW, THE, SO I'M, I'M, I SUPPORT THIS. 
          I LOVE IT AND I'M PLEASED TO SEE IT GET TO THIS POINT. 
          WE TALK A LOT ABOUT PLACEMAKING AND IN THE GENERAL PLANET, TALK A LOT ABOUT PLACEMAKING AND LOOKING AT OUR OWN STANDARDS. 
          WE TALK ABOUT PLACEMAKING. 
          I THINK THE BARN ACTUALLY REPRESENTS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF US USING OUR HISTORY TO CREATE A SENSE OF PLACEMAKING. 
          UH, I THINK MY FOURTH OR FIFTH MEETING WHEN I WAS APPOINTED WAS SCOTT'S RANCH. 
          AND BEING IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT, UH, WAS LESS 
          [02:40:01]
THAN IDEAL AT THE TIME, . 
          UH, BUT PROTECTING THE BARN AND THE LAND, I THINK FOR EVERYBODY WHO'S HAD TO HAVE A HAND IN THAT HAS BEEN THE BEST PART. 
          THE REST OF IT HAS BEEN A LOT OF HEADACHE AND DISCUSSION AND DISAGREEMENT AND COMING TO CONSENSUS EVENTUALLY. 
          BUT BEING ABLE TO PREDICT THIS COMPONENT AND GIVE YOU THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAINTAIN IT GOING FORWARD AND MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL, I THINK IS A, A GREAT, A GREAT WAY TO SHOW FAITH TO THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY THAT THIS REALLY IS ABOUT NOT JUST PROTECTING THE LAND. 
          SO IT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN LOOK AT, BUT SOMETHING YOU CAN EXPERIENCE. 
          UM, BUT I WILL NOT GO ON MUCH LONGER 'CAUSE NOW I'M JUST RECYCLING WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID. 
          MAY I GET A MOTION? THE MOTION  ALL SECOND. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          CHAIR. 
          CAN WE CLARIFY WITH THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE REQUESTED WITH THE CHANGES REQUESTED? THANK YOU. 
          PERFECT. 
          SECONDED WITH THE CHANGES REQUESTED. 
          PERFECT. 
          CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL? VOTE. 
          COMMISSIONER BAUER? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCAIN? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER KUSON? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WIMAN? YES. 
          VICE MARY CATER THOMPSON? YES. 
          CHAIR HOOPER? YES. 
          ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE THE ITEM AND WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO MEETING ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS, UH, CONTIN ESSENTIALLY CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION WE'VE BEEN HAVING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO FORM AN AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          AS AN ASIDE, THANK YOU EVERYBODY WHO GAVE TESTIMONY AND COMMENT TODAY. 
          UM, AND CHAIR, BEFORE WE BEGIN THAT ITEM, OR I GUESS RIGHT NOW, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION ON, I'M LOOKING AT THE PROPOSAL PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE PROPOSED MEMBERSHIP BEING LESS THAN A QUO MEMBERS HERE, PLUS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. 
          UH, FOR AN ADVISORY AD HOC COMMITTEE, IT NEEDS TO BE SOLELY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, BUT THERE'S NOTHING. 
          SO IT DOES NEED TO BE JUST THREE MEMBERS MM-HMM. 
           OR LESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT NOTHING IS STOPS THE AD HOC COMMITTEE. 
          IF IT'S FORMED FROM SEEKING AS MUCH DIRECTION FROM THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC MEMBERS AS THEY WANT, THEY JUST WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF THE BODY. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, WITH THAT WE'LL GET STRAIGHT INTO THE PROPOSAL, WHICH HAS BEEN, WAS ATTACHED WITH EVERYONE'S PACKETS. 
          UH, I CAN GO THROUGH AND PRESENT IT POINT BY POINT. 
          I HAVE A FEELING I'M GOING TO HOPE EVERYONE HAS READ THROUGH IT. 
          AND , UH, I WAS GOING TO ASK IF WE WANTED TO MOVE STRAIGHT INTO QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATION FOR IT. 
          SINCE LAST MEETING, WE WEREN'T JUST BECAUSE OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKED, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO WORK OFF OF THIS MEETING. 
          WE HAVE A FULL PROPOSAL. 
          I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION, , GO AHEAD. 
          AND THIS IS PROBABLY TO, UM, TO ANDREW. 
          UM, WHEN IS THE DOCUMENT THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK? IT WAS GONNA BE DONE IN SIX WEEKS FOR A RETURN FOR REVIEW, FOR LIKE LANGUAGE PROCESS FOR THE PLANNING. 
          UH, I THINK STAFF WOULD PREFER EIGHT WEEKS. 
          OH, THAT'S FINE. 
          IN ORDER TO, TO, UH, RESPOND TO THAT REQUEST. 
          UM, JUST GIVEN OUR WORKLOAD THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR AND, AND I THANK YOU. 
          UM, I FEEL I'D LIKE TO SEE HAVE THAT DOCUMENT SO WE CAN REVIEW IT BEFORE RUN JUMPING INTO A COMMITTEE BECAUSE I THINK THEY DOVETAIL TOGETHER UNLESS PEOPLE THINK DIFFERENTLY. 
          WELL, CORRECT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE DOCUMENT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR WOULD'VE BEEN KIND OF A SUMMARY OF THE PROCESSES TERMINOLOGY AND THAT IS CORRECT. 
          SO THAT IS DELIVERABLE ONE IN THE, FOR THE PROPOSED AD HOC. 
          SO THE REASON I'LL, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS BRIEFLY. 
          THE WAY, THE WAY I'VE SET UP THIS PROPOSAL WAS TO FIRST DO A DELIVERABLE OF A PLANNING PROCESS TOOLKIT. 
          THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS WOULD WORK WITH STAFFS AND STAFF ARE INCREDIBLY BUSY, AS WE'VE NOTED TODAY, TO HELP BREAK DOWN THESE PROCESSES INTO A KIND OF BASIC PROCESS TOOLKIT THAT WOULD HAVE SIMPLIFIED CHARTS, A ONE PAGER AND TERMINOLOGY SECTION. 
          THIS WOULD BE TO BREAK OUT EACH PART OF OUR PLANNING PROCESS. 
          THE SECOND DELIVERABLE FROM THERE WOULD THEN BE A COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT. 
          THE IDEA OF THAT IS TO TAKE 
          [02:45:01]
THAT FIRST, DO YOU'D SAY DOCUMENT, BUT COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS, TURN IT INTO REPEATABLE COMMUNICATION DOCUMENTS LIKE FAQS OR EXPLAINERS OR STANDARD SOCIAL MEDIA GRAPHICS, THAT KIND OF THING. 
          SO THAT STAFF, WHEN THEY'RE EITHER PUTTING IT IN OUR REPORTS AHEAD OF THE MEETINGS OR WHEN IT'S BEING COMMUNICATED TO THE PUBLIC, HAVE THE STANDARD COMMUNICATION MATERIALS TO WORK OFF OF. 
          SO IF PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO NERD OUT, THEY CAN GO STRAIGHT TO THE PLANNING PROCESS TOOLKIT AND KIND OF READ THROUGH EVERYTHING. 
          BUT FOR PEOPLE NEEDING KIND OF INFORMATION AT A DISTANCE AND A SNAPSHOT, THE, THE COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT WOULD DOVETAIL OFF OF THAT. 
          THEN ASSUMING WE GET THROUGH THOSE STEPS, WHICH TO BE HONEST I THINK, I DON'T WANNA SAY WOULD BE THE SIMPLEST, BUT WILL BE THE KIND OF CLEAREST PATHWAY. 
          THE IDEA WAS TO MOVE ON TO THIRD DELIVERABLE, WHICH WOULD BE TO LOOK AT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE WEBPAGE FOR THE PLANNING, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND TO ALSO WORK WITH STAFF TO DETERMINE WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE EASY TO EXECUTE, WHICH ONES WOULD TAKE LONGER, TO GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT'S MORE REALISTIC IN PART, SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN RIGHT AWAY. 
          AND ALSO ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT ONE OF THE HARDER LIFTS SPARKS A NEW IDEA FROM THE REST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, UH, THE FOURTH DELIVERABLE, WHICH THE GOAL OF THIS OVERALL AD HOC WAS TO GIVE IT A SIX MONTHS LIFESPAN. 
          I'VE KIND OF ADDED A LITTLE MORE THAN I THINK YOU CAN ACHIEVE IN PART BECAUSE I'VE AT LEAST FOUND WITH THESE KIND OF COMMITTEES YOU PUSH A LITTLE FURTHER JUST SO THAT YOU GET YOUR CORE GOALS DONE. 
          BUT THE FOURTH DELIVERABLE, IF THERE IS TIME, WOULD BE TO LOOK AT OUTREACH RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND THE IDEA THERE IS TO HAVE STANDARDIZED PROCESSES IN PLACE SO THAT WHEN WE HAVE CONVERSATIONS LIKE THE OVERLAY FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW WHAT THE KIND OF STANDARD ENGAGEMENT LOOKS LIKE FOR STAFF FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN IT COMES TO, DO WE NEED ANOTHER PUBLIC FORUM? DO WE NEED TO PARTNER WITH ANY GROUPS IN TOWN WHEN WE'RE KIND OF COMMUNICATING THIS BEYOND JUST THE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS THAT WE HAVE AND JUST HAVING THAT BE STANDARDIZED. 
          SO THIS IS KIND OF THE FOUR STEPS THAT DELIVERABLES, BUT I DON'T THINK IT ALL STARTS WITH THAT FIRST ONE, WHICH YOU POINTED OUT. 
          PART OF THE GOAL OF THIS WAS TO HELP TAKE KIND OF WORK OFF OF STAFF'S PLATE TO WORK WITH THEM, BUT NOT HAVE IT ENTIRELY BE ON THEIR PLATE. 
          AND I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT PART TO ALL OF THIS IS GONNA BE THAT FIRST DELIVERABLE, WHICH IS WHY I'D LIKE TO CREATE THE AD HOC TO START THERE. 
          WE'RE HAVING MEMBERS WORK WITH STAFF AND THEN ANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO WANT TO NOT AS OFFICIAL, NOT AS OFFICIAL MEMBERS, BUT AS WORKING ON IT, HELP US GET THIS DONE. 
          MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, HOW MUCH STAFF TIME ARE WE TALKING? HAS THIS BEEN BUDGETED AND WHAT IS THE STAFF TIME? BECAUSE WHENEVER IT JUST SEEMS LIKE STAFF IS REALLY BUSY, SO OH, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE THE AD HOC. 
          'CAUSE I DON'T, IF WE RELY ON STAFF TO MAKE THE FIRST DOCUMENT, THAT'S GONNA TAKE UP MORE TIME THAN WE HAVE MEMBERS, SOME OF US PLUS POTENTIALLY SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO WORK ON TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THESE PROCESSES AND PUTTING SOMETHING TOGETHER. 
          AND HAVE WE LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES', WEBSITES AND OTHER SITES TO SEE MM-HMM. 
           IF THIS IS, WELL THAT WOULD SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE TO REINVENT. 
          WELL, RIGHT. 
          WE JUST NEED TO MAYBE LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHICH IS SOMETHING, MY WHOLE GOAL IS TO GET THIS OFF STAFF'S PLATE ENTIRELY. 
          SO AGAIN, HAVING THE AD HOC, THEY DON'T HAVE TO RECREATE THE WHEEL. 
          THEY MIGHT FIND VERY QUICKLY, OH, HERE'S THREE OR FOUR EXAMPLES FROM SAY, MILPITAS OR BERKELEY OR RICHMOND THAT HAVE THINGS LIKE THIS. 
          WE JUST NEED TO MODIFY IT TO FIT OUR PROCESS. 
          I'M NOT ASKING FOLKS TO NECESSARILY REINVENT THE WHEEL, I JUST DON'T WANT TO PUT ALL THIS COMMUNICATION WORK ON STAFF. 
          AND I THINK HAVING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO JUST FOCUS ON THAT WITH SOME REVIEW FROM STAFF TO HELP WHEN NEEDED IS PROBABLY GONNA GET THIS DONE FASTER THAN IF WE PUT ALL OF THIS ON STAFF SHOULDERS. 
          I'M STILL NOT WRAPPING MY ARMS AROUND IT AND SEEING LIKE THE END, THAT'S, I JUST, I'M JUST NOT WRAPPING MY ARMS AROUND THIS DARREN. 
          SO IS THIS, UH, BASICALLY A CONDUIT TO CHANNEL INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC, UM, THROUGH THIS AD HOC TO NO, UH, AN ULTIMATE STAFF PROPOSAL? NO. 
          SO THIS IS, AS THE DOCUMENT STATES, UH, THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO WOR HAVE A AD HOC OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH WOULD BE NO MORE THAN THREE, 
          [02:50:01]
TO WORK ON PUTTING TOGETHER CONTENT THAT CAN BE REUSED BY STAFF, BY THE COMMISSION WHEN COMMUNICATING THESE COMPLICATED PROCESSES. 
          IF WE WERE TO JUST GIVE STAFF THIS ASSIGNMENT WITH EVERYTHING THEY HAVE GOING ON, I DON'T SEE HOW EIGHT WEEKS WOULD WORK EITHER, ESPECIALLY SINCE OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO PRIORITIZE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, THE GENERAL PLAN AND MORE. 
          SO THE IDEA WAS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OF WHICH THERE WOULD BE THREE, WOULD BE ABLE TO WORK IN THEIR OWN TIME TO START FIRST PUTTING TOGETHER A PROCESS TOOLKIT, WORK TOGETHER TO SIMPLIFY WHETHER THEY DO IT THEMSELVES OR THEY FIND EXAMPLES ELSEWHERE TO PUT THAT TOGETHER TO CREATE REUSABLE CONTENT. 
          KIND OF LIKE THE CAL CITIES TOOLKIT THAT STAFF PROVIDED EARLIER ON, UM, ON OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          THAT'S A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT THAT FIRST DOCUMENT WOULD KIND OF LOOK LIKE. 
          MIND YOU, IT'S NOT REALLY ONE DOCUMENT, IT'S MULTIPLE, BUT YOU GET MY POINT. 
          YOU'RE SEEING CHARTS, YOU'RE SEEING VISUALS, IT'S SIMPLIFIED, THERE'S TERMINOLOGY THAT'S DESIGNED, I DON'T WANT TO PUT THAT ENTIRELY ON STAFF. 
          AND WE HAVE A COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE. 
          SO I WAS HOPING FOR, AS WE'D START THERE AS AN AD HOC STAFF WOULD HELP TO MAYBE POINT FOLKS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OR TO REVIEW TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ACCURATE. 
          AND THEN IT WOULD BE PRESENTED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST DELIVERABLE. 
          THEN WE WOULD GET TO COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT BASED OFF OF THAT JUST REUSABLE CONTENT THAT STAFF CAN USE WHEN PROVIDING, UH, WHEN PRESENTING A LOT OF THESE UPCOMING PROJECTS SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN MORE EASILY DIGEST IT, WHETHER IT'S ON OUR AGENDA OR IT'S ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR PART OF CITY COMMUNICATIONS. 
          SO THAT YOU, YOU SEE HOW IT KIND OF ESCALATES FROM FIRST YOU'VE GOT THE PROCESS TOOLKIT, THEN YOU DO COMMUNICATIONS, THEN WE CAN SET ASIDE TIME TO LOOK AT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE WEBSITE BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE GO THERE TO LOOK FOR, FOR UPDATES TO PROJECTS. 
          AGAIN, THIS WOULD JUST BE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AD HOC THAT BE PRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          AND THEN FINALLY LOOKING AT HOW WE STANDARDIZE OUR OUTREACH PROCESS AND HOW FRANKLY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OVERALL STANDARDIZES ITS OUTREACH, POSSIBLE OUTREACH PROCESS. 
          AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE MOSTLY RECOMMENDATIONS TO US. 
          WE'D SEE WHAT WOULD BE REALISTIC FOR STAFF. 
          YES, DARREN. 
          WELL, AND I LIKED THIS IDEA. 
          I THINK DELIVERABLE ONE IS KIND OF THE HEART OF IT. 
          AND ANDREW SPEAKING FOR STAFF. 
          I MEAN, TO ME AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IN A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, I THINK TRANSLATING YOUR GUYS' INTERNAL PROCESSES, THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES, DEFINING THINGS IN LAYMAN TERMS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S HUGELY VALUABLE, BUT SOMETHING YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE TIME FOR. 
          UH, I MEAN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEES AS VALUABLE AS WELL IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC, IS HAVING VOLUNTEER HELP ESSENTIALLY TO TRANSLATE SOME OF THOSE PROCESSES TO A WIDER AUDIENCE? WELL, I, THAT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. 
          I THINK I'VE SHARED WITH, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL PEOPLE, MY PERSPECTIVE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE ON THE, WE'RE ON THE EDGE OF, OF I THINK DOING PLANNING FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WE'VE EVER DONE IT BEFORE. 
          AND, AND WE'RE ON THE EDGE OF, OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RAPIDLY TRANSFORMING TOO IN TERMS OF HOW, HOW WE ENGAGE IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AS A, AS A PUBLIC AGENCY. 
          I THINK THAT COMMUNICATION, INFORMATION SHARING, UM, CITIZEN EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT IS CRITICAL TO THAT AND ARE, ARE KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME OF THOSE TRANSFORMATIONS THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING. 
          I ALSO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNER WHO IS ABLE TO BE DEEPLY IMMERSED IN THE DETAILS OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, BUT YET BE ABLE TO STEP OUT OF IT AND SEE IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOMEBODY WHO IS NAIVE TO THE PLANNING PROCESS IS PRETTY DIFFICULT TO, TO BE ABLE TO TRANSLATE WHAT WE DO IN A WAY THAT IS ACCESSIBLE TO OTHERS. 
          I MEAN, NOT THAT IT, IT'S ACHIEVABLE, BUT I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT FOR PLANNERS TO DO THAT. 
          EVEN THOUGH IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE A I C P A I C P CODE OF ETHICS, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE CHARGED TO DO. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IT'S, IT'S VERY, IT'S DIFFICULT AND I THINK THAT YOU ALL HAVE IN INDIVIDUALLY EXPERIENCED THAT, YOU KNOW, IN YOUR OWN PROFESSION. 
          SO I DO THINK THAT IT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO HAVE THAT, HAVE COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION LOOKED AT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND SAY, HOW DO WE THINK ABOUT THIS AND TRANSLATE IT IN A WAY THAT IS MORE ACCESSIBLE. 
          DOES THAT HELP? 
          [02:55:01]
THAT I THINK IS A REALLY GOOD DESCRIPTION OF WHAT I WAS HOPING THIS WOULD, THIS WOULD BE AND HOW THIS WOULD HELP, UM, IN HEARING BLICK TALK ABOUT IT. 
          I GUESS IS THERE SOME BODY OF KNOWLEDGE WORKING DOCUMENTS THAT THIS AD HOC COULD START WITH? 'CAUSE THINKING ABOUT BEING COGNIZANT OF STAFF TIME AND EXPENSE, IS THERE SOME BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS THAT THIS AD HOC COULD BE PROVIDED TO START THIS PROCESS, THEN BRING IT BACK TO THE BROADER COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW, UH, WITHIN STAFF LOOKING AT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A MEETING. 
          SO WE'RE NOT ADDING TONS MORE STAFF TIME STAFF DOESN'T NEED TO BE AT EVERY AD HOC MEETING. 
          UM, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          I MEAN, IS THERE KIND OF A, A WELL, I THINK, I THINK THERE'S INFORMATION AND MAYBE IT'S A COMBINATION OF INFORMATION THAT, THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE AT VARIOUS TIMES WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, SORT OF, UM, ONE PAGERS ON THE PLANNING PROCESS, UH, FOR VARIOUS REASONS OR, OR DEVELOPED OTHER DOCUMENTS. 
          BUT I THINK IT'S A GREAT POINT TOO THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND, AND ESPECIALLY LARGER JURISDICTIONS, YOU KNOW, SACRAMENTO HAS A PLANNING ACADEMY, A CITIZENS PLANNING ACADEMY, AND, AND THERE'S A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE INFORMATION OUT THERE. 
          PLANNING PROCESSES ARE NOT THAT DISSIMILAR. 
          YOU KNOW, AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE WORKSHOP, WE'RE ALL WORKING WITHIN THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF DUE PROCESS AND OF PURVIEW AND AND SO FORTH. 
          SO THE PLANNING PROCESSES, I THINK TEND TO BE RELATIVELY SIMILAR ACROSS JURISDICTIONS. 
          UM, SO I THINK IT COULD BE A COMBINATION OF WHAT WE HAVE AND THEN PULLING SOME BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND THEN, AND THEN SORTING THROUGH AND SEEING WHAT IS IT THAT RESONATES WITH US AND, UH, THEN HOW DO WE MAKE THAT UNIQUE FOR PETALUMA? AND I THOUGHT OF DYLAN'S PRESENTATION IS ONE PIECE. 
          MM-HMM. 
           OF, YOU KNOW, ALREADY EXISTING DOCUMENTATION THAT WE COULD BREAK DOWN AND HELP TRANSLATE. 
          SO. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          UM, WELL I REALLY APPRECIATE CHAIR HOOPER, YOUR, UM, THINKING ABOUT THIS AND YOUR FORESIGHT AND SEEING SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND TRYING TO PUT THAT ALL TOGETHER. 
          AND I KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW REALLY IF I'M KIND OF GETTING THE WHOLE PICTURE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A PLAYBOOK OF MM-HMM. 
           OUR PROCEDURES AND HOW THINGS ARE DONE FOR US TO USE AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE AND JUST TO SEE THE PROCESS. 
          AND I, I THINK THAT'S REALLY, UM, REALLY AWESOME AND COOL. 
          I I JUST WANNA ASK LIKE, UM, THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE, IT NEEDS, IT'S A MINIMUM OF THREE, A MAXIMUM OF THREE OR IT WOULD BE A MAXIMUM? YES. 
          SO NOT A, A MAXIMUM OF THREE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT COULD BE ONE PERSON JUST OH, IT COULD BE ONE PERSON. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AWESOME. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THAT'S, THAT'S, YEAH. 
          I JUST THINK, UM, YEAH, I AM INTERESTED IN SEEING WHERE IT GOES. 
          'CAUSE I THINK, I THINK I SEE YOUR, YOUR, YOUR PLAN AND YOUR VISION, BUT I'M NOT SURE. 
          BUT, UM, IF IT COULD BE DONE WITH MINIMAL STAFF RESOURCES, I THINK IT COULD BE A REALLY GREAT THING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? I ALSO, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ASK THIS WITHOUT IT COMING OFF A CERTAIN WAY, BUT I'M ACTUALLY GENUINELY ASKING 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M NOT ASSUMING THE WRONG THING. 
          I, I SENT A PROPOSAL DOCUMENT ALONG THAT I KNOW GOT ATTACHED ON THE, UH, AGENDA. 
          I KNOW IT'S THERE PUBLICLY. 
          DID EVERYBODY GET IT? BECAUSE WHAT I WANTED TO HAVE LAST TIME, I COULD NOT PROVIDE A DOCUMENT BECAUSE OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKED. 
          THIS TIME, I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WAS ALL LAID OUT CLEANLY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WAS ACTUALLY ABLE TO ACCESS IT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , I, I DIDN'T, I JUST DON'T THINK I SAW IT. 
          OH, IT'S OKAY. 
          I DON'T THINK IT WASN'T THERE. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK I SAW IT, . 
          NO, IT'S OKAY. 
          YEAH, I JUST, AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT I JUST DIDN'T SCROLL DOWN. 
          NO, I GOT YOU. 
          SO, I'M SORRY. 
          YEAH, . 
          NO, IT'S OKAY. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WAS ABLE, IT WAS ACCESSIBLE, THAT'S ALL. 
          WELL, I MEAN, I THINK IT IS GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, BUT SOMETIMES I THINK THIS WAS BECAUSE OF THE OVERLAY AND THE OTHER, UH, IT WAS PUSHING THIS AND IF THIS PROCESS IS GONNA GO THROUGH AND IT'S REALLY TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON WHERE TO LOOK, WHAT INFORMATION TO FIND AND, UM, YOU KNOW, LANGUAGE TO USE. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM, BUT I JUST WANNA KEEP THE POLITICS OUT OF IT. 
          OH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND, AND JUST KEEP IT GOING AS, AS, AS A TRUE TOOLKIT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          SO PEOPLE CAN SEE THIS. 
          UM, BUT UM, BUT I, I'M SURE THERE'S, THERE'S GOTTA BE TOOLKIT SOMEWHERE. 
          WELL, AND, AND THAT'S THE THING AROUND, AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE THERE, UM, SOMETHING THAT IS, THAT CITI ACTUALLY PURCHASES AT THE END. 
          SURE. 
          YOU KNOW, TO IMPROVE THE MM-HMM. 
          THE PUBLIC'S PROCESS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          'CAUSE THE OTHERS, IT'S, IT IS COMPLICATED. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , I MEAN, THERE'S NO DOUBT. 
          UM, AND THE WHOLE PROCESS GETS CONFUSING. 
          AND THEN, UM, PEOPLE REACT 
          [03:00:01]
WELL, AND I, I DID WANNA SAY THE AD HOC, OR SORRY, THE, THE OVERLAY DID KIND OF SPARK AN URGENCY. 
          BUT THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING I'VE HAD ON MY MIND FOR A WHILE ON THIS COMMISSION IN PART BECAUSE, AND I'M SURE EVERYONE ELSE HERE HAS HAD THIS EXPERIENCE. 
          YOU REACH OUT TO SOMEONE, THEY ASK, HEY, WHAT IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? YOU START TO EXPLAIN IT. 
          YOU REALIZE, WHY DIDN'T I SAVE THAT PARAGRAPH? I WROTE LIKE TWO WEEKS PRIOR THAT IT WAS BETTER WRITTEN THAN WHATEVER ENERGY I HAD IN THE MOMENT TO SEND THAT IN THAT CONVERSATION. 
          AND ON AND ON IT GOES. 
          AND THEN REALIZING AS YOU START TO, TO SEND PEOPLE TO THE CITY WEBSITE OR YOU START TO SEND PEOPLE TO THE I Z O, GOD FORBID, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE STARTING TO GET FRUSTRATED WITH YOU. 
          'CAUSE THEY'RE LIKE, I WANTED CLARITY AND NOW I FEEL LIKE YOU'VE OVERWHELMED ME. 
          PART OF THE GOAL OF THIS, THE, THE OVERLAY DID BRING IT UP. 
          BUT I ALSO, I DON'T WANT POLITICS IN THIS. 
          I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE ABOUT SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT OR HAVE AN OPINION ON IT. 
          THIS IS ENTIRELY ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAVE NO OPINION SUPPORT SOMETHING OR DON'T BEING ABLE TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING AROUND IT. 
          AND PART OF WHY I, I BROKE IT OUT THIS WAY 'CAUSE YOU MENTIONED IT, MAYBE IT IS SOMETHING WE PURCHASED DOWN THE ROAD. 
          I SUSPECT THERE ARE A LOT OF CITIES THAT HAVE TOOLKITS THAT, HECK LEAGUE OF CITIES PROBABLY HAS A FEW. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT MY HOPE WAS IS THAT'S SOMETHING ANY OF US COULD DO. 
          WE CAN LOOK AT, HEY, DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? WE CAN THEN HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON, WHO ARE HELPING US, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT OFFICIAL MEMBERS, THEY'RE HELPING US GO, HEY, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. 
          LIKE, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THAT. 
          SO PART OF THE IDEA OF THIS WAS WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT'S AVAILABLE AND THEN FRANKLY PROBABLY SCALE IT DOWN FOR PETALUMA BECAUSE THERE'S THINGS, SOME OF THOSE CITIES WITH RESOURCES TO DO THIS HAVE THAT WE'VE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE. 
          SO THEN WE CAN DO THE WORK TO PULL BACK. 
          MY HOPE WAS THAT THE MOST STAFF TIME IN THIS PROCESS WOULD BE YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THAT'S NOT, YEAH. 
          THAT, THAT'S ACCURATE. 
          THAT'S NOT, OR NO, THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE. 
          AND TO REALLY MINIMIZE IT BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE HOW STAFF IS GONNA BE ABLE TO EVER GET TO THIS POINT WHEN THEY'VE GOT SO MANY OTHER THINGS COMING UP. 
          AND I KNOW WE DON'T EXACTLY HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD, BUT I FIGURE BETWEEN THREE OF US AND HOPEFULLY SOME OUTSIDE VOLUNTEERS, THIS PROBABLY WOULDN'T TAKE THAT LONG TO GET IT TO THAT PLACE. 
          ALL I WOULD ASK IS THAT IF THIS IS PUT TOGETHER THAT THE OUTSIDE VOLUNTEERS, WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND SO THIS IS COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT SOME OTHER CITIES TODAY, AND I THINK IT WAS WAY TOO COMPLICATED MM-HMM. 
          , UM, THE ONES THAT I WAS LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, FOR OUR CITY MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, AND SO, UM, I, I COULDN'T QUITE WRAP MY ARMS AROUND HOW THESE OTHER ONES WOULD ACTUALLY FIT IN BECAUSE THEY WERE, THERE WAS JUST TOO MUCH INFORMATION. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN IT ALMOST, IT NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A FIVE PAGER JUST TO REALLY UNDERSTAND MM-HMM. 
          , BUT THEN THIS GOES BACK TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST PLANNING COMMISSION OF, UM, THE WORKSHOP AND THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS GONNA COME BACK IN ABOUT EIGHT WEEKS BECAUSE A LOT OF THAT INFORMATION WOULD NEED TO BE FOLDED INTO THIS SUCH AS MM-HMM. 
          , YOU KNOW, DEFINITIONS AND DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST CURIOUS OR I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT DOCUMENT, THAT WOULD TAKE ABOUT EIGHT WEEKS. 
          DO YOU REALLY HAVE TIME TO DO THAT DOCUMENT NOW? AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW OR IS THAT NOT GOING TO BE DONE? AND THEN THE COMMITTEE IS GONNA WING IT ON, UM, CLARIFICATION ON WHAT AN OVERLAY MEANS, WHAT THIS MEANS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW YOU'RE GONNA ACTUALLY WORK WITH WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION, HOW IT INCORPORATES, THAT'S ALL. 
          WELL, WE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE SEVERAL LARGE PROJECTS COMING UP BY THE YEAR'S END, UM, AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, THE REGULAR, THE OTHER SERVICES WE PROVIDE IN THE FORM OF, YOU KNOW, PRE-APPLICATION SUPPORT ISSUES, RESOLUTION COUNTER SERVICES AND, AND SO FORTH. 
          UM, I, I THINK THAT WE, IF, IF WE HAVE SOME OF THE BASIS IN THE WORKSHOP PRESENTATION, I WOULD, I WOULD WELCOME SUPPORT MM-HMM. 
           AND HELP TURNING THAT INTO, UM, THAT TOOLKIT AND, AND IDENTIFYING WHERE DO WE WANT TO UNPACK IT A BIT MORE AND HOW MM-HMM. 
          , YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE CORE CONCEPTS AND, AND REALLY HAVE THAT ADVISEMENT ON, ON HOW TO FOCUS IT AND MOVE IT QUICKLY. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, SO YEAH, I THINK THAT IT, IT WOULD BE VALUE ADDED, UM, 
          [03:05:01]
GIVEN THE, THE WORKLOAD WHICH I, I PLAN TO, TO DESCRIBE IN, IN MY, UM, REPORT, MY PLANNING MANAGER REPORT. 
          BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE A VALUE ADD AND HELPFUL. 
          SURE. 
          DARREN, UH, AND I WOULD JUST LOVE TO SEE OUTTA THIS, I'M THINKING THINGS LIKE FLOW CHARTS FOR HOW DEVELOPMENT WORKS. 
          FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS THAT WE GET ALL THE TIME, LIKE I THINK BLAKE WAS ALLUDING TO. 
          UH, AND REALLY I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE THE ANTITHESIS TO SOMETHING VERY PROJECT SPECIFIC. 
          I THINK IT'S GONNA EDUCATE EVERYONE ON KIND OF THE BASE LEVEL OF WHAT ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT AND HOPEFULLY RAISE THE LEVEL OF DISCOURSE. 
          UH, SO YEAH, I'M EXCITED ABOUT THIS IDEA. 
          AND ONE LAST THING I JUST WANTED TO THROW IN IS IT'S VERY TRIAL AND ERROR FRIENDLY. 
          MEANING AS WE BUILD THIS, WE MAY THINK IT'S GREAT, WE CAN TEST IT IF PEOPLE ARE IMMEDIATELY LIKE, WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WE KNOW WE HAVE SOME MORE WORK TO DO. 
          YEAH. 
          AND WE CERTAINLY KNOW ENOUGH PEOPLE  IN OTHER CITIES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CONNECT WITH ALL THE TIME. 
          YEP. 
          UM, SEE WHAT THEY'RE REALLY DOING. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          JUST TO COMMENT, UM, I KINDA LIKE TO SEE STAFF RESPOND TO THIS A LITTLE MORE, LET THEM DISCUSS IT AMONGST THEMSELVES AND TO RESPOND MORE ON HOW THEY CAN ADDRESS THESE ISSUES OR HOW THEY CAN'T. 
          UM, UH, MY CONCERN IS, IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEEDS TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE AND WE NEED TO EVALUATE AND KIND OF, UH, MAKE JUDGMENT ON THINGS THAT STAFF ARE PROPOSING. 
          IF WE START DOING STAFF'S JOB OR START TELLING THEM HOW TO DO THEIR JOB, I THINK THAT WE START TO GET BIASED. 
          AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT. 
          THE, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE. 
          I, I DON'T HAVE TIME TO BE A MEMBER. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHO ELSE DOES, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT YOU WOULD A BIAS BUILT INTO THE COMMISSION, UH, WHICH WOULD START DRIVING THINGS THAT ARE NOT, UH, IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. 
          ALTHOUGH I, I COMMEND YOU ON YOUR ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM IS. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RIGHT SOLUTION IS. 
          UM, SO I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE TO SEE STAFF EVALUATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND COME BACK AND SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE THINK AND HERE'S WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AND HERE'S WHAT WOULDN'T BE. 
          BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE WORK RELEASE. 
          YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          NO, FAIR ENOUGH. 
          UM, ONE THING I WOULD FLAG THOUGH, IS THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO ENTIRELY FOCUS ON TRANSLATING PROCESS PLANNING. 
          STAFF ARE NOT COMMUNICATIONS PEOPLE. 
          THEY ARE, THEY'RE PLANNING STAFF EVALUATING A PROJECT. 
          WE ARE PROBABLY THE CLOSEST PEOPLE IN THIS PROCESS TO ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING HOW PEOPLE ARE, WHERE THEY'RE GETTING CONFUSED, WHERE THEY'RE GETTING HELD UP. 
          I TOO WOULD WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE, WHATEVER WE MOVE FORWARD WITH IS, UH, SUPPORTED BY STAFF AND IS SOMETHING THAT'S REALISTIC WITH STAFF. 
          UH, BUT I DON'T SEE A WORLD WHERE THE STAFF HERE, BASED ON THE LIMITED RESOURCES WE HAVE, WILL HAVE THE TIME TO ALSO BECOME COMMUNICATIONS FOLKS. 
          PART OF THE GOAL OF THIS, IT'S NOT TO DRIVE ANYTHING, IT'S JUST TO CLARIFY AND MOVE ON, IS ALSO WHY IT'S A SHORT-TERM AD HOC. 
          IT'S NOT PERMANENT. 
          THE GOAL IS TO PRODUCE CONTENT THEY CAN REUSE AND MODIFY IT WELL, AND THEN WE WALK AWAY. 
          WOULD WOULD SOMETHING LIKE LIMITING STAFF INVOLVEMENT TO JUST OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING IN THE AD HOC HELP TO GIVE US SOME DISTANCE? I KNOW WITH OUR TREE COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION AD HOC, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE DO. 
          WE, WE DO OUR OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION AND JUST HAVE REPORTS BACK TO THE REGULAR MEETING. 
          AND WE'RE NOT OVERSEEN NECESSARILY BY A MEMBER OF STAFF OR ANYTHING, BUT THE TREE COMMITTEE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          I, I MEAN, TRUE. 
          I THINK THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, BASED UPON MY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL, I WASN'T UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WOULD TAKE ON A SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT MIGHT COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT I, I BELIEVE OUR PROCESSES ARE, ARE SUFFICIENTLY ARE ARTICULATED AND, AND PRACTICED SUCH THAT I FEEL THAT CLARIFICATION OF IT COMMUNICATION ABOUT IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A, A MODIFICATION OF PROCESS. 
          SO I THINK THAT AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT SAYING MODELING A COMMUNICATION OFF OF A PARTICULAR PROJECT, IT WOULD BE, UM, I THINK WE WOULD AVOID BIAS THEN. 
          UM, AND I, AND I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE THING THAT'S BEEN INTERESTING ABOUT THESE CONVERSATIONS IS I'VE, 
          [03:10:01]
I, I'M REALIZING THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED AND, AND HOW, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE KIND OF SIT ON ACROSS A CONTINUUM OF EXPERIENCES AND HOW WE INTERACT WITH THE PROJECTS AND THE, YOU KNOW, AND THE, UM, THE NEEDS, THE, THE REVIEW NEEDS THAT COME BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          AND SO I THINK IF WE CAN HELP, UH, CREATE THAT COMMON LANGUAGE ACROSS, ACROSS ALL OF THE CONTINUUM, THEN I THINK THAT, THAT THAT WOULD BE A HUGE BENEFIT FOR ALL OF US. 
          ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, I JUST, I MAYBE A COMMENT. 
          UM, I DO THINK THIS IS PREDICATED A LOT ON THE OVERLAY AND THAT IS GONNA BE COMING BEFORE US. 
          AND I JUST, I DON'T WANNA MUDDLE THE PROCESS. 
          I'M JUST, I, I HAVE A CONCERN AND I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT WHAT IT IS. 
          THERE'S NO, I, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE I USED AN EXAMPLE REPEATEDLY AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S GETTING STUCK. 
          IT WAS JUST THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE I COULD THINK OF. 
          THAT'S BIG ONE. 
          UH, AND, AND IT IS A BIG ONE, BUT IT'S, WE HAD THIS AROUND SCOTT RANCH. 
          WE, I'M, I WAS NOT HERE FOR THE THEATER THEATER SQUARE, BUT I'M SURE THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT AROUND THEATER SQUARE NAME, ANY BIG DEVELOPMENT IN PETALUMA. 
          I'M SURE THERE IS A LOT AROUND THAT AS WELL. 
          GOOD OR BAD. 
          UM, THE GOAL OF THIS, IT IS NOT TO, PART OF THE REASON WHY I'VE STAYED VAGUE WITH PROCESSES IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF, WE HAVE SPAR REVIEW, WE HAVE USE PERMIT, WE HAVE ZONING, WE HAVE ALL THESE DIFFERENT DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING, WHICH ARE DIFFERENT PROJECTS, DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, DIFFERENT DIFFERENT INFORMATION BEING SHARED. 
          SO THE IDEA IS TO MAKE REUSABLE CONTENT FIRST IN TERMS OF PROCESSES AND SIMPLE EXPLANATIONS, BOTH VISUAL AND WRITTEN. 
          THEN TERMS OF COMMUNICATIONS CONTENT THAT WE DON'T USE, IT'S CONTENT THAT CITY STAFF CAN USE. 
          IT'S CONTENT THAT CAN GO ON THE PLANNING PA WEBPAGE. 
          IT'S CONTENT THAT IF, IF, YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS ITS NEWSLETTER, THEY PUT UPDATES IN THERE. 
          SOMETIMES THEY SEE PROJECT UPDATES. 
          THEY CAN USE A CHART THAT WE'VE HELPED MAKE FOR, HEY, IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          HERE'S THE CHART ON HOW THAT WORKS OR WHAT'S INVOLVED. 
          IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY MEANT TO BE PROJECT SPECIFIC. 
          THIS DOESN'T RELATE TO SELLING OR ELEVATING A PARTICULAR PROJECT. 
          THE IDEA IS, UH, TO GIVE STAFF REUSABLE TOOLS THAT ARE EASY, EASY TO MODIFY, AND KIND OF PLUG AND PLAY WHEN THEY NEED TO, WHILE ALSO HAVING THIS CENTRAL REPOSITORY THAT PEOPLE CAN DOWNLOAD AND LOOK AT THAT'S GOT FAQS AND CHARTS AND ALL OF THAT, IF THEY JUST WANNA DIG THROUGH IT. 
          TO, TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE, UM, IN THE LEGISLATURE WHEN WE HAVE BIG ISSUES COMING UP, A LOT OF OFFICES DO NOT HAVE THE COMMUNICATIONS STAFF TO BREAK BREAKDOWN COMPLICATED POLICY ISSUES ON THE EVERY DAY. 
          SO THERE IS A WHOLE OFFICE THAT'S JUST DEDICATED TO MAKING TOOLKITS THAT BREAK DOWN PROCESS. 
          THEY BREAK DOWN AN ISSUE, THEY DO NOT SELL AN ISSUE, THEY DON'T ATTACK AN ISSUE, THEY JUST PUT IT THERE. 
          AND THEN OFFICES CAN MODIFY AND USE AT WILL BECAUSE OFFICES HAVE LIMITED STAFF. 
          I WAS TRYING TO APPLY THAT MODEL HERE OF WE HAVE VOLUN, WE AS YOU KNOW, IDEALLY THREE OF US AND THEN MAYBE SOME VOLUNTEERS, WHICH I AGREE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENTLY KNOWN WHO WAS ALSO VOLUNTEERING. 
          BUT WE HAVE THE TIME TO GO THROUGH AND SAY, OKAY, CITY OF CITY OF MILPITAS, THEY HAVE A REALLY GREAT EXPLANATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          CHANGE A FEW WORDS AND IT'S EXACT TO OUR PROCESS. 
          THIS IS A GREAT IMAGE. 
          WE'LL STEAL THAT. 
          HEY, NO ONE'S GOT AN I Z O EXPLANATION. 
          THAT'S GREAT. 
          WE CAN TAKE WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE, IN THE I Z O ALREADY IN CODE, DO THE WORK OURSELVES TO MASSAGE THAT. 
          THEY CAN PRE PRESENT THAT HERE, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT. 
          I LIKE THE IDEA OF STAFF ONLY REALLY NEEDS TO SPEND TIME ON IT WHEN IT'S BEING PRESENTED BACK TO US. 
          BUT AGAIN, THE IDEA IS WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE AND THE TOOLS THAT WE END UP PRODUCING, WHICH IS WHY IT'S A SHORT-TERM AD HOC, WOULD THEN BE GIVEN BACK TO STAFF. 
          THERE'D BE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH STAFF CAN DO OR THEY CAN'T, WHICH COUNCIL CAN PUSH FOR OR NOT. 
          UH, BUT THAT'D BE IT. 
          AND THEN THERE'D BE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT WHAT, ANOTHER YEAR BEFORE. 
          I MEAN, I, I SEE YOUR FACE. 
          YEAH. 
          I LIKE ANOTHER YEAR BEFORE WE CAN REALLY START TALKING ABOUT IT. 
          AND THE CITY CAN'T AFFORD TO HIRE SOME CONSULTING FIRM TO COME IN AND GIVE YOU TERRIBLE MICROSOFT WORD POWERPOINT CHARTS 
          [03:15:01]
SO WE COULD WORK WITH THE RESOURCES WE HAVE. 
          WOULD IT TAKE US A LITTLE WHILE? SURE. 
          BUT WE'D BE VOLUNTEERING THE TIME AND BECAUSE WE INTERACT WITH THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS, WE'RE KIND OF THE BEST PEOPLE TO GET THIS STARTED. 
          YOU GOT A COUPLE? I DO. 
          I HAVE AT LEAST TWO. 
          UM, ARE THERE, I SHOULD OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I PIVOT TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ITEM? OH, I'M CURIOUS. 
          WHAT ABOUT OTHER COMMITTEES? NOW GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING. 
          WE WANNA HAVE AN AD HOC COMMITTEE AND THIS COULD TRICKLE DOWN AND I JUST, I JUST WANNA BE CAUTIOUS WITH THIS AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY THINKS. 
          YEAH, I, I MEAN, GOTTA BE WORRIED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PRECEDENT. 
          UM, AT LEAST WITH THE PREVIOUS CITY CLERK, WE KIND OF HAD AN INFORMAL RULE THAT IF A C C B WANTED TO CCB IS WHAT WE CALL SHORTHAND, THE COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, UH, IF A SUBORDINATE BODY WANTED TO CREATE AN AD HOC THAT THERE WAS INFORMAL RULE, THAT IT WOULD NEED APPROVAL FROM THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND THE CITY CLERK. 
          JUST COGNIZANT ABOUT STAFF TIME. 
          UM, SO HOPEFULLY WHEN WE DO HAVE THAT NEW CITY CLERK, THAT RULE COULD KIND OF BE MORE OF A PERMANENT THING TO MAKE SURE AD HOC COMMITTEES AREN'T JUST HAPPENING WILLY-NILLY TO, UH, AND ONLY WHEN KIND OF NECESSARY AND WHEN THERE'S STAFFED ON TO HELP THAT AD HOC COMMITTEE DO WHAT ITS CHARGE IS FOR. 
          SO HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, VICE MAYOR, BUT IT DID. 
          YEAH. 
          AND JUST THE LAST NOTE HERE, I'M WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE A, AND YOU MIGHT BE DESCRIBING THIS, BUT WE WOULDN'T DELIVER ANY FINAL WORK PRODUCT TO STAFF. 
          I MEAN, WE WOULD BE DOING RESEARCH GATHERING BEST PRACTICES WE SEE ELSEWHERE SAYING, HEY, HERE'S A QUESTION I HEAR ALL THE TIME IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          PRESENT THOSE FINDINGS. 
          AND THEN IT WOULD REALLY BE UP TO STAFF TO DECIDE THE FINAL FORMAT, WHAT STAYS IN, WHAT DOESN'T, WHAT ACTUALLY MAKES IT, 'CAUSE I THINK MM-HMM. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          THAT GIVES US THE, AGAIN, A LAYER, A BUFFER SEPARATION MM-HMM. 
           AND PREVENTS US FROM GIVING ANY DIRECTION TO STAFF. 
          'CAUSE WE WANNA BE COGNIZANT OF THAT TOO. 
          SO YEAH. 
          THIS IS NOT US TELLING THEM WHAT TO WRITE. 
          THIS IS US GOING HERE. 
          YOU GO WORK WITH WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M GONNA OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT 'CAUSE I THINK THIS IS THE MOST PUBLIC COMMENT AT ONCE WE'VE GOTTEN SO FAR. 
          UH, DID WE GET ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AHEAD OF TIME ON THIS ITEM? WE RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. 
          GREAT. 
          UH, TO START, WE'LL HAVE NICOLA AGAIN. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S ON, I THINK, AM I LOUD ENOUGH? UM, I HAVE A MASTER'S IN BUSINESS THAT IS SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT. 
          AND ONE OF THE THINGS I DO IS, I THINK VISUALLY, I THINK IN PICTURES ALL THE TIME, I'M NOT A WORD PERSON REALLY. 
          I'M A PICTURE PERSON. 
          AND WHEN THE, THE PROCESS OF PUTTING A SENIOR MOBILE HOME PARK OVERLAY CAME UP, UM, BECAUSE I LIVE IN A SENIOR PARK AND I DEAL WITH MULTIPLE SENIOR PARKS ALL THE TIME, UM, THE QUESTION KEPT COMING BACK. 
          WHAT IS THIS? HOW DOES IT WORK? WHERE DOES IT LOOK LIKE? AND SO I CREATED A SIX SLIDE SLIDESHOW THAT BASICALLY BUILT AN OVERLAY FROM SLIDE TO SLIDE TO SAY HOW AN OVERLAY WORKS AND WHAT HAPPENS, WHO HAS TO OKAY IT, HOW IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          UM, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I THINK VISUALLY. 
          THIS IS WHAT I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, I ALSO CREATED AN INFOGRAM. 
          THIS IS A ONE PAGE, FOLLOW THE CHART DOWN THE PAGE. 
          THIS IS THE STEPS THAT GO INTO CREATING AN OVERLAY VISUALLY WITH PICTURES, VERY LITTLE WORDS, UM, COLORFUL DESIGN, DESIGN, UM, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          I THINK THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE GOING. 
          YOU'RE GOING FOR LOOKING AT HOW DO WE PRESENT FACTS? HOW DO WE PRESENT A PROCESS THAT EVERYBODY GETS? AND THEY GET IT BECAUSE YOU'VE PRESENTED IT IN SUCH A WAY IS THAT IT IS VISUALLY APPEALING AND PHYSICALLY ABLE TO BE ABSORBED EASILY. 
          HMM. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, NEXT WE HAVE LYDIA. 
          HELLO AGAIN. 
          SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE GOT MAYBE A COUPLE OF VOLUNTEERS HERE THAT ARE, UH, THAT ARE HAPPY TO CHIP IN. 
          I, I WASN'T PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THIS TONIGHT. 
          I CAME TO HEAR ABOUT IT BECAUSE I SAW YOUR, I SAW YOUR PROPOSAL ON THE AGENDA AND I THOUGHT THERE WERE GONNA BE THREE MEMBERS FROM THE COMMUNITY ON THIS, ON THIS COMMITTEE. 
          UM, I, I, UM, I KNOW THAT VICE MAYOR CATER THOMPSON TALKED ABOUT HOW, OH, MAYBE THIS, MAYBE THIS CAME 
          [03:20:01]
OUT OF THE, THE OVERLAY. 
          UM, AS AN ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL, I WAS TRANSLATING STUFF FOR THE COMMUNITY DAILY ON THAT, ON THAT COMPLEX PROJECT. 
          SO I, I GET IT. 
          AND I, I HEAR YOU THAT THERE IS A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, WHERE DID YOU FIND THAT INFORMATION? WHERE DID YOU GET THAT PIECE OF PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE THE WEBSITE, MUCH LESS WHAT THE TERMS ARE. 
          SO I'M HERE TO HELP. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          I, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU, UH, JESSICA. 
          HI. 
          A LOT OF GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. 
          UM, AND I THINK I CAME INTO IT WITH A LOT OF OPTIMISM THAT HAS LIKE, CONTINUED ON THROUGHOUT THE CONVERSATION. 
          UM, SO JUST A COUPLE LIKE, THOUGHTS TO PASS ON. 
          UM, I'D SAY I LOVE THE IDEA OF IT BEING ITERATIVE AND, AND SORT OF TIME BOUND. 
          UM, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE HAVING HAD SOME EXPERIENCE TRYING TO TRANSLATE COMPLICATED CONCEPTS IN MY JOB, IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK . 
          UM, A LOT OF TIMES YOU'LL PUT A TON OF EFFORT INTO A FLOWCHART OR A ONE PAGER OR A FIVE PAGER, UM, AND NO ONE READS IT AND STILL ASKS A LOT OF THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS. 
          SO JUST HAVING THAT ITER ITERATIVE PROCESS AND NOT DUMPING 18 MONTHS INTO THIS ONLY FOR IT TO NOT REALLY GET READ, UM, I THINK IS A, A GOOD THOUGHT. 
          UM, I REALLY LOVE THE IDEA OF THE FLOW CHART FOR STAGE GATES OF LIKE, WHEN IS THERE GONNA BE A WORKSHOP, THE RESOLUTION? DOES IT END UP ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR? JUST SORT OF LIKE UNDERSTANDING SORT OF ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT STEPS AND HOW IT WILL SHOW UP IN AGENDAS. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING I AM STILL WRAPPING MY ARMS AROUND AFTER SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS OF GOING TO MEETINGS. 
          UM, SO I THINK HAVING THAT INFOGRAPHIC COULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. 
          UM, OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT IT, I THINK ON THE, ON THE, UM, BIAS POINT, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU ARE SIMPLIFYING INFORMATION AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. 
          UM, AND DON'T VENTURE DOWN ANY PATHS OF STREAMLINING, UM, OR LIKE TRYING TO CHANGE THE PROCESSES. 
          YOU'RE JUST REPORTING ON IT. 
          UM, AND LASTLY, BUILD IN A LOT OF CAVEATS, UM, BECAUSE I THINK YOU MIGHT RUN THE RISK OF FOLKS FEELING A BIT ENTITLED IF THEY HAVE FOLLOWED EVERY STEP OF A SIMPLIFIED OUTLINE, THINKING LIKE, WELL, I DID EVERYTHING YOU TOLD ME TO. 
          HOW COULD I NOT BE APPROVED? BUT THERE'S SO MANY, I MEAN, PAGES AND PAGES AND PAGES AND PAGES AND PAGES OF EXCEPTIONS, UM, THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO BUILD INTO THESE SIMPLIFIED, UH, COMMUNICATION DEVICES. 
          SO HAVING SOMETHING THAT SAYS LIKE SIMPLIFIED FOR COMMUNICATION PURPOSES, I'M SURE THE ATTORNEY CAN GUIDE YOU ON THAT CAVEAT. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND WITH THAT, THAT IS THE END OF OUR PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'LL GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM. 
          DARREN, UH, I APPRECIATE SOME PUBLIC ENTHUSIASM FOR THIS, AND I DO, AS, AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS, I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS AD HOC IS NOT GIVING PROJECT SPECIFIC GUIDANCE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , WE'RE NOT CREATING PROJECT SPECIFIC FLOW CHARTS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'RE PROVIDING THE FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH AND BASIS FOR STAFF TO CREATE THOSE GENERAL TEMPLATES. 
          AND THEN IF A PROJECT IS NOT COMPORTING WITH OUR REALLY SIMPLE FLOW CHART, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT EITHER GETS EXPLAINED OR A DOCUMENT IS MADE BY STAFF, NOT NECESSARILY BY THIS GROUP. 
          UH, 'CAUSE I DO APPRECIATE THAT APPEARANCE OF BIAS AND THAT WE ARE NOT STAFF AND KIND OF, YOU KNOW, LET'S BE HONEST, WE MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST GRAPHIC DESIGNERS. 
          WE MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST. 
          SO I, I THINK FOCUSING THIS ON KIND OF THE RESEARCH ELEMENT, GENERATING IDEAS TO THEM BE PUT IN A WHEELHOUSE WHERE STAFF CAN PULL FROM TO CREATE MATERIALS, I THINK IS, IS GONNA BE THE, IN MY MIND, GONNA BE KIND OF THE RIGHT BALANCE FOR THIS. 
          DID YOU, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS OTHER COMMITTEES AND A PRECEDENT. 
          AND THAT IS A BIG CONCERN BECAUSE I GET LETTERS FROM PEOPLE FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND I KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE, YOU KNOW, PUSHING AND, AND IT, AND IT DOES CONCERN ME THAT, UM, THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET OTHER COMMITTEES AND SAY, WE NEED TO, WE NEED AN AD HOC COMMITTEE ALSO, AND THIS IS WHY WE NEED AN AD HOC COMMITTEE. 
          AND I JUST, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE MAKING THAT PRECEDENT UNLESS, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY THINKS IT'S OKAY. 
          I, I AM CONCERNED. 
          BUT WE, WE HAVE A LOT OF AD HOCS. 
          I MEAN, I'M ON ONE FOR BIKE AND PET AND TREE, AND I KNOW WE DO . 
          I MEAN, I GOT THIS IDEA BECAUSE I WAS ON SEVERAL FOR PBE C UH, I HAVE A COMPROMISE BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT 
          [03:25:01]
YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT, YOU DON'T, JUST TO BE CLEAR TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, HAVING A BONANZA OF, OF FOLKS GOING, HEY, I WANNA JUMP ON AND HELP CLARIFY THIS OBSCURE PROCESS IS PROBABLY A LOVELY THING. 
          BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND NOT WANTING THE PRECEDENT OF, YOU HAVE TO VERIFY THAT THEY'RE JUST STICKING TO PROCESS. 
          YOU HAVE TO VERIFY THAT NO ONE'S TRYING TO TAKE THIS IN A, A STRANGE POLITICAL DIRECTION. 
          I, I CAN GET THAT. 
          WHEN I INITIALLY PROPOSED THIS, I DID IT IN FOUR DELIVERABLES. 
          I DID IT IN FOUR DELIVERABLES. 
          IN PART BECAUSE MY, WHAT I HAD RUN INTO IN OTHER SETTINGS IS IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE THE ROADWAY, PEOPLE FIXATE ON OTHER PARTS OF THE ROADWAY THAT YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE. 
          AND THEN YOU END UP DISCUSSING THAT RATHER THAN THE FIRST STEP. 
          SO PART OF THE GOAL WAS TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE GONNA START HERE AND THEN GO THERE. 
          HOWEVER, IN LISTENING TO THE CONCERNS OF BOTH MAKING SURE WE DON'T HAVE REPLICATION OF SOMETHING THAT'S UNMANAGEABLE, AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE STAYING AS CLOSE TO NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE, JUST TRYING TO SIMPLIFY CONFLICT, UH, UH, PROCESS. 
          I THINK ONE COMPROMISE FOR THIS COULD BE TO SIMPLIFY THE GOAL OF THE AD HOC. 
          SO THREE MEMBERS, GIVE IT A THREE MONTH TIMELINE, JUST CUT THAT IN HALF AND FOCUS ON THE, THE FIRST AND SECOND DELIVERABLE IS ENTIRELY ABOUT MAKING THE PROCESS BIT. 
          AND THEN SOME EASY TO USE COMMUNICATION CHARTS THAT COME OFF OF THAT, THAT AGAIN, ONLY STAFF WILL USE. 
          SO JUST THE FIRST TWO DELIVERABLES, IF WE LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENED THERE, WE CAN, WE CAN OPT IN FOR MORE. 
          BUT WE START WITH AN AD HOC THAT JUST FOCUSES ON THOSE TWO DELIVERABLES. 
          WE GIVE IT THREE MONTHS. 
          WE FORCE THEM TO PRESENT REGULARLY. 
          IF WE DON'T, LIKE, IF THE OUTCOME OF THIS IS NOTHING, THEN IT'S A FAILED EXPERIMENT. 
          BUT I DO THINK, AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF JUST ONE PROJECT, IT'S BECAUSE OF A LOT OF PROJECTS LEADING UP TO THIS LAST YEAR, BUT THE LAST FEW YEARS, THIS CITY, AND I THINK IT'S GREAT, BUT THE CITY, THE PUBLIC, THEY'RE FOCUSING WAY MORE ON HOW WE DEVELOP THAN THEY EVER HAVE BEFORE. 
          AND THAT'S A WONDERFUL THING. 
          THAT'S A TESTAMENT TO YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS OF PEOPLE TRYING TO EDUCATE FOLKS ON WHY LAND USE MATTERS, WHY PLANNING MATTERS, WHY THE WHY, THE WAY WE BUILD AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND PEOPLE, ALL OF THAT, HOW THAT CONNECTS. 
          BUT BECAUSE OF THE SUCCESS OF ALL OF THAT WORK BY SO MANY PEOPLE, WE'RE NOW IN A POSITION WHERE THERE, THERE'S SO MUCH MISINFORMATION AND THEN WE HAVE NO PLACE TO POINT TO. 
          WE HAVE NOTHING SIMPLE TO SAY, OH, JUST GO TO THIS P D F. 
          AND YEAH, SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL JUST NOT READ AND THAT'S FINE, BUT AT LEAST WE COULD HAVE THAT. 
          SO JUST TO SIMPLIFY THINGS, IF WE CAN LIMIT THIS TO THREE MONTHS, LOOK AT JUST THE PLANNING PROCESS TOOLKIT. 
          THE GOAL IS THESE, THESE MEMBERS ARE DOING THE RESEARCH THEMSELVES. 
          THEY PRESENT IT TO US AND STAFF AT THE SAME TIME, STAFF CAN THEN GIVE THE, HEY, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          HEY, THAT'S NOT, AND THEN STAFF CAN USE IT OR NOT. 
          BUT IT'S JUST TO GET THAT RESEARCH DONE AND NOT PUT IT ON STAFF SHOULDERS. 
          A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY, UM, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AD HOC COMMITTEE IN A TREE, LIKE A TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH AN AD HOC COMMITTEE VERSUS A, WE'RE NOT AN ADVISORY, WE'RE ADVISORY TO THE COUNCIL, BUT WE MAKE APPROVALS OR DISAPPROVALS. 
          SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE WITH THOSE TWO DIFFERENT, THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY, UNDER THE BROWN ACT, YOU WOULD BE ADVISORY COMMITTEES FOR YOUR LARGER LEGISLATIVE BODY. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT, BUT IN TERMS OF THE, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO, THE, THE PURPOSE OF A ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN THE TREE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MM-HMM. 
          , IT'S NOT AS, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE NOT JUST ADVISORY. 
          THAT'S TRUE. 
          I, ANDREW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION. 
          YEAH, WELL, WELL, I THINK YOU, YOU PERFORM TWO ROLES. 
          ONE ROLE IS, UH, IN YOUR LEGISLATIVE ROLE, YOU DO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY IN THE CITY THAT HAS, HAS THE POWER TO ADOPT LEGISLATION. 
          SO YOU DO PERFORM THAT, THAT ADVISORY ROLE TO COUNCIL WHEN YOU MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ON LEGISLATIVE MATTERS. 
          BUT THEN ALSO IN YOUR QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE, YOU ARE CHARGED WITH THE POWER TO MAKE DECISIONS, TO MAKE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS. 
          I THINK THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT PBA OR TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAVE THAT QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER. 
          I THINK IT'S ONLY THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION AND H C P C THAT HAVE THAT SORT OF DUAL ROLE OF ADVISING THE COUNCIL 
          [03:30:01]
THROUGH RECOMMENDATIONS ON LEGISLATIVE ACTION, BUT THEN THE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER THAT ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE THOSE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
          BUT MY, MY MY, MY QUESTION IS GI, GIVEN THE, I MEAN THE, THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT SEEMED LIKE THE AD HOC COMMITTEES HAVE DIFFERENT, UH, UH, RULES AND VALUE AND AUTHORITY AND INPUT, OR E EXACTLY THE SAME. 
          I WOULD THINK, AND THIS IS MY BEST STAB AT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION HERE, ROGER, IS THAT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THEIR ROLE WOULD BE FURTHERING ONE OF THE DUTIES FOR THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR HERE, WHERE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, THEIR GOAL WOULD BE FURTHERING, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S GOALS AS WELL. 
          SO I THINK IT'S PRETTY SIMILAR THAT WAY, WHERE HOPEFULLY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE IS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE LARGER LEGISLATIVE BODY. 
          OKAY. 
          CHAIR, I'M JUST, I'M JUST WONDERING IF MAYBE WE SHOULD DO SOME OF THE FIGURE OUT THE LOGISTICS FIRST. 
          LIKE FIGURE OUT WHO HAS TIME AND WANTS TO BE PART OF THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE AND, AND THEN ALSO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY AND WHOEVER ELSE NEEDS TO APPROVE FIRST BEFORE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THIS ANYMORE. 
          . 
          WELL, WHEN WE FIRST PROPOSED THIS, I'D REACHED OUT TO STAFF ON PURPOSE TO KNOW IF WE WERE ABLE TO DO THIS. 
          YEAH, NO, AND I THINK FROM MY END, WE'RE OKAY HERE. 
          UH, I WOULD THINK MOST OF THE STAFF TIME WOULD BE ON PLANNING SHOULDERS. 
          I'D BE HAPPY, YOU KNOW, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAVE, SEE WHAT MY PROCESS LOOKS LIKE. 
          UH, I WOULD HOPE TO REVIEW ANY DOCUMENTS THAT COME BEFORE US, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY ROLE. 
          AND I, I WOULD HAVE TIME TO MEET WITH YOU GUYS IF, UH, AD HOC COMMITTEES FORMED. 
          WE DON'T NEED PLANNING MANAGERS. 
          UH, OH, THAT WOULD BE YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO YOU SAY, OKAY, THAT'S IT. 
          THAT'S WE, OH, WELL I THINK THAT, SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WAY THE PROPOSAL IS CRAFTED I, I THINK IS FAIRLY CLEAR. 
          UM, IT, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THE AD HOC TO INITIALLY SET FORWARD, YOU KNOW, SET FORTH SOME OF THE LOGISTICS AND MM-HMM. 
           AND DELVE INTO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS OF HOW IT FUNCTIONS MORE SPECIFICALLY. 
          UM, AND, AND I DO, I DO APPRECIATE THE QUESTION ABOUT IS THIS PRECEDENT SETTING. 
          UM, BUT I ALSO, I ALSO DO RECOGNIZE THAT OTHER, OTHER COMMITTEES HAVE ESTABLISHED AD HOCS AND, AND I THINK THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO CAREFULLY CONSTRAIN WHAT THE AD HOC WOULD DO AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND SUCH, UM, COULD, COULD PERHAPS EVEN SERVE AS A MODEL FOR HOW AD HOC SHOULD CONSIDER WHAT THEY MIGHT DO, YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE, AND, AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE STRUCTURED AND, AND SUCH. 
          SO, UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, FROM FROM PLANNING'S PERSPECTIVE, I'M, I'M VERY CURIOUS TO SEE HOW IT, WHAT THE AD HOC PRODUCES AND HOW IT, HOW IT PRODUCES IT. 
          UM, AND, AND I DO FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD, ESPECIALLY THIS EVENING, UH, I DO FEEL THAT BOTH THE AD HOC AND THE COMMISSION WILL BE CAREFUL ABOUT, UM, THE, THE EXTENT TO WHICH PLANNING STAFF IS INVOLVED AND, AND RECOGNIZING THAT, YOU KNOW, PLANNING STAFF HAS PRIMARY ROLES WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE, WHETHER IT'S TO COST RECOVERY OR TO, TO THE CITIZENS IN A VARIETY OF FORMS. AND WE'LL BE SENSITIVE TO THAT AS WELL AS I THINK THAT THERE'S, UH, AS A RESULT, PROBABLY A GOOD HEIGHTENED SENSITIVITY TO BIAS AND ENSURING THAT THE AD HOC IS, IS OPERATING WITH CLEAR DIRECTION AND CLEARLY, UM, TAKING UP TOPICS THAT, THAT ARE FOCUSED ON THE GENERAL OPERATION OF THE PLANNING REVIEW PROCESS. 
          AND NOT POINTING SPECIFICALLY TO A PROJECT THAT'S EITHER UNDER REVIEW OR COULD POTENTIALLY COME UNDER REVIEW. 
          AND I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT END, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DECIDE TO MAKE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, THAT COULD BE A MOTION AS WELL AS THAT IT HAS TO BE, YOU KNOW, NOT PROJECT SPECIFIC IN GENERAL, JUST TO OVERARCHING. 
          AND ONE ADVANTAGE IS, I'LL SAY, OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE IS THEY DON'T NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE BROWN ACT AND HAVE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETINGS. 
          SO IF YOU NEED TO TALK TO ANDREW AND SAY, HEY, WE'D LIKE TO COME IN ON THIS DAY AND SEE WHAT PLANNING DOES, MAYBE A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. 
          UH, AND IF ANDREW AND PLANNING ARE BUSY, YOU CAN TELL HIM AND YOU CAN SCHEDULE FOR A COUPLE WEEKS LATER. 
          AND YEAH, IT'S A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY THAT WAY. 
          I GUESS THIS EVENING, I KNOW WE'VE HAD TO SPLIT THIS INTO PARTS. 
          CAN WE MAKE A MOTION 
          [03:35:01]
TO FORM THIS AD HOC THIS EVENING? IS THAT ON THE TABLE? I, I, I WOULD LOVE A MOTION. 
          I, I WASN'T GONNA MAKE IT MYSELF 'CAUSE THAT FELL OUTTA PLACE, BUT WELL, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION USING, UH, DYLAN'S CAVEAT, MAKE A MOTION TO FORM THE COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH AD HOC AS PUT FORTH IN THE PROPOSAL MODIFIED TO THREE MONTHS, AND FOCUSING ON ITEMS ONE AND TWO WITH THE CAVEAT THAT IT WILL NOT FOCUS ON ANY SPECIFIC PROJECT. 
          AND WE'LL ALSO AVOID ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR POTENTIAL BIAS. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD BAKE THAT IN. 
          COULDN'T HURT. 
          AND I, IT MIGHT HELP WITH MAKING THIS MOTION TO DO IT ALL AT ONCE AND JUST MAYBE BEFORE, I DON'T KNOW, JUST A RAISE OF HANDS TO SEE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SERVING, UH, TO COMMISSIONER BOWER'S POINT. 
          AND IT JUST IS LESS THAN A QUORUM THAT WOULD, THAT'S ALL THAT'S NEEDED. 
          SO TWO IS FINE. 
          AND I'LL SAY TOO, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T GET FORMED, UH, ANDREW IS PRETTY RESPONSIVE AND IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS, I'M SURE HE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LISTENING TO THEM. 
          I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. 
          GREAT. 
          UH, CAN I CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT MOTION WOULD BE WITH THE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER CUSON AS THE TWO MEMBERS. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER BAUER. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCARLEY? NO. 
          COMMISSIONER KUSON? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WIMAN. 
          YES. 
          VICE MAYOR KETER THOMPSON. 
          YES. 
          RELUCTANTLY. 
          CHAIR HOOPER. 
          YES. 
          FIVE VOTED. 
          FIVE VOTED IN FAVOR. 
          THE MOTION IS PASSED. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE. 
          WELL, WITH THAT, WE CLOSE THIS ITEM AND WE MOVE INTO, I KNOW IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE DONE, BUT THERE'S STILL A LITTLE BIT MORE WE GOTTA MOVE INTO 
          [COMMITTEE COMMENT]
COMMISSIONER COMMENT. 
          UM, AND I WILL, I'LL START WITH THE VICE MAYOR. 
          UM, JAMES CAMERON IS THE NEW S C T A EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 
          AND THAT WAS DETERMINED YESTERDAY. 
          SUZANNE, UM, IS RETIRING AFTER 26 YEARS, AND SHE REALLY DID A FANTASTIC JOB AND SHE HAD A POLITICAL SCIENCE BACKGROUND, BUT WHAT SHE HAD WAS THE ABILITY TO GO TO SACRAMENTO AND REALLY GET MONEY. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          AND SO IT'S INTERESTING WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, YOU THINK THEY NEED TO BE THE FINANCE PERSON AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT THE FACT IS THEY NEED TO HAVE A REALLY GOOD TEAM AND SHE CREATED A REALLY GOOD TEAM, AND THAT'S WHY THEY'VE BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL. 
          AND SO, UM, THAT'S PRETTY EXCITING. 
          UM, I JUST WANNA KIND OF SHARE, UM, I WAS IN ISRAEL IN MARCH AND THE KIBBUTZ THAT WAS HIT THE HARDEST WAS ONE THAT I WAS AT. 
          AND WE WERE FEARFUL OF THIS PARTICULAR PERSON, UM, WAS DEAD AND WE FOUND OUT TODAY SHE IS NOT. 
          AND SO THAT'S REALLY GREAT NEWS. 
          UM, I'M GONNA BE ON A ZOOM TOMORROW, JUST, I'M KIND OF DEBRIEFING ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITH MY GROUP. 
          UM, AND SO I JUST DON'T WANNA BE, UM, COGNIZANT OF WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN THE WORLD. 
          AND IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING TONIGHT, IT ALMOST JUST DOESN'T SEEM AS IMPORTANT. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          AND SO I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, SHARE, UM, THAT WITH YOU. 
          AND OTHERWISE, UH, LET'S SEE, ANYTHING ELSE IS GOING ON? UM, UH, NOPE. 
          I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT. 
          AND JUST, UM, BE KIND TO PEOPLE AND REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON, UH, BECAUSE, UH, THIS COULD END UP A WORLD WAR AND WE DON'T WANT THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          RICK, NOTHING TO REPORT OUT. 
          UH, FROM BIKING PED, WE SAW THE ACTIVE TRANSPORT, UH, THE A T P ACTIVE TRANSPORT PLAN, INCLUDING GOALS, VISION, POLICY, ACTIONS, UH, PROPOSED BY OUR PBAC AD HOC. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE GOING THROUGH A, UH, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. 
          AND AT THE LATE HOUR, I'M NOT FORGETTING THE DATE OF THE OPEN HOUSE, BUT PLEASE LOOK AT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COMMITTEE, ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE DATE OF THE OPEN HOUSE. 
          AND THEN WE'LL BE COMING BEFORE COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, JUST IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. 
          SO, UM, I HAVE A BRIEF COMMENT. 
          I, I ATTENDED, UH, COMMISSIONER KELLY'S, UH, CELEBRATION OF LIFE. 
          IT WAS EVERYBODY THERE WAS AS LOVELY 
          [03:40:01]
AS HE WAS. 
          AND I, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE EVER MET SO MANY PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSIONALS IN ONE ROOM IN YOUR LIFE, BUT IT, IT WAS, IT WAS QUITE IMPRESSIVE. 
          UH, AND THERE WAS EVEN SINGING OF, OH, DANNY BOY, AND WE DISCOVERED JUST WHO WAS TERRIBLE AT SINGING, THAT WOULD BE ME. 
          UM, AND, UM, JUST TO, I DIDN'T INTEND TO SHARE THIS, BUT, UM, JUST WANT TO SUPPORT THE VICE MAYOR'S REPORT. 
          I FOUND OUT MY FRIEND BARRY WAS ALIVE YESTERDAY. 
          WE THOUGHT HE WAS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE KIND TO EACH OTHER. 
          UM, TWO COMMENTS. 
          I, AND I'M SURE DID WITH ANDREW THE OTHER DAY, THAT THE, THE SOUTHERN ROUNDABOUT, UM, IS POORLY MAINTAINED OR UNMAINTAINED, THE LANDSCAPE IS DYING OR DEAD. 
          IT'S JUST A MESS. 
          AND I DON'T, AND ANDREW'S GONNA, HE THINKS IT'S PUBLIC WORKS IS RESPONSIBLE, BUT WE'RE CHECKING THAT OUT. 
          UM, AND THEN I ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE CITY HALL ENTRANCE IS ALSO A MESS IN TERMS OF, UH, DRIED DEAD EXPERIMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL, POLITICALLY CORRECT PLANTING THAT DIED AND NOTHING'S BEING DONE TO REPLACE IT. 
          THERE'S NO SHADE TREES THERE, THERE'S NO SENSE OF ENTRY. 
          AND IT'S A SHAME, IT'S AN EMBARRASSMENT FOR A CITY HALL. 
          AND THAT KIND OF A SHODDY ENTRANCE. 
          I SHARED THAT WITH ANDREW. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO STAFF 
          [STAFF COMMENT]
COMMENT. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CHAIR. 
          UM, THE, I WANTED TO, I THINK, I BELIEVE WE'VE GOT A, I COUNTED FIVE REGULAR MEETINGS THROUGH THE YEAR'S END, HOWEVER, ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS IS DECEMBER 26TH, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S A HOLIDAY FOR THE CITY. 
          SO THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO FOUR. 
          AND, UM, SO WE DO HAVE, UH, MEETING ITEMS FOR ALL OF THE REMAINING MEETINGS AS, AS WE DISCUSSED. 
          UM, WELL, AS YOU'RE ANTICIPATING, PROVIDED THAT WE, WE ARE ABLE TO ACHIEVE A QUORUM AND WE'RE GOING OUT FOR QUORUM CHECKS. 
          NOW, THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY WOULD COME BEFORE A JOINT, UM, PUBLIC HEARING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND H C P C ON OCTOBER 24TH. 
          SO, UM, AS SOON AS QUORUM IS CONFIRMED, WE'LL WE'LL ALERT YOU TO THAT. 
          THEN ON NOVEMBER 14TH, UH, AS WE DISCUSSED THIS EVENING, WE'D BRING FORWARD THE DRAFT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR YOUR REVIEW. 
          THEN WE HAVE TENTATIVELY A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, UM, WHICH IS, IS AGAIN, IS TENTATIVE, DEPENDING UPON HOW THE AGENDA, UM, IS, UH, IS CONSTRUCTED. 
          AND THEN NOVEMBER 28TH, IT, IT LOOKS LIKE WE WOULD HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. 
          ONE WOULD BE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN THE SECOND, UH, WOULD BE AN, AN OVERLAY, AN ADDITIONAL OVERLAY PROPOSAL. 
          THEN WE GO INTO DECEMBER WHERE WE HAVE A COMBINATION OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND THEN A REVIEW OF, OF, UM, ORDINANCES EITHER AT STUDY SESSION OR AT A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SO, UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF, OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED THROUGH THE REST OF THE YEAR, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE, UH, REQUESTING, UM, SCHEDULING OF A SPECIAL MEETING IN DECEMBER, BUT IF WE DID, THAT MAY BE DECEMBER 19TH. 
          SO JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND. 
          BUT WE WILL TRY TO AVOID THAT IF WE CAN CONSTRUCT THE OTHER AGENDAS ACCORDINGLY. 
          AND, UH, SO WITH THAT, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR THIS EVENING CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANDREW. 
          AND IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE WILL ADJOURN.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.