* 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.
          [00:00:01]
          GOOD EVENING 
          [CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 P.M.]
AND WELCOME TO THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL AND THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR MONDAY, APRIL 14TH, 2025. 
          UM, WE WILL HAVE LOTS OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, AND, UH, SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO FILL OUT A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD AND, UH, THEY'RE LOCATED IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM. 
          AND IF YOU BRING IT TO OUR CLERK, SHE'LL HAVE IT ON RECORD WHEN THE TIME COMES. 
          AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO NOW INVITE MONICA RICCIO AND MARIA GALVEZ TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THOSE WHO WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN SPANISH TONIGHT. 
          UH, YES, GOOD EVENING. 
          AND THANK YOU. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          AND WE ARE READY. 
          AND THANK YOU. 
          I'D LIKE TO ASK THE CLERK TO TAKE ROLE FOR US THIS EVENING. 
          BARNACLE PRESENT. 
          CATER THOMPSON. 
          HERE. 
          DI CARLY? HERE NOW. 
          HERE. 
          QUINT. 
          HERE. 
          SHRIVES. 
          HERE. 
          MCDONALD HERE. 
          WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND LET'S RISE FOR A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS FOR NATION AMERICA. 
          INVIS, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE NUMBER IN A MOMENT OF SILENCE. 
          AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO LOOK UP AND DOWN THE DIOCESE AND SEE IF WE HAVE ANY CHANGES, UH, OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA, WHICH IS, UH, KIND OF INTERESTING 'CAUSE SINCE THIS IS A WORK WORKSHOP, THERE IS, BUT ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AND I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO GO WITH THAT AGENDA. 
          AND, UM, TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS, 
          [WORKSHOP]
OF COURSE, UH, THE CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CHANGE, AREAS OF CHANGE, LAND USE DESIGNATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVES, AND TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT OF PREFERRED LAND USE MAP AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN. 
          UH, THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR, UH, QUITE A BIT. 
          AND, UM, TONIGHT, UM, WE INTEND TO, UM, TACKLE, TACKLE THAT, UH, BIG TOPIC AND WE'VE BROKEN IT DOWN INTO FIVE DISTINCT AREAS. 
          AND, UH, AFTER EACH OF THOSE DISTINCT AREAS, WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN BRING 'EM BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR, UH, DELIBERATION. 
          AND SO STAFF WILL TALK ABOUT, UH, OH, I, I WANNA REFRAIN FROM CALLING THEM BITE-SIZED PIECES, BUT PIECES THAT, UH, WE CAN, UH, GET THROUGH AND HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION ON BEFORE MOVING TO THE NEXT PIECES. 
          AND, UH, LET'S SEE. 
          THE, UH, FIRST SEGMENT IS ABOUT, UM, UM, UH, THE, THE BUSINESS DESIGNATIONS AND, UH, ALL THE UPSTREAM WORK WE TALKED ABOUT AT OUR LAST MEETING. 
          THE SECOND KIND OF COVERS THE, UM, MORE DENSE URBAN AREA. 
          UM, SO THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE UPSTREAM UPRIVER EFFORTS. 
          AND, UM, AND THEN WE MOVE INTO AREA WE HADN'T TALKED ABOUT AT OUR LAST, AND THOSE WOULD BE THE, THE LATTER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. 
          SO WE'LL START KIND OF WITH A RECAP OF WHAT WE HAD, UM, AT OUR LAST, I THINK MARCH 3RD MEETING. 
          AND, UM, WE'LL, UM, COUNSEL MAY HAVE QUESTIONS AS WE GO ALONG, BUT I'D LIKE TO TRY AND KEEP THE QUESTIONS IN, UM, INTERRUPTION OF, OF THE PRESENTATION TO SOMETHING OF A MINIMUM. 
          AND, AND THEN AT THE END OF THAT PRESENTATION, WE'LL GO DIRECTLY TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN COME BACK. 
          SO WE'RE NOT HAVING TO COUNSEL, TYPICALLY, WE WOULD HAVE COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COUNCIL COMMENTS 
          [00:05:01]
AT A LATER MOMENT. 
          WE WON'T. 
          WE'RE GONNA TRY AND PUT ALL THAT IN ONE COUNCIL OPPORTUNITY RATHER THAN TWO. 
          UM, ALSO, UM, WE, UH, UM, WE HA HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE INPUT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UH, AD HOC GROUP WHO'VE WORKED ON THIS DESIGNATION. 
          UH, I APPRECIATE, UH, YOU BEING IN THE, UM, AUDIENCE WITH US TONIGHT. 
          AND, AND, UM, FEEL FREE TO SPEAK AS, AS A PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY OF THE ITEMS OR EVERY OF THE ITEMS. AND THEN, UM, ALSO WE MAY CALL ON YOU TO KIND OF GIVE US A LITTLE CLARITY OR INSIGHT FOR THE PROCESS BECAUSE, UM, WE DO APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK YOU GUYS HAVE PUT IN OVER THE, YOU KNOW, IS IT, SO OVER A YEAR, IT'S GOT FOUR YEARS NOW, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? FOUR YEARS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, REALLY APPRECIATE, AND THAT BLINKING REALLY DIDN'T MEAN THE BATTERY WAS OUT, IT MEANT, UH, IT WANTED ME TO PASS THE, UH, CONVERSATION TO STAFF, WHICH I'LL DO. 
          AND, UH, TO, TO LEAD US OFF TONIGHT IS HEATHER HINES, OUR SPECIAL PROJECT MANAGER, AND SHE'LL INTRODUCE WHOM SHE HAS ASSISTING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          SO, UM, WE'RE PLEASED TO BE BACK BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING FOR A CONTINUED DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE AREAS OF CHANGE, UM, AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS. 
          SO I AM HERE WITH BRIAN O, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RON WHITMORE, PRINCIPAL WITH IAN ASSOCIATES, UM, FAMILIAR FACES ON THIS TOPIC. 
          UM, SO AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, WE WERE LAST BEFORE YOU ON MARCH 3RD. 
          AND AT THAT TIME WE REVIEWED THE EVOLUTION AND INCREASINGLY FOCUSED DISCUSSION ON LAND USE, WHICH IS, UM, I A BIG PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT THE KEY STRATEGIES, UH, THE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS THAT HAD BEEN DONE, OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, OUR FLOOD RESILIENCY MODELING, AND, UM, THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO DATE. 
          SO REALLY SETTING THE STAGE FOR WHAT HAS OCCURRED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS TO BRING US TO THIS POINT. 
          UM, SO THE CONVERSATION ON MARCH 3RD, THERE WAS A ROBUST CONVERSATION AND IT HAS PROMPTED ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS BY THIS TEAM TO RESPOND TO THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED. 
          UM, AND WE'RE BACK TONIGHT TO CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION. 
          UM, AND THAT IS INCLUDING BOTH REVISITING AREAS OF CHANGE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, UM, BUT ALSO HAVING DISCUSSION ABOUT THOSE AREAS WE DID NOT GET TO LAST TIME. 
          UM, AND JUST AS A REMINDER WHY WE ARE HERE, THIS DISCUSSION WILL INFORM PREPARATION OF A PREFERRED LAND USE MAP. 
          AND THAT WILL THEN, UM, KICK INTO PLACE A, A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL ANALYSES THAT WE WILL DO BASED ON THAT MAP BEFORE COMING BACK BEFORE YOU NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO I THINK IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO START WITH THE VALUES AND THE GOALS, UM, THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS. 
          UM, THESE VALUES AND GOALS HAVE REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AS WE HAVE EMBARKED ON THIS PROCESS. 
          AND THEY'RE THE VISIONING PRINCIPLES THAT WE KEEP COMING BACK TO WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LAND USE AND CONSIDERING LAND USE AS PART OF PETALUMA'S FUTURE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, SIMILARLY, THE CITYWIDE VISION HAS BEEN CONSISTENT AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY THE COMMUNITY, THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE CITY COUNCIL, AND ARE SEEN AS PART OF THE AREAS OF CHANGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING AND FOCUSING OUR LAND USE DISCUSSION ON THIS VISION REFLECTS INCREASING OPEN SPACE AND ACCESS ALONG THE RIVER, FOCUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY CORE, REDEVELOPING AND REVITALIZING KEY CORRIDORS, ESTABLISHING, ENHANCING 15 MINUTE CENTERS AND SUPPORTING NEIGHBORHOOD EVOLUTION. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO BASED ON THE CONSISTENCY OF THE VISION, THE VALUES, THE GOALS BASED ON THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CHANGE, 
          [00:10:01]
THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND THE FEEDBACK NEEDED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL LARGELY FOCUSES ON HOW MUCH CHANGE WE AS THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TEAM. 
          WE'RE NOT HERE IN AN ADVOCACY ROLE. 
          OUR JOB IS TO PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS, UM, AND PROVIDE THAT FEEDBACK. 
          SO TONIGHT WE'RE ASKING FOR MAJORITY FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON EACH OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR MODIFIED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT'S LAID OUT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND WILL BE PART OF TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION FOR EACH OF THE AREAS OF CHANGE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND AS I MENTIONED, THAT CONSENSUS FEEDBACK WILL, AND EACH OF THE 14 AREAS OF CHANGE WILL INFORM PREPARATION OF A PREFERRED LAND USE MAP. 
          WE WILL THEN TAKE, UM, THAT LAND USE MAP AND THERE WILL BE A SERIES OF TECHNICAL ANALYSIS THAT WILL TAKE PLACE AS SHOWN HERE. 
          UM, THESE WILL BE DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE HITTING ALL OF THE CRITERIA WE NEED TO HIT, LIKE NO NET LOSS, THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW THOSE LAND USE CHANGES, IMPACT OUR TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS, WHAT ARE THE FISCAL IMPACTS, AND THAT PREFERRED LAND USE MAP. 
          AND THESE STUDIES WILL COME BACK TO THE PUBLIC, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO ON MAY, MARCH 3RD AT THE COUNCIL WORKSHOP, UM, WE GOT SOME GREAT FEEDBACK AND WE'VE LOOKED CLOSELY AT HOW BEST TO RESPOND AS PART OF THIS CONTINUED DISCUSSION. 
          SO THESE ARE A SUMMARY OF THAT FEEDBACK AND YOU WILL SEE, UM, THIS FEEDBACK INCORPORATED INTO WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. 
          MODIFIED RECOMMENDATIONS IN SOME CASES, MORE INFORMATION, BACKGROUND, CONTEXT SETTING IN OTHERS. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, WE'VE BROKEN TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION INTO FIVE SEGMENTS. 
          UM, SO FOR EACH ONE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PRESENTATION, PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION AND STRAW POLL ON EACH OF THE ITEMS, UM, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE CLEAR FEEDBACK. 
          MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME TO TO, UM, PARTICIPATE AND SPEAK AT EACH AS PART OF EACH OF THESE SEGMENTS. 
          UM, WE ASK THAT YOU FOCUS YOUR COMMENTS ON THE SEGMENT WE ARE HAVE JUST PRESENTED ON. 
          UM, BUT JUST FOR THE INFORMATION OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE FOR EACH ONE. 
          THE FIRST TWO ARE GOING TO REALLY FOLLOW UP ON FEEDBACK FROM THE MARCH 3RD MEETING, UM, THEN MOVING INTO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CORRIDORS AND THE CENTERS OR NODES. 
          UM, AND THEN, UM, TOUCHING BACK ON LAND USE DESIGNATION STANDARDS, UM, FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION THAT MAY COME UP THROUGH THE EVENING. 
          WE'VE PUT TIMES HERE JUST AS GUIDELINES TO TRY TO, UM, MAKE EFFICIENT USE OF THE TIME TONIGHT. 
          SO GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS ASSET TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS. 
          UM, THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE GPAC HAVE REALLY DEMONSTRATED THEIR DEDICATION, UH, COME TO MEETINGS WELL INFORMED AND THOUGHTFUL. 
          UM, AND WE'VE HAD THE BENEFIT OF, UM, HAVING FLEXIBILITY IN THE WAY THIS GROUP MEETS AS A BOARD OF VOLUNTEERS TO BE ABLE TO MEET AROUND A TABLE, TO SPREAD OUT MAPS, TO HAVE MORE OF A DISCUSSION, UM, TO REALLY HAVE THAT ENGAGEMENT WITH GPAC, UM, ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE LOOKED AT AND TALKED ABOUT. 
          SO THEY'VE BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION EACH STEP OF THE WAY, INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT OF THE VISIONING MATERIALS, REVIEW OF THE EXISTING CONDITION STUDIES AND CONSIDERATION OF EACH OF THE POLICY FRAMEWORKS. 
          LAND USE IS OBVIOUSLY A BIG PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT OF THAT REALLY WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND. 
          THEY HAD SEVEN MEETINGS FOCUSED ON LAND USE. 
          UM, IN 2024, A WORKING GROUP WAS ESTABLISHED SPECIFICALLY TO LAND USE. 
          THERE WAS ONE 
          [00:15:01]
FOR EACH OF THE POLICY FRAMEWORKS. 
          UM, AND EXTENSIVE RECOMMENDATIONS CAME FROM THAT WORKING GROUP WAS THEN BROUGHT BACK TO THE G. 
          THE LARGER GPAC AND DISCUSSION OCCURRED, UM, FOR THE MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION FROM THE GPAC IN EARLY 2025. 
          WE'VE RETURNED TO THE GPAC, UM, AFTER DOING A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO DISCUSS WITH THE GPAC SOME OF THE CHANGES, SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT CAME FROM THOSE COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS. 
          AND THE GPAC MODIFIED SOME OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THAT AT THAT JANUARY MEETING. 
          SO THOSE ARE PRESENTED IN THE BRIEFING BOOK. 
          UM, THERE WERE A FEW NOTED, UM, IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS MEETING THAT THE CHANGE THAT HAPPENED IN JANUARY WASN'T ACCURATELY REFLECTED. 
          AND SO WE HAVE CLARIFIED THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          SO GPAC MEMBERS, THE ENTIRE GPAC WAS INVITED TO ATTEND THIS EVENING. 
          WE HAVE A COUPLE MEMBERS HERE, UM, THAT COULD BE A RESOURCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS WE MOVE THROUGH TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION. 
          UH, ONE FINAL NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          UM, ONE ADDITIONAL THING THAT HAPPENED SINCE THE MARCH 3RD WORKSHOP. 
          WE DID A DIRECT MAILING TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE AREAS OF CHANGE, APPROXIMATELY 160 PROPERTIES. 
          UM, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, UM, WHERE DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WILL, WILL END BASED ON THIS FEEDBACK. 
          UH, TONIGHT WE DID LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY'RE IN AN AREA OF CHANGE. 
          UM, LOTS OF RESOURCES PROVIDED AND STARTED THAT, UM, ONGOING DISCUSSION. 
          UH, WE WILL CONTINUE THAT DIRECT OUTREACH. 
          UM, AND WHILE WE'RE CREATING THE PREFERRED LAND USE MAP, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL CITYWIDE NOTIFICATION IN A SECOND ROUND OF PROPERTY OWNER, DIRECT PROPERTY OWNER OUTREACH, UM, WHEN THAT PREFERRED LAND USE MAP IS RELEASED AS WELL. 
          AND WITH THAT, I BELIEVE I'M HANDING IT OVER TO RON, WHO IS GOING TO, UM, START THE FIRST SEGMENT OF THE PRESENTATION COVERING MAKER MICRO BUSINESS DESIGNATION, UPSTREAM RIVER ADJACENT, AND THE OUTLETS DOWNSTREAM, RIVER ADJACENT AREA AND RIVER PARK AREA OF CHANGE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU HEATHER. 
          AND GOOD EVENING COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK HERE WITH YOU. 
          UM, AS BOTH THE MAYOR AND HEATHER MENTIONED, UM, WE'LL BE SHARING A SERIES OF BRIEF PRESENTATIONS COVERING SEVERAL TOPICS OR AREAS. 
          AND THEN AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT GROUP OF TOPICS, WE'LL TRANSITION TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND STRAW POLLING. 
          SO THE FIRST TWO PARTS OR SEGMENTS, UM, FOLLOW UP ON THE MARCH 3RD MEETING AS HEATHER MENTIONED. 
          AND IN THIS FIRST ONE, WE'LL FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON, UH, RIVER AREAS. 
          UM, AND TO DO THAT, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO FIRST, UM, FOLLOW UP ON THE ROBUST CONVERSATION WE HAD ON MARCH 3RD ABOUT THE MAKER SLASH MICRO BUSINESS DESIGNATION. 
          BECAUSE IT'S APPLIED, UM, IT'S PROPOSED TO BE APPLIED SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE RIVER ADJACENT AREA. 
          SO WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD TOUCH ON THAT FIRST AND THEN SHIFT OUR CONVERSATION TO THE AREA SPECIFIC. 
          UM, UH, QUESTIONS, UM, TO RECAP THE UM, OH, SORRY, TO RECAP, THE UM, MAKER MICRO BUSINESS DESIGNATION IS A PROPOSED NEW DESIGNATION THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY IN THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          ITS INTENT IS TO BE PRIMARILY USED FOR DEVELOPED AREAS ADJACENT TO THE RIVER THAT ARE SUBJECT TO INCREASED FLOODING, EITHER NOW OR PROJECTED IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND IT'S THE DESIGNED TO ALLOW CONTINUED ECONOMIC USES, BUT OTHERWISE LIMIT RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER USES THAT ARE SENSITIVE TO THOSE KNOWN FLOOD HAZARDS. 
          AS HEATHER MENTIONED DURING THE MARCH 3RD CONVERSATION, YOU GAVE US SOME VERY USEFUL AND CLEAR FEEDBACK. 
          PART OF THAT WAS THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT HOTEL WAS AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR THAT MAKER DESIGNATION. 
          ALSO THOUGHT THAT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL OF FOUR STORIES WAS TOO HIGH. 
          UM, AND SO WE'VE GONE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD TO ADJUST BOTH OF THOSE ASPECTS OF THE DRAFT DESIGNATION. 
          THIS IS THE SAME TABLE THAT YOU SEE YOU SAW ON THE STAFF REPORT, AND IT'S DESIGNED TO TACKLE BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES THAT YOU RAISED AT THE MARCH MEETING. 
          WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE MO LEFTMOST COLUMN 
          [00:20:01]
IS, UM, BOTH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED AND THEN, UH, HIGH LEVEL SUMMARIES OF, UH, THE BROADER RANGE OF TYPES OF USES THAT MIGHT BE PERMITTED IN THESE DESIGNATIONS. 
          SHOULD NOTE THAT, UM, IN THE GENERAL PLAN, THE INTENT IS TO LEAVE THE DEFINITION OF PERMITTED USES AT THIS FAIRLY HIGH LEVEL AND THEN ALLOW FOR THE MORE PRECISE DETAILED, UH, LISTS OF PERMITTED USES TO BE, UM, ELABORATED UPON IN THE UPDATE TO THE ZONING CODE. 
          AS IS CURRENTLY THE CASE, AND I BELIEVE IT'S TITLE FOUR OF THE IZO, THE NEXT THREE COLUMNS ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE YOU USEFUL COMPARATIVE INFORMATION, UM, COMPARING WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND PERMITTED USES FOR THE BUSINESS PARK NEXT TO THE SLIGHTLY MODIFIED VERSION OF THE PROPOSED MAKER MICRO BUSINESS, UM, DESIGNATION. 
          AND THEN BECAUSE THE QUESTION WAS ALSO RAISED AT THE MARCH MEETING, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE TWO DISTINCT DESIGNATIONS, WE PROVIDED A THIRD OPTION THAT WE'RE CALLING SINGLE COMBINED OPTION, UM, THAT YOU MIGHT WANNA CONSIDER, UM, IN LIEU OF, UH, HAVING BOTH BUSINESS PARK AND MAKER MAKER MICRO BUSINESS. 
          AS HEATHER MENTIONED, WE'RE GONNA KEEP THESE UPDATES RELATIVELY SHORT AND SWEET. 
          AND SO THAT IS THE, WHAT WE'VE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU, UM, FOR THE MAKER MICRO BUSINESS DESIGNATION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          I'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE THREE RIVER ADJACENT, UM, AREAS THAT YOU ALSO DISCUSSED DURING THE MARCH MEETING WITH THE UPSTREAM RIVER ADJACENT AREA, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE OUTLETS. 
          UM, YOUR CLEAR DIRECTION WAS TO MAXIMIZE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE OPEN SPACE AND AGAIN, TO KEEP, UM, RESIDENCES OUT OF PROJECTED FLOODS, HARMS WAY, MINIMIZE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA. 
          THIS IS A EXPLAIN IN MUCH GREATER DETAIL AND THE STAFF REPORT, BUT WE THOUGHT IT'D BE HELPFUL TO, IN A SUMMATIVE WAY KIND OF RECAP, UM, BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK AND STILL VERY CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING WE HEARD FROM THE GPAC AND THE BROADER PUBLIC. 
          UM, WE REALLY ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS AS, AS KIND OF A TWO-PRONGED APPROACH, A A LONG-TERM STRATEGY WHICH ULTIMATELY BEST ACHIEVES THE COMMUNITY GOALS, WHICH IS TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY EITHER IN COLLABORATION WITH FRIENDS OF THE RIVERS PETALUMA GREENWAY PROJECT, UM, OR PER OR ACQUIRE IT OUTRIGHT, UM, AS A CITY OR IN COLLABORATION WITH NONPROFIT PARTNERS. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY THE ULTIMATE GOAL, UM, WHICH, UM, WE CAN ADD TO THE GENERAL PLAN IN A VERY SPECIFIC WAY AS A STRATEGY TO PURSUE THE MORE NEAR TERM COMBINATION APPROACHES IS A LOT OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY, UM, IN THE LAND USE POLICY FRAMEWORK. 
          PLUS SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE'VE COME BACK TO YOU WITH TONIGHT WITH, UM, ON SOME OF THE LAND USE MAPPING THAT WE'LL SHOW YOU HERE IN A SECOND. 
          BUT IT INCLUDES MANY OF THE SAME THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT ON MARCH 3RD. 
          UM, THE TWO OF THESE ARE CURRENTLY INCORPORATED INTO LAND USE POLICY 5.1, THE NO BUILD RETENTION AREA, WHICH IS PURELY A FUNCTION OF THE SCIENTIFIC MODELING DONE TO PROJECT, PROJECT, UH, FUTURE, UH, FLOODING. 
          THE SECOND IS ALSO IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF LAND USE 5.1. 
          UM, THE RIVER BUFFER. 
          HOWEVER, IN THE DRAFT THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC AND THAT WE SHARED WITH YOU IN MARCH, IT HAD A 200 FOOT, UH, BUFFER ON THE NORTH SIDE IN THE UPSTREAM AREA AND 75 ON THE, ON THE EAST OR, UM, WESTERN SIDE, EXCUSE ME, WESTERN OR SOUTHERN SIDE. 
          AND SO WE WENT BACK, DID A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH, DISCUSSED IT WITH, UM, THE ATTORNEYS, AND CONFIRMED THAT A LOT OF THE SCIENCE WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO A HUNDRED METER OR 330 FOOT RIVER BUFFER. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING BE THE, THE PROPOSED REVISED BUFFER FOR THE UPSTREAM AREA TO COMPLEMENT THAT WE'D STILL CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. 
          AND THIS IS, UM, LARGELY ELABORATED UPON IN THE PARKS POLICY FRAMEWORK, BUT THE, UH, PLANS FOR, UH, RIVER PARK IN THAT UPSTREAM AREA AS WELL AS A RIVER GREENWAY, WHICH IS ADDRESSED BOTH IN THE PARKS FRAMEWORK AND THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY FRAMEWORK. 
          AND THEN, THOUGH WE DIDN'T TOUCH ON IT LAST TIME, ALTHOUGH I THINK ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS RAISED 
          [00:25:01]
A RELATED QUESTION, THE NOISE POLICY FRAMEWORK ALSO IDENTIFIES THE POTENTIAL NEED TO, UH, MITIGATE NOISE FROM HIGHWAY 1 0 1 AND SOME OF THOSE PARCELS THAT ABUT BOTH THE RIVER AND 1 0 1. 
          UM, AND THEN, UM, AT THE SAME TIME, CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM WHAT CURRENTLY IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UM, DOWN TO DIVERSE LOW RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND WE CAN LOOK AT THIS MORE CLOSELY TOGETHER, BUT THAT, UM, ALLOWS AND ENCOURAGES A CLUSTERED APPROACH TO RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO IT, IT, ON THE ONE HAND REDUCES THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY A BIT, BUT STILL ALLOWS PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR DEVELOPMENT. 
          BUT, UM, AVOIDS, UM, WHAT WE CLEARLY HAVE HEARD WAS THE, UM, LESS THAN DESIRABLE LOWER DENSITY, UM, TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL THAT YOU OTHERWISE, OTHERWISE MIGHT SEE. 
          AND SO WE THINK THAT THROUGH THAT COMBINATION OF NEAR TERM STRATEGIES IN CONJUNCTION, UM, WE GET MUCH CLOSER TO THE COMMUNITY'S VISION FOR THE UPSTREAM AREA WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF, OF CONTROLLING IT THROUGH OWNERSHIP. 
          ONE THING I SHOULD NOTE, AND THIS CAME UP THROUGH OUR, UH, DETAILED CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE COMBINATIONS OF STRATEGIES THERE IS CURRENT THERE IN THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN. 
          THERE IS A PROPOSED PARK FOR THE AREA, UM, THAT'S REINFORCED AND THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE LAND USE POLICY FRAMEWORK. 
          THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN CALLS FOR SEVEN ACRES, THE UPDATE, THE NEW POLICY FRAMEWORK CALLS FOR 10. 
          WE WILL HAVE TO CONFIRM, UM, IN MORE DETAIL, UM, HOW WHAT ACREAGE IS ACTUALLY APPRO APPROPRIATE, UM, AND CONSISTENT WITH, UM, BOTH THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN, UH, THE IZO, UM, AND WHAT OTHER ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE THAT APPLY TO DIFFERENT PARCELS IN THE UPSTREAM AREA, JUST TO GET, MAKE SURE WE GET THE ACREAGE CORRECT AND APPROPRIATE FOR, UM, FOR THE AREA. 
          SO WHEN YOU SEE THIS TOGETHER ON A MAP, THIS IS GENERALLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. 
          AND I SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS IS THE FIRST OF, UH, MANY SLIDES THAT YOU'LL SEE TONIGHT THAT HAVE EXCERPTS FROM THE UPDATED CITYWIDE LAND USE MAP, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET. 
          UM, AND, UH, ALSO INCLUDED ON HERE ARE EXCERPTS FROM THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, UM, ON PAGES SIX THROUGH EIGHT OF THE BRIEFING BOOK, JUST SO YOU HAVE A SENSE AND, AND A REMINDER HERE OF WHAT'S PERMITTED AND AT WHAT INTENSITY FOR EACH OF THESE PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS. 
          AND SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE ARE NOTHING, NOTHING NEWER, UNFAMILIAR WORKING YOUR WAY DOWN THE RIVER. 
          UM, LARGELY THE MAKER DESIGNATION AND THE AREA, THE PARCELS THAT ARE ALREADY, UH, DEVELOPED. 
          AND THEN A SHIFT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO DIVERSE LOW ON THE TWO PARCELS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SOUTHERNMOST, UM, UH, SECTIONS OF THIS UPSTREAM PART OF THE RIVER. 
          AND THEN THE HASHED BROADER, UM, OVERLAY PIECE, UH, NOT OVERLAY IN A, IN A, IN A ZONING CODE SENSE, BUT JUST, UM, ILLUSTRATIVE OVERLAY HERE. 
          THE RIVER BUFFER THAT DASHED IS THE, IS SHOWING WHAT WOULD, WHAT THAT A HUNDRED METER OR 330 FOOT, UM, SETBACK BUFFER WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          AND THEN THE LIGHTER, MORE IRREGULAR EDGED LAYER IS THE UPSTREAM RESILIENT SECTOR RETENTION AREA, WHICH IS BASED ON THE FLOOD MODELING. 
          SO HOPEFULLY ALL THAT IS CLEAR AND AND UNDERSTANDABLE, UM, IN A, IN A LAYERED, UH, PERSPECTIVE AS SEEN HERE. 
          IS THERE ANY WAY OF BLOWING THAT UP, MAKING IT BIGGER? UM, YES, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT DURING DISCUSSION IF IT'S HELPFUL TO SUPPORT THE COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION. 
          JUST WANTED TO ALSO SHOW THESE OTHER, UM, PORTIONS OF THE POLICY FRAMEWORKS THAT I MENTIONED THAT WE JUST DIDN'T GET INTO MUCH DETAIL ON LAST TIME. 
          UH, THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS, IS DIRECTLY FROM THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WHICH I KNOW IS UNDER CURRENT PUBLIC REVIEW, JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF SOME OF THE CURRENT AND PLANNED, UM, PATHWAYS IN THAT AREA. 
          UM, AND THIS COMPLIMENTS WHAT, AGAIN, THE DRAFT PARKS AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY FRAMEWORKS OUTLINE AS, UM, AREAS IN WHICH TO PRESERVE, UM, RIVER ADJACENT AND NEARBY, UM, CORRIDORS FOR THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT OF THIS EXTENSIVE PATHWAY NETWORK 
          [00:30:03]
TO CONTINUE THE DOWNSTREAM. 
          THIS A LITTLE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD, WE'RE SHOWING YOU THIS JUST TO REAFFIRM THE DIRECTION YOU GAVE US LAST TIME, UM, JUST TO CONFIRM THAT, UM, EVERYBODY'S CLEAR AND HAPPY WITH APPLYING THE MAKER DESIGNATION AND THIS DOWNSTREAM AREA, WHICH IS ALSO, UM, PROJECTED TO, UM, BE SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT FLOODING IN THE FUTURE IN THIS AREA, PARTICULARLY A COMBINATION OF SEA LEVEL RISE, KING TIDE AND STORM SURGED STORM SURGE, EXCUSE ME, AS DISCUSSED AT THE MARCH 3RD MEETING. 
          UM, THIS IS RECOMMENDED FOR MAKER MICRO BUSINESS AND, UH, THE COUNCIL MAR ON MARCH 3RD INDICATED OVERALL SUPPORT FOR THIS DESIGNATION. 
          SO WE'RE NOT COMING BACK WITH ANY MODIFICATIONS, JUST SHOWING YOU AGAIN WHERE MAKER WOULD APPLY. 
          AND SO IF YOU MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKER, UM, JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE LOCATIONS WHERE IT WOULD BE APPLIED. 
          AND THEN FINALLY FOR THIS SEGMENT IS THE RIVER PARK AREA. 
          AND WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS PER YOUR GUIDANCE, RETAINED THE STEP DOWN MIXED USE ON THE LARGER PORTION OF, UM, THE SITE, NO CHANGE THERE, BUT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST TO MAKE SURE THAT AREAS WITHIN A HALF MILE THE STATION CAN ACCOMMODATE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          WE'VE ADJUSTED THAT TO THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE, WHICH AS YOU CAN SEE ALLOWS, UM, UP TO FOUR STORIES 45 FEET. 
          UM, AND THAT WAS AN ADJUSTMENT FROM I, WHAT I THINK WE HAD AS MAKER, UH, IN THE RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATION IN MARCH. 
          SO THIS IS A, A MORE FLEXIBLE DESIGNATION THAT ALLOWS FOR HOUSING SECOND. 
          AND THAT CONCLUDES SEGMENT ONE OF OUR PRESENTATION. 
          UM, SO I THINK THE NEXT STEP IS TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN BACK TO COUNCIL Q AND A AND DISCUSSION. 
          RIGHT? UM, THANK YOU FOR RECAPPING THAT AND IDENTIFYING THE CHANGES FROM, UM, OUR LAST MEETING TO THIS MEETING. 
          AND AS NOTED, UH, NOW WE'LL GO TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT AND GENERALLY WE DO THAT THROUGH OUR CLERK. 
          UH, COULD YOU READ OUR MESSAGING HERE? ABSOLUTELY. 
          WE DID RECEIVE TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS, COMMENTS AHEAD OF THE MEETING. 
          THOSE ARE BOTH POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING IN PERSON SHOULD BRING THEIR SPEAKER CARDS TO THE CLERK'S DESK IF THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE. 
          SO. 
          SPEAKERS ARE REMINDED TO BE RESPECTFUL IN THEIR COMMENTS AND THAT THIS MEETING IS BEING TRANSLATED. 
          PLEASE PAUSE BETWEEN SENTENCES FOR TRANSLATION. 
          WE DID RECEIVE THREE CARDS AHEAD OF TIME, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE ON THIS SEGMENT. 
          RIGHT. 
          IF ANYONE WANTS TO FILL OUT A CARD AND BRING IT UP, I THINK WE HAVE A, A QUICK CLOCK RUNNING NOW AS ANY, IT'S A NICE FRIENDLY GROUP, I THINK WE CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN, BUT I'M GONNA ASSUME THAT IF YOU HAVE A CARD IN NOW, UH, YOU MAY HAVE A COMMENT ON EACH OR, UH, SEVERAL OF THE AREAS. 
          SO I'LL USE THIS AS THE BASIS FOR EACH TIME WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          UH, YOU DON'T NEED TO FILL OUT A CARD ON EACH ONE. 
          UM, OUR, AND, AND I'LL ASK, DO YOU, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM OR A LATER ITEM? AND OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS, UH, RICHARD THOMPSON TO BE FOLLOWED BY DARREN KUZEN. 
          UM, IS YOUR CONCERN ON WHAT WE'VE JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT? YES, YOUR HONOR. 
          YES. 
          UH, RICHARD THOMPSON, 1 9 5 CNA BAR, UH, THAT'S JUST BEHIND BRODY BRAKES OFF NORTH PEDAL BULL PEDAL PETALUMA BOULEVARD. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE TRACKS. 
          UM, I GUESS I HAVE A LOT OF CATCHING UP TO DO HERE. 
          SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S GONE ON AND I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO, UH, REALLY SEE THE SLIDES VERY, VERY WELL. 
          I PRESUME THAT OUR PROPERTY, OUR FOUR ACRES IS IN THAT AREA. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE DESIGNATION WOULD BE. 
          CURRENTLY IT'S ZONED EIGHT TO 18 UNITS AN ACRE. 
          UM, AND I'M A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED, UH, BY THE DOWN ZONING. 
          UH, WE HAD ALWAYS HOPED TO DO CLUSTER HOUSING THERE. 
          AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE, UH, TURNED DOWN SEVERAL OFFERS FROM DEVELOPERS, UH, OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS WANTING TO DO OTHER KINDS OF THE, IN PARTICULAR, THE FOLKS THAT WANTED TO DO THE ANDERSON PROPERTY. 
          THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY GONNA PLATFORM IT, PLATFORM THE LOTS AND CUT DOWN EVERY OAK TREE. 
          UH, WE'VE HAD, I HAVE A BACKGROUND IN LAND PLANNING AND I'M AN ARCHITECT, USED TO WORK WITH SOME OF THE BIG 
          [00:35:01]
DEVELOPERS LIKE PRESLEY AND, UH, PEOPLE LIKE THAT DOING LAND PLANNING AND, AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR MULTIFAMILY. 
          UH, OUR PROPERTY IS, UH, NOT OF A GREAT SLOPE. 
          IT'S A GENERAL SLOPE. 
          IT'S REALLY ON THE FLANK OF WHAT USED TO BE CALLED CINNABAR HILL. 
          UH, IT'S QUITE HIGH IN ELEVATION RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY AROUND IT, AND IS OF COURSE, PROTECTED BY THE D**E, FORMED BY THE, THE SMART LINE THAT GOES THROUGH WHICH ACTS AS A REAL EDGE. 
          SO I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE, THE RATIONALE FOR, UH, I'VE TRIED TO GET THAT FROM STAFF AND HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET A MUCH OF AN ANSWER ON THAT. 
          AND I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND AT LEAST WHAT THE RATIONALE IS FOR LOWERING A DENSITY WHICH RAISES THE PRICE OF HOUSING. 
          UM, I THINK AT, WITH CLUSTER HOUSING, WE COULD EASILY ACCOMMODATE BETWEEN 15 AND 18 UNITS AN ACRE ON THAT PROPERTY AND KEEP ALL THE OAK TREES, KEEP ALL THE HERITAGE JOKES. 
          THERE IS NO INDIAN BURIAL GROUNDS, THERE'S NO BID MOUNDS ON THAT PROPERTY. 
          'CAUSE I'VE DONE THE RESEARCH, SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT, WHAT CAUSES THAT. 
          UH, I'M NOT SURE WHAT KIND OF A DECREASE IN DENSITY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I'D HEARD IT WAS DOWN TO 15, BUT NOW I'M THINKING YOU FOLKS ARE AIMING FOR SOMETHING LOWER THAN THAT. 
          SO IF SOMEBODY COULD JUST TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT, I'D REALLY APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'M, I'M GONNA RUN THROUGH EACH OF THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN WHEN WE CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO STAFF TO, UM, MAKE ADDRESS OF THINGS THEY CAN MAKE ADDRESS OF TODAY. 
          AND, UM, AND I'D LIKE TO ASK THE CLERK TO, UH, HAVE OUR THREE MINUTE RUNNING CLOCK RUNNING AND, UM, DARREN KUZEN TO BE FOLLOWED BY MARY DOOLEY. 
          I WAS GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THEN MARY DOOLEY. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I'M MARY DOOLEY AND I AM ON THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND I KNOW WE'LL HAVE SOME, UH, QUESTIONS OR OPPORTUNITIES TO, UH, ANSWER OR SPEAK TO CERTAIN ITEMS THAT COME UP, BUT I JUST WANTED TO, UM, KIND OF GIVE A GENERAL PICTURE OF OUR FOUR YEARS OF WORKING ON THIS COMMITTEE, UH, WITH PROBABLY, I'M ACTUALLY HAVE LOST COUNT. 
          WE STARTED WITH 21 MEMBERS AND, UM, TWO BECAME COUNCIL MEMBERS DURING THAT PROCESS. 
          AND WE WERE ON A WORKING GROUP TOGETHER, WHICH WAS THE OPEN SPACE WORKING GROUP. 
          SO WE REALLY SPENT A LOT OF ENERGY LOOKING AT THE UPPER REACH OF THE RIVER. 
          AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S, UM, I THINK IS THE HIGHLIGHT AND THAT'S WHY I'M SPEAKING IN THIS SEGMENT. 
          UM, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT MAKES PETALUMA UNIQUE? IS IT THE SURROUNDING A, UH, AGRICULTURE AND THE HISTORIC CORE? THOSE ARE PRETTY COMMON FINDINGS IN CALIFORNIA. 
          I HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU, BUT WHAT SETS PETALUMA APART IS WHAT PEOPLE DIDN'T BUILD. 
          AND THAT'S THE WETLANDS, THE WATERSHED, THE TIDAL SLEW THAT WE CALL A RIVER. 
          AND THE WATERSHED IS ALL FROM SONOMA MOUNTAIN. 
          SO WHAT, WHAT WE LISTENED TO THROUGH OUR, UH, PROCESS OF, UM, PRETTY EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY OUTREACH DURING THAT, THAT PHASE BEFORE WE GOT TO THE LAND USE PHASE WAS, UM, A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF THAT UPSTREAM RIVER AND, UM, FROM ORGANIZED GROUPS THAT WE'VE MENTIONED TONIGHT, LIKE THE FRIENDS OF THE PETALUMA RIVER, TO PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE LANDSCAPE AND TREES AND, UM, BIOLOGISTS AND, UM, HABITAT RESTORATION PEOPLE. 
          SO, UM, A LOT OF INPUT THAT WE TRANSLATED INTO, UH, PRESERVE, RESTORE, PROTECT. 
          UM, SO I THINK I, IT JUST IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT THAT TIME WAS SPENT AND THESE, THIS IDEA OF THIS, UM, CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OR, OR DOWN ZONING IS WASN'T, UM, A SMALL GROUP. 
          IT WAS VERY INTERACTIVE. 
          UM, AND, UH, I THINK LASTLY JUST ON THIS TOPIC, UM, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT WE DO HAVE THIS URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, WHICH IS ANOTHER ASPECT THAT MAKES PETALUMA SO SPECIAL. 
          SO IF WE ARE HOLDING THE LINE ON THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, WE HAVE A GREEN BELT, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT, AND WE HAVE A RIVER THAT RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF OUR TOWN, WHICH IS INCREDIBLY UNIQUE. 
          WE HAVE OTHER PLACES THAT WE CAN DO HOUSING AND BUILD HOUSING, AND WE WANNA DO THAT WHERE 
          [00:40:01]
THERE'S ALREADY DEVELOPMENT, WHERE THERE'S ALREADY INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT IS REALLY LOGICAL SOUND PLANNING. 
          SO THAT'S THE BASIS FOR WHERE WE ARE, UM, WITH THAT AREA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I APPRECIATE ALL THE GPAC EFFORTS, UH, TO GET US TO THIS POINT. 
          ALL THE LISTENING THAT WAS DONE. 
          AND THAT WILL, UH, CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT THIS LITTLE SEGMENT AND LIKE BRING IT BACK TO STAFF AND ASK THEM IF THEY HAVE A, UM, COMMENT, UM, MAYBE A PATHWAY FOR, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          YES. 
          UM, SO I THINK OUR, MY EMAIL TO YOU MISSED YOU TODAY. 
          UM, BUT I DID, UH, RESPOND WITH SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 
          SO THE DIVERSE LOW DENSITY DESIGNATION DOES ALLOW CLUSTERED HOUSING, UM, DOES ALLOW BOTH SINGLE FAMILY PLEXES AND MULTIFAMILY. 
          IT IS, UM, UH, A REDUCTION IN DENSITY FROM THE CURRENT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GOES UP TO 18 UNITS AN ACRE. 
          THE PROPOSED DIVERSE LOW DENSITY DESIGNATION IS TO 15 UNITS AN ACRE. 
          SO IT IS A SMALL REDUCTION IN DENSITY. 
          UM, WE ARE LOOKING AND IS PROPOSED FOR THAT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO ACTUALLY INCREASE TO 22 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS LOOKED AT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS THAT AREA, THOSE CENTER BAR PARCELS HAVING A LOT OF, UM, SITE SPECIFIC UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS, THE TREES, UM, THERE IS SLOPE IN, IN THAT AREA. 
          THERE ARE PARCELS THAT HAVE THAT RIVERFRONT, UM, RIPARIAN CORRIDOR. 
          THERE IS CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THAT AREA. 
          SO, UM, WHILE I'M SURE YOU KNOW THE BEST ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES AND THE SLOPE ON YOUR SPECIFIC PARCELS, I DO BELIEVE YOUR PARCEL IS ONE WITH A LOT OF TREES ON IT. 
          AND I, I TEND TO REMEMBER CHATTING WHEN A DEVELOPER WAS LOOKING AND WANTED TO BRING YOUR PROPERTY IN AND YOU, YOU INDICATED A STRONG CONNECTION TO THE, THE TREES ON YOUR PROPERTY. 
          SO, UM, I, I BELIEVE, UM, YOUR PROPERTY HAS A LOT OF TREES, SO IT IS A SMALL REDUCTION IN DENSITY, UM, BEING PROPOSED IN THIS AREA. 
          AND THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, POTENTIAL AND THE, AND THE CHALLENGES. 
          SO THAT IS HOW WE GOT HERE TODAY WITH THAT REDUCTION. 
          UM, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          UM, LET ME JUST ASK ONE FOLLOW UP. 
          UM, WHERE DOES THE, UM, RIVER UPSTREAM RIVER END RE RELATIVE TO THIS PROPERTY? CAN WE PULL UP THAT, UH, END THIS? WHERE DOES THE NORTH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR END? THIS PROPERTY IS SOUTH OFSBAR, SO IT DOES NOT HAVE RIVERFRONT. 
          UM, SO IT BELIEVES THE REAR PROPERTY LINE IS ALONG THE RAILROAD. 
          SO THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO, IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO LOOK AT, UM, REDUCING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE MEDIUM DENSITY IBEL, I BELIEVE THE THOMPSON'S PARCEL IS THAT BOTTOM ONE WITH THE CLUSTER OF TREES IN THE HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE THERE? NO, IT'S THE FOUR SIDED, UH OH. 
          IS IT ONE UP THERE? IT'S THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE'S MANY LESS TREES ON ON. 
          OKAY. 
          OUR PROPERTY, THERE'S TWO, TWO GROVES ESSENTIALLY. 
          SO, UM, THERE, THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION AND, AND MODIFICATION AT THE FEEDBACK OF THE COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THANK YOU AND, AND APPRECIATE IT. 
          AND I, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE CONVERSATION AND INPUT FROM THE, THE LANDOWNER AND I'D LIKE TO BRING IT UP TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE, THE WHOLE OF THE, UH, PRESENTATION HERE SO FAR. 
          I'D LIKE TO START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SHRI. 
          YEAH, A COUPLE QUESTIONS. 
          UH, FIRST OFF, YOU BROUGHT UP THE, UM, COMPARING BUSINESS PARK VERSUS MAKERSPACE AND I THOUGHT I'D, UM, HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS ALLOWED IN BUSINESS PARK AND NOT ALLOWED VERSUS A MAKERSPACE ALLOWED AND NOT ALLOWED VERSUS A COMBINATION. 
          AND FOR, UH, FOR PARTICULARLY THE POSSIBILITIES COMING OUT OF THIS MIGHT BE, UM, WITHIN ONE OF THESE OR BOTH OF THESE, COULD AMAZON BUILD A DISTRIBUTION CENTER HERE FOR, FOR SOMETHING? COULD LAB CON BUILD THE UM, UH, THE BUILDINGS THAT THEY HAD PROPOSED? HOW ABOUT LAGUNITAS AND AMY'S, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO DO A, UM, ARE THEY TOO BIG FOR A MAKERSPACE? 
          [00:45:01]
UH, IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING, UH, ON A LARGER SCALE THAN WHAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY DOING? SO HOW LARGE, UM, WOULD A MAKERSPACE BE ALLOWED BEFORE IT TURNS INTO HEAVY INDUSTRY OR MANUFACTURING? SO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          UM, A LOT OF THE DETAIL ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMES DOWN TO THE ZONING CODE. 
          SO THE GENERAL PLAN IS KIND OF YOUR, YOUR HIGH LEVEL 30,000 FEET AND THEN THE ZONING CODE IMPLEMENTS THAT AND GETS MORE SPECIFIC. 
          BUT, UM, THE PROPOSED USES HERE THAT ARE SHOWN ALONG THAT LEFT HAND, UM, YOU KNOW, LAGUNITAS IS PROBABLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING. 
          UM, WHEREAS OTHER, WE, A FEW YEARS AGO WE, UM, ADDED THE ARTISAN CRAFT MANUFACTURING LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR SMALLER, THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING WE DID FOR SOME OF OUR SMALLER FOOD AND BEVERAGE MANUFACTURERS THAT IMPACTS WERE DIFFERENT THAN LARGER ONES. 
          UM, BOTH OF THOSE ARE PERMITTED IN BUSINESS PARK PROPOSED FOR MAKER MICRO BUSINESS AND SO ARE SHOWN ALSO IN THE SINGLE COMBINED. 
          SO THERE'S NOT A LIMIT. 
          THERE'S VERY FEW LAND USES IN OUR CURRENT CODE THAT ARE LIMITED BY SIZE. 
          I THINK IT IS GROCERY STORE, GENERAL RETAIL, AND, UM, HOME LIKE HARDWARE STORE I THINK ARE THE THREE THAT WE, UM, DO HAVE A THRESHOLD OF SIZE OF 25,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          ONE, IF YOU'RE 25,000 SQUARE FEET ARE LOWER, YOU'RE PERMITTED. 
          AND IF YOU'RE MORE THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE CONDITIONAL BECAUSE WE DETERMINE THAT THE IMPACTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM, UH, 50,000 GENERAL RETAIL THEN A 15,000 GENERAL SQUARE FOOT GENERAL RETAIL. 
          BUT THERE ARE VERY FEW LAND USE CATEGORIES IN OUR CURRENT CODE THAT ARE DIFFERENTIATED BY SIZE. 
          SO JUST CLEAR THAT SO THAT IF, UM, 'CAUSE I KNOW AMAZON'S COMING IN FROM NAPA AND THEY REALLY NEED A DISPUTE CENTER MAYBE CLOSER TO SANTA ROSA, AND THEY MAY LOOK AT US AND SAY, OH, OPPORTUNITY HERE. 
          SO THEY, THEY MIGHT THINK ABOUT, OH, LET'S BUILD A 30 OR 40,000 SQUARE FOOT DISTRIBUTION CENTER HERE. 
          UM, AND WOULD THAT BE PERMITTED WITHIN THIS STRUCTURE? UH, WOULD THAT BE AN ACCEPTABLE, UH, USE? I, UH, I'M THINKING I, I'D HAVE TO LOOK, I'D HAVE TO DIG INTO SOME OF THE, UM, DEFINITIONS. 
          I CAN CIRCLE BACK WITH YOU ON THAT. 
          I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 
          RIGHT. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CHECK OUT WHERE, WHERE THE LIMITS ARE, UM, IN CASE SOMEONE EITHER LARGER WANTS TO STEP INTO A LARGER STRUCTURE TO DO SOMETHING, UM, WHETHER THE BUSINESS PARK, UM, 'CAUSE THAT TENDS TO BE, AGAIN, JUST DIFFERENTIATING THESE TWO THINGS. 
          IF I COULD, IF I COULD JUST ADD, WHEN OUR TEAM LOOKED AT THIS, WE, FOR THE TIME BEING ASSUMED WE'D FOLLOW THE SAME DISTINCTION AS YOU CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE ZONING CODE OF YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. 
          IT, AS HEATHER MENTIONED, THERE'S KIND OF ABOVE AND BELOW 25,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          SO WE KIND OF ASSUMED WE'D FOLLOW THAT SAME CUTOFF TO DISTINGUISH OKAY. 
          GOOD. 
          CONDITIONAL FROM PERMITTED USES. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO, UM, UH, UH, IN THE RIVER PARK AREA AND VERSUS THE, UM, GREENWAY, SO YOU'RE PROPOSING A 330 FOOT BUFFER, UM, IN THE GREENWAY, BUT IF WE APPLY THAT BUFFER IN THAT ZONE, IN THAT AREA OF THE TOWN, WOULD IT NOT ALSO APPLY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE, UH, RIVER CORRIDOR? IN OTHER WORDS, IT WOULD BE 330 FEET ALSO FOR THE RIVER PARK AREA AND EVEN FURTHER SOUTH UNTIL YOU HIT THE EDGE OF TOWN. 
          WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT BUFFER APPLY THE WHOLE RIVER OR ARE WE ACTUALLY DESIGNATING ONLY THE UPPER RIVER? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. 
          UM, THIS ALL WAS ARTICULATED ORIGINALLY IN, UH, POLICY 5.1 OF THE DRAFT LAND USE POLICY FRAMEWORK. 
          AND IT IN TURN DID ITS BEST TO FOLLOW WHAT'S IN THE, UH, RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN. 
          AND THE RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN DISTINGUISHES THREE SEGMENTS OF THE RIVER. 
          THERE'S AN UPSTREAM SEGMENT, ROUGHLY NORTH OF THE WEIR, THE CORE SEGMENT BETWEEN THERE AND I FORGET THE EXACT CUTOFF POINT IN THE SOUTH, BUT THEN A SOUTHERN SEGMENT. 
          AND SO FOLLOWING THAT AND KNOWING THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE UNDEVELOPED, UM, RIVER ADJACENT PARCELS OR UPSTREAM, OUR INITIAL THOUGHT WAS TO YOU APPLY THE 300 FOOT BUFFER JUST IN THAT UPSTREAM AREA AND THEN OTHERWISE STAY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME DIRECTLY OUTTA THE ENHANCEMENT PLAN, WHICH I THINK WAS A 25 FOOT BUFFER 
          [00:50:01]
THROUGH THE CORE OF THE TOWN. 
          AND THEN BROADEN TO IF MEMORY SERVES IT, I COULD, I COULD CHECK REALLY QUICK, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S, I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, UH, WHERE WE ARE APPLYING THIS. 
          YEAH, SO JUST TO TO TO YOUR QUESTION, IT WOULD NOT APPLY AT THE RIVER PARK BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC BOTH PARK AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED OBJECTIVES FOR THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THEIR PLANS AND, UH, I'M THINKING, UH, THEY COULDN'T, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT, LOOK, YOU DON'T HAVE 330 FEET WITHIN THEIR PLANTS, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IF WE DO IT, THEN THE OTHER ISSUE WE HAVE IS BECAUSE THE RIVER I THINK OFFICIALLY ENDS AT THE CEMENT WALL UP THERE JUST BEFORE THE GREENWAY, THERE IS A, UM, UH, CEMENT WALLS ON EITHER SIDE AND I THINK AT THAT POINT IT ACTUALLY OFFICIALLY IS A CREEK, UH, BECAUSE THAT AREA COULD DRY OUT ONCE IN A WHILE RATHER THAN BEING A RIVER. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT LEGAL DESIGNATION IS. 
          AND IF WE HAVE 330 FEET THERE, UM, IF IT IS A CREEK UP THERE IN THAT UPPER RIVER AREA, THEN WOULD IT ALSO 300 FEET APPLY TO THE THREE OR FOUR OTHER CREEKS THAT ARE ALSO COMING INTO THE, THAT SECTION. 
          SO WE HAVE, UH, SEVERAL JUNCTIONS THERE. 
          AND THE 330 FEET, WOULD THAT ALSO INCLUDE SEVERAL, RIGHT? IN THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE GREENWAY, THERE'S SEVERAL OF THOSE THAT, UM, WILL BE BE TRANSFERRING WATER UNDER THE FREEWAY COMES UNDER AND, AND FLOWS THROUGH. 
          SO IT WOULD 300 FEET APPLY TO THOSE ALSO. 
          THAT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL IDEA. 
          UM, WE DO RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR A BUFFER, UM, OF SOME SORT ALONG EACH OF THE, UH, RIPARIAN AREAS IN THE CITY, BUT UM, DID NOT CONSIDER APPLYING THE 300 FOOT BUFFER, UM, FROM, RIGHT. 
          SO I JUST WANNA BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT FROM THE THEATERS FOR THAT UPSTREAM AREA WHEN WE'RE DOING THIS, THE LEGALITY OF HOW IF WE DO IT ONE SPOT, DO WE HAVE TO DO IT IN OTHER SPOTS AND ALSO THE CREEKS VERSUS RIVER AND WE HAVE TO COMPENSATE WHAT'S THE CREEK AND WHAT'S THE RIVER 'CAUSE IN THAT AREA, UM, THAT COULD BE CLAIMED. 
          IT'S NOT A RIVER, IT'S A CREEK IN THAT AREA. 
          IT DOESN'T APPLY. 
          SO, UH, I JUST WANT TO BE, UH, BE MAKE SURE WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD LEGALLY IN, UH, BECAUSE HAVING WORKED IN, IN AGRICULTURE WHERE THEY, THEY WENT FROM 50 TO A HUNDRED TO 300 TO 500 FEET IN SOME LOCATIONS FOR SETBACKS OF THINGS FOR AGRICULTURE. 
          UM, UH, MAKE, MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THE LEGALITIES THERE, UH, SO THAT WE WRITE IT CORRECTLY FOR, FOR WHAT WE WANT. 
          THEN ON THE, UM, UH, IN THE MO IN, UH, NOISE MITIGATION, UM, ONCE WE WRITE THAT UP FOR, ESPECIALLY FOR THE FREEWAY, WE WANT TO REDUCE THAT DOWN. 
          BUT ONE OF THE CONCERNS FROM THE CEMENT PLANT WAS THAT IT'S, IT'S NOISY WHEN THEY'RE OPERATING. 
          WOULD IT, WOULD OUR NOISE MITIGATION APPLY TO THEM AND THEN STOP THEIR BUSINESS? THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. 
          I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS, AND WE HAVE THIS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES PETALUMA UNIQUE IS THE, THE POCKETS OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          UM, THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN BEING AN EXAMPLE WHERE THAT, THAT CALLED FOR HOUSING ADJACENT TO EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES. 
          AND ONE OF THE THINGS, ONE OF THE PROVISIONS IN THAT SPECIFIC PLAN WAS THE RESIDENTIAL NEEDS TO BE AWARE AND EVEN SIGN SOMETHING SAYING, WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE MOVING IN NEXT TO A CREAMERY OR A, YOU KNOW, UH, A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT AND IT THAT COMES WITH NOISE. 
          AND SO THAT IS NOT THE INTENT TO DO NOISE MITIGATION THAT IS GOING TO PUT EXISTING, UM, AGRICULTURAL USES OUT OF BUSINESS. 
          UM, OUR CURRENT GENERAL PLAN HAS, UM, NOISE, UH, CONTOURS OF THE LARGEST NOISE PRODUCERS. 
          IT'S TYPICALLY THE ROADWAYS, IT'S TYP OR IT'S THE AIRPORT'S, THE HIGHWAY, IT'S OUR ARTERIALS AND IT GRADE GRADES. 
          UM, WHAT TYPE OF USES ARE, UM, PROHIBITED ALLOWED, MAYBE CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED WITHIN CERTAIN, UM, NOISE LEVELS AND, AND REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN MITIGATIONS HAPPEN. 
          SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LOOK AT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIGHWAY 1 0 1, FOR INSTANCE, IS EITHER SETTING USES FURTHER AWAY, SOMETIMES THERE'S BEEN SOUND, SOUND WALLS REQUIRED IN CERTAIN AREA OR ALONG SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY WHERE ADDITIONAL FENCING OR VEGETATION IS USED TO BUFFER THAT SOUND. 
          SO IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON, ON THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, BUT THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD THING. 
          IT WAS JUST LIKE, UM, I KNOW THAT THE FREEWAY HAS BEEN AN ISSUE 'CAUSE I I, IT'S LOUDER NOW FOR ME IN, IN MY HOUSE, SO I I KNOW IT'S LOUDER. 
          UH, NOW THERE USED TO BE, UH, BEFORE THE RAINIER OVERPASS WENT IN. 
          UM, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE DO NOISE MITIGATION, THAT WE BE CAUTIOUS AND CAREFUL 
          [00:55:01]
THAT THE INDUSTRIAL SITES THAT ARE IN TOWN THAT, THAT HAVE KEEPING THIS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND, AND BUILDING THE CEMENT, THE GRAVEL, UH, THAT'S DOWN RIVER A LITTLE BIT GRAVEL OPERATION. 
          UM, AND THEN WE HAVE THE CREAMERY DOWNTOWN AND THEN WE HAVE BARONS, UH, IN THE CENTER OF TOWN ALSO, UM, CAN BE PRETTY NOISY AT TIMES, EVERYTHING. 
          SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UH, WHEN WE WRITE THESE RULES UP THAT UM, EITHER THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR, OR WE WILL DO SOME MITIGATIONS IF IT REACHES A CERTAIN LEVELS, BUT MAKE SURE WE'RE, THEY CAN STAY FUNCTIONAL IF THEY SO WISH. 
          'CAUSE THAT'S PART OF OUR CHARACTER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU KNOW, I DO WANNA DO, UM, NOTE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING DIRECTION. 
          AND SO I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO, ON THAT FIRST POINT ABOUT AMAZON, UH, EXPRESS A PREFERENCE TO, UH, FOR OR AGAINST THE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT THING. 
          UH, WERE YOU ADVOCATING ONE POSITION OR ANOTHER? UM, NO, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT, WHAT WE ALLOWED IN CASE SOMETHING CAME IN. 
          UM, I THINK, UH, IF THERE WAS AN APPROPRIATE SPOT SOMEWHERE, UM, MAYBE RONER PARK, SANTA ROSA, UH, IT, I SUSPECT THAT THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT SHELLVILLE AND THAT GOT REJECTED, UH, FROM SHELLVILLE. 
          SO I ASSUME THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A SPOT BETWEEN HERE AND SANTA ROSA. 
          SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, UM, DO WE WANT THAT IN OUR TOWN OR NOT? SHOULD WE PREVENT IT OR NOT? I, I THOUGHT I JUST RAISED THE QUESTION AND FOR COUNCIL TO THINK ABOUT AND, AND, AND I'M SURE COUNCIL WILL AND I'M SURE WE'RE, UM, UH, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT THAT DIRECTLY AT THIS TIME AND I THINK THAT THE 25,000 IS GONNA BE THE, THE ISSUE THAT'S ON THE TABLE FOR US. 
          AND SO WE'LL EITHER, UM, OBJECT TO THE 25,000 OR BE QUIET ON IT. 
          'CAUSE WE ACCEPT THAT I'M FINE WITH THE 25,000. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT SUSPECT THEY, THEY MIGHT COME IN AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE, UH SURE. 
          ON THAT. 
          UH, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT. 
          BUT I JUST THOUGHT, JUST RAISE IT AS A POSSIBILITY 'CAUSE I CAN SEE IT VISION THAT IT HAPPENING. 
          SURE. 
          UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, QUINT, DO YOU WANNA WEIGH IN? YEAH, I HAD, UH, JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. 
          UM, ON THE, SO ON THE MICRO BUSINESS DESIGNATION, UM, I SEEM TO RECALL IN OUR LAST DISCUSSION, MAYBE I, MAYBE I'M GETTING THIS WRONG, BUT, UH, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE, UH, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE HOPES FOR THIS IS THAT IT PROMOTES, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME CREATIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE SEE THE THEATER GOING IN AT THE OUTLETS AND WE THINK THAT THAT MAY EVOLVE INTO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ANTICIPATED. 
          AND SO, UM, SO I WAS, I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT, UM, THE, UH, THE DAYCARE AND THE RECREATION I NOTICED WE'RE NOT PERMITTED IN THOSE AND SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. 
          WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE THAT IN HERE IS BECAUSE THE MAKER MICRO BUSINESS DESIGNATION IS BEING PROPOSED IN SOME OF THE AREAS WHERE WE'RE ANTICIPATING, UM, MORE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM FLOODING, STORM SURGE, UM, AND, AND ENSURING THAT WE'RE KEEPING SENSITIVE RECEPTORS OUT OUT OF THOSE AREAS. 
          SO THE MAKER MICRO BUSINESS DOES NOT ALLOW, UM, RESIDENTIAL FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON, BECAUSE WE WANT TO LIMIT THE EXPOSURE TO RESIDENTIAL IN THE AREAS THAT WE KNOW, UM, ARE GOING TO SEE MORE FLOODING, MORE IMPACTS FROM STORM SURGE. 
          UM, NOISE IS ANOTHER ONE. 
          SO WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT, UM, THE POSSIBILITY OF COMBINING BUSINESS PARK AND MAKER MICRO BUSINESS, THAT'S KIND OF A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING BUSINESS PARK THAT DOES ALLOW ADULT DAY CHILD DAYCARE MAKER MICRO BUSINESS THAT WE WERE PROPOSING WOULDN'T BECAUSE THOSE ARE KIND OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IN AN AREA WITH IMPACTS. 
          AND SO I THINK, I THINK WE, IN THE SINGLE COMBINED OPTION, THAT WAS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, RIGHT? DO YOU ALLOW 'EM, DO YOU NOT, DO YOU MAKE THEM CONDITIONAL? MAYBE THERE'S AREAS THAT MAKER OR WOULD BE APPLIED THAT DON'T HAVE THOSE LIKE EXISTING BUSINESS PARK AREAS THAT DON'T HAVE THE FLOOD UM, IMPACTS. 
          AND SO MAYBE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THERE. 
          SO YOU LOOK AT IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS IF YOU WERE TO COMBINE THE TWO. 
          SO THAT'S SOME OF THE THOUGHT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UH, ON THE, UM, ON THE STEP DOWN MIXED USE FOR THE RIVER PARK AREA, UM, SO DOES THAT ALLOW FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL, UM, OR ALL? WELL, YEAH, I WOULD THINK, UH, EITHER ALL RE I WOULD, THE QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE ALL RESIDENTIAL OR 
          [01:00:01]
ALL BUSINESS, BUT, UH, I'M, I'M REALLY MORE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DOES A A A BUILDING NEED TO HAVE A, UM, A NON-RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT TO IT. 
          SO THE STEP DOWN MIXED USE DOES ALLOW STANDALONE COMMERCIAL, STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL, VERTICAL MIXED USE AND HORIZONTAL MIXED USE. 
          IT DOES HAVE, AND IT DOES NOT HAVE A MINIMUM GROUND FLOOR ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT IN THE STANDARDS TABLE AS THEY'RE CURRENTLY WRITTEN. 
          SO IT WOULD ALLOW A STANDALONE THANK YOU. 
          PRESIDENTIAL, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          YEP. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND AS WE, UH, A A AS WE GET TO THE END OF OUR, UH, COMMENTS HERE, WE'LL WE'LL DO A LITTLE BIT OF STRAW POLLING AS TO OKAY. 
          SO WHAT ALL THAT THOUGHT AND TALK MEAN AND, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL COME BACK TO IS, UM, IS THE MI IS THE, UH, MIX, IS THE, UH, MAKER, UM, A GOOD, ARE WE GONNA STAY WITH THAT, UH, DESIGNATION OR DO WE WANT TO GO TO COMBINE, WHICH WOULD BE ONE OF THE, UH, STRAW POLLS WE DO. 
          UH, COUNCIL MEMBER DI CARLY, UM, WELL THANK YOU FOR GIVING THAT SO MUCH ATTENTION, MAKERSPACE AND, AND EVERYTHING. 
          SO I KNOW WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT A LOT AND, UM, YEAH, SO I I UM, I WAS GONNA ASK IF WE'RE GONNA COME BACK AND MAKE A DECISION. 
          KEVIN JUST ANSWERED THAT FOR US, BUT, UM, I MEAN I I'M THE, THE NAME TOO. 
          I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM. 
          AND I THINK TOO, IF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE AN APPLICANT OR A PROPERTY OWNER AND YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOUR, WHAT YOUR LAND USES ARE, WHAT YOU'RE ZONED AS, I THINK PEOPLE ARE GONNA LOOK AT IT AND, AND BE CONFUSED. 
          UM, SO IT'S, IT'S ALREADY SO SIMILAR TO BUSINESS PARK THAT, I MEAN, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE CALL IT BUSINESS PARK TWO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT INSTEAD OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NAME, WHICH, WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF IS SORT OF A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING, AT LEAST FOR ME BECAUSE I THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE WHEN I HEAR THE WORD MAKERSPACE. 
          UM, SO THAT, THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT ON THAT. 
          AND THEN, UM, WHEN, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SINGLE OPTION, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS, THAT'S A LOT LOUDER. 
          WAIT, OKAY, I GOT MINE BACK. 
          UM, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SINGLE COMBINED OPTION, WOULD THAT BE IN LIEU OF THE MAKERSPACE OR WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT END UP BEING? ARE WE GONNA CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER? AND EITHER. 
          SO I THINK THE THOUGHT IS WE CAN STICK WITH MAKERSPACE IN THE AREAS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR MAKERSPACE. 
          UM, AT THE LAST COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT LIKE, HEY, THEY'RE SO SIMILAR, SHOULD WE JUST MERGE THE TWO TOGETHER AND CREATE ONE DESIGNATION MM-HMM . 
          AND APPLY THAT TO THE AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BUSINESS PARK AS WELL AS LIKE AREAS THAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON AS MAKERSPACE AND HAVE IT BE ONE. 
          SO THAT'S COUNCIL'S, COUNCIL'S DISCRETION, THE COMBINED OPTION THAT'S SHOWN THERE. 
          IT'S, IT'S UH, SOME IDEAS ON HOW YOU COULD MELD WHERE THE TWO DIFFERENTIATE. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION AND FEEDBACK. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WOULD THAT ELIMINATE BUSINESS PARK THEN IF, IF THAT WAS THE MM-HMM . 
          THE DIRECTION? YES, IT WOULD, IT WOULD ELIMINATE, UM, IT WOULD REPLACE BUSINESS PARK. 
          UM, AND, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT IS WE DO GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK THAT BUSINESS, THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICTS DON'T PROVIDE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY. 
          THEY ALLOW OFFICE USES AND YOU CAN HAVE A RESTAURANT, BUT IT HAS TO BE OPEN FOR LUNCH. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY, IT'S HAS A VERY MINIMAL FLEXIBILITY. 
          UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE THOUGHT OF WHEN YOU'RE COMBINING, IF YOU WERE TO COMBINE THE TWO, IT ACTUALLY INCREASES THE FLEXIBILITY IN EXISTING BUSINESS PARKS TO ALLOW A LOT OF USES THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY ALLOWED AND MAYBE, UM, HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDEVELOP OR REENERGIZE SOME AREAS, UM, THAT ARE CURRENTLY BUSINESS PARK. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU'RE, YOU, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIMARILY SMALL SCALE FOOD AND BEVERAGE AS MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE? NO. 
          UM, 
          [01:05:01]
SO CURRENTLY IN BUSINESS PARK, NO RETAIL IS ALLOWED, UM, NO PERSONAL, I DON'T BELIEVE PERSONAL SERVICE IS ALLOWED. 
          UM, WELL 'CAUSE IT STILL SAYS ON FOR BUSINESS PARK IT STILL SAYS RETAIL AND SERVICES ON IT. 
          UH OH, I'M SORRY. 
          THAT'S ON. 
          UM, CAN YOU PO POST THAT SLIDE? IT'S ON THE DEFINITIONS FOR, UM, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATIONS. 
          IT'S THE VERY LAST ONE. 
          OH, IN THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION? YEAH. 
          CURRENTLY IT DOES NOT, NO, NO, IT'S IT'S ON THE CURRENT ONE, NOT IN THE PROPOSED ONE THAT YOU GUYS JUST SHOWED IN THE PRESENTATION. 
          IN THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN OR YOU MEAN IN THE DESIGNATION STANDARDS? I MEAN THAT, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE YEAH, RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. 
          SO THAT'S, IT COULD, IT COULD MORPH. 
          IT COULD MODIFY, BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS CURRENTLY UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS THAT'S NOT ALLOWED, THERE'S NO, UH, RETAIL OR PERSONAL SERVICES ALLOWED IN BUSINESS PARK CURRENTLY UNDER THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN AND THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IN BUSINESS PARK IS A MODIFIED RIGHT PROPOSAL. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT'S NOT EXISTING. 
          IT'S, IT'S MODIFIED. 
          SO THIS IS A WAY THAT THOSE TWO COULD, COULD COME TOGETHER OR NOT. 
          OUR HOTELS LISTED AS CONDITIONAL ON CURRENT BUSINESS PARK. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UH, JUST TO CLARIFY THEN, ATTACHMENT TWO IS ALL RECOMMEND RECOMMENDED, UH, EFFORTS AND UM, AND, AND, UM, IN THE CONSOLIDATED IN INTO SINGLE USE, UH, HOTELS DIDN'T GO TO CONDITIONAL, WE TOOK THAT RIGHT TO NON PERMITTED. 
          WE SUGGESTED NOT PERMITTED BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS OPTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS. 
          SURE, RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER, VICE MAYOR NOW. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          UM, I REALLY WANTED TO THANK THE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM MARY DOOLEY, UM, TO REMIND US WHAT PETALUMA HAS THAT MAKES US UNIQUE AND WHERE WE'RE GOING IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS. 
          UM, AS ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN, WE HAD NO IDEA WHERE THE CITY WAS GOING AND HERE WE ARE. 
          SO, UM, MY QUESTIONS, UM, THE, UM, SLIDE WITH THE, UM, DOWNSTREAM MAKER MICRO BREW BUSINESSES, UM, IT SHOWED A LOT OF LAKEVILLE THAT IS CURRENTLY THE DISTRICT THREE THAT I AM IN. 
          AND WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SHOPPING CENTERS IN MY DISTRICT, BUT WE HAVE SOME EMPTY SPACES. 
          UM, ONE IS BAYWOOD AND LAKE FILLETS FOR SALE RIGHT NOW AND WE HAD SOMEONE IN THE COMMUNITY LOOKING FOR, UM, A, A PLACE TO MOVE HIS BUSINESS BECAUSE HIS BEING, UM, SOLD AND IT NEEDS TO RELOCATE. 
          UM, WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, AND I JUST PASSED IT OFF TO STAFF AND THIS IS, UM, LUMBER YARD, BUT THEN IT'S ALSO COULD BE CONSIDERED A MAKERSPACE BECAUSE IT'S A CREATIVE, UM, BUSINESS. 
          SO I WAS JUST WONDERING, UM, IF YOU GO BACK TO BAYWOOD AND LAKEVILLE THAT BIG, IT'S A BIG EMPTY LOT THAT'S FOR SALE RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S JUST OUTSIDE YOUR MAP THAT YOU SHOWED ON THE SLIDE AND I WAS THINKING THAT WOULD BE A PERFECT LOCATION FOR THIS BUSINESS AND 'CAUSE HE IS NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL NOW AND IT'S RIGHT ON THE LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY. 
          IT'S GOT TWO UM, BUILDINGS ON IT. 
          BUT THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ON UM, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS ZONED CORRECTLY AND MAYBE WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT ZONES OUR CURRENT BUSINESS OWNERS ARE GOING TO NEED IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS. 
          SO WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT, I ALSO HAVE UM, A QUESTION ABOUT SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS SAID THAT WE ARE LACKING IN PEDAL LIMIT. 
          ONE IS AN APPLIANCE STORE. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW LARGE AN APPLIANCE STORE IS BECAUSE BACK IN THE DAY IT WAS VERY SMALL, UM, DOWNTOWN AND THE, UM, BUT IT SERVED ITS PURPOSE. 
          [01:10:01]
NOW THEY COMBINE IT WITH LOTS OF OTHER THINGS, LIKE COSTCO HAS APPLIANCES AND PEOPLE HAVE SAID, WHY DO I HAVE TO DRIVE OUTTA TOWN TO GO TO COSTCO? SO I DON'T KNOW HOW COSTCO SEEMS MAJOR LARGE TO ME. 
          I DON'T GO, BUT I KNOW IT'S A WAREHOUSE. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE A BUSINESS PARK, UM, ZONING TYPE THING. 
          LIKE COUNCIL MEMBERSHIPS WAS DISCUSSING THE AMAZON. 
          SO THAT'S MY QUESTION. 
          UM, ALSO WITH, UM, BACK TO UM, THE MICRO, MICRO BUSINESS AND UM, I GUESS WOULD BE ARTISTS AND YOU KNOW HOW SOME ARTISTS LIKE TO LIVE IN THEIR MAKER SPACE. 
          WOULD WE ALLOW ARTISTS IN RESIDENCE? I'M THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX. 
          I'M THINKING 20 YEARS DOWN THE LINE. 
          I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE. 
          UM, AS IT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED, NO RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE ALLOWED IN MAKER'S SPACE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND AGAIN, BECAUSE THAT, THAT IT'S ONE OF THE FEW DESIGNATIONS THAT DOESN'T ALLOW RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND WE DID THAT WITH A LOT OF INTENTIONALITY AROUND THE AREAS WITH A LOT OF FLOODING, UM, AND, AND IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS. 
          OKAY. 
          I FIGURED THAT WAS THE REASON, BUT I JUST WANTED TO, TO PUT IT OUT THERE. 
          UM, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW, SO IF YOU WANNA CIRCLE BACK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMPSON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE BUSINESS PARK OR MAKERS. 
          I'D RATHER, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT COMBINED. 
          SO THERE ARE LESS RESTRICTIONS. 
          AND AS FAR AS, UM, NOISE MITIGATION, I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO REALLY BE THOUGHTFUL OF WHERE HOUSING IS WHEN IT'S NEXT TO THE FREEWAY, BECAUSE AS COUNCIL MEMBER SCH WAS SAYING, SINCE THE FREEWAY HAS BEEN RAISED, HE'S CLOSER TO SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY AND HEARS IT NOW. 
          AND SO IF YOU HAVE HOUSING RIGHT NEXT TO IT, UM, A SOUND WALL'S NOT GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE, AND ALSO IF THERE IS DEVELOPMENT, WE SHOULD REALLY CONSIDER SOUND WALLS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING ONES THAT WERE BUILT WHEN 1 0 1 WAS WIDENED. 
          UM, AS FAR AS, I JUST WANNA JUST COMMENT ON FLOODING IN INDUSTRIAL DRIVE. 
          THERE'S AN OLD GYM THERE, AND I THINK THEY WANTED TO DO A SCHOOL AND IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE IT'S IN A FLOOD AREA. 
          SO I, SO I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU'RE NOT SEEING, UM, DAYCARE IN CERTAIN AREAS. 
          AND IT GOES BACK TO THAT, THAT I SEEM TO REMEMBER. 
          AND, UM, WITH MARY DOOLEY, UM, APPRECIATE HER COMMENTS. 
          UM, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 500 FEET TO A THOUSAND FEET, YOU KNOW, FROM THE RIVER. 
          UM, BUT THREE 30 IS CERTAINLY BETTER THAN THE LAST, UM, GO AROUND. 
          BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING, I'LL JUST DO AN EXAMPLE OF CAPRI CREEK. 
          WOULD THAT BE A SETBACK OR IS IT JUST FROM THE SLEW? 'CAUSE IT'S REALLY A SLEW. 
          SO WHERE'S EXACTLY THE SETBACKS AS PROPOSED? WE REALLY HAVE THAT RIVER BUFFER, THE 330 FEET FROM, FROM, FROM THE RIVER. 
          THE RIVER, UH, UPSTREAM OF THE WEIR. 
          CORRECT. 
          I BELIEVE THERE IS OTHER, UM, IN OTHER SECTIONS ESTABLISHING CREEK SETBACKS, UM, TO MAKE SURE, USUALLY A CREEK SETBACK IS AROUND 50 FEET. 
          UM, TO ENSURE THAT YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THAT SETBACK. 
          UM, THAT OFTENTIMES TOO, WE HAVE, UM, IN OUR CURRENT GENERAL PLAN, AND I BELIEVE IN OUR ACTIVE, OUR A TP, OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, A LOT OF FOCUS ON TRYING TO GET, UH, WALKWAYS AND TRAILS ALONG OUR CREEKS AS WELL THROUGH TOWN, UM, AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITY AND A ANOTHER CONNECTION, UM, WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO THE 50 FEET WE'VE RUN INTO, UM, THAT WITH OTHER PROJECTS, UM, DOWN OFF LAKEVILLE, UM, CAN'T THINK OF THE NAME OF THE PROJECT, BUT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER SAID IT. 
          UM, CAN WE EXTEND THE 50 FEET, EXPAND IT FROM A RIVER, A CREEK? UM, WE, WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT IT. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A BIT MORE NUANCED THAN A YES OR NO. 
          I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK, WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S ALREADY DEVELOPMENT A LOT CLOSER. 
          LIKE, UM, EVEN WITH THIS RIVER BUFFER, THERE'S A LOT OF AREAS ON THE, UH, WEST 
          [01:15:01]
SIDE OF THE RIVER WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS PRETTY RIGHT UP TO THE, RIGHT UP TO THE RIVER OR VERY CLOSE. 
          OR BY THE TIME YOU ADD A 330 FOOT BUFFER, IT MIGHT GO ALL THE WAY OUT INTO THE BOULEVARD, UM, ON A FEW OF THOSE PROPERTIES. 
          SO THERE'S GOING TO NEED TO BE SOME, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          UH, RIGHT. 
          SO IT'S, THERE'S ONE THING, IF THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT AND YOU'RE, AND YOU'RE PROHIBITING NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE RIVER BUFFER, THERE'S ANOTHER, IF THERE'S EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ALREADY THERE, NOT EXPANDING IT, BUT OBVIOUSLY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY THERE, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT TO BE REMOVED. 
          SO I WOULD LIKE IT LOOKED AT OKAY. 
          IF THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT THERE. 
          'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF AREAS ON PETALUMA BOULEVARD THAT GO RIGHT UP TO THE SLOUGH. 
          SO, SO I'D LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THE CREEKS AND IF WE CAN GET IT PAST THE 50. 
          UM, AND THEN IS, UM, MR. THOMPSON'S PROPERTY, I KNOW THAT PROPERTY QUITE WELL. 
          THERE WAS ROSIE THE, UM, THE BUFFALO  WAS ON THAT PROPERTY FOR MANY YEARS. 
          IT IS A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          IT WAS NICKEL TO BUFFALO. 
          OH, WELL I KNEW ROSIE  AND THE ANDERSONS QUITE WELL TOO. 
          UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST LIKE TO LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY AND DO WHAT'S BEST. 
          'CAUSE THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF SMALL TREES ON THAT PROPERTY, BUT I THINK IT'S BECAUSE OF, MAYBE ROCK BELOW IS WHY THEY'RE SMALL OAKS. 
          WHY THEY'VE NEVER REALLY GROWN. 
          UM, AND LET'S SEE. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S IT FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          THANKS COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE THE, THE WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS PRESENTATION, UM, ON THE MAKER VERSUS BUSINESS PARK. 
          UM, NONE OF 'EM SAY IT. 
          I I SEEM TO REMEMBER WE, WE ADOPTED THE CON THE CONDITIONAL PART AT 25,000 FEET RECENTLY. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THAT'S CURRENTLY WHAT'S IN THE BUSINESS PARK IS THAT IT'S CONDITIONAL, EVERYTHING IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF IT'S OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET? OR IS IT JUST CERTAIN USES? JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHERE THAT, THAT LIVES. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          IT'S JUST, I BELIEVE IT'S THREE USES. 
          IT'S RETAIL, IT'S BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND ITS GROCERIES AND SPECIALTY FOODS. 
          SO IT'S THREE LAND USES, UM, THAT WE CREATED A 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, OR MORE THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, AND ONE BEING PERMITTED AND ONE BEING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          COULD YOU REPEAT THOSE THREE PLEASE? UH, BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE, MATERIAL SALES, UH, GENERAL RETAIL AND GROCERY SPECIALTY FOODS. 
          THOSE ARE CURRENTLY THE THREE IN THE, IN THE IZO, THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          AND THAT WAS A COUPLE, JUST A COUPLE YEARS AGO THAT THAT CHANGE WAS MADE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO IN GENERAL, I THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF ONE WITH THE LIKE, BUT THE THOUGHT THAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW IS JUST LIKE THE, THE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE AND TWO COULD BE THAT THINGS OVER, LIKE WE REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CERTAIN FOR ALL SIZES, RIGHT. 
          WHERE WE WANT TO SEE AN AMAZON WAREHOUSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          OR WE'RE CON CONVINCED THAT WE WANT SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR, AND THEN APPLY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MORE USES LIKE WAREHOUSING AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHERE WE MIGHT NOT WANT TO PUT SOME SORT OF LIKE CHEMICAL PROCESSING FACILITY RIGHT NEXT TO AN EXISTING DAYCARE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          UM, BUT IN GENERAL, I THINK I'M LEANING TOWARD MERGING THEM. 
          BUT, UM, LIKE, I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING DISCRETION. 
          I ALSO FEEL LIKE IT MIGHT DRIVE BUSINESSES AWAY FROM COMING HERE IF THEY FEEL LIKE THERE'S THIS ABSTRACT PROCESS AND A BUNCH OF HOOPS THE WAY THEY HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH TO GET TO THE END. 
          AND THEN THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO LIKE, FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN PROVIDE SOME SENSE OF CERTAINTY TO BUSINESSES THAT MIGHT WANNA BE COMING HERE AND LOCATING. 
          WELL, AND THEN ANOTHER THING I'LL JUST REEMPHASIZE IS THAT NITTY GRITTY DETAIL WILL BE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NOT IN THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          SO IT'LL BE THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, SORRY. 
          I MEAN WE, WE HAVE TO KIND OF KEEP, IT'S REALLY EASY FOR US TO GET INTO THE, THE DETAILS. 
          YES. 
          WE APPRECIATE THAT AND WE WANT ENOUGH CLARITY TO INTENT, BUT THE EXACT LIKE SQUARE FOOTAGES OR, UM, WOULD, WOULD COME WITH THE ZONING. 
          THANK YOU ORDINANCE. 
          KEEP DRAGGING ME OUTTA THE HOLE WHEN I GET IN THERE. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, 
          [01:20:01]
SO I'M GONNA ASK, I'LL BRING, ASK THE, THE GPAC MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE. 
          UM, I'VE GOT SORT OF THREE QUESTIONS. 
          UM, IF THEY HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT HAVING ONE VERSE TWO. 
          UM, WE, THERE WAS A PROPOSAL TO REDUCE IT FROM FOUR STORIES TO THREE STORIES. 
          WONDERING IF YOU HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT THAT. 
          ASSUMING THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS HAD SOME SENSE OF RATIONALE THAT WENT INTO 'EM. 
          AND IF YOU HAVE STRONG DISAGREEMENTS WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL SAID, I, THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED YOU TO BE HERE, I THINK. 
          SO THAT WE HAVE THAT CONTEXT. 
          AND THEN THE, THE THOUGHTS ON INCLUDING A HOTEL EITHER BY RIGHT OR, OR CONDITIONAL. 
          SO I'M NOT, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS, BUT IF YOU HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ON ANY OF THOSE THREE TOPICS, I WELCOME TO HEAR THOSE. 
          UM, SO NEXT QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS ON THE NORTH RIVER AREA, UM, THE BUFFER, I NOTICED IN THE STAFF REPORT YOU SOURCED SOME REPORT THAT WAS FROM 2003. 
          IS THAT TO SORT OF SAY THAT THAT'S THE MAXIMUM BUFFER THAT WE CAN APPLY TO THAT AREA? OR IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE THE, THE BUFFER, UM, ZONE ALONG THAT PORTION OF THE RIVER? UM, GREAT QUESTION. 
          WE DISCUSSED THIS QUITE AT QUITE LENGTH. 
          UM, AND I'M GONNA INVITE ERIC TO WIN HERE A LITTLE BIT 'CAUSE UM, HE HELPED US WITH THIS PART OF THE CONVERSATION SPECIFICALLY. 
          UM, BUT BASICALLY WE AT FROM WORK IN OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE LITERATURE. 
          AND THIS WAS BASED ON A META STUDY. 
          AND IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR, HOW SCIENTISTS OPERATE, THEY'LL OFTEN DO VERY FOCUSED STUDIES, BUT THEY, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE RESEARCH WILL COME ALONG AND LOOK AT THE FINDINGS FROM A THOUSAND STUDIES AND SYNTHESIZE THEM. 
          AND SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES. 
          SO SOMEBODY LOOKED AT HUNDREDS OF STUDIES THAT ADDRESSED THIS QUESTION OF LIKE, WHAT'S AN APPROPRIATE SETBACK GIVEN THAT YOU'VE GOT A VARIETY OF GOALS IN TERMS OF, UM, PRESERVING ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION, HABITAT CETERA, PRESERVATION FROM, UH, PROTECTION FROM SOME HAZARDS POTENTIALLY. 
          AND BASED ON THAT REVIEW, IDENTIFIED A FEW APPROPRIATE SETBACKS BASED ON WHAT THE PRIORITY WAS. 
          AND THE SUM TOTAL WAS IF YOU WANNA KIND OF MAXIMIZE PROTECTIONS, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND TO BE THE CASE FOR THE CITY OF PETALUMA, GO WITH, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED METERS IS KIND OF THE GENERAL CONCLUSION ACROSS MANY DIFFERENT STUDIES. 
          UM, AND THE REASON WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT SCIENTIFIC BACKING. 
          I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ERIC FOR THAT EXPLANATION. 
          UM, THANKS RON. 
          AND THANKS, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BARN FOR THE QUESTION. 
          SO WHAT RON REFERRED TO IN TERMS OF THE STUDY SUPPORT, UM, AND ALSO WHAT, WHAT GOES INTO THAT AS CONSIDERATIONS OF, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, HABITAT, UM, BUT ALSO VERY MUCH, UM, THE FLOOD MODELING AND PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS, UM, IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THERE'S RECORD INFORMATION LIKE THAT BASED ON WHICH IT'S POSSIBLE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SHOWING THAT, UM, THE SETBACK ADDRESSES AND HELPS AVOID PROPERTY LOSS, UM, AND PERSONAL INJURY, THAT'S, THAT'S A SOLID BASIS FOR, UM, LIMITING THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THOSE PROPERTIES. 
          BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY IS IT SOMETHING THAT THERE'S FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR, BUT IT ACTUALLY POTENTIALLY HELPS ALLAY, UM, LOSSES BY THE SAME, YOU KNOW, OWNERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE, SEE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OCCUR ON THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, THE OTHER CONSIDERATION THAT THAT GOES INTO THAT, UM, STAFF DISCUSSION, UM, AND SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY WITH THE COUNCIL IS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT AND SOME THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EXISTING USES, UM, AS WELL AS, UM, WHAT MAY BE EXPECTATIONS OF EXISTING OWNERS REGARDING POTENTIAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY. 
          SO, UM, WHAT'S, SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE WANTING TO BALANCE AND TO BE RESPONSIVE TO WHAT WE HEARD IN TERMS OF COUNCIL CONCERNS AND WISHES AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND WISHES WHILE RECOGNIZING PROPERTY OWNERS' RIGHTS. 
          UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THERE. 
          AND, AND I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IN, IN TERMS OF HEATHER'S HELPFUL COMMENT ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW, UM, IF YOU ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT STAFF REPRESENTING RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT TO THE COUNCIL IS IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE OVER ALL PATTERNS AND DIRECTION FOR THE MORE SPECIFIC, UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
          [01:25:01]
THAT, THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE WILL THEN ADDRESS. 
          SO, SO IN A WAY IT'S LIKE GUIDANCE FOR THE ZONING. 
          UM, AND WE DO HAVE TO, TO TRY TO BALANCE THOSE CONSIDERATIONS I MENTIONED WHILE IMPLEMENTING THE COUNCILS AND THE COMMUNITY'S WISHES. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND THEN NEXT QUESTION ON THE, A SIMILAR VEIN ON THE BUFFER, IS IT, UM, IS IT JUST FOR RIVERS FROM THAT REPORT OR WAS IT FOR LIKE NAVI WATERWAYS IN A ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, THAT SORT OF THING, LIKE TRYING TO JUST SEE WOULD IT, COULD WE ALSO APPLY IT TO LYNCH CREEK? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. 
          UM, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STUDY AGAIN TO ANSWER. 
          I I DON'T NEED AN ANSWER. 
          I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THAT BEFORE. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S JUST SAY THAT, UM, FOR COUNSEL IN OUR DISCUSSION, LIKE I WOULD SAY IF IT CAN BE APPLIED TO LYNCH CREEK, I WOULD SAY APPLY IT ALSO TO LYNCH CREEK AND NOT JUST THE RIVER. 
          UM, SO, UM, UH, ON THE POLICY, THE LONG-TERM POLICY FOR SUPPORTING THE GREENWAY, UM, THIS IS PROBABLY JUST A SIMPLE CLARIFICATION, BUT WE NAME FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, SHOULD WE PROBABLY LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION OUT OF THAT POLICY AND JUST FOCUS ON THE OUTCOME, WHICH IS OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION? YES. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, AND THEN JUST CURIOUS IF WE HAVE ANY SORT OF A META STUDY OR ANYTHING AROUND WHAT NOISE SETBACKS MIGHT LOOK LIKE FROM HIGHWAY 1 0 1 FOR THESE TYPES OF PARCELS? UM, I AM BY NO MEANS A NOISE MITIGATION SPECIALIST. 
          THIS IS WHY WE HAVE, UH, A ROBUST SUB-CONSULTANT TEAM. 
          UM, SO I DON'T HAVE AN IMMEDIATE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. 
          WHAT WE WE'RE REFERRING TO IS A SET OF POLICIES IN THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE NOISE LA UH, NOISE POLICY FRAMEWORK. 
          I THINK IT'S 1.1 AND 2.2 AND 4.2, WHICH ALL OF WHICH TOGETHER BASICALLY OUTLINE A SET OF POLICIES TO INFORM THE CITY'S FUTURE APPROACH TO MITIGATING POTENTIAL NOISE. 
          UM, GREAT, THANKS. 
          UM, SO THE, BEFORE WE GET OFF OF THE BUSINESS PARK MICRO BUSINESS, WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH MOBILE FOOD VENDORS IN THAT, UH, THE MOBILE FOOD VENDOR DESIGNATION. 
          AT WHAT POINT DO WE, LIKE, SHOULD WE INSERT THAT INTO SOMETHING LIKE A BUSINESS PARK OR, SO WHATEVER WE DECIDE, BUT THAT IT, LIKE, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE DON'T LEAVE THAT OUT IN THE NEXT, UH, GENERAL PLAN PROCESS. 
          AND I HAVEN'T SEEN IT REPRESENTED IN ANY OF THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS THAT WE'VE COME UP WITH TO, TO DATE. 
          UM, I WA I CAN'T RECALL IF WE HAVE ANYTHING POLICY WISE, UM, IN THE LAND USE POLICY FRAMEWORK THAT WAS SPECIFIC TO, AND YOU MEAN FOOD TRUCKS IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YEAH. 
          UM, AND THE REASON I ASK IS 'CAUSE THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT, THERE IS MOBILE VEN VENDORS AND THEY'RE DIFFERENT THAN FOOD TRUCKS BECAUSE THEY DON'T STOP IN ONE PLACE FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TIME. 
          THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING. 
          AND THEY, I'LL SAY BOTH. 
          YEAH. 
          JUST FOR THE, UM, I CAN'T, SO I'D WANNA LOOK BACK AT THE LAND USE POLICY FRAMEWORK, WHETHER WE HAVE ANY POLICY SPECIFIC TO THAT. 
          UM, IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE ADD, UM, WE COULD ADD A POLICY TO LOOK AT THAT AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE UPDATE. 
          UM, YEAH, I WOULD GIVE GUIDANCE OR ASK THE COUNCIL TO GIVE GUIDANCE THAT WE INCLUDE, UM, INCLUDING MICRO OR MOBILE FOOD VENDORS, UM, FOOD TRUCKS INTO THESE, UH, DIFFERENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. 
          IT'S, UH, COMMON WAY FOR RESTAURATEURS TO, TO COME OF AGE AND FIND THEIR PLACE IN BRICK AND MORTAR. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN THE FINAL, I THINK MY FINAL, UM, COMMENT IS ON THE RIVER PARK, UM, COUNCIL, THE, YOU GOT IT RIGHT WHEN YOU SAID THAT THE COUNCIL GAVE DIRECTION TO ALIGN WITH THE RIVER PARK'S VISION AND, AND COMMENTS, BUT THE, IT HASN'T BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT WHAT THE RIVER PARK'S COMMENTS WERE. 
          UM, WHICH I THINK, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS INTENTIONAL OR, UM, 'CAUSE THE COUNCIL GAVE THAT DIRECTION. 
          THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTED THAT DIRECTION WHEN WE HEARD THE PROJECT. 
          UM, BUT I'M JUST NOT SEEING IT IN THE, UH, IN THE ACTUAL ZONING THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED ON THE, ON SLIDE 19. 
          SO I BELIEVE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, IS THE THREE STORY STEP DOWN. 
          SO THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER FROM THE MARCH 3RD MEETING IS WHAT I'M REFERRING TO. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND IT SAID ME JOG THROUGH MY STUFF HERE AND IT WAS 
          [01:30:01]
BASICALLY SAYING TO GIVE FIVE TO SIX STORIES, UM, ON THE, UH, YEAH, IT WAS ASKING FOR FIVE TO SIX STORIES THROUGHOUT. 
          THROUGHOUT, YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE DID KEEP THE THREE STORIES JUST ALONG THE ONE EDGE, UM, UH, OUT OF THAT, THAT INTERFACE, UM, WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RIGHT ON THAT RIGHT. 
          I GUESS A SOUTHERN EDGE. 
          UM, AND ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEES, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE LEFT THAT IN THERE. 
          UM, AND THEN IN TERMS OF, UH, DOWNTOWN MIXED USE IS THAT FOUR STORIES? UM, ONE OF THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HEIGHT. 
          UM, THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION WITH THE RIVER PARK OF, UM, AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          UM, AND SO THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE OF GOING HIGHER WITH A DENSITY BONUS, UH, IF IT WAS AFFORDABLE, BUT THEN IT ALSO LIMITS THE HIGHER, UM, THE, THE INCREASED HEIGHT FOR A MARKET RATE PROJECT. 
          SO THAT WAS SOME OF THE THINKING. 
          UM, IF WE TOOK IT UP TO SIX STORIES, IT WOULD BE, LET'S SEE, IT WOULD BE THE URBAN CORE MIXED USE WOULD BE THE DESIGNATION. 
          IT WOULD NEED TO BE, IF IT WAS GOING TO BE UP TO SIX STORIES, UM, AS A BASE, RIGHT. 
          THEY WERE ASKING, THEY WERE ASKING FOR FIVE TO SIX STORIES FURTHER AWAY FROM THE RIVER. 
          SO THEY AGREE THAT WE SHOULD, THAT IT SHOULD BE A STEP BACK. 
          BUT THEY'RE ASKING TO GET UP TO FIVE TO SIX STORIES. 
          AND THE REASON BEING THAT, LIKE, WE JUST SAW THIS AMAZING PRESENTATION ON WHAT THE RIVER PARK HAS PLANNED AND IF WE INHIBIT THEIR ABILITY TO REALIZE THEIR THEIR BUSINESS MODEL, WE'RE JUST ULTIMATELY TAKING ALL THOSE THINGS THAT GOT US ALL EXCITED AND WE'RE PIECE CUTTING PIECES OF THOSE OFF. 
          AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE THEM AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS WE CAN TO, UM, ACHIEVE THEIR VISION, UM, WITH THEIR, WITH THE PROPERTY. 
          SO, UM, I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE RIVER PARKS RECOMME, UH, REQUEST FOR ZONING SO THAT, UM, WE DON'T JUST SEE, START CUTTING THE VISION DOWN. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UM, ONE, UH, SOFTBALL HERE, I MEAN I I I'M ANXIOUS IN THE OUT AND THE FACTORY OUTLETS BEING A MORE, UM, ROBUST CONTRIBUTOR TO THE, UH, RETAIL SCENE AND IN PETALUMA AND, UM, LIKE BOTH OF THEM, BOTH BOTH COMBINED OR OR NON COMBINED, UH, MAKER COMMENTS. 
          AND I GET WHY MAKER SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY, UH, RESIDENTIAL IN AN AREA THAT MIGHT FLOOD. 
          THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD THING. 
          I'M WONDERING, IT SAYS RESTAURANTS OR, UH, A PERMITTED USE. 
          DOES THAT, UH, IS IS THERE A SCALE LIMIT ON A RESTAURANT THERE? I MEAN, IS A LARGEST RESTAURANT? I'M TRYING TO THINK. 
          WHAT'S A BIG RESTAURANT? CHEESECAKE FACTORY. 
          I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE GODS BIGGEST RESTAURANT WE CAN THINK OF? UH, ARE THEY ALL PERMITTED? YEAH. 
          RESTAURANTS, WE DON'T DIFFERENTIATE. 
          I MEAN, CURRENTLY IN OUR LAND USE CODE, WE DON'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SMALL RESTAURANT AND A LARGE RESTAURANT. 
          SO THEIR CURRENT ZONING, UH, WOULD ALLOW THAT AND THIS MAKER WOULD, WOULD ALLOW THAT. 
          SO AGAIN, KIND OF STAYING UP AT THE 30,000 FOOT, THE IDEA IS THAT RESTAURANTS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN MAKER. 
          SO IF AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE UPDATE, THERE WAS A DESIRE TO REALLY LOOK AT YEAH. 
          BUT A MAKER, THEY SHOULD BE, I DON'T, I, SO IT MAY NOT BE WITHIN THEIR EXISTING ZONING, BUT WHEN WE GO TO MAKER OR COMBINED, IT WOULD BE INCLUDED FOR IF TO LIKE CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE RESTAURANT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? TO HAVE A LARGE RESTAURANT? YEAH. 
          SO RESTAURANT CURRENTLY IN OUR ZONING CODE RESTAURANT IS A RESTAURANT IS A RESTAURANT, OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT, THAT'S AN OPTION. 
          WHEN WE GOT TO THE ZONING CODE, IF THERE WAS A DESIRE TO SEE SOME DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE OR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SEATS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, YOU COULD LOOK, YOU WOULD LOOK AT THAT NOT THROUGH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION, BUT THROUGH THE ZONING CODE. 
          AND, UM, I'M LISTENING TO SOME OF THE, WHAT THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING IS AND WE'RE ALLOWING FOR A LOT OF DISCRETION TO REMAIN. 
          UM, I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING THAT'S WHAT THE IZO WILL BE FOR, TO WRITE AN ORDINANCE THAT TAKES ON, I THINK WE GET A LOT OF, UM, FEEDBACK THAT, UM, THERE'S TOO MUCH DISCRETION. 
          AND THEN I, I KNOW IT'S TWO 
          [01:35:01]
EDGED SWORD. 
          SOMETIMES THERE'S NOT ENOUGH LATITUDE. 
          AND SO, UM, I, I APPRECIATE THAT THE HARD WORK THAT'S GONNA BE IN THE IEO TO, TO NOT HAVE CARTE BLANCHE FOR A LOT OF THINGS, BUT TO ALLOW THEM TO COME INTO POSSIBILITY. 
          UM, AND, AND I APPRECIATE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BARN'S QUESTION ABOUT, UM, WHEN DOES THE ZONING BECOME A TAKING AND, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH CAN YOU CHANGE, UM, THE EXISTING ZONING BEFORE WE GET INTO LEGAL PROBLEMS? 'CAUSE I'D LOVE THE GENERAL PLAN TO GET DONE, GET PUT TO BED AND PASS ALL ITS TESTS WITHOUT, UH, TOO MUCH COURT CHALLENGE ON THINGS. 
          UM, THOSE, THOSE WERE MY, UM, BIGGEST CONCERNS THERE. 
          I THINK, UH, I THINK IF, IF WE DO TALK ABOUT A, UH, A FOOD TRUCK, UM, SITUATION, I'D LIKE IT TO BE MORE IN THE POP-UP, UH, VARIETY RATHER THAN A PERMANENT FIX. 
          AND CERTAINLY WOULDN'T PUT A PERMANENT FIXED IN, UH, A MAKER ZONE WHICH HAD POTENTIAL FLOODING RISKS. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN UP AND COMING BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE IN THE RIGHT AREAS. 
          AND SO WE NEED TO HOLD ALL OF OUR CONDITIONAL, UM, CARDS WITH US. 
          AND, UM, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY, UH, OTHER WEIGH-INS BEFORE WE DO SOME STRAW POLLING. 
          AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHRI. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST, UH, UH, UH, ONE COMMENT BEFORE I, I I GIVE YOU MY VOTE, I GUESS STRAW POLL. 
          IT'S, UH, UM, UH, THE GSA, THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY, UM, HAS, UH, RULES AND POLICIES THAT THEY'VE BEEN ESTABLISHING IN THEIR MANAGEMENT PLAN DEALING WITH, UM, IF YOU PUT DOWN A, WELL, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO AFFECT DOWNSTREAM, UH, THE VEGETATION AND THE RIPARIAN. 
          SO WHAT I WOULD DO IS, UH, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM, THE BUFFERS AND THE LIKE, AND ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT HABITAT AND POSSIBLE HABITAT CHANGES, MAKE SURE WE ARE CONSISTENT AND AT LEAST INCLUSIVE OF THE GSAS POLICIES ON, UM, IT'S, UM, WHERE IT COULD THEY DENY OR OR ACCEPT WELLS BASED ON THE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION DOWNSTREAM. 
          SO I THINK THEY USE THE WORD TERM NAVIGABLE WATERS, BUT THEY INCLUDE KAYAKS AND NAVIGABLE SO THEY CAN GET PRETTY FAR WITH A, WITH A KAYAK IN WET SEASON. 
          SO I THINK THAT, UH, IS PRETTY MORE INCLUSIVE EVEN THAN WHAT YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE ON THAT. 
          AND THEN IF, UH, WE DO THE STRAW POLL, BRING UP THE, UH, CHART THAT YOU HAD THERE, UM, OF THE THREE ITEMS. AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I'M HAVING IS THAT ALL THE WORDS COVER UP, SOME OF IT , SO I HAVE TO SEE IT WITHOUT THE WORDS. 
          SO I'M GONNA BE SILENT JUST FOR A MINUTE. 
          I GUESS IT DOESN'T GO AWAY. 
          THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS. SO THAT, THAT LAST LINE IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SLASH MANUFACTURING. 
          IT'S PERMITTED IN EXISTING BUSINESS PARK ZONING. 
          IT WAS PROPOSED FOR PERMITTED IN MAKER MICRO BUSINESS. 
          AND SO A SINGLE COMBINED OPTION, UH, PROPOSED. 
          OKAY, GOOD. 
          I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND, UM, I CAN'T SEE THE CHART ANYWAY ON, UM, SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, LOOKING AT, UH, MICRO, UM, BUSINESS PARK VERSUS THE MAKERSPACE, UM, IF WE'RE GONNA DO ONE OR THE OTHER, I'D SAY GO WITH THE MORE FLEXIBLE OF BOTH AND THAT ONE OF THE THINGS FOR SURE WE SHOULD INCLUDE IS THE, UM, UH, CHILD ADULT AND CHILDCARE DAYCARE. 
          'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF BUSINESSES NOW TO ATTRACT EMPLOYEES, MAKE THAT AS AN OFFERING AS WITHIN THEIR OWN BUSINESS. 
          SO I THINK WE EVEN HAD ONE HERE, I THINK, UH, LIKE THERE WAS A BABY CLOTHES OPERATION AT THE FOUNDRY THAT HAD THEIR DAYCARE INCLUDED BECAUSE A LOT OF THEIR EMPLOYEES WERE YOUNG MOTHERS. 
          SO, UM, THAT NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED IN A MAKER SPACE, UM, IF IT, IF THAT IS DESIRED BY THE, THE BUSINESS TO, TO GET THE RIGHT EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR BUSINESS. 
          SO I'D SEE THAT AS BEING PERMITTED OR, OR, UM, RATHER THAN JUST CONDITIONAL ON THAT. 
          AND IF IT'S PERMITTED IN EITHER THE BUSINESS PARK OR MAKERSPACE, I'D SAY GO WITH PERMITTED THE HIGHEST ALLOWABLE FLEXIBILITY OF EITHER AND WHEN YOU'RE COMBINING THE TWO TOGETHER, SO THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE NO RESIDENCES, GIVE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S, UM, ANYWAY, THAT WOULD BE MY STRAW POLL VOTE ON, UH, WHAT'S DESIRED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I'M GONNA PUSH BACK AT YOU A LITTLE THERE. 
          THE, UH, THE IDEA OF, UM, PUTTING A DAYCARE INTO, UM, WHAT WE KNOW TO BE A FLOOD ZONE, UM, IS THAT WHERE YOU'RE HEADED WITH THEN? UM, NO. 
          THIS, THESE ARE NOT, UH, WHEREAS FLOOD ZONES YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYWAY. 
          SO WHERE YOU CAN PUT A MAKER SPACE, UM, WHICH WOULD NOT BE A FLOOD 
          [01:40:01]
ZONE, YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE, UH, OTHER PEOPLE IN YOUR BUILDING. 
          CAN I GET STAFF TO JUMP IN THERE? SO I, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLOOD ZONE AREAS. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ZONES THAT ALLOW BUILDINGS AND PEOPLE, THERE ARE AREAS, UM, SUCH AS I THINK THE, THE DOWNSTREAM, UH, IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT AREA. 
          THAT IT IS AN AREA THAT IS PROJ PROJECTED, UH, TO SEE, UH, STORM SURGE, UH, SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE FUTURE. 
          WHEN WE WERE DOING THAT MODELING, IT WAS KIND OF THIS AREA, UM, RIGHT HERE, THIS TRIANGLE AREA. 
          IT WAS AN AREA THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE MODELING TO ANTICIPATE TO SEE A LOT OF FLOODING IMPACTS. 
          UM, SO MAKER WAS USED THERE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ALLOW RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND WE WANTED TO AVOID PUTTING RESIDENTIAL IN AREAS THAT WE ANTICIPATE SEEING, RIGHT? I'M NOT SAYING RESIDENTIAL DAYCARE IS DAYCARE WITHIN THE BUSINESS MONTH THAT EMPLOYEES ARE WORKING THERE. 
          AND THE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS THAT, THAT THERE'S A MEETING TOMORROW WORKSHOP BY SFEI THAT'S GOING TO PROPOSE ALL SORTS OF BARRIERS IN THIS AREA TO PROTECT, UH, UH, THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND ALL THESE BUSINESSES RIGHT THERE IN ALMOND MARSH AND SCHOENBERGER PARK. 
          SO THERE'S A BIG PLAN BEING SHOWN TOMORROW THAT WE'RE GONNA SEE. 
          SO, UM, SO THAT THOSE AREAS WOULD GET PROTECTED BY USING A DREDGE SPOILS THE, LIKE TO BUILD DIKES AND THE LIKE. 
          SO THAT'S, SO WE'RE GONNA BE PLANNING IT AND ADAPTING THAT WAY. 
          SO I THINK WE NEED TO INCLUDE TOMORROW'S DISCUSSIONS IN THIS FUTURE PLAN. 
          ALSO THAT, JUST AS A, UH, AS AN ASIDE HERE, COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE. 
          YEAH, MAYOR, YOU BROUGHT UP SOMETHING AROUND LIKE WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT A PERMANENT FOOD TRUCK IN A, IN A FLOOD ZONE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          IS THERE SOME WAY THAT WE CAN SPECIFY THAT? LIKE, BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THE MAKER SPACES ARE GONNA BE IN LIKE FLOOD PRONE AREAS, RIGHT? IT'S NOT LIKE WE DID THIS JUST TO LIKE CATCH ALL FOR FLOOD PRONE AREAS. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WITH THE FOOD TRUCKS IS TO HAVE, UM, UH, ADD A LAND USE POLICY TO DEVELOP, INCORPORATE FOOD TRUCKS AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE SPECIFIC, YOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT IN THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL WITH INFORMATION WE DON'T FULLY HAVE. 
          BUT RECOGNIZING THAT WE WANT TO FIND AREAS AND CRITERIA WHERE FOOD TRUCKS ARE ALLOWED IN THE CITY AND HAVE THAT AS A, AS A POLICY THAT THEN TRACKS WITH THE ZONING CODE. 
          SO IT CAN START BEING THOUGHT OF THERE. 
          THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. 
          GOT YOU. 
          AND THEN, BUT SIMILAR TO THAT, WOULD WE ALSO NEED SOME SORT OF A POLICY THAT SAYS LIKE ANY COMMERCIAL USE IN A FLOOD ZONE IS SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? IS THAT, IS THAT OVERKILL? AM I GETTING, I GUESS, AM I AT THE RIGHT LEVEL OF DEPTH FOR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT? I DON'T HAVE AN, I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THAT. 
          WE, WE HAVE A TON OF STUFF IN OUR FLOOD RESILIENCY, SO I'M ALSO LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IT BY HEART. 
          IT'S GOOD, IT'S GOOD FEEDBACK FOR US TO THINK ABOUT AND LOOK AT AND SEE IF WE'VE GOT ANY KIND OF, UM, HOLES THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF CONSIDERING IMPACT. 
          TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          IMPACT GETTING IN THE WEEDS. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMAS, JUST QUICKLY ON THE 330, UH, FEET FROM THE, FROM THE RIVER THAT'S ON BOTH SIDES, BUT THE BARRIER IS ON THE WEST SIDE, THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS RIGHT THERE. 
          SO IF THEY WANTED TO REDEVELOP THOSE AREAS AND HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT? SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD LOOK TO, UM, ESTABLISH THE BUFFER, BUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PUT SOME STUFF INTO IT THAT BUILDS ENOUGH REVIEW AND PROCESS. 
          SO THAT SAYS SOMETHING TO THE IMPACT OF, YOU KNOW, WHERE NO DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY EXISTS, NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL OCCUR WITHIN THE 330 FEET WHERE DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY EXISTS. 
          IT CANNOT BE EXPANDED OR, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO FINE, FINE TUNE THAT. 
          UM, AND IT, IT SEEMS A LITTLE COMPLICATED BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CITY LIMITS AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE THE COUNTY CORRECT IN THE SAME STRETCH. 
          SO THE COUNTY, WE'RE NOT CONSISTENT AND WELL, WE WON'T BE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          SO YES, YOU'RE RIGHT ALONG PETALUMA BOULEVARD, IT THERE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SOME SAWTOOTH OF MM-HMM . 
          GOING IN AND OUT BETWEEN CITY AND COUNTY. 
          [01:45:02]
ALL OF THAT AREA IS WITHIN OUR UGB, UM, OUR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. 
          UM, AND THE PROVISIONS FOR OUTSIDE SEWER AND WATER REQUIRE ANNEXATION IF THERE'S GOING TO BE REDEVELOPMENT AND THEY NEED CITY SERVICES. 
          SO THE IDEA IS IF THEY NEED CITY SERVICES, THEY WILL BE ANNEXED INTO OUR CITY. 
          SO THAT HAS LARGELY BEEN A, UM, PROPERTY OWNER DRIVEN PROCESS. 
          UM, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE AS THINGS REDEVELOP IN THAT AREA, THEY WILL BECOME PART OF THE CITY. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, VICE MAYOR, UM, TO HELP, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER REBS OUR BUSINESS PARK, UM, NORTH OF PETALUMA, OLD RED, UM, THAT AREA, CISCO HAD A HUGE BUSINESS PARK THEY PUT IN 20, 25, 30 YEARS AGO WITH A HUGE, UM, COMMERCIAL DAYCARE. 
          KINDERCARE IS THERE. 
          THAT WAS A REALLY SMART WAY FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES TO, TO USE, YOU KNOW, TO DROP THEIR CHILDREN OFF TO DAYCARE OR PRESCHOOL, KINDERGARTEN AND THEN GO TO WORK, WHICH WAS TWO MINUTES AWAY. 
          THEY COULD ALSO GO ON THEIR LUNCH HOUR AND VISIT THE KIDS OR WHATEVER. 
          THAT IS MORE, UM, IN LINE TO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING IN PETALUMA IS PUTTING A COMMERCIAL, PRESCHOOL DAYCARE. 
          THEY EVEN TOOK INFANTS IN A BUSINESS PARK. 
          SO, UM, IT MIGHT JUST, BUT A BUSINESS PARK CAN ALSO BE A MAKER SPACE. 
          UM, OUR BUSINESS PARKS, UM, I WAS JUST THINKING OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT I GO TO AS A CONSUMER. 
          UM, ONE OF THE BUSINESS PARKS HAS A CHURCH WITHIN THE, THE AREA. 
          UM, ANOTHER ONE IS A NONPROFIT WITH, UM, NEXT TO THE NONPROFIT, UM, ORGANIZATION IS A DELI AND I THINK A PHOTOGRAPHER, UM, THERE'S A HAIR SALON, SO THERE'S OUR PERSONAL SERVICE THERE. 
          ANOTHER BUSINESS PARK HAS, UM, THERE IT'S FLOWER DISTRI DIS I, I CAN'T TALK TONIGHT. 
          UM, DISTRIBUTION. 
          AND THEN IT ALSO HAS A COOKING SCHOOL ELEMENT TO IT AND A RETAIL. 
          AND THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT DOES, UM, ALCOHOL, UM, SPECIALIZED MIXED ALCOHOL BEVERAGES IN BOTTLES AND BOTTLES IT THERE. 
          AND ALSO HAS A RETAIL STORE AND ALSO DOES, UM, LIKE COOKING DEMONSTRATIONS. 
          BUT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, BREWERY, BUT THEY'RE NOT A BREWERY. 
          THEY'RE, UM, JUST MIXED BEVERAGES, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. 
          AND, UM, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT HAS CANNABIS. 
          SO, AND THEN THEY'RE POSSIBLY GONNA HAVE THEIR RETAIL, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST DISTRIBUTION BESIDES OUR BREWERIES. 
          SO I THINK OUR BUSINESS PARKS ARE ALSO MAKER SPACES, SO I I MAYBE WE NEED TO WORK ON THE LANGUAGE. 
          WELL, AND I WOULD ALSO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT THAT, THAT LIST YOU'RE SEEING FOR MAKER BUSINESS PARK, THAT'S NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. 
          THAT'S KIND OF LIKE SETTING THE CHARACTER OF AND, AND SOME OF THE BIGGER U USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED OR CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED. 
          BUT AGAIN, WHEN WE GET TO THE ZONING CODE THAT LISC IS THEORETICALLY A LOT LONGER AND A LOT MORE, UM, SPECIFIC AND, AND THEY'LL, THERE MAY BE MORE DECISIONS TO MAKE AS PART OF THAT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF A SUBSET OF THE TYPE OF USES AND THE TYPE OF FLEXIBILITY. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCILMAN DI CARLY, UM, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE COMBINED VERSION? IS IT ONE AND A HALF OR IS IT THREE FOUR MATERIAL FOR THE COMBINED, IF IT, SO EACH, WE, RON I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FIT TESTING THAT WENT INTO THE SEPARATION. 
          SO I THINK WHAT COUNCILMAN DI CARLY'S REFERRING TO IS IN THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, UM, CURRENTLY PROPOSED MAKER MICRO BUSINESS IS A 3.0 FAR WITH FOUR STORIES 60 FEET. 
          ONE THING WE HEARD AT THE MARCH MEETING WAS, UM, TO BRING THAT DOWN, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, FOUR STORIES MAY NOT SEEM APPROPRIATE. 
          SO IF WE FOLLOW THAT TREND AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE SORT OF MARCHING TOWARDS CONSIDERATION OF COMBINING THE TWO, UM, THEN I WOULD THINK 
          [01:50:01]
WE WOULD LOOK AT, UM, STICKING WITH THE PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK, UM, THREE STORY 40 FEET WITH THE 1.5 WITH THE 3.0. 
          UM, FAR FOR STRUCTURED PARKING, JUST BECAUSE WE LOOKED AT EACH OF THESE AS A PACKAGE. 
          SO IF WE'RE GONNA BRING IT DOWN TO THE THREE STORY 40 FEET, UM, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO BRING IT DOWN TO THAT TOO. 
          AND WE WILL BE DOING ANOTHER ROUND OF KIND OF FIT TESTING ALL THE NUMBERS, UM, BEFORE THE FINAL COMES BACK. 
          SO WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THAT. 
          TO BRIAN'S POINT, THAT 3.0 WAS WITH A FOUR STORY, SO THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY COME DOWN. 
          UM, I BELIEVE THE 1.5 IS IN THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED. 
          SO IS THAT THE RIGHT NUMBER? IS IT SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, IS IT TWO INSTEAD OF 1.5? THAT'S THE FIT TESTING. 
          WE'LL DO AGAIN AS A FINAL ROUND BEFORE THE FINAL NUMBERS COME BACK. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND THEN IF WE DO A COMBINED ONE, ARE WE JUST GONNA CALL IT BUSINESS PARK? WHAT THEN BECOMES THE NAME? COUNCIL CAN CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WANT. 
          YEAH. 
          SO RENE, I GUESS WE CAN HAVE A, THAT, UH, NAMING TO BE DEFINED, UH, LATER AS WE EVOLVE THIS THING. 
          UM, AND DO WE HAVE A LOT OF, UH, BUSINESS PARK CURRENTLY ZONED THAT WOULD CHANGE IF WE CONSOLIDATE IT? WE HAVE, THERE IS A CHUNK OF BUSINESS PARK OUT LAKEVILLE, UM, LET'S SEE IF RON CAN PULL THIS UP. 
          CAN YOU PROBABLY GP AND CAN YOU SHARE YOUR SCREEN? NO, THAT'S, YOU NEED THAT ONE. 
          BUT I THINK THE, BUT THE IDEA MAYOR, IS WE'RE NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE EXISTING BUSINESS PARK. 
          IF ANYTHING, WE'RE PROVIDING THE FLEXIBILITY. 
          I THINK THAT'S A THEME THAT I'VE HEARD THROUGHOUT THE CONVERSATION. 
          UM, AND SO AS THE TEAM LOOKS UP THE MAPS, I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO THE DIRECTION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO MAKE CURRENT BUSINESS PARK LAND USE DESIGNATIONS LESS FLEXIBLE. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT THAT COUNCIL WANTS. 
          SO TO THAT POINT, UM, OUT LAKEVILLE THE PINK AREA THAT YOU'LL SEE OUT, OUT LAKEVILLE BY THE BLUE, THAT'S A, A CHUNK OF BUSINESS PARK. 
          THEN YOU HAVE SOME OUT, UH, NORTH MCDOWELL, UM, LAGUNITAS AREA. 
          SURE. 
          THAT, THAT AREA. 
          R STREET, CLE STREET, SOME ONCLE STREET. 
          UM, ALRIGHT. 
          UM, SO LET'S, I, ONE MORE QUESTION, I'M SORRY. 
          UM, FOR COUNCILMAN BARNACLE, FOR THE, FOR THE FOOD TRUCKS, ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT FLOODWAYS OR FLOOD PLAINS OR BOTH OR? NO, I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE NEED TO MAKE IT AN ALLOWABLE USE WITHIN SOME OF THESE DIFFERENT DESIGNATIONS THAT WE'RE CREATING. 
          NOT A NOTHING TO DO WITH, UH, IN THE FLOODWAY OR FLOOD ZONE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT JUST WITHIN THE EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS, FINDING APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR FOOD TRUCKS TO BE, TO OPERATE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, STRAW POLL. 
          AND, UM, IF I HAVE THE LISTINGS RIGHT, FIRST THING WE WANT TO DO IS FIGURE OUT WHETHER WE WANT TO CONSOLIDATE, UM, OR KEEP THE MAKER AND BUSINESS PARKS SEPARATE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I I LOVE THE IDEA OF THE ADULTS, UM, OR THE, UH, CHILDCARE CENTERS IN ALL OF OUR BUSINESS PARKS. 
          I THINK THAT'S GREAT. 
          I FEEL THAT MAKER SPACES ARE NOT THAT SAME SPACE, SAME REASON WE DON'T PUT HOTELS THERE AND, AND WE DON'T PUT, UH, UM, ANY RESIDENTS THERE. 
          WE WOULDN'T PUT ANY OTHER, WE WOULDN'T PUT A SCHOOL THERE. 
          WE WOULDN'T PUT A, UH, CHILDCARE IN A MAKERSPACE IF WE COMBINE 'EM. 
          FOR ME, THAT'S COMPLICATED. 
          SO THAT WAS MY PITCH. 
          WHEN WE COME ACROSS MUS SITE ON, UM, UM, MAKERSPACE COMBINED, NOT COMBINE, UM, I WOULD COMBINE WITH THE GREATEST FLEXIBILITY OF BOTH, UH, IN, IN TOTAL, UH, SO THAT WE MAXIMIZE, UM, FOLKS THAT WANNA COME IN AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING TO, TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE ALL THE SERVICES THEY CAN. 
          SO IF THERE'S NO RESIDENCES, I'D LIKE TO JUST OPEN THE DOOR. 
          UH, AND THIS ONE FOR COMBINED, I WOULD CONCUR WITH JOHN. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER DECAR. 
          I'LL GO WITH THE COMBINED OPTION. 
          OKAY. 
          VICE MAYOR, UM, THE COMBINED, OKAY. 
          COMBINED, COMBINED COUNCIL MEMBER BARNICLE, I'LL GO WITH COMBINED. 
          ARE WE GONNA TALK ABOUT HEIGHT OR ARE WE SET ON THREE STORIES? UH, 
          [01:55:01]
AND, UH, NOW TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, HEIGHT, UM, YOU WANNA LEAD OFF THAT? UM, SURE. 
          STRAW POLE. 
          UM, COULD WE HAVE A WORKSHOP? YEAH, YEAH, PLEASE. 
          YEAH, PLEASE. 
          CAN WE, PLEASE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE GPAC MEMBERS COMMENT. 
          UH, NO. 
          UM, AS THIS IS A WORKSHOP, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL IN OUR EXPERT, UH, TEAMS FOR, FOR FURTHER COMMENT. 
          AND SO I'D LIKE SOMEONE FROM THE GPAC TO PROVIDE, UH, EXPERT COMMENT ON WHAT THEY'VE HEARD. 
          DO WE HAVE A VOLUNTEER TO SPEAK FOR THE GPAC GROUP? EITHER ONE OF US WOULD, WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR INVITING US, UH, THIS EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS SHARON KIRK AND I'M ON THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 
          SO WE SPECIFICALLY, UH, IDENTIFIED AND WORKED WITH A SECOND DESIGNATION, THE MAKER MICROSPACE, SO THAT WE COULD PROTECT, UH, PEOPLE IN FLOOD, FLOOD AREAS. 
          SO, UH, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE TO CONFINE THE TWO. 
          WHAT I'VE ALSO HEARD IS THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN BUSINESS PARKS, AND THAT'S ANOTHER, THAT'S A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 
          SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE TWO BE REMAIN SEPARATE AND THAT YOU TAKE UP THE FLEXIBILITY DISCUSSION IN THE ZONING CODE AND, UM, THAT YOU CONSIDER WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO PROTECT PEOPLE, UM, AS WE DEVELOP IN AREAS THAT ARE, UH, PRO FROM, UM, PRONE TO FLOODING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I I HAVE A AND, AND LET'S, LET'S DO ONE MORE GEG. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK, THANK YOU. 
          I I WANTED TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT, JUST A LITTLE MORE BIG PICTURE AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU, YOU'VE ALL AGREED. 
          SO ON THE MIXED DESIGNATION, SO, BUT JUST BECAUSE IT'S A STRAW POLL, IT MAY COME BACK. 
          UM, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE OUTLET MALL AREA IS WE KNOW THAT IT FLOODS. 
          WE KNOW THAT IT'S IN TRANSFORMATION INTO SOMETHING POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT, POTENTIALLY BETTER. 
          THERE'S A TON OF PARKING THAT IS JUST LAYING THERE NAKED FOR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OVER IT. 
          UM, WELL, IT'S GOOD TO BUILD UP HIGH WHEN YOU'RE IN A FLOOD ZONE. 
          SO THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF LAND THERE, BUT WE WERE NOT AS A GPAC, UH, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT ENCOURAGING MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS ON THE ADJACENT PARCELS IN FOR THE SAME REASON. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT AS WHERE WE WERE COMING FROM WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO FIND, UM, UM, USES THAT COULD BENEFIT IN THAT, THAT ZONE WITHOUT, AS SHARON WAS SAYING, IMPACTING THE, THE FLOOD SITUATION AND HAVING PEOPLE TRAPPED THERE OR NOT ABLE TO GET TO THEIR, THEIR, UH, PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. 
          SO THE OTHER PIECE IS THE BUSINESS PARKS IS REALLY A DISTINCT KIND OF MODEL. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, THEY'RE GENERALLY ONE STORY. 
          UM, THEY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PARKING, WHICH WE CAN CHANGE IN THE REVISED ZONING, UM, WORK. 
          SO I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO THIS IS CREATING A COMMUTER SITUATION MAYBE IN A PLACE THAT ISN'T AS THE MOST ACCESSIBLE. 
          WE HAVE BUSINESS PARKS AND PLACES THAT ARE VERY EASY ON AND OFF FROM THE HIGHWAY. 
          SO WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS, JUST CONSIDER THAT. 
          AS FAR AS THE STORIES, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH GOING TO FOUR STORIES IN THIS AREA BECAUSE IT'S NOT IMPACTING ANYBODY BECAUSE THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL AROUND. 
          THAT SAID, IT'S PROBABLY NOT THAT FEASIBLE. 
          UM, UNLESS THERE'S, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT IT. 
          THIS WHOLE, UH, OUTLET MALL AREA AS YOU KNOW, IS ONE STORY. 
          SO, UM, PERHAPS THE, WHATEVER YOU THINK ON THE, ON THE FOUR STORIES OR THREE STORIES, I THINK THE KEY IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID IS WHAT ALLOWS THE MOST FLEXIBILITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, DID I SEE YOUR HAND FLAG, FRANK? THANK YOU. 
          UM, ON THE, ON THE FIRST DISCUSSION WITH THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, ONE HAVING LESS OF AN IMPACT ON PEOPLE THAN THE OTHER, UH, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD ELABORATE AND MAYBE GIVE SOME EXAMPLE, LIKE GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I'M HAVING TROUBLE SORT OF PICTURING YOUR POINT IN TERMS WHY ONE WOULD HAVE MORE OF A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON, ON PEOPLE . 
          SO IF YOU'RE DEVELOPING IN AN AREA WHERE, UM, LET'S USE THE CHILDCARE CENTER AS AN EXAMPLE. 
          YOU DON'T WANT KIDS STUCK WHERE THEY CAN'T BE PICKED UP. 
          THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN A FLOOD ZONE. 
          THEY HAVE TO BE, YOU HAVE TO CALL, CALL IN AN EMERGENCY PERSONNEL AND BOATS TO TAKE THEM HOME. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S A SITUATION WHERE YOU, YOU REALLY DON'T WANT, 
          [02:00:01]
UM, A CHILDCARE CENTER IN A FLOOD ZONE. 
          AND OKAY, SO I GET, I GET THAT. 
          UM, IF YOU SET THE CHILDCARE CENTER ASIDE, WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS WOULD YOU ENVISION GOING INTO A MICRO, UH, LIKE THIS, UH, MICRO-BUSINESS MAKERSPACE THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT IN A BUSINESS PARK OR VICE VERSA? SO I WOULDN'T PUT A HOTEL IN A, IN A, IN A MAKERSPACE, UH, FOR THE SAME REASON. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S A CONDITIONAL USE, A CONDITIONAL OPTION TO, TO BUILD A HOTEL IN A BUSINESS PARK. 
          AND THAT TO ME IS REASONABLE. 
          THAT'S SOME FLEXIBILITY THAT YOU'D BE LOSING WITH, UM, COMBINING THE TWO TO A MORE RESTRICTIVE FOCUS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, GOT IT. 
          I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M GIVING YOUR, YOUR, YOUR POINT OF VIEW THE, THE MERIT THAT IT DESERVES. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THE BIGGEST CONCERN WITH COMBINING THEM IS THE POTENTIAL FOR PUTTING A HOTEL OR A DAYCARE IN, IN, IN ONE OF THOSE AREAS. 
          UM, THAT, THAT'S GOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I MEAN, I HAVE A GENERAL COMMENT ON THE DAYCARE PIECE. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
          SO, SO I WOULD, I WOULD JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON ONE THING THAT MARY SAID TOO. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE'VE CREATED THESE ISLANDS, THESE, UM, SORT OF, UM, COMMUTER SCAPES WHERE THERE'S, UM, ENDLESS, UH, FIELDS OF GRASS AND NOBODY ON THEM BECAUSE IT'S JUST A BUSINESS PARK. 
          SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EXPANDING WHAT A BUSINESS PARK COULD DO, WE MIGHT CONSIDER, DO WE WANNA ADD RESIDENTIAL? DOES IT MAKE SENSE? MAYBE IT DOES. 
          I MEAN, SO I I THINK I, AND, AND I'M NOT GONNA SHARE MY OPINION ON IT OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S UP TO THE, UP TO THE COUNCIL TO, UM, COME UP WITH THAT. 
          BUT THE POINT IS, WE COULD BE MORE FLEXIBLE IN WHAT WE CALL A BUSINESS PARK, UM, VERSUS A MAKERSPACE. 
          AND IT DOES MAKE SENSE IN, UH, TO GPAC TO CONTINUE TO SEPARATE THE TWO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THIS IS YOUR CHANCE AS WE FINISH THIS ITEM , IF ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY. 
          GOT IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY LAST THOUGHT? Y YEAH, I MEAN, JUST ON THE, THE IDEA OF THE, THE DAYCARE, I, I GET THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD DAYCARES IN FLOODING ZONES AND, AND PUT, UH, CHILDREN IN PERIL. 
          I ALSO WANNA BALANCE THAT WITH THE IDEA THAT, UM, THAT WE WANNA MAKE IT EASY FOR. 
          WE, YOU KNOW, WE, TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE A QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENT IF YOU HAVE DAYCARE OPTIONS CLOSE TO WHERE YOU WORK, AND GENERALLY THE, THE, UH, THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE FLOODING THAT WE EXPERIENCE, UM, DOESN'T PUT PEOPLE AT PERIL INSTANTLY, KIND OF LIKE A TORNADO MIGHT, RIGHT? AND SO IF YOU HAVE AN AREA WHERE, UM, IT MIGHT BE PRONE TO FLOODING, YOU KNOW, ONCE EVERY, I DON'T KNOW, FIVE TO 10 YEARS THAT A DAYCARE MAY NOT BE THE END OF THE WORLD, AS LONG AS WE RECOGNIZE THAT THEY CAN BE CLOSED AND, YOU KNOW, WAREHOUSES MIGHT BE BUILT THERE OR SMALL WAREHOUSES MIGHT BE BUILT THERE KNOWING THAT THEY'RE GONNA FLOOD FROM TIME TO TIME. 
          AND, UM, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE'RE PUTTING, YOU KNOW, CHILDREN PERIL. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT, THAT MAY BE, I, UM, IT, IT'S JUST A THOUGHT. 
          IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A STRONG POINT OF VIEW. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER SHIPS. 
          UM, JUST THINK IT'S ON DEFINITIONS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR. 
          UM, THERE'S FLOODWAYS AND THEN FLOOD ZONES. 
          SURE. 
          AND THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT ANIMALS. 
          AND WE ALREADY HAD ONE PROJECT, UH, MOSTLY FOOD TRUCKS GOING IN THAT'S GONNA GO IN THE FLOODWAY, WHICH WE'RE NOT GONNA PERMIT AT ALL. 
          UM, IT'S JUST LIKE NOT GONNA WORK AT ALL ON ANY OF THE PERMITTINGS. 
          SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLOODWAYS, THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT PERIOD. 
          NONE WHATSOEVER. 
          WE'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWING FOOD TRUCKS TO SIT ON THAT LAND. 
          SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLOODWAYS, THERE'S ZERO DEVELOPMENT PERIOD. 
          NOW, FLOOD ZONES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAT FLOOD ZONES IS, IT MIGHT FLOOD, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF PREDICTIONS. 
          AND IN THIS CASE OF FIRE, I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT FIRE THAN I AM IN FLOODING. 
          UM, BUT IF WE HAVE, UM, THERE HAS TO BE AN EMERGENCY PLAN AND EVACUATION FOR ALL PEOPLES, WHETHER IT BE WHATEVER BUSINESS, WHATEVER, PEOPLES, NOT NECESSARILY, BUT IT HAS TO BE A EMERGENCY PLAN IN PLACE THAT IS CHECKED EVERY SINGLE YEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ANYWAY, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH PUTTING, UH, CHILDCARE IN, IN THESE AREAS. 
          UM, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A PLAN IN CASE OF FLOODING, IT'LL JUST CLOSE DOWN WHATEVER. 
          SO I, I DON'T HAVE A REAL ISSUE WITH IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ANYBODY WANNA REVISIT THE, UM, UM, THE CONSOLIDATED ZONING PART? I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN IS LIKE, ARE WE, LIKE HOW ARE WE LOOKING 
          [02:05:01]
AT EVOLVING THE EXISTING BUSINESS PARK? 'CAUSE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ON THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF US IS THE EXISTING BUSINESS PARK, UH, LANGUAGE. 
          AND THEN WHEN I GO TO THE DOCUMENT THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT IS IN THE BUSINESS PARK, LIKE, THERE'S A FEW CHANGES, BUT IT DEFINITELY DOESN'T LAY OUT SOME OF THE SORT OF IDEAS THAT SHARON MENTIONED AROUND LIKE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE WANT TO REPLACE THESE ENDLESS GREEN MEDIANS WITH SOMETHING THAT'S MORE, UH, YOU KNOW, ECONOMICALLY VIABLE, , UH, SOCIALLY VIABLE, ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, RIGHT? SO, UM, ARE WE LOOKING AT DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS PARK DESIGNATION? IS THERE, UM, YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE THAT'S A REASON TO KEEP THEM AS TWO SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          SO IN THAT SENSE, THEN I WOULD CONCUR THAT HAVING TWO MAKE SENSE SO THAT, UM, WE CAN APPLY THINGS DIFFERENTLY. 
          I MAY RESPOND. 
          UH, THE, THE POINT THAT I THINK SHARON REALLY ELOQUENTLY STATED WAS THAT THE, THE MAKER SPACE WAS KIND OF CREATED FOR SOME OF THE AREAS WHERE WE ANTICIPATE THE FLOODING IMPACT MORE SIGNIFICANT FLOODING IMPACTS. 
          AND WE LOOKED AT SOME OF THOSE AREAS AND REALIZED, HEY, A LOT OF THOSE AREAS ARE DESIGNATED FOR MIXED USE, WHICH ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL, AND WE DON'T WANT RESIDENTIAL IN THOSE AREAS. 
          SO IT WAS, IT WAS REALLY TARGETED FOR SPECIFIC AREAS TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS STILL ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF, OF THOSE PROPERTIES. 
          BUT WE WERE SAFEGUARDING THEM, UH, FROM THOSE SENSITIVE USES. 
          UM, AND IT WASN'T LOOKED AT TO REPLACE ALL BUSINESS PARK. 
          AND I, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, WE HAVEN'T HAD A WHOLE LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT TRANSFORMING BUSINESS PARKS OR LOOKING AT, UH, CHANGING REGULATIONS FOR BUSINESS PARK. 
          THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE. 
          UM, BUT TO SHARON'S POINT IS THAT THE MAKERSPACE WAS REALLY SPECIFIC FOR CERTAIN AREAS. 
          SO WHEN YOU COMBINE THEM, THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES EITHER WAY. 
          RIGHT? THERE'S, SO I GUESS THEN I'LL JUST PUT THIS BACK TO THE COUNCIL. 
          LIKE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A COUPLE MINUTES, 30 MINUTES NOW, AND THEY SPENT FOUR YEARS TALKING ABOUT ALL OF OUR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND COMING UP AND THERE WAS INTENTIONALITY BEHIND IT. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DEFER TO THE GEX RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE TWO, UM, FOR THE REASONS THAT SHARON VERY CLEARLY LAID OUT. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE MY, MY VOTE ON THE POLL. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FUN THING ABOUT STRAW POLLS IS THEY ONLY TAKE A HEARTBEAT. 
          SO, UM, UH, I I'M JUST GONNA RUN RIGHT ACROSS COUNSEL AND SAY, UH, UM, CONSOLIDATE OR, UH, MAKE HER FACE, UH, COUNCILOR CATER THOMPSON. 
          WELL, I HEARD WHAT THE GPAC SAID AND I'LL GO ALONG WITH THEM, BUT CAN THAT BE SHIFTED LATER? I MEAN, IF WE REALLY FIND OUT THAT THERE'S A  WELL, I THINK STAFF IS DEFINITELY GONNA BE MULLING OVER ALL THIS AND, AND COMING BACK WITH ANOTHER ROUND OF RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO I'M PRETTY HAPPY WITH THAT. 
          COUNCIL, UH, VICE MAYOR, UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, WHEN, IF WE GO ALONG WITH THE GEX RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE THE DEFINITION AND MAYBE SOME, EVEN SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE WOULD HAVE IN A BUSINESS PARK VERSUS A MAKER'S MICRO BUSINESS PARK. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO, SO THAT'S A GUESS, BUT YOU'VE MADE A REQUEST AS WELL. 
          EXACTLY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN, UM, I, I, FROM THE BEGINNING, I STAY WITH THE, THE GPAC COUNCIL MEMBER DE CARLY. 
          UM, WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE REDOING THE STRAW POLL VOTE BECAUSE FOUR OF US ALREADY WENT FOR THE COMBO AND NOW WE'RE STARTING IT ALL OVER. 
          SO I'M, I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF THE COMBINATION OKAY. 
          AS WAS PROPOSED HERE. 
          COUNCILOR, GO. 
          YEAH, I, UH, I'M, I'M FINE WITH DEFERRING, GIVING DEFERENCE TO THE GPAC COMMITTEE. 
          I THINK THEY'VE GIVEN A LOT OF, UH, TIME AND ENERGY AND THEY, THEY HAD JUST A FEW, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO SPEAK AT THE END. 
          AND I, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          I DO APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING YOU GUYS UP BEFORE WE DID THE TH STRAW POLL. 
          UH, COUNCIL MEMBER SHRI. 
          UM, I WOULD AGREE. 
          UH, I PREFER THE CONSOLIDATION, UH, COMBINATIONS. 
          UH, BUT AGAIN, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I WAS PART OF THE GPAC FOR TWO YEARS. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND I FULLY TRUST THEM TO TAKE OVER AT THIS POINT WITH STAFF AND WORK IT THROUGH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE'RE, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY BEHIND ON THE SCHEDULE AND, UH, SO, UM, COOPERATION TO TRY AND, UH, GET US BACK ON TARGET. 
          THE NEXT ITEM THAT, UH, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A STRAW POLE ON IS WHAT WE DID WITH THE UPSTREAM RIVER IN AREAS OF ADJACENT, UH, ADJACENT AREAS OF CHANGE. 
          [02:10:01]
UH, DO YOU HAVE 25 WORDS? THE LEFT? SAY WHAT THAT STRUCK HOLD SHOULD BE FRAME IT, UH, SURE. 
          TO IT'S, LOOK AT THAT. 
          UM, THE APPROACH TO BE TO, UM, ADD POLICY LANGUAGE FOR LONG-TERM, UM, INTENT TO, UM, SUPPORT A GREENWAY PROJECT ALONG THIS AREA AND PURSUE ACQUISITION OR COLLABORATE WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO PURSUE ACQUISITION. 
          AND THEN IN THE NEAR TERM, IT'S MAINTAINING THAT NO BUILD RETENTION AREA THAT IS TALKED ABOUT IN, I THINK IT'S, UH, FIVE ONE LU 5.1, ESTABLISH A 330 FOOT RIVER BUFFER UPSTREAM OF THE WEIR. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S SHOWN ON THE, YEP. 
          EVERYTHING ON THE, YEP. 
          THIS SLIDE. 
          CAN I ASK THE GPAC, UH, DO YOU FEEL A NEED TO COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE WE THANK YOU. 
          JUST BRIEFLY, UM, ON THE, UH, THE MAP THAT WAS THE SORT OF THE RECOGNIZED OR THE RECOMMENDED, UM, ALTERNATIVE, THERE WASN'T A LOCATION FOR THE PARK. 
          I KNOW THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IN RON'S PRESENTATION, THE SEVEN OR 10 ACRE PARK. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT, UM, JUST TO GET A GREEN DOT ON THERE SOMEWHERE. 
          AND I DON'T THINK IT'S THE ONE DOWN AT THE LOWER LEFT. 
          UM, AND SECONDLY, TO CLARIFY, I I BELIEVE THE IDEA WAS THE 330 FEET RIVER BUFFER IS FROM TOP OF BANK ON EITHER SIDE, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY 660 FEET PLUS THE WIDTH OF THE RIVER. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          . 
          IN ONE QUICK QUESTION AND QUESTION. 
          THE GREEN.IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE RIVER IN THAT CORNER. 
          IT'S THE SAME PLACEHOLDER AS THE EXISTING. 
          AND, AND DOES THE, THE 660 PLUS WIDTH, UM, DOES THAT CONSTITUTE SEVEN TO 10 ACRES OF PARK? CAN THAT BE THE SAME THING? UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          I MEAN, MORE OR LESS WE'RE TAKING THE 330, SO WE'LL GET A LOT OF ACREAGE RIGHT THERE. 
          WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          UM, SO I TRYING TO KEEP US ON TARGET. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER RE UM, JUST A QUESTION YOU HAD ON WHAT, UH, RETENTION AREA? UM, YOU SAID NO BUILD AND RETENTION AREA, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A WATER RETENTION POND THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT THERE OR WATER? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? NO, IN THE LAND USE FRAMEWORK, AND IT WAS BASED ON, UM, THE OUTCOME OF THE FLOOD RESILIENCY FRAMEWORK AND THE MODELING, UM, IN THIS AREA OF THE CITY IN AREAS ANTICIPATED TO HAVE GREATER THAN TWO FEET OF FLOODING AT END OF CENTURY, UH, YEAH, BY 2100. 
          SO YES, END OF CENTURY, UH, ARE AREAS WHERE THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S ACTUALLY WOULD BE A PRETTY LARGE SECTION OF THIS, I WOULD IMAGINE, RIGHT? SO THAT'S THAT LIGHT BLUE THAT'S SHOWN ON THIS, ON THIS, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS, THE MAP YOU WERE JUST SHOWING ON THE SLIDE? SO IF YOU, DO YOU SEE THE, THE FINGERS OF LIGHT BLUE THAT COME UP IN AREAS ON THESE PROPERTIES? THAT IS A, A GENERAL OUTLINE OF WHAT THAT MODELING SHOWS US FOR END OF THE YEAR AREAS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED TO HAVE GREATER THAN TWO FEET OF FLOODING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE LARGER THAN THE THREE 30 FEET IN CERTAIN, IN CERTAIN AREAS, CERTAIN AREAS IT WILL. 
          UM, AND SO, UM, BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO SEE LOOKING AT THE MAP. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IF YOU, JUST FOR THE PUBLIC TOO, THERE IS THIS, UM, ONLINE GIS AND IT, IT'S AVAILABLE ON PLAN PETALUMA.ORG. 
          THERE WAS A LINK IN THE STAFF REPORT AND IT HAS A LOT OF THESE LAYERS. 
          SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN PLAY AROUND WITH THEM AND HAVE A LITTLE PLANNING FUN. 
          AND, AND THE IDEA IS WE ARE, WE'RE PROTECTING PEOPLE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS FROM FUTURE DEVASTATION BY PUTTING THIS ALL INTO PLACE. 
          YES. 
          IS IT ONE OF THE MAJOR POINTS WHERE YOU NEED TO MAKE OKAY. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
          SO THEN, BUT I'M GOING YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE PRESENTATION? I'M OKAY NOW WITH COUNCIL MEMBER  AND, AND LEY FOR THIS STRETCH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND, UH, VICE MAYOR, UM, I'M GONNA PASS IT OFF TOO. 
          , THE UPSTREAM RIVER, THE ADJACENT AREAS, THEY'VE DONE GOOD WITH THESE THREE 30 BUFFER AND THE, UM, DEDICATION, THE, UM, RECOGNITION OF RIVER PARK AND RIVER GREENWAYS EFFORTS AND THE NOISE. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON. 
          WELL, THAT IS, I, YEAH. 
          I DON'T 
          [02:15:01]
SEE ANY REASON TO CHANGE IT IF THAT'S G OKAY. 
          THAT'S A YES. 
          CAME UP WITH, SO I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMPSON. 
          I'M FINE WITH IT, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION. 
          SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE THREE 30 ON TOP BANK ON EITHER SIDE, YOU'LL LOOK AT THE CREEKS AND LOOK AT THE EXPANSION? YEAH, WE WILL. 
          WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT CREEK SETBACKS, NOT SPECIFICALLY THE 330 FEET, BUT WE'LL LOOK AT CORRECT THE, WHERE WE HAVE, WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE FOR CREEK SETBACKS AND WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE. 
          THANK YOU COUNCILOR BARNICLE. 
          YEAH. 
          MY, MY, I'M GOOD WITH ALL OF THIS. 
          I WOULD SAY LOOK AT THE 330 FEET. 
          I'M SURE THAT THE POLL, LIKE THE META ANALYSIS DIDN'T SAY 330 FEET ABOVE A WEIR. 
          UM, SO IT SAID SOMETHING ELSE. 
          RIGHT? SO LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS THAT APPLY, OTHER THAN JUST HAVING A WEIR, YOU KNOW, UPSTREAM OF A FLOOD WALL, THAT MIGHT BE ENOUGH. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT, AND SEE IF YOU CAN APPLY IT TO THE RIVERS AND THE, AND THE, UH, CREEKS. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE GOOD THERE. 
          AND CAN WE HAVE, UM, 25 WORDS OR LESS WHAT THE OUTLETS AREA OF THE CHANGE IS? UM, MAYBE THAT SLIDE WE HAD, WE, WE HAD THE OUTLETS AS PART OF THAT UPSTREAM RIVER. 
          JUST GOING TO THE, UM, MAKERSPACE. 
          SO WE'RE GOOD. 
          YEAH, I THINK OUR, SO I THINK THAT WAS INCLUDED. 
          GOOD. 
          AND THEN DOWNSTREAM. 
          DOWNSTREAM IS THE SAME AS WE TALKED ABOUT LAST, LAST BEATING, UM, GOING INTO MAKER DESIGNATION, UM, GIVEN FLOODING IMPACTS IN THIS AREA, THERE WAS A, SEEMED TO BE A CONSENSUS. 
          UM, YEAH, I THINK THIS IS ONE WE HAVE MORE CONSENSUS. 
          MM-HMM . 
          ANY COMMENT ON THIS ONE? OR CAN I JUST ASSUME CONSENSUS ON THIS ONE? UM, AND SO VICE MAYOR, THIS IS MY QUESTION. 
          WHEN YOU GO UP TO BAYWOOD AND LAKEVILLE, THAT LITTLE ADJACENT IS DIAGONAL FROM THE, CAN YOU TURN ON YOUR MIC? OH, SORRY. 
          THE, UM, THAT LAST SLIDE, THERE'S A LITTLE DIAGONAL FROM SEE THAT BIG SPACE ON LAKEVILLE AND, AND, AND BAYWOOD. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THE, IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM THAT AREA THAT YOU HAVE IN PURPLE. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO IN THE, WE KNOW THAT LAKEVILLE FLOODS, WE KNOW THAT THAT'S DOWNSTREAM OR UPSTREAM. 
          SO CAN I ASK THIS IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION? IS, UM, WE DIDN'T ZONE REZONE OR CHANGE ZONING ON THAT. 
          UM, IS THERE A REASON WHY WE DIDN'T OR IS THERE A REASON WHY WE COULD, THERE'S NO REASON YOU COULDN'T. 
          UM, WE, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ONE OF THE AREAS OF CHANGE. 
          UM, SO WE HAVEN'T SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON DO WE KNOW THE EXISTING ZONING, UM, THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL IS THE DESIGNATION. 
          SO IT'S PROBABLY C TWO, C ONE, C TWO. 
          UM, SO IT'S A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION CURRENTLY. 
          UM, CAN I ASK THAT WE GET FEEDBACK ON WHICH ONE PROVIDES MORE LATITUDE FOR A PROPERTY OWNER AND A BUSINESS WHO MIGHT WANNA MOVE THERE AND, AND YET, UM, UM, GET OURSELVES OUR STRAW POLE ON THE DOWNSTREAM RIVER STUFF. 
          UM, SO THE MAKER SPACE IS GOING TO ALLOW MORE OF THE, THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES THAN A TYPICAL COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S A MUCH BROADER, SO IT COULD BE BROUGHT IN. 
          AND SO I GUESS WE'RE ASKING, WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT? SO I, I THINK WHAT THE QUESTION IS, IS TO CONSIDER OR LOOK AT A POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF MAKERSPACE TO THIS PROPERTY, IF IT GRANTS, IS THAT WHAT ALUM, IF IT GRANTS ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR THAT PARCEL, IS THAT WHAT A LUMBERYARD GRADE OF STUDIOS WOULD BE? WOULD THAT BE A MAKERSPACE OR THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ALSO HAVE A RETAIL? YEAH. 
          UH, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. 
          I'M, I CAN'T, I I, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S A CONSENSUS ON THAT ITEM. 
          AND, UH, THE OTHER ITEM WOULD BE THE RIVER PARK AREA OF CHANGE. 
          AND, UM, WE CAN POP UP THAT, UM, SLIDE FOR WHAT THE YEAH, THAT ONE. 
          AND DO ANYONE WANT TO HAVE A COMMENT BEFORE, UM, POLLING ON THIS? PLEASE? I'D SUGGEST THAT WE, UH, GIVE THE RIVER PARK THE LAND USE THAT THEY'VE SAID THEY NEEDED TO RECOGNIZE THE VISION THAT THEY'RE LAYING OUT. 
          AND THAT WAS TO, UM, GO 
          [02:20:01]
UP TO A T SIX LEVEL. 
          IS THAT WHAT THAT WAS? UM, YEAH. 
          UM, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT, PARDON ME IF I JUST GO HERE. 
          UM, WE HAVEN'T TALKED MUCH ABOUT THE, UM, DENSITY BONUS AND OTHER, UM, UM, IN, UH, OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE PROVIDED BY THE STATE. 
          AND WITH PETALUMA'S 15%, YOU KNOW, MINIMUM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, UH, I, I EXPECT THAT THERE'S MORE LATITUDE IN WHAT GETS BILLED THAN WHAT WE'RE ZONING FOR. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TRUE RESIDENT INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE WE FORCE THEM TO GET ALMOST 50% INCLU, UM, DENSITY BONUS BECAUSE OF OUR 15%. 
          SO I THINK, UM, WE'RE GIVEN A LOT OF LATITUDE. 
          COULD STAFF RESPOND TO THAT CONCERN? I I'LL TAKE IT JUST FOR FIRST BLUSH HERE. 
          UM, SO MAYOR, THE KEY FOR, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IS, IS THE, UM, THE ACREAGE COUNT PLUS THE, THE BASE DENSITY. 
          SO YOU'RE, YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE STATE DENSITY BONUS DISCUSSION. 
          UM, AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T HAVE CLARITY ON EXACTLY. 
          IS IT A MIXED INCOME, UH, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A 15% MINIMUM? UM, THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. 
          UM, UH, UNLESS THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN. 
          I THINK IT'S JUST, UH, MORE GENERAL, UH, RESIDENTIAL, UM, INTEREST FOR THE SITE. 
          AND SO I THINK THE KEY IS GONNA BE SETTING THE BASE DENSITY, UM, BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, UH, THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO INCREASE HEIGHT, INCREASE, UM, WAIVERS FROM OUR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, UH, BY SEEKING SOME OF THE STATE DENSITY BONUS, UM, CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS. 
          THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT VARIABLES. 
          SO I, I THINK, UM, I THINK SOMEONE HAD MADE A POINT EARLIER THAT WE DON'T WANT TO, WE SHOULDN'T BE SO SUPER, UH, HYPER-FOCUSED ON THE, ON WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVE IN STATE DENSITY BONUS. 
          UM, BUT THE KEY AGAIN, I'LL JUST GO BACK TO IS WE NEED TO SET THE DENSITY CORRECTLY, BUT WITHOUT HAVING, UM, THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, UH, WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH IS, UH, AT THIS POINT, IT'S AN INTEREST TO, UM, HAVE A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, UH, FIVE OR SIX STORIES. 
          IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY, UM, IF THAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH A STATE DENSITY, UM, BONUS AT THIS POINT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, REALLY WORKING WITH THEM. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S ONE TAKEAWAY I'M HEARING IS HOW DO WE WORK WITH THE RIVER PARK FOUNDATION TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN. 
          I THINK IT'S GONNA NEED A LITTLE MORE DETAIL THAN JUST THEY WANT A FIVE, FIVE TO SIX STORY, UM, RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. 
          OH, ALL RIGHTY. 
          OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER? UM, UH, GPAC, ANY, ANY THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER? IT'S, IT'S, UH, SORT OF NOT FAIR AS IT CAME BEFORE PLANNING, UH, AFTER IT'S BEEN LAST BEEN TO GPAC, BUT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, TAKE A NOTE ON THE SITE ITSELF. 
          IT WOULD BE WORTH CONSIDERATION OF STEPPING DOWN AS SUGGESTED ON THIS DIAGRAM TO THREE STORIES AT THE RIVER'S EDGES. 
          UM, THINKING ABOUT THE IMPACT FOR THE GREATER COMMUNITY AND STEPPING UP, UM, ALONG HOPPER AND BEHIND THE, UH, CORP YARD, WHICH WOULD NOT REALLY IMPACT, UM, THE REST OF THE RIVER COMMUNITY. 
          I MEAN, THE WHOLE VIEW SHED BEING ON THAT PENINSULA, I THINK WOULD BENEFIT OVERALL OF THE SORT OF STEPPING DOWN AT THE RIVER'S EDGE. 
          AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY COME, WHAT THEY ASKED FOR IN THEIR COMMENTS ON MARCH 3RD IS LITERALLY EXACTLY THAT. 
          THEY'VE GOT CALL OUTS ON THERE FOR THAT. 
          THE STAFF HAVE A GRASP ON WHAT THE PROPOSED, UH, THE PROPOSAL IS. 
          CAN PARAPHRASE FOR US. 
          YEAH, I'M, I I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE SHAPE ONE OF THESE DESIGNATIONS TO EXACTLY MEET IT. 
          SO WE HAVE SOME STEP DOWN OPTIONS. 
          UM, LIKE WE HAVE A FIVE STEPPING DOWN TO FOUR ADJACENT TO OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 
          SO THEORETICALLY WE COULD USE THAT DESIGNATION AND INCLUDE SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT SAYS STEPPING DOWN TO THAT ADJACENT. 
          SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE AN IDEA FOR, UM, GETTING, UM, A LOT OF DENSITY AND YET A STEP DOWN ON THE, UM, AIR SIDE AREAS OF IT. 
          AND, UM, I'M GONNA KIND OF LOOK FOR A NO 
          [02:25:01]
AHEAD THIS ONE. 
          IS THAT, DO WE TRUST THAT THAT WILL GET INVOLVED IN THE NEXT STEP? YES. 
          SO WHAT I THINK I'M HEARING IS FIND A WAY TO INCREASE THE DENSITY AND STORIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE VISION OF THE RIVER PARK AND STILL REQUIRE STEP DOWN TOWARDS THE RIVER AND THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL. 
          YES. 
          UM, CAN I HAVE ONE CLARIFICATION? IS THERE ANY LIVE WORK IN THAT? 'CAUSE I COULD SEE THAT AS POTENTIAL, UM, ESPECIALLY FOR ARTISTS. 
          UM, I THINK, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE, BUT LET'S SEE, CAN WE MAKE THAT AS A NOTE TO YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AS A DESIRABLE THING. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN JUST TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE, YOU HAVE SOME HIGH QUALITY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND COUNSEL, IF I COULD JUST ASK STAFF TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLARIFYING SOMETHING AND WE'RE NOT, UM, IT'S NOT, IT'S OFF, NOT OFF THE COUNCIL'S RADAR. 
          I THOUGHT THE ISSUE THAT, UM, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WAS RAISING, WHICH IS ONE THAT STAFF HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE FEEDBACK FROM THE LAST TIME WE TALKED WITH THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THIS IS THE ISSUE OF HOW MUCH, UM, MAXIMUM HEIGHT SENSITIVITY. 
          THERE, THERE IS MAXIMUM HEIGHT SENSITIVITY THERE IS ON THE PART OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY SUCH THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE BASE DENSITIES, UM, IN VIEW OF THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW SO THAT WE'RE NOT SETTING UP A BASIS TO SHOOT UP, YOU KNOW, ABOVE SIX STORIES, SAY OR ABOVE FOUR, WHATEVER THE COUNCIL'S CONCERN IS WHILE STILL OBVIOUSLY MEETING OUR RE OBLIGATIONS AND PROVIDING HOUSING. 
          SO BRIAN, AM AM I GETTING THAT RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE ALLUDING TO WITH RESPECT TO THIS 'CAUSE IF SO? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          IF SO, THAT MEANS WE NEED TO, BECAUSE REMEMBER, THIS IS THE GENERAL PLAN EXERCISE. 
          IT'S NOT PROJECT SPECIFIC, IT'S SORT OF REIT IT'S AREA SPECIFIC. 
          UM, WE'RE HEARING THE, THE COUNCIL, I THINK CONSENSUS ABOUT, UM, FACILITATING WHAT THE RIVER PARK WANTS, BUT WE NEED TO THINK IN TERMS OF, UM, THIS KINDA LAND USE DESIGNATION, NOT JUST THAT PARCEL. 
          AND ALSO WITH A VIEW TO, UM, YOU KNOW, DENSITIES THAT DON'T SHOOT UP ABOVE WHAT THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY WANTS. 
          AND THAT'S RIGHT. 
          AND THAT'S MY CONCERN IN THAT ON THE BOOKS. 
          NOW WHAT WE SAY IS YOU MUST HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE PROJECT, WHICH GIVES YOU THE DENSITY BONUS OVER WHAT THE ZONING SAYS. 
          NOW, SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SAY THAT THEY'LL SEPARATE THE INCLUSION SO THAT YOU HAVE AN ALL MARKET AND AN ALL AFFORDABLE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR BOOKS CALL FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          WE HAVE TO DO OUR ZONING BASED ON WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY, UM, WHAT'S ON OUR BOOKS. 
          AND THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S THE LATITUDE THAT WE WANNA LEAVE OPEN FOR THEM AT LEAST, IS, IS TO DO THAT BECAUSE TO GET THE TAX CREDITS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AS YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU CAN'T INCLU YOU CAN'T DO IT THROUGH INCLUSIONARY, RIGHT? SO THERE'S A WHOLE MESS OF REASONS WHY, YOU KNOW, TO RECOGNIZE LIKE THE OUTCOMES THAT THEY'RE SEEKING. 
          THEY NEED THAT, THEY WANT ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY. 
          WELL, IN OUR, IN AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THE UH, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING SECTION OF THE CODE DOES PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL. 
          SO THERE WAS A, A PROVISION WRITTEN IN THERE THAT YOU COULD APPLY FOR, AND IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE SOMEBODY USED IT, SO I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO QUOTE IT, BUT IT BASICALLY SAYS, IF YOU WANNA DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, YOU NEED TO GO TO THE COUNCIL AND ASK FOR APPROVAL TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          AND THE REASON IT WAS KEPT AT THE COUNCIL WAS BECAUSE THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME REALLY WANTED TO ENSURE THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS BEING INCORPORATED INTO PROJECTS, UM, AND BE ABLE TO SEE IT ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS IF, IF THERE WAS DEVIATION FOR THAT. 
          SO THERE IS A PROCESS ESTABLISHED IN THE CODE THAT ALLOWS THAT FLEXIBILITY, BUT IT IS A PROCESS. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT THEN THE REMAINING PARCEL OR THE REMAINING PROJECT, RIGHT? MM-HMM . 
          SO THEY, THEY ASK FOR IN LIEU, AND THEY'RE GONNA DEDICATE A PORTION OF THE SITE TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          RIGHT. 
          THE REMAINING PARCELS WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE DENSITY BONUS. 
          RIGHT. 
          BECAUSE THOSE ONES DON'T HAVE, WOULD NOT HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN IT. 
          RIGHT? THEY WOULD BE MARKET RATE HOUSING. 
          UH, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, THE, THE DENSITY BONUSES AND WAIVERS ARE A FUNCTION OF OFFERING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          YES. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND, AND OUR 15% REQUIREMENT, AS THE MAYOR SAID, IS A KIND OF A CONSTRAINT 
          [02:30:01]
ON, ON PROJECT SHOOTING UP. 
          'CAUSE THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THE AFFORDABLE, I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW WE CAN FIND A PATHWAY TO A HUNDRED PERCENT, UM, MARKET RATE BEING SIX STORIES AND, YOU KNOW, AT THIS TIME, THAT'S THE PATH I DON'T SEE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND, AND TO, TO BRIAN'S POINT, BRIAN O'S POINT, IF YOUR BASE HEIGHT IS SIX STORIES, THEN IF THERE IS AN APPLICATION FOR A STATE DENSITY BONUS, IT'S GOING ABOVE THE SIX STORIES. 
          IF IT'S FOUR STORIES AND THERE'S A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FROM MAX BUILDING HEIGHT, IT'S GOING ABOVE FOUR STORIES. 
          SO THERE'S, IT'S JUST THAT, THAT GIVE AND TAKE. 
          AND THAT OUR NEXT SEGMENT OF THIS PRESENTATION, WE ARE GONNA TALK MORE ABOUT STATE DENSITY BONUS BECAUSE IT WAS A SENSITIVITY WHEN WE WERE BACK BEFORE YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN IN TERMS OF WANTING TO LOOK AT NOT JUST WHAT IT IS UNDER THE BASE, BUT WHAT IT COULD BE WHEN YOU LAYER ON REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE, UH, COUNCILMAN. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I WOULD BE, UH, IN FAVOR OF, OF PUTTING A, UH, MAX LIMIT FOR MARKET RATE AT 45 FEET AND FOUR STORIES, UH, WITH, AND IF, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN USE EVEN THE WORDS WITH THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE STATE LAW FOR, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO GO UP TO THE 60 FOOT LEVEL. 
          CAN WE WRITE THAT IN? WELL, THAT'S OUR CODE. 
          THAT'S STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. 
          SO I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE TABLE. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S PROPOSAL ALREADY. 
          THAT'S ALREADY THERE. 
          SO YEAH. 
          SO I, I WOULD SAY LIMITED TO, UH, FOR MARKET RATE WOULD BE MAX FOUR STORIES, 45 FEET. 
          AND, UM, AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE ENCOURAGE SOMEONE WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONIES TO COME IN AND DO MORE. 
          I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE KIND OF SPLIT ON THAT. 
          THERE'S A CERTAIN ADVOCACY FOR BOTH, BUT I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND, UM, I THINK YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO BRING IT AS A, A BRINKMANSHIP AT A LATER DATE. 
          UM, OR WE CAN, WE CAN DO, YEAH, WE DO STRAW POLL ACROSS THE THING. 
          YEAH, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE KEEP IT AS, AS AS PROPOSED, WHICH IS A MAXIMUM OF FOUR STORIES STEPPING DOWN TO THREE ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. 
          THAT'S WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS, UM, BROUGHT. 
          UM, OR, UH, IS THE COUNCIL PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO INCREASE THE BASE HEIGHT AND DENSITY BY INCREASING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION? UM, AND STILL THAT STEP DOWN TOWARDS THE RIVER, UM, AND THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL, THEN WE'LL DO THE STRONG POLE WILL START COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE SIDE, KEEP THE PROPOSAL OR, UM, DO THE HIRE. 
          I SUPPORT THE RIVER PARKS, UM, REQUEST. 
          SO I'M GOING TO IN INCREASE COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMPSON. 
          I'M ON BOARD WITH THAT COUNCIL MEMBER NOW. 
          I DO NOT WANT ANYTHING OVER 45 FEET. 
          AND IF IT'S MARKET RATE, THEN IT, THE HOUSING DENSITY CAN'T HAPPEN. 
          SO I'M NOT ON BOARD WITH ANYTHING OVER 45 FEET. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, I'M, I'M WITH YOU 45 FEET. 
          UM, I ALSO DON'T SUPPORT GOING OVER 45, BUT AT THE SAME TIME TOO, AND I THINK I MENTIONED IT LAST TIME, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE AREAS SAY RDI, UM, I, I THINK THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY RARE THAT A TOWN HAS A RIVER AND A RAILROAD, AND THESE PROPERTIES ARE RIGHT BETWEEN BOTH. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE MAKING A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS, THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THAT IN 25 YEARS INDUSTRY WON'T COME BACK TO PETALUMA TO WHERE IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S DESIRED. 
          OKAY. 
          NOTED. 
          YEAH. 
          SORRY FOR THE, FOR THE CURVE BALL HERE, CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT WE, UM, SETTLED ON FOR DOWNTOWN IN THE, NOT DOWNTOWN, BUT NEXT TO THE SMART STATION? THAT'S OUR NEXT DISCUSSION, , THAT'S OUR NEXT DISCUSSION. 
          GOT IT. 
          BECAUSE I, I MEAN, I KIND OF THINK OF THIS LOCATION AS VERY SIMILAR TO THAT. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, I IT'S A, IT'S A PRETTY BIG OPEN SPACE, UH, AND I WOULD SUPPORT ALLOWING THE RIVER PARK TO GO, UM, GIVING THEM WHAT THEY NEED WITH THE STEP DOWN. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I SUSPECT THAT THE RIVER PARK FOLKS ARE THINKING SIX STORIES WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING INSIDE IT, NOT GOING ABOVE THAT. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S THEIR INTENT, NOT SIX STORIES AND ALLOWING ABOVE THAT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO I DON'T THINK THEY, UH, INTEND TO GO OVER SIX STORIES PERIOD WHATSOEVER. 
          SO I'D GO WITH THE 45 FEET, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO GO UP TO 60 FEET, SIX STORIES AT THAT, UH, WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT THEY REALLY WANT. 
          C CAN I JUST COUNTER WITH THAT? I WAS LITERALLY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND JUST WAS ASKING 
          [02:35:01]
ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS. 
          SO OVER THERE ON THE LEFTMOST PARCEL, THAT'S THE ONLY PARCEL THAT'S WHEN A HALF A MILE OF A TRAIN STATION, THAT PARCEL IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BE, UM, AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT SO THAT THEY CAN CAPTURE THE TAX CREDIT SIMILAR TO THE TAX CREDITS THAT WE JUST APPROVED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. 
          LIKE IT WOULD BE A DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, MOST LIKELY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M INTERPRETING FROM WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT. 
          THEN THE MARKET RATE HOUSING WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE HALF A MILE BUFFER ZONE AND WOULD BE, IF, IF IT IS THEIR INTENTION TO HAVE THAT BE THE AFFORDABLE, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO WELL EXCEED THE 45 FEET. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          MY THING IS, IS THAT WHEN WE CAP THE, THE, THE HEIGHT AND WE CAP THE DENSITY ON RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE, THE, LIKE THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THE FIXED COSTS, THE COST OF LIKE BUILDING IN GENERAL ARE SPREAD ACROSS A SMALLER NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          AND WHEN YOU SPREAD THE SAME FIXED COSTS ACROSS SMALLER NUMBER OF UNITS, THAT'S HIGHER COSTS, RIGHT? SO THE MORE UNITS THAT WE BUILD, THE MORE LIKELY WE ARE TO TRY AND CREATE DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON THE RENTS AND THE, THE, THE COST OF OWN LIKE PURCHASING. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I WANT TO GIVE THAT FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE WE SAY WE WANT TEACHERS TO LIVE HERE, WE SAY WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT HERE, AND THEN WE DO THINGS LIKE THIS THAT IN MY OPINION ARE SORT OF NOT LIKE THE VALUES THAT WE SAY WE'RE ESPOUSING TO ARE NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH OUR LAND USE POLICIES. 
          AND THIS IS MY, MY ISSUE WITH LIKE THIS DECISION RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK WE'RE THERE ON THIS. 
          AND, UH, I JUST A QUICK RE REBUTTAL IF I MAY. 
          UM, I THINK THE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECENT, UH, PLAN FOR THE RIVER PARK, THAT AREA WHERE, WHERE WE ARE SAYING PROPOSED DOWNTOWN MIXED USE, THEY'RE PROPOSING A PARKING LOT RIGHT NOW IN NATIVE VEGETATION FOR THAT ENTIRE AREA AS WHAT'S BEING, I THINK IS BEING PROPOSED NOW IN THE NEW PLAN, EVEN THOUGH THE OLD PLANS DID HAVE SOMETHING THERE EARLIER. 
          SO MAYBE PULL UP THEIR CURRENT RIVER PLAN IF WE NEED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. 
          TEMPORARY PARKING LOT. 
          I THINK IT LITERALLY, IT WAS JUST, YOU CAN GO BACK AND WATCH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          IT'S A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT BECAUSE I'M GONNA CALL THIS ONE TO CLOSE TODAY. 
          UM, AND, AND MOVE US FORWARD ONTO THE, THE NEXT ISSUE HERE. 
          CAN I JUST CLARIFY THOUGH, UM, BASED ON THE STRAW POLL, WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE FIVE TO SIX STORIES. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE, THAT WOULD BE THE, BUT I WILL SAY COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE, UM, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE, WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE CANNELL PROJECT THAT WAS PROPOSED, THAT WAS THE SPLIT. 
          SO THE, UM, A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE ON THE LITTLE, I DON'T WANNA SAY LITTLE POSTAGE STAMP, BUT THE ONE CLOSEST TO THE TRAIN STATION, UM, FIVE TO SIX STORIES CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE, UM, THROUGH STATE DENSITY BONUS LOSS. 
          SO THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT AND I WOULD FULLY EXPECT THAT TO COME. 
          RIGHT. 
          I'M TALKING ABOUT THE MARKET RATE, THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO SPECIFICALLY. 
          THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS GONNA BE SET AT WHATEVER PEOPLE'S, YOU KNOW, INCOME IS. 
          I'M TALKING ABOUT CREATING DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON MARKET RATE RENTS AND, AND PURCHASE PRICES. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I THINK WE'RE A WRAP ON THIS AND THAT MOVES US INTO OUR, UH, DOWNTOWN AREA. 
          UH, PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY. 
          LETS SEE, UH, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, IF I MAY, I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION RAISED BY, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER NOW ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE RESOLVED THAT OR NOT, ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL AREA, UH, BY LAKEVILLE AND THE FREEWAY, WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE IT OR NOT INCLUDE IT AND WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO WITH THAT PARTICULAR SPOT, HOW IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED. 
          UM, AND IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO, UH, TABLE THAT TILL, GIVE IT BACK TO THE GPAC. 
          'CAUSE THAT PARTICULAR AREA, IT'S LIKE IF, IF, UM, LOOKING AT, UM, POSSIBLE USES FOR THAT AREA, IF FEDEX OR THE UNITED POSTAL SERVICE AREA. 
          YES, I THINK, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IS WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO WITH IT? YEAH. 
          WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO WITH IT? BECAUSE THERE'S POSSIBILITIES FOR IT. 
          I THINK THEY'RE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE'RE SAYING AND I, I, I THOUGHT THE DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL WAS TO LOOK AT IT IN, IN MORE DETAIL AS PART OF THE PREFERRED MAP. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO, UH, THE NEXT SEGMENT IS IN FACT DOWNTOWN, UM, AREA OF CHANGE, THE DOWNTOWN SMART AREA OF CHANGE, UM, AS A PRECURSOR. 
          UM, WE ARE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT STATE DENSITY BONUS, UM, BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP A LOT. 
          AND ALSO RELATED TO HEIGHT, UH, LOOKING AT THE DOWNTOWN AREA. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          UM, ACTUALLY, CAN YOU, SO IT, UH, LET'S SEE. 
          RECENT GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE DISCUSSION TOUCHED ON THE UNCERTAINTY 
          [02:40:01]
OF HOW IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE HOUSING MANDATE MANDATES IMPACTS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PETALUMA. 
          UM, SO THE CITY HAS A SUITE OF TOOLS AT ITS DISPOSAL THAT CAN SHAPE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, UH, KEEPING WITH THE COMMUNITY'S VISION SUCH AS DENSITY STANDARDS, FLOOR AREA RATIO, STANDARDS, SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHTS, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          SO WE DO HAVE TOOLS TO PUT INTO PLACE TO CREATE THE VISION FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. 
          WE ALSO HAVE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY FROM THOSE LOCAL CONTROLS FOR QUALIFIED HOUSING PROJECTS. 
          SO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW EXISTS TODAY. 
          WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW THROUGH OUR GENERAL PLAN. 
          WHAT WE CAN DO IS UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF IT AND HAVE THAT BE ONE OF THE LENSES WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR DENSITY OR BUILDING HEIGHTS, UM, PARTICULARLY IN AREAS SUCH AS THE DOWNTOWN CORE. 
          SO AS PART OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP AND REQUESTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ON MARCH 3RD, WE DID, UM, DO SOME CONTINUED DISCUSSION INTERNALLY. 
          WE ADDED QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION INTO YOUR STAFF REPORT TO TRY TO GUIDE THAT. 
          AND I'M GONNA BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THINGS, UM, AS THE PRECURSOR IN SETTING THE CONTEXT FOR, UH, THE LAND USE DISCUSSION. 
          SO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1979, UM, TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. 
          UM, SO IT ALLOWS QUALIFIED PROJECTS. 
          IT'S THOSE PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS TO BUILD MORE UNITS THAN IS PERMITTED UNDER THE BASE, UM, ZONING OR GENERAL PLAN REGULATIONS. 
          STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY AMENDED RECENTLY. 
          UM, AND IT IS REALLY LEFT A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS, UM, STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND THE HOW TO IMPLEMENT 'EM, WHAT IT MEANS, THE, THE WHAT IFS, UM, AND POSSIBILITIES. 
          SO, UM, ONE OF, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTICE IS THAT STATE DENSITY BONUS LAWS CALCULATED ON BASE DENSITY. 
          UM, AND SO A LARGE PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN IN PETALUMA IS UNDER THE SMART CODE, WHICH IS A FORM-BASED CODE. 
          AND SO THERE IS NO BASE DENSITY. 
          IT IS ALLOWS UNLIMITED DENSITY IN THE AREAS THAT ARE WITHIN THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN, THE SMART CODE. 
          UM, SO THAT IS ONE OF THE LEVERS WE HAVE IS TO THINK ABOUT DO WE WANNA ESTABLISH DENSITY RANGES FOR THOSE AREAS, UM, THAT CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE A MAX DENSITY? WHAT STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW SAYS IS IN THOSE AREAS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MAX DENSITY, THE APPLICANT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION ESTABLISHES WHAT THAT BASE DENSITY IS BY SHOWING YOU BASICALLY A, AN EXAMPLE COMPLIANT PROJECT. 
          SO THEY BUILD THE, THE BLOCK THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED THE BUILDING BLOCK AND SHOW YOU HOW MANY UNITS THEY COULD GET INTO IT TO SHOW, OKAY, THIS IS THE BASE DENSITY AND THEN STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW WOULD ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THAT BASED ON THAT BASE. 
          SO THAT'S ONE IMPORTANT THING FOR US TO CONSIDER. 
          ANOTHER THING IS THAT, UM, RECENT, UM, STATE CHANGES IN STATE LAW HAS SPECIFIED THAT THE HIGHEST DENSITY BY EITHER THE GENERAL PLAN OR THE ZONING CODE THAT THE APPLICANT GETS THE HIGHER OF THE TWO. 
          SO IT MAKES IT REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN OUR GENERAL PLAN AND OUR ZONING CODE SO THAT WE ARE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT AND THERE IS NOT, UM, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A LOOPHOLE IN TERMS OF, UM, OF DENSITY THAT WE DO NOT WANNA SEE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, SO IN ADDITION TO GETTING AN INCREASE IN, IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS WHAT THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW ALSO FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS, UM, IT ALLOWS AN A DEVELOPER TO QUALIFY FOR INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS FROM LOCAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          SO THIS IS THINGS LIKE BUILDING HEIGHT OR SETBACK OR FLOOR AREA RATIO. 
          IF IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT IT PRECLUDES DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALLOWABLE DENSITIES, A QUALIFIED PROJECT CAN REQUEST THE FLEXIBILITY FROM THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, AND LOCAL 
          [02:45:01]
JURISDICTIONS HAVE EXTREMELY LIMITED DISCRETION TO DENY A REQUESTED CONCESSION OR WAIVER UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY OR AN ADVERSE IMPACT TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES THAT ARE DESIGNATED AT THE STATE OR NATIONAL LEVEL. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT TO SET THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN PETALUMA TODAY. 
          SO WE REALLY SEE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS EITHER THROUGH MEETING THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, WHICH IS THE 15% OR THROUGH 100% AFFORDABLE PROJECTS. 
          THAT'S THE WAY WE HAVE IN, IN RECENT YEARS, SEEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT IN PETALUMA. 
          SO YOU HAVE YOUR AFFORDABLE PROJECTS SUCH AS THE NEW MID PENN PROJECT ON THE BOULEVARD OR THE PEP HOUSING ON BOULEVARD SOUTH, UM, OR THE BURBANK PROJECT THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 
          OTHERWISE, WE SEE A COUPLE UNITS INTERSPERSED IN A MARKET RATE PROJECT. 
          WE HAVE APPROVED A NUMBER OF DENSITY BONUSES OVER THE LAST FIVE, 10 YEARS. 
          WE HAVE NOT SEEN A REQUEST TO, YOU KNOW, 50% DENSITY INCREASE IN THREE STORIES. 
          WE HAVE SEEN ONE OR TWO UNITS ABOVE DENSITY AND MAYBE A, A SLIGHT HEIGHT INCREASE OR A REDUCTION IN PARKING. 
          THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TO DATE WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS APPLIED IN PETALUMA. 
          UM, SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, UM, THAT, THAT WE KIND OF KEEP THAT, UM, STANDARD, UM, AND, AND THINK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN, UH, APPLIED IN PETALUMA. 
          ALSO, IT'S IMPORTANT WE HAVE A LOT OF, UM, POLICY THAT PETALUMA IS VERY PROUD OF THE PRO HOUSING DESIGNATION, A LOT OF THE POLICIES IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, UM, THE SUCCESS IN, UM, LEVERAGING FUNDS TO HELP, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, DEVELOPERS TO BE ABLE TO FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY AND STATE DENSITY BONUS SLOT IS A TOOL AND IT IS A TOOL THAT IS USED, UM, CONSISTENT WITH A LOT OF THOSE POLICIES AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMMITMENT IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO FACILITATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION IN, IN THE CITY. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO MUCH OF THE TIME, STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, UH, THE DISCUSSION GOES HAND IN HAND WITH BUILDING HEIGHT. 
          SO THAT IS MORE IT, IT HAS APPEARED. 
          THAT'S MORE OF THE CONCERN THAN NECESSARILY THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT, UM, MIGHT BE ALLOWED THROUGH A STATE DENSITY BONUS. 
          UM, BUT IT'S THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. 
          UM, SO THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF, UM, LOOKING AT POTENTIAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVES, BUILDING HEIGHT HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT TOPIC, UM, THROUGHOUT THE ENGAGEMENT, THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, UM, AND THE DISCUSSION ABOUT COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          UM, SO AS WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE WERE LAST HERE, THE COUNCIL INDICATED AS A DESIRE, UM, TO KEEP BUILDING HEIGHTS NO HIGHER THAN EIGHT STORIES, OR NO HIGHER THAN SIX STORIES EVEN NEAR THE SMART STATION. 
          UM, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE, WE'VE RECOGNIZED THROUGH A LOT OF OUR OUTREACH IS A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T REALIZE THAT PETALUMA DOES ALLOW SIX STORIES CURRENTLY. 
          UM, AND PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THEM CONSTRUCTED. 
          SO THIS MAP SHOWS THE BOUNDARIES OF, UM, OF THE SMART CODE, OF THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE AREAS IN, UM, THE BROWN AND THE THE GRAY, UM, ARE T FIVE AND T SIX, WHICH ARE AREAS THAT ALLOW UP TO SIX STORIES CURRENTLY UNDER, UM, OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS, UM, AND OUR CURRENT GENERAL PLAN. 
          SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE FOUND WHEN WE WERE DOING SOME OF OUR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, THAT A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY DIDN'T EVEN FULLY REALIZE THAT THERE IS THE ALLOWANCE FOR SIX STORIES IN PETALUMA CURRENTLY. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, 
          [02:50:03]
SO THIS IS REALLY, UM, SHOWING THE AREAS THAT UNDER THE PROPOSED, UNDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THIS IS SHOWING THE AREAS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR AN INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT. 
          UM, WE ARE PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE THE STATION AREA MIXED USE, CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION OR THE FEEDBACK FROM THE, UM, CITY COUNCIL. 
          AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION. 
          BUT, UM, WE FELT LIKE IT WAS GOOD TO KIND OF, UM, DISPEL SOME MYTHS THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT IT IS BEING PROPOSED THAT THE WHOLE CITY GO UP TO SIX AND EIGHT STORIES. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S PROPOSED. 
          THIS IS SOME VERY TARGETED, UM, INCREASES OFTEN FROM FOUR STORIES TO FIVE STORIES, OCCASIONALLY FROM THREE TO FIVE, BUT IN VERY, UM, SPECIFIC AREAS. 
          UM, AND, AND NO AREA UNDER THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION IS PROPOSED FOR OVER SIX STORIES. 
          SO JUST WANTED TO, THIS IS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO REALLY TRY TO, UM, TRY TO CORRECT SOME OF, SOME OF THE CONCERN THAT MORE IS BEING PROPOSED THAN IS ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED. 
          I DO WANT TO, UM, NOTE THAT THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS LARGELY SUPPORTIVE OF INCREASING DENSITIES AND HEIGHTS AND MANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME FROM GPAC WERE RECOMMENDING THAT GREATER INTENSIFICATION. 
          UM, SO THAT WAS LARGELY WHAT INFLUENCED THE STRATEGIC, UH, IDENTIFICATION OF THE AREAS OF CHANGE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, UM, TO FOCUS INFILL DEVELOPMENT CLOSE TO TRANSIT AND SERVICES ALONG KEY CORRIDORS AND IN THOSE 15 MINUTE ACTIVITY CENTERS. 
          UM, SO I DON'T WANNA LOSE SIGHT OF THAT WHEN YOU'RE HAVING YOUR DISCUSSION, UM, THAT THAT WAS, UM, OFTEN A CONSIDERATION AND A RECOMMENDATION AND A STRATEG STRATEGICALLY LOCATED RECOMMENDATION FROM GPAC. 
          UM, AND WITH THAT I THINK I WILL TURN IT OVER TO RON TO DIG INTO THIS SEGMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH HEATHER, FOR THAT CONTEXT. 
          UM, SO NOW MOVING ON TO THE TWO AREAS IN THIS SEGMENT. 
          UM, DOWNTOWN FIRST AND THEN, UM, DOWNTOWN SMART STATION. 
          SO AT THE MARCH 3RD MEETING, THE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSED THE DESIRE TO MAINTAIN EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. 
          AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ON THIS SLIDE, UM, WE, WE'VE HEATED THAT REQUEST AND ARE RECOMMENDING SIMPLY A LATERAL CHANGE. 
          IT'S, IT'S ALL CURRENTLY, UM, MU TWO. 
          UM, THE COMPARABLE DESIGNATION IN OUR NEW SET OF PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS IS DOWNTOWN MIXED USE. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE ASSOCIATED STANDARDS ON THIS SLIDE. 
          SO SIMILAR OR SAME HEIGHT RESTRICTION, IT WOULD BE A SLIGHT INCREASE IN ALLOWED MAXIMUM DENSITY FROM THE CURRENT 30 TO 45. 
          UM, OTHERWISE THE MIX OF USE IS COMPARABLE, ALTHOUGH THERE ISN'T IMPORTANTLY A MINIMUM ACTIVE USE IN THIS DOWNTOWN AREA CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY'S VISION FOR A, AN ACTIVE, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY DOWNTOWN. 
          UM, OTHER ITEMS TO NOTE THE IN THAT DOWNTOWN MIXED USE DESIGNATION, THE FAR WOULD INCREASE SLIGHTLY FROM THE CURRENT 2.5 TO THREE. 
          UM, AND IT DOES MAINTAIN THE PROHIBITION ON STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UM, AND REQUIRES VERTICAL MIXED USE AND PROHIBITS ANY SORT OF HORIZONTAL MIXED USE THAT IS, UM, HOR UH, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ON THE SAME SITE, BUT, UH, ADJACENT TO E TO EACH OTHER IN A HORIZONTAL UH, PATTERN. 
          SO THIS REVISED RECOMMENDATION PROVIDES FOR THE INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY PER ACRE, BUT ADDRESSES THE COUNCIL'S CONCERN ABOUT, UM, UH, ALLOWING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. 
          ALSO, AT THE MARCH 3RD MEETING, THE COUNCIL EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE STATION AREA. 
          UM, SPECIFICALLY YOU ASKED THAT NOT THAT 
          [02:55:01]
NO DESIGNATION BE ALLOW OR INCLUDE ALLOWING UP TO EIGHT STORIES. 
          UM, AND YET AT THE SAME TIME THERE IS A STILL CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN ALLOWING HIGHER DENSITIES IN THIS AREA. 
          UM, AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO MORE OR LESS RETAIN THE, UH, EXISTING, UH, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN AND SMART CODE AND AGAIN, MAKE LATERAL MOVEMENTS TO THE CORRESPONDING NEW PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS. 
          IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE IN THE AREAS THAT ARE THE, I GUESS, LAVENDER ISH COLOR. 
          AND THEN THE DARKER PURPLE WOULD BE THE URBAN CORE MIXED USE. 
          UM, THE TOWN CENTER UH, MAINTAINS THE FOUR STORY MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPT UP TO SIX STORIES WITH PC APPROVAL AS IS CURRENTLY THE CASE IN THE T FIVE. 
          LIKEWISE, THE URBAN CORE MAINTAINS A SIX STORY MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AS CURRENTLY IN THE T SIX DESIGNATION OR ZONING DISTRICT OR SMART CODE DISTRICT. 
          UM, THE BASE DENSITIES HOWEVER, ARE INCREASED, UM, FROM 30 TO 55 IN THE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE AND FROM 50 TO 95 IN THE URBAN CORE, SO ALLOWS CONSIDERABLY GREATER DENSITY. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, FAR WOULD INCREASE FROM THREE UP TO FOUR, UH, IN THE URBAN CORE MIXED USE. 
          AND THEN THE FAR WOULD BE ADJUSTED SLIGHTLY, OR EXCUSE ME, THE, UM, MINIMUM FLOOR GROUND FLOOR FAR, UH, WOULD BE, UH, 0.5 AND 0.2 IN THOSE TWO DESIGNATIONS. 
          AGAIN, TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVITY IN THIS CRITICAL CENTRAL AREA NEAR THE STATION. 
          ON THIS SLIDE, WE PROVIDE THE PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS FOR THE WASHINGTON CORRIDOR JUST FOR CONTEXT, BUT THAT IS A SEPARATE, UM, DISCUSSION ITEM LATER ON THE AGENDA. 
          CAN I ADD SOMETHING? YEAH, I WANNA TOUCH ON THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, UM, COMPONENT OF SOME OF THESE. 
          UM, 'CAUSE I DO JUST WANNA CAVEAT IT THAT WE ARE GONNA WANT TO, LIKE, I THINK I SAID PREVIOUSLY, DOUBLE CHECK ALL OF OUR FIT TESTING. 
          UM, SO FOR INSTANCE, THE URBAN CORE MIXED USE IS ALLOWS UP TO SIX STORIES UNDER THE PROPOSED THE DRAFT STANDARDS CURRENTLY, UM, WITH A 4.0. 
          UM, FAR ALLOWED, WE KNOW THAT WE ARE LOOKING RIGHT NOW AT, UM, THE EKN HOTEL, WHICH IS A SIX STORY PROPOSAL. 
          IT'S A FIRST, I BELIEVE THE FIRST SIX STORY PROPOSAL WE HAVE SEEN, AND IT HAS A-F-A-R-A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF ABOUT 4.5, UH, WHEN YOU DO NOT COUNT THE PARKING GARAGE. 
          UM, SO WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT REAL WORLD EXAMPLES AS WE KNOW THEM TO, UM, KIND OF FIT TEST SOME OF THESE NUMBERS AS WELL. 
          THAT IS A SIX STORY BUILDING THAT HAS A STEP BACK ON THE FIFTH FLOOR AND A STEP BACK ON THE SIXTH FLOOR. 
          UM, SO IT DOES HAVE SOME VARIATION IN ITS FORM. 
          UM, SO WE WILL WANNA FIT TEST SOME OF THESE, UM, SOME OF THESE NUMBERS BETWEEN THIS, THIS DRAFT AND WHEN IT COMES BACK SLIGHTLY. 
          SO I THINK I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GIVE THAT AS A, AS A, AS A CAVEAT THAT, UM, WE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT THESE NUMBERS EXACTLY RIGHT WHEN WE COME BACK WITH THE FINAL VERSION. 
          MAYOR, UM, TO CLARIFY, UM, YOU SAID THAT THE, UM, THE EKN HOTEL PROJECT WAS A 4.5, UM, FAR? CORRECT. 
          IS THAT IN ALL THE OVERLAYS A, B AND C OR JUST THAT PARTICULAR APPLICANT? NO RECORDING IN PROGRESS. 
          THAT IS JUST, THAT'S JUST THE PROPOSED HOTEL BUILDING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S NOT FOR THE OVERLAY IN, SO THAT'S THE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL BUILDING THAT IS PROPOSED FOR THE HOTEL, IT, IT, THAT'S THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. 
          IT'S NOT WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE OVERLAY. 
          IT'S NOT WHAT'S 
          [03:00:01]
ALLOWED IN THE, UM, LAND USE DESIGNATION. 
          JUST TRYING TO TAKE REAL EXAMPLES, UM, TO MAKE SURE WE GET THESE NUMBERS RIGHT IN TERMS OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT. 
          BUT LET'S SAY AN APPLICANT IN, UM, SUB AREA B WANTED TO DO THAT SAME FAR, THEY COULD, UH, UH, I'LL JUST START WITH THAT AS A, AS A REMINDER, THE, THE OVERLAY AS IT'S BEEN PROCEEDING UNDER COUNCIL DIRECTION, IT CURRENTLY ONLY EXISTS OF CONSISTS OF SUB AREA A, BUT THEY JUST SHOWED IT ON, ON THIS SLIDE. 
          IT'S RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF US. 
          CAN WE ROLL BACK TO THAT SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE DOWNTOWN? SO THE DOWNTOWN IS NO CHANGE TO THE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED. 
          THERE IS AN INCREASE IN THE DENSITY RANGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION, BUT THERE IS NO CHANGE TO EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN TERMS OF BUILDING HEIGHT, UM, PROPOSED AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          THE OVERLAY IS SHOWN IN THAT HATCHED THAT GRAY HATCHED, WHICH SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, ADOPT AS PART OF THE SECOND READING THAT I IS COMING BACK, WHICH IS KINDA OFF THE TABLE FOR TONIGHT, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S OFF THE TABLE, IT'S NOT GENERAL PLAN, IT'S ZONING, BUT THEN WHAT WOULD THIS OTHER IN THE, THE RED DOTS BE CONSIDERED? IS THAT JUST IT'S THE UPDATED DOWNTOWN MIXED USE? YEP. 
          IT'S THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S MY CONFUSION. 
          YEP. 
          THANKS FOR CLARIFYING. 
          YEAH, THAT WAS JUST TRYING TO, UM, BE TRANSPARENT AND IDENTIFY THAT THAT'S WHERE THE ZONING TOOL WOULD, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION. 
          OKAY. 
          I WAS JUST GETTING A CLARIFICATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          NOW, AND THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE GOING UP TO FROM 30 UP TO 45 UNITS PER ACRE, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          THE DENSITY INCREASES IS PROPOSED TO INCREASE YES, FROM 30 TO 45. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT WOULD OPEN THE WAY FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TYPE DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN, RIGHT? DO YOU MEAN STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW? YEAH, SO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW CURRENTLY EXISTS, SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE APPLICABILITY OF IT. 
          UM, BUT YES, IT WOULD BE, THEORETICALLY YOU COULD USE THAT IN THIS AREA. 
          HOWEVER, THERE IS A PROVISION OF STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW THAT SAYS IF THE DENSITY BONUS CAUSES A ADVERSE IMPACT TO A DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESOURCE DESIGNATED ON THE STATE OR NATIONAL REGISTER, WHICH OUR DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT IS LARGELY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER, UM, THEN THE, THE THEORETICALLY THAT COULD BE EVALUATED, UM, AS CAUSING US, RIGHT? BUT I'M REMEMBERING BACK TO A COUNCIL MEETING LAST YEAR WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS, UM, I THINK IT WAS COUNCILMAN BARNACLE THAT SAID THAT WE COULDN'T GO HIGHER BECAUSE WE'RE LIMITED TO 30, YOU KNOW, WITH DENSITY HOUSING DENSITY BONUS HOUSING LAWS. 
          UM, SO THIS, THIS SEEMS LIKE A WAY TO MAKE THAT MORE ALLOWABLE BY INCREASING IT TO 45 BECAUSE 30 WAS LIMITING THAT FROM HAPPENING. 
          SO I, I THINK IT CAN BE SEEN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS. 
          I MEAN, YOUR, YOUR STATE DENSITY BONUS IS GOING TO BE ON TOP OF YOUR 30, YOUR BASE DENSITY, RIGHT? SO IF IT IS ALLOWED UP TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE, THEN IT'S GOING TO ESTABLISH THAT BASE AND YOUR DENSITY BONUS COULD GO ABOVE THAT. 
          SO IF IT'S 45 AND YOUR STATE DENSITY BONUS COULD GO ABOVE THAT, THAT IS, THAT'S TRUE. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE. 
          WE ALSO ARE FINDING, AND THIS IS ANOTHER REAL LIFE EXAMPLE THAT SOME, THAT THE DENSITY IS ACTUALLY PRECLUDING EVEN THE SMALLEST OF HOUSING RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS IN OUR DOWNTOWN. 
          WE RECENTLY HAD AN INQUIRY ABOUT AN EXISTING PROPERTY THAT WANTED TO ADD WITHIN THE EXISTING LAND USE, UM, THE EXISTING HEIGHT, EVERYTHING, THEY WANTED TO ADD, UH, TWO TO FOUR UNITS. 
          AND THEY CAN'T DO IT UNDER THE CURRENT DENSITY, THE CURRENT DENSITY ONLY LESS THAN HAVE ONE UP TO 4,500 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL UNIT, WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN KEEPING 
          [03:05:01]
WITH MUCH OF THE VISION THAT WE'VE SAID. 
          WE WANT TO HAVE MORE OPTIONS, HAVE MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE OPTIONS, AND ENCOURAGE SMALLER UNITS, ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO LIVE DOWNTOWN. 
          SO THERE'S, THERE'S, WE'RE TRYING TO COME TO WHERE THAT RIGHT, THAT RIGHT SIZE IS FOR PETALUMA. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBERSHIPS. 
          HEY, UH, THREE, UH, QUESTIONS. 
          UH, FIRST IN THE, UH, WHEN I TALKED TO THE, UH, POLICE CHIEF ABOUT THE LADDER AND HOW HIGH IT CAN REACH, IT CAN REACH UP TO THE SIX STORIES, BUT NOT ABOVE. 
          AND ALSO THERE WAS SOME LIMITATIONS, UH, I THINK AT THE WASHINGTON COMMONS THERE WAS SOME FIRE CODE THAT REQUIRED THAT, THAT THEY HAD TO BRING DOWN A NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          SO IN THE FIRE CODE IS, UM, THERE'S RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WOULD BE, COULD BE OR WOULD BE USED BY THE, BY THE FIRE MARSHAL TO PREVENT HIGHER BUILDINGS FROM BEING BUILT. 
          UM, SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, MAYOR, WE ARE DONE WITH OUR PRESENTATION WHEN YOU'RE READY TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          RIGHT? UM, I I THINK IT'S MORE NUANCED THAN THAT COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          UM, SO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW DOESN'T ALLOW SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          SO IT DOESN'T GET THEM AROUND THAT. 
          I DON'T, I'M NOT, I CAN'T, I, I CAN'T, UM, ASSUME THAT I CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT FIRE CODE. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW THAT SAYS EVEN IF YOUR FIRE SERVICE CAN'T GOOD. 
          I JUST WANTED TO GET CLEAR ON THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THE FIRE CODE WOULD NOT, WOULD BE NOT ALLOWED TO STOP SOMETHING GOING HIGHER AND BIGGER. 
          OKAY. 
          THE NEXT ONE, UM, UH, A REQUEST MAYBE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT IS FOR YOU, WHEN YOU SAY FIT TEST, I'D LIKE YOU TO GO AHEAD AND TEST THE POSSIBILITY. 
          THERE IS AN EIGHT STORY BUILDING, MOSTLY CONCRETE, UH, THAT'S GOING TO GO UP IN SANTA ROSA AND RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE GEN H IS I HEARD ABOUT. 
          AND IT'S GONNA MOSTLY STUDIOS, ONE IN BEDROOM AND MAYBE A FEW TWO BEDROOMS, BUT IT'S GONNA BE MARKET RATE CONDOS TYPE THING. 
          SO I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE THAT FIT TEST DONE IN THAT TYPE OF BUILDING. 
          IF IT WERE APPLIED AND PUT INTO OUR AREA, WOULD THAT FIT INTO THE REQUIREMENTS WE'RE PUTTING IN, IF IT'S UNDER AFFORDABLE DENSITY BONUSES AND WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE FOR FAR AND DENSITY TYPE THINGS. 
          AND THEN, UH, THE LAST QUESTION MIGHT BE, UM, THERE IS A, A POSSIBILITY THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF THESE PROPERTIES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, RIGHT? UM, RIGHT NEXT TO THE, UM, THE OUTLET STORE, UH, GROCERY OUTLET, UM, THAT BETWEEN THAT AND THEIR ENTRY TO THE DOCKS LITTLE PIECE OF LAND THAT INSTEAD OF BEING A BUILDING COULD BE EASILY A PARK. 
          AND SO IF YOU'RE PUTTING IN, UM, AND SAME THING WITH SOME OF THE DOWNTOWN SPOTS. 
          OH, THERE, THERE COULD BE A PUBLIC GROUP THAT SAYS LIKE THEY HAVE IN THE PAST. 
          I THINK WALNUT PARK AND HENRY PARK ACTUALLY WERE DONATED BY, UH, OUR FOUNDERS, UM, HERE MANY YEARS AGO AND BASICALLY DONATED WITH MONEY AND CREATED PARKS. 
          SO IF, IF A GROUP HERE DECIDED TO BUY LAND AND DONATE IT TO THE CITY AND BECOME A PARK, WOULD THE FAR OF A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 0.2 PRECLUDE THAT FROM EVER HAPPENING? COULD WE MAKE THE FAR MINIMUM ZERO PLEASE? JUST IN CASE SOMEONE WITH LARGE MONEY DONATE. 
          CAN I SUGGEST THAT IF, UH, IF A PARK OR OTHER CIVIC IMPROVEMENT AROSE, WE WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING TO CIVIC IMPROVEMENT AND THIS WOULD GO AWAY AS A PROBLEM? OKAY. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE DON'T RUN INTO A PROBLEM WITH THAT IF WE SET THIS IN, IN CODE THAT THERE'S A REQUIREMENT OF, OF A BUILDING ON SITE TYPE THING. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING AT THAT TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN JUST BACK TO, CAN, CAN YOU, UH, WOULD THAT BE AN APPROPRIATE LIKE, FIT TEST FOR, FOR THIS DOWNTOWN AREA, FOR THAT TYPE OF BUILDING? SO AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, THERE'S NO DESIGNATION THAT WOULD ALLOW OVER SIX STORIES. 
          SO WE'RE NOT FIT TESTING FOR ANYTHING THAT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING. 
          I GET CONCERNED ABOUT ALL THE POSSIBILITIES OF STATE DENSITY BONUS BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN COVER, BE SURE WE'RE COVERING ALL, ALL OF THE POSSIBILITIES, RIGHT? SO WHAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT IS WHAT ARE WE AS A COMMUNITY ALLOWING AS OUR BASE DESIGNATIONS, OUR BASE ZONING, OUR MAXIMUM HEIGHT, OUR MAXIMUM FA AND MAKE SURE ALL THOSE NUMBERS WORK WELL TOGETHER. 
          I DON'T KNOW, UM, THE, I'M GONNA, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT TRYING TO FIT TEST EVERY POSSIBILITY THAT WOULD COME THROUGH WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. 
          OKAY. 
          I WAS JUST CHECKING TO SEE WHAT, WHAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE IN A, IN A FIT TEST. 
          AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO YEAH, THAT, THAT'S FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE'RE 
          [03:10:01]
AT A, A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. 
          I HAD, UM, LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT ANYBODY WHO DOES WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS TURN IN CARDS TO OUR CLERK AND, UM, I'LL, I'LL NOTE THAT, UH, RICHARD THOMPSON HAS LEFT THE BUILDING AND, UM, I HAVE, UM, CARDS FROM DARREN RAKU IN, UM, TO, AND, UH, UM, AND WE'LL LET THE, UH, GPAC WEIGH IN FIRST AND PROBABLY LATER AGAIN. 
          SO, SORRY DARREN, I'M GONNA ASK, UH, GPAC MEMBERS TO START THE, THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN TO BE FOLLOWED BY DARREN RASON. 
          GOOD EVENING AND SORRY FOR BEING LATE. 
          UH, I HAD ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING I WAS COMING FROM. 
          UM, BUT UH, I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT FROM THE GPAC THAT, UM, AND UNDERSCORE THE COMMENT FROM STAFF THAT THE GPAC DID, UM, WAS INTERESTED IN INCREASING THE DENSITY IN A LOT OF THE INFILL LOCATIONS, UM, AREAS OF CHANGE THAT WE STUDIED AND RE IN MOST PART BECAUSE WE WANNA ENSURE, UM, DENSE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS LOCATED CLOSE TO TRANSIT AND DOESN'T REQUIRE, UM, THE INCREASE OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED. 
          UM, I, I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED TO SEE THAT, UM, SOME OF THE NEW PROPOSED MAX HEIGHTS ARE LOWER THAN THE CURRENT, UM, MAX HEIGHTS ALLOWED, UM, IN THIS, UH, REVISED PRESENTATION TODAY. 
          UM, AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT WE REALLY DID WANT TO INCREASE, UM, DENSITY AND HEIGHT IN THESE AREAS OF CHANGE. 
          I THINK, UH, I CAME IN, UH, A LITTLE BIT LATE, BUT TALKING ABOUT THE RIVER PARK AREA OF CHANGE AND WANTING TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE THE VALUE THERE, UM, AND ALLOWING THEM TO GO UP TO SIX STORIES. 
          I THINK IT'S, UH, A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVER MAYBE OVERREACTION THE OTHER WAY TO, TO BE TOO SCARED ABOUT THE STATE DENSITY BONUS BEING TOO OVERUSED BECAUSE YOU REALLY DO HAVE TO HAVE A PORTION OF THAT BE AFFORDABLE IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE STATE DENSITY BONUS. 
          AND AS WE'VE SEEN FROM THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR HOUSING, THAT'S JUST NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY, UH, MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS. 
          SO THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR PROJECT SIZE AND INCREASE THEIR PROJECT COSTS AND, AND ALSO DESIGNATE A PART OF THEIR PROJECT AS AFFORDABLE AND, AND GET THOSE KIND OF BUILDING HEIGHTS THAT, THAT PEOPLE ARE SCARED OF. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT AND TO NOT SWING TOO FAR IN THE DIRECTION OF BEING WORRIED ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN, UH, SUCH THAT WE'RE TYING OUR HANDS GOING FORWARD FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN YOU JUST SAY WHAT YOUR BACKGROUND IS IN HOUSING FOR THE FOLKS WHO DON'T KNOW YOU? UM, I AM AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER AS OF THE LAST 20 YEARS. 
          AND THEN FOR ABOUT THE LAST YEAR, I'VE BEEN THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR HOUSING AND THE CITY OF OAKLAND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, UH, DARREN ZEN TO BE FOLLOWED BY JILL LOWRY. 
          THANK YOU, CAITLYN. 
          THANK YOU COUNSEL FOR THE DISCUSSION. 
          I'M GONNA REACH BACK INTO THE PRIOR PERIOD OR THE PRIOR AREA AND TALK ABOUT MAKER MICRO BUSINESS. 
          UM, WE NEED TO IDENTIFY WHAT WE IMAGINE FUTURE ZONING RULES WOULD BE THAT WOULD MAKE THAT DESIGNATION UNIQUE. 
          I'M GONNA TRY NOT TO REACH TOO FAR INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT I THINK THAT'S KEY. 
          YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WE HEAR SOME OF THESE NAMES AND IT'S WHAT DOES MAKER MICRO BUSINESS MEAN? AND I THINK SOME OF THAT WOULD COME OUT IN THE RULES. 
          IF IT DOESN'T, THEN WHAT, WHY DO WE HAVE IT? AND WHAT ARE THOSE MAKER MICRO BUSINESS OUTCOMES? UH, AND THEN FOR THE RIVER PARK, I APPRECIATE WHAT ATTORNEY DANLEY SAID ABOUT WE'RE NOT MAKING THE GENERAL PLAN AROUND THE NEEDS OF JUST ONE PROJECT, RIGHT? THAT'S A BALANCE. 
          WE LOVE THE RIVER PARK, I LOVE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALREADY DEEP ENOUGH WITH THEM IN THIS PLANNING PROCESS THAT WE ARE TAILORING THIS AREA AROUND THEIR PROJECT. 
          MAYBE WE FIGURE OUT IF THEY DO PLAN TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DENSITY BONUS, WHAT THEIR NEXT STEPS ARE TO HELP ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          WHERE THIS DEEP ALREADY, IT MIGHT NOT HURT TO GET THAT LAST PIECE TO FIGURE OUT. 
          YOU KNOW, THE ANSWER TO THIS HEIGHT QUESTION, UH, IN THE DOWNTOWN SMART AREA, THERE ARE MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS THAT DON'T ALLOW STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL. 
          IT'S DOWNTOWN MIXED USE, URBAN CORE AND STATION MIXED USE. 
          I GET THE DESIGN IMPETUS TO REQUIRE THAT, UH, BASIN, THAT MIXED USE ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO HAVE AN ACTIVE STREET FRONT. 
          I'M WONDERING IF WE ENVISION, AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO REACH TOO FAR AHEAD, BUT ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL SAT BEHIND A COMMERCIAL STREET FRONTAGE. 
          I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN SO MANY PROJECTS SINCE I'VE BEEN ON PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE DESIRE TO HAVE AS MUCH RESIDENTIAL AS POSSIBLE, EVEN IN MIXED USE. 
          AND SOMETIMES, LIKE WITH OYSTER COVE, IT WAS BUILDING HIGHER CEILINGS ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO ALLOW FOR A FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE, BUT RESIDENTIAL FOR NOW. 
          SO FIGURING OUT, UH, IN THOSE MIXED USE AREAS WHERE IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY ALLOWED TO HAVE SOLELY RESIDENTIAL, WHAT ARE SOME FLEXIBILITIES THAT WE CAN BUILD IN THERE, BUT KEEP 
          [03:15:01]
THAT CORE DESIGN COMPONENT OF MIXED USE THAT'S SO VALUABLE. 
          UH, AND I JUST WANNA SAY I APPRECIATE STAFF NOW LOOKING AT STATE DENSITY BONUS, WHETHER OR NOT YOU KNOW, WHERE THE PENDULUM IS SWUNG, BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING I ASKED FOR WHEN WE FIRST SAW THIS DOCUMENT ON PLANNING A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. 
          AND I'M JUST GLAD TO SEE IT IN THERE. 
          I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LEVEL SETTING AROUND THAT, WHAT IT DOES AND DOES NOT DO, AND REALLY HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT KNOBS WERE TURNING THAT AFFECT THAT. 
          AND THEN WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT FIT TESTING, THIS IS SOMETHING I I ALWAYS ADVOCATE FOR WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FAR HEIGHTS. 
          WE HAVE SOME IMAGES OF BUILDINGS IN THERE, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AND I, WITHOUT COSTING TOO MUCH MONEY, WHICH IS THE, THE TRICK, UM, BUILDING FORM OPTIONS, LIKE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FAR AND HEIGHTS AND DENSITIES, THOSE ARE THE THREE DIMENSIONS THAT MAKE A BUILDING THE SIZE IT IS OR WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. 
          WHAT ARE OUR ENVISIONED OUTCOMES, RIGHT? WHAT KIND OF BUILDINGS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? NOT JUST WITH THE ONE PICTURE, BUT JUST LIKE 10 BUILDING FORMS THAT ARE POSSIBLE UNDER A HEIGHT DENSITY AND FAR LIMIT. 
          SO WE DON'T ALL THINK OF ONE THING OR IT, OR FOR SOME OF US, I DON'T HAVE GREAT SPATIAL, YOU KNOW, I I WOULD JUST BE GREAT TO SEE A PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          UM, AND THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU JILL LOWRY TO BE FOLLOWED BY, UH, LEWA STEWART. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME'S JILL LOWRY. 
          I'M RECENTLY, UH, RETURNED TO THE AREA FROM 17 YEARS ON HAWAII. 
          MY WORK IS IN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, AND THIS EVENING I WAS REALLY WORRIED WE WERE NEVER GONNA TALK ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY OR EVACUATION STUDIES. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THE, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS BRINGING IT UP. 
          BUT, UM, WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING MANY LOVELY OPPORTUNITIES, THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY THAT GOES WITH THAT. 
          AND SO I'M REALLY WANTING TO PROBABLY RUN OUTTA TIME. 
          BUT, UM, WITH, WITH THESE PROJECTS, THERE'S AN INCREASE IN POPULATION VISITOR USAGE. 
          UH, AND I THINK WE ARE LONG PAST THE TIME OF RELYING ON STATUS QUO, UM, DISASTER PREPAREDNESS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE FUTURE WITH CLIMATE AGGRESSION IN MIND. 
          UM, FOR THIS AREA, UH, NOT SO MUCH CLIMATE, BUT DEFINITELY A SEISMIC ACTIVITY AREA. 
          AND A LOT OF THE AREAS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS PRONE TO LIQUEFACTION AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY LARGE BUILDINGS. 
          AND THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT I SAT IN WAS THE HOTEL. 
          AND FOR SOME OF YOU WOULD KNOW THIS TOPIC, BUT, UM, SOFT STORY, SO THAT BOTTOM FLOOR OR A FLOOR AND A MULTI-LEVEL BUILDING BEING VERY OPEN AND ENTICING, BUT IT'S ALSO, UM, LEADS TO PANCAKING, PARTICULARLY IN A LIQUEFACTION AREA. 
          SO I'M SOWING SEEDS. 
          THAT'S MY ONLY GOAL HERE FOR TODAY, IS TO LOOK AT YOUR EVACUATION STUDIES FOR THESE AREAS. 
          WHAT ARE YOUR CODES FOR THESE MULTI-STORY BUILDINGS? UM, AND THEN ULTIMATELY MY BEG FOR YOU GUYS, IT'S A, IT'S A LARGE COMMUNITY. 
          IT'S A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY. 
          AND IF WE'RE GONNA KEEP PEOPLE SAFE, WE HAVE TO START IMPLEMENTING SHELTERS WITHIN THESE AREAS TO ACCOMMODATE MORE PEOPLE, MORE POPULATION, MORE VISITORS. 
          WE CAN'T KEEP GOING FORWARD AND PRETENDING LIKE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS IS NOT A PART OF THE EQUATION. 
          HAPPY TO TALK TO ANYBODY AT ANY TIME. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. 
          I HOPE I PLANTED A COUPLE SEEDS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, LEWA STEWART, MAYOR, MY COMMENT IS TOWARD THE CORRIDORS. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO, OKAY. 
          UH, NO, I THINK WE'LL HOLD IT. 
          THE QUARTER'S PROBABLY COMING NEXT. 
          UM, AND DWAYNE BELLINGER, UH, GOOD EVENING. 
          DWAYNE BELLINGER HERE. 
          UM, I, UH, CAME IN LATE. 
          I APOLOGIZE IF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED OR IS OUT OF LINE. 
          UM, I DO APPRECIATE YOUR POLICY, UH, CONCERNING THE, UM, THE 50 MINUTE NEIGHBORHOODS AND, UH, FUTURE BUILDING FOR, I THINK WE'RE GONNA COME UP ON THAT IN A MINUTE, UH, TO TALK ABOUT THAT NEXT. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          I'LL KEEP THE CARD ON, UH, ANDY. 
          AND, UH, THAT BRINGS IT BACK UP, UH, TO THE DAIS TO WHO WANTS TO WEIGH IN ON, UH, THIS ACTIVITY. 
          UM, I HAVE ONE THING TO SAY TOO FOR CONTEXT. 
          SO THERE'S UM, THERE'S A NEW SCOTT WEINER BILL PROPOSED THAT, UH, SB 79 AND IT'S KIND OF A NASTY ONE WHERE IT SAYS, THIS WOULD REQUIRE CITIES TO APPROVE HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, UP TO SEVEN STORIES NEAR PUBLIC TRANSIT STOP, PUBLIC TRANSIT STOPS MYSTERIOUS STERILY REGARDLESS OF LOCAL ZONING CODES, LIMIT THE USE OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALLOW TRANSIT AGENCIES FULL LAND AUTHORITY OVER RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY THEY OWN OR LEASE. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING BACK TO, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A HALF MILE NOT DEFINED ON WHAT I HAVE HERE, 
          [03:20:01]
BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE GO DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, THE SMART AREA, SMART TRAIN STATION AREA, UM, DOESN'T MATTER IF WE GO FOUR OR SIX TONIGHT, THIS IS THE SORT OF THING THAT CAN COMPLETELY OVERRIDE IT, GO UP TO SEVEN, AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF ON TOP OF THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DENSITY BONUS LAWS CAN, CAN GO EVEN HIGHER. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR A LONG TIME, THAT WE HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY NOW WITH THE GENERAL PLAN TO TRY AND PUT PROTECTIONS IN PLACE, YOU KNOW, TO GO AGAINST WHAT THE STATE IS TELLING US IS GOOD FOR US OR THAT WHAT WE NEED. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT ON IT. 
          I, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WAYS THAT WE CAN DO THIS INSTEAD OF JUST TELLING US THAT THIS IS WHAT THE STATE SAYS WE HAVE TO DO IT, THERE'S NO WAY AROUND IT BECAUSE I, I HEAR OTHER CITIES TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO GET AROUND IT AND TO CHALLENGE IT AND, AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE STAFF TO HELP FIGURE OUT WAYS WHERE PETALUMA CAN GROW AND DEVELOP THE WAY THAT IT WANTS TO SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DOWN ZONING SOMETHING BECAUSE OF THIS, YOU KNOW, OR, YOU KNOW, TYING OUR HANDS FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS FOR, FOR SOMETHING. 
          I, I WANT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET AROUND WHAT THE STATE IS TRYING TO DO AND, AND, YOU KNOW, CURTAIL NASTY SENATE BILLS LIKE THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AGAIN, WHATEVER WE DECIDE TONIGHT, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS PASSES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, COUNCIL MEMBER CHUBBS, ANY, UH, YOU WANNA WEIGH IN ON THIS ONE? YOU NO, I, I'M OKAY WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UH, ESPECIALLY GIVEN WHAT THE, UH, STATE CAN DO. 
          SO IF THIS IS WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR THESE AREAS, UM, I'LL GO ALONG. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER MCQUINN. 
          YEAH, SAME HERE. 
          I DID HAVE, UM, ONE QUESTION. 
          UM, CAN, CAN YOU BRING UP THE, THE MAP OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT, UM, HAS THE, UM, THE AREA, LIKE WHERE THE GROCERY OUTLET IS? THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT I HAD ABOUT THE, UH, COLOR CODING. 
          SO IF I'M INTERPRETING THIS RIGHT, THE, UM, THE LOT I, SORRY, I FORGET THE NAME OF THE, THE SHOT, YEAH. 
          WHERE THE, WHERE THE CURSOR IS. 
          IS THAT SUGGESTING THAT ONE SMALL STRIP OF THAT ALONG THE ROAD IS URBAN CORE MIXED, BUT THE REST OF IT IS TOWN CENTER MIXED USE? AM I READING THAT RIGHT? YOU, YOU ARE. 
          AND THAT IS FOLLOWING WHAT THE, UM, CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE SMART CODE CURRENTLY HAVE, WHERE THEY HAVE, UM, A, A STRIP ESSENTIALLY ALONG THE FRONTAGE THAT ALLOWS FOR SLIGHTLY TALLER, UM, DENSER, MORE INTENSE, AND THEN STEPPING DOWN TOWARDS THE RIVER THERE, STEPPING DOWN BY I THINK A ONE FLOOR RIGHT IT'S GOING FROM SIX STORIES TO FIVE STORIES. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, IF I WAS READING THAT CORRECTLY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THIS IS HOW IT IS IN THE, UM, SMART CODE CURRENTLY. 
          SO YOU SEE THE GRAY MM-HMM . 
          UM, THAT IS SAYING, UH, THE FIRST 50 TO 80. 
          YEAH, SORRY. 
          I NEED STRONGER GLASSES. 
          50 TO 80 FEET OF THOSE FRONTAGES IS SUPPOSED TO BE MORE, MORE INTENSE, UM, TALLER, MORE INTENSE. 
          UM, AND THEN THE BROWN STEPS DOWN TO THAT, WHAT WE NOW CALL T FIVE FROM T SIX. 
          AND SO REALLY WHAT'S PROPOSED IS JUST MIRRORING WHAT'S ALLOWED CURRENTLY. 
          GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, WE'RE ON TO, AM I RIGHT? I DID HAVE A, A QUESTION. 
          UM, SO, UM, I CALL IT, UH, PAYLESS, CVS, THAT SIDE OF, UH, WASHINGTON. 
          UM, I REALLY CAN'T TELL HOW DEEP THAT PROPOSAL GOES INTO THAT LOT. 
          UM, THERE'S QUITE A FEW MAKER FACES, IF YOU WILL, IN THE BACK AREA THERE. 
          ARE THEY ALL INCLUDED IN THIS? AND, UH, UM, DO YOU MEAN ARE THEY, SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT I I'M GONNA ABOUT, LEMME JUST WANNA ABOUT, LEMME JUST ASK ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          SO THAT SPACE AND THAT AND THOSE LIMITS OF, OF THAT ZONING, ARE THEY THE EXISTING ZONING NO CHANGE? YEAH. 
          I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS DESIGNATED. 
          SEE, UH, YOU MEAN PUSHING THAT DOTTED LINE BACK TO THE NEXT STREET? YEAH. 
          I WAS THINKING IT WAS FAR ENOUGH, IT WAS MAYBE TOO FAR BACK, UH, CURRENTLY AND WOULD BE TAKING OUT SOME OF THE WAREHOUSE SPACE BACK IN THERE. 
          UM, WHEREAS THIS, NO, THAT'S THE ENTIRE YES, THAT'S, 
          [03:25:01]
I MEAN, THAT'S THE BACK. 
          SO DO YOU SEE THERE THAT THAT PINK LINE ON THERE IS BASICALLY, THAT'S THE BACK OF THAT CVS BUILDING IT LOOKS LIKE. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, THAT, THAT WOULD, I THINK THAT'S THE BACK OF THE, UM, WAREHOUSE THERE. 
          THE BIG LINE GOES BEHIND. 
          WELL, I THINK, YEAH, I THINK THE WHITE BUILDING IS THE CVS. 
          OH, YES. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN THE YEAH, THOSE ONES MIGHT BE WAREHOUSE, YEAH. 
          THE WAREHOUSES. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WORRIES ME IS, IS, UH, PUSHING THIS CONVERSION OUT OF THE WAREHOUSE. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT, BUT IT JUST, UH, I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE WE'RE CHANGING A WAREHOUSING AND, YOU KNOW, NOT A SUPER, NOT A CVS, BUT ACTUALLY THIS IS DESIGNATED NOW THOSE MAKERSPACE INTO THAT. 
          UM, AND, UM, ANYONE, SO JUST, JUST, UM, IT'S NOT, IT IS CURRENTLY MIXED USE. 
          SEE THIS WITH THE PURPLE THAT HE JUST TURNED ON? YES. 
          UH, IT IS CURRENTLY ALL MIXED USE, SO IT MIGHT BE, AND THE MIXED USE IS NOT, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON IT. 
          UM, WE, WE ARE REFINING THE MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE MIXED USE DESIGNATION CURRENTLY. 
          UM, AND SO WE ARE MODIFYING IT SOME, THE, THE DESIGNATIONS WE NOW ARE GONNA HAVE WHAT, SEVEN OR EIGHT, UH, MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS INSTEAD OF ONE, BECAUSE IN PART WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOME LIMITS ON HEIGHTS IN THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WAS MY QUESTION. 
          UM, VICE MAYOR, UM, THANK YOU TO, UM, I THINK IT WAS DARREN WHO CAME UP WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT THE FAR EXAMPLES WITH SOME, MAYBE SOME, UM, BUILDING PHOTOGRAPHS THAT SHOW THE DIFFERENT FAR, UM, SORT OF LIKE WHEN WE HAVE A GLOSSARY OF TERMS, IT KIND OF, UM, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, I'M NOT A BUILDER. 
          AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN PHOTOS OF OTHER BUILDINGS AND OTHER CITIES AND OTHER COMMUNITIES TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT AN FAR THE DIFFERENT, UM, SIZES. 
          UM, FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT, FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY, UM, SPEAKER WE HAVE, UM, TOM JORDAN IN OUR STAFF HAS REALLY LAID OUT A GREAT, UM, YEAH. 
          EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT STAFF AND THE DIFFERENT NONPROFITS AND COOL. 
          PETALUMA, I'D LOVE FOR YOU TO, UM, SUBMIT A LETTER EVEN TO COUNCIL AND TO STAFF AND WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU WITH WHAT WE'RE GOING, 'CAUSE WE'RE SO MUCH MORE PREPARED NOW THAN WE WERE IN 2017 WHEN THE TUBS FIRES. 
          AND I REALLY HAVE TO, UM, UM, THANK THE CITY MANAGER AND HER STAFF FOR THINKING AHEAD FOR NA NATURAL DISASTERS AND WITH OUR, UM, GENERAL PLAN COMING UP. 
          I'M SURE IT WILL BE IN THE GENERAL PLAN AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, UM, SO, AND NOT, NOT SEEING ANY MORE COMMENT ON IT. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER VAAL. 
          YEAH, I'M, I'M WONDERING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLOORS AND DENSITY. 
          SO LIKE, I JUST DID LIKE A LITTLE, LIKE A LITTLE MATH I GUESS OF, UH, YOU KNOW, DIVIDING DENSITY, MAX DENSITY BY FLOORS. 
          AND IT RANGES FROM 10 TO LIKE NEARLY 16. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING, UM, WHY WOULD WE HAVE 10 INSTEAD OF THE LIKE 15.8 PER FLOOR THAT IS IN THE CORE MIXED USE? SO, UH, I'M JUST LIKE, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE, THE ONES THAT ARE UP RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? THE FOUR, THE FOUR DIFFERENT MIXED USE ZONES THAT YOU WERE JUST SHOWING, LIKE IT RANGES FROM 10, RIGHT? WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MIXED USE 30 MAX 30 AT THREE UNIT OR AT THREE FLOORS. 
          SO THAT'S 10 UNITS PER FLOOR. 
          AND IT GOES UP TO LIKE THE HIGHEST ONE BEING 95 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          IT'S SIX FLOORS, THAT'S 15.8 UNITS PER FLOOR. 
          AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A, LIKE A REALISTIC THING TO LOOK AT, RIGHT? BUT WHEN I SEE, UM, WHEN I SEE 10 UNITS PER FLOOR VERSUS 15.8 AUTOMATICALLY, WHAT I THINK IS THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO CHARGE A LOT MORE FOR THOSE 10 UNITS TO, UM, TO MAKE THEIR PROJECT PENCIL. 
          AND SO I'M LIKE, I'M, I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR SOME OF THOSE DENSITY 
          [03:30:01]
UNIT OR DENSITY, UM, ALLOCATIONS? UH, SO IT GO, A LOT OF IT GOES BACK TO THE INTENT. 
          WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO ALLOW HIGHER DENSITIES CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GOALS. 
          AND SO WHEN WE DO THE TEST FITS, WE'RE TESTING THE, UM, MAXIMUM DENSITY IN FAR PER THE STANDARDS THAT, UM, THAT FIT WELL TOGETHER. 
          UM, AND WE USE, UH, SELECT, UM, BUILDING TYPES, UM, THAT EITHER ARE KNOWN TO BE, UM, ARE, ARE FEASIBLE IN PETALUMA, EITHER OR YOU'VE SEEN THEM OR WE SUSPECT THEY COULD BE, UM, AT CERTAIN ALLOWED HEIGHTS, DENSITIES AND FAR. 
          UM, AND SO FOR EACH OF THESE, WE TOOK A, UH, AN EXAMPLE PROJECT AND TESTED IT AGAINST THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TO SEE IF IT WOULD, IT WOULD WORK AND MADE ADJUSTMENTS, ADJUSTMENTS ACCORDINGLY. 
          AND SO, AS IT'S SOMEWHAT RELATED TO WHAT HEATHER WAS SAYING EARLIER, THERE'S KIND OF TO SOME, SOME EXTENT AN INFANT, A NUMBER OF POSSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF WHAT SOMEBODY COULD DESIGN TO FIT WITHIN CERTAIN RANGES. 
          AND SO IT'S, IT'S HARD TO DECIDE WHERE TO STOP OR AND START IN TERMS OF WHAT DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS YOU TEST. 
          UM, SO IF YOU, SO IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES IN MIND, WE WE COULD TRY TO TEST THEM, BUT IT, I MEAN, I JUST, WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM PRACTITIONERS, THE FEW PRACTITIONERS I'VE TALKED TO IS, IS THAT 30 UNITS PER ACRE JUST ISN'T LIKE A SUCCESSFUL, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A SUCCESSFUL DENSITY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN BEEN TOLD BY THE FEW PRACTITIONERS I'VE TALKED TO. 
          UM, WE'VE GOT PROJECTS IN THAT ARE ENTITLED AT 30 UNITS PER ACRE THAT AREN'T GETTING BUILT. 
          UM, SURE THERE'S MANY REASONS WHY, UM, SOME OF IT'S FEES, SOME OF IT'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 
          SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHY WE'RE, UM, STILL LIVING IN THAT 30 UNITS PER ACRE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO, UM, CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE PROJECTS WORK. 
          I'M FINE NOT INCLUDING, NOT INCREASING THE HEIGHT, BUT IT FEELS LIKE, UM, WHY WOULDN'T WE INCREASE THE DENSITY IS MY MY QUESTION. 
          I GUESS WHY, SO IS YOUR CURRENT, WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE OF INCREASING THE DENSITY INSTEAD AND, AND KEEPING THE HEIGHT WHERE IT IS? RIGHT? IT DOESN'T GET EVERYBODY ALL RI UP OVER VIEWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          IT PROVIDES MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE A PROJECT PENCIL. 
          PLEASE DON'T TALK ABOUT PARKING . 
          SO COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, SO I'M LOOKING AT THE, WE'RE LOOK ALL LOOKING AT THE FOUR. 
          SO YOU'RE JUST, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THE, MAYBE THE FOCAL POINT IS MORE ON THE, MAYBE THE TOP TWO. 
          I MEAN THE RANGE IS SIGN, I MEAN, WHAT RON WAS ALLUDING TO IS WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE A GOOD RANGE OF UNITS PER ACRE BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH VARIATION IN THE DIFFERENT, UM, PARCEL SIZES. 
          UM, AND SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, YOU'RE WANTING TO CREATE A RAISE THE FLOOR FROM 30 TO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, UM, SO THAT WE'RE GONNA GET THE RIGHT TYPE OF, UM, PRODUCTS IN THESE SPECIFICS. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT I, I'M NOT TRYING TO SPECIFY THINGS. 
          I'M TRYING TO RECOGNIZE THAT, UM, RIGID REGULATIONS ON THIS STUFF HAS NOT WORKED IN THE PAST. 
          AND SO, UM, LIKE WE CAN KEEP A LOWER HEIGHT LIMIT, BUT INCREASING THE DENSITY FOR THOSE BUILDINGS JUST CREATES MORE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MONEY FOR A DEVELOPER. 
          UM, AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING LIKE WHAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR KEEPING THE DENSITY DOWN AT 30 UNITS, WHICH IS ALSO IN TERMS OF UNITS PER FLOOR, IT'S THE, IT'S THE LOWEST NUMBER OF UNITS PER FLOOR OF ALL THE DIFFERENT MIXED USE STONES THAT YOU'VE SHOWN SO FAR. 
          RIGHT? SO WHEN I SEE THAT, I JUST THINK, UM, IT'S GONNA BE INCREDIBLY HARD TO MAKE SOMETHING PENCIL. 
          AND IF IT IS, DOES PENCIL, THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE GONNA BE VERY PRICEY. 
          SO I THINK WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING ALSO IS, UH, AS LONG AS YOU'RE CONTROLLING THE FORM IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT AND OR THE 
          [03:35:01]
FAR THEN INCREASE THE DENSITY. 
          SO YOU MIGHT BE ALLOWING MORE HOUSING, SMALLER HOUSING UNITS. 
          UM, SO I JUST TO KIND OF, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING. 
          THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN ON THE, ON THE FLIP SIDE, UM, WE'RE ALSO, WE'RE TRYING TO RESPOND TO WHAT TO COUNCIL MEMBER DI CARLY'S POINT TRYING TO, WHAT ARE THE CITY'S TOOLS AND LEVERS ALSO TO PROTECT AGAINST OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE FORM THROUGH THE STATE DENSITY BONUS. 
          AND DENSITY IS ONE OF THOSE, THOSE THINGS THAT THE CITY CAN, THEY CAN, YOU CAN SET YOUR BASE DENSITY AND SO IF YOUR BASE DENSITY IS 50 UNITS AN ACRE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET MORE THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT THROUGH THE DENSITY. 
          SO IT IS ONE OF THE FEW LEVERS THAT THE CITY HAS. 
          UM, SO THERE'S A, THERE'S PROBABLY A SWEET SPOT IN THERE. 
          UM, YEAH, I GUESS IT JUST DOESN'T SOUND SOUND LIKE, LIKE THAT THAT LINE OF THINKING DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A COUNCIL THAT GOT PRO HOUSING DESIGNATION, GOT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE YEAR, RIGHT? LIKE, WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE HOUSING. 
          WE'RE IN A HOUSING CRISIS, WE WANT MORE PEOPLE, MORE FEET ON THE STREET IN OUR DOWNTOWN. 
          WE WANT MORE CUSTOMERS FOR OUR DOWNTOWN. 
          LIKE WE SHOULD BE CREATING FLEXIBILITY, NOT LIKE TIGHTENING THE REGULATIONS. 
          RIGHT? I MEAN, THIS IS, UM, AND, AND WHEN WE CAME, UM, WHEN WE PREVIOUSLY CAME, THERE WAS A LOT OF ANGST ABOUT THE WHAT IFS, THE WHAT IFS ABOUT, UH, STATE DENSITY VOTES. 
          SO WE ARE PRESENTING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR THIS DISCUSSION ON WHERE THAT RIGHT AMOUNT IS. 
          UM, AND, AND TRYING TO RESPOND TO, UM, THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS OF THIS COUNCIL THAT WERE BEFORE TODAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I GUESS I WOULD JUST, UH, LIKE LOVE TO HEAR WHERE THE GPAC IS THAT ON SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. 
          UM, 'CAUSE IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE HEADED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION FOR A COUNCIL THAT SAID THEY WANTED TO BE, UM, A LEADER ON HOUSING. 
          WELL, COUNCILMAN BAR, I WANNA GO BACK TO IF WE COULD, AND JUST HEARTBEAT HERE, LET ME JUST ASK FOR A, A CLARITY ON THIS. 
          YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE URBAN CORRIDOR TOWN CENTER AND URBAN COURT MIX, NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER FIRST OF FOUR, FIRST OF FOUR CAPS AT 30 AND THE OTHER START AT 30. 
          DEFINITELY NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE AT 30 UNITS PER ACRE AND THREE STORIES. 
          THAT'S LIKE, AND THAT ONLY IN THIS, IN THE CON PURSUANT TO CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING IS ONLY NEXT TO THE BURELL BUILDING. 
          IS IS THAT WAS THE LOGIC I THINK WHY THAT IS THE LOWER DENSITY. 
          I BELIEVE SO. 
          SO, UM, AN AWFUL LOT OF WHAT WE HAVE STARTS AT 13 GOES TO 75 TO 95, BUT IT'S, THERE'S OTHER PLACES TOO WHERE THAT'S APPLIED TOO, OR IS THAT THE ONLY PLACE WHERE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS APPLIED? I'M THINKING ABOUT IT AS A ZONE THAT'S APPLIED TO MORE THAN JUST THE PARCELS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, WHEREAS MAYBE I'M WRONG. 
          THE, THE, THE PREFERRED, THE REAL INTENT FOR THE USE OF THAT IS, AS THE NAME IMPLIES IN AND WITHIN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ON SMALL, UM, MIXED USE NODES. 
          UM, AND SO THE INTENT, THE ASSUMPTION IS IT'D BE FAIRLY SMALL SCALE, WHICH IS WHY BOTH THE HEIGHT AND ALLOWED DENSITY IS RELATIVELY SMALL. 
          UM, THAT, THAT'S THE CONCEPT. 
          UM, WE RUN INTO A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE WHEN WE DO THE LATERAL SHIFT FROM EXISTING TO THE NEW DESIGNATION AS IN THIS CASE AT THE, IS IT ELL BUILDING? IS THAT THE CORRECT PRONUNCIATION? MM-HMM . 
          WHERE THE EXISTING ZONE IS ONE A AND KIND OF THE LATERAL SWITCH IN THE NEW DESIGNATIONS IS NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, CENTER MIXED USE PARTS OF IT FIT VERY WELL. 
          UM, BUT OTHERWISE THE INTENT IS NODES OF NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          WHAT I, I'M LOOKING LIKE ON EAST WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW AND THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE CORRIDOR YEAH. 
          ON EAST WASHINGTON THAT GOES FROM LIKE PAYAN ALL THE WAY UP TO THE HIGHWAY. 
          THAT'S NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THERE. 
          THAT'S LIKE A MAJOR TRANSIT ROUTE RIGHT NEXT TO OUR FAIRGROUNDS. 
          RIGHT NEXT TO, I MEAN, IT'D BE A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE IF YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TRYING TO GET BY WITHOUT A CAR. 
          AND SO TWO THINGS. 
          ONE IS, UM, I BELIEVE PART OF THE GPAC DISCUSSION ON THAT IS ONCE THE MASTER PLANNING AND THE, AND THE VISION WITH THE FAIRGROUNDS TO REVISIT THE DESIGNATION IN THAT PART THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE FAIRGROUNDS. 
          'CAUSE THAT IS KIND 
          [03:40:01]
OF STAYING THE SAME AS IT IS, BUT THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT AS THE FAIRGROUND TRANSFORMS AND THERE'S A VISION THERE THAT THAT MIGHT BE, UM, A BETTER TIME TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S IN CORRIDORS, THAT PIECE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE'LL CUT TO THAT IN A HEARTBEAT. 
          UM, ON THE NEXT SEGMENT, I'D LIKE TO INVITE IN A COUNCIL MEMBER TO CARLY AND THEN ASK SOMEONE FROM THE GPAC TO WEIGH AND IF, IF THEY SO FEEL, YEAH. 
          SO, UM, COUNCILMAN BARNACLE BACK TO THAT MEETING IN OCTOBER, NOVEMBER. 
          I FORGET THE DATE EXACTLY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AND I'M PARAPHRASING HERE, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT YOU HAD SAID YOU WANTED TO DISPEL THE RUMORS AND, AND ADDRESS WHAT HAD BEEN SAID ABOUT GOING UP TO NINE STORIES AND HOW THAT ACTUALLY WASN'T POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT, UH, YOU KNOW, UNITS PER ACRE AT 30. 
          AND SAY THAT, THAT YOU HAD CLARIFIED WITH STAFF THAT YOU ACTUALLY COULDN'T GO UP TO SIX STORIES, THAT YOU'D BE STUCK AROUND FOUR STORIES BECAUSE OF THAT 30. 
          SO HOW CAN, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN WE CAP THE HEIGHT IF BY INCREASING THE DENSITY, UM, IF WE'RE INCREASING THE DENSITY, THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALSO THEORETICALLY INCREASING THE HEIGHT AS WELL. 
          I MEAN, YOU COULD KEEP IT AT FOUR STORIES AND HAVE SMALLER UNITS OR YOU COULD GO UP HIGHER AND HAVE WHATEVER SIZE UNITS. 
          RIGHT? I MEAN, THE, THE WHOLE POINT TO, TO DISPELLING THE HEIGHT MYTHS AROUND THE OVERLAY WAS THAT THE LIMITING FACTOR WAS, YOU KNOW, OUR UNITS PER ACRE. 
          SO WE WOULD BE GOING UP POTENTIALLY HIGHER THAN THE FOUR STORIES IF WE INCREASE THAT TO 45 COUNCIL MEMBER BARNICLE, CAN I ASK A, A QUICK QUESTION? PLEASE? UM, YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE DENSITIES, IS IT MOSTLY FOCUSED ON THE, THAT MINI CENTER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS? OR ARE YOU ALSO THINKING ABOUT, AND I KNOW WE'LL GET INTO THE STANDARDS LATER, BUT IT'S SO TIED TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE DOWNTOWN? OR ARE YOU ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE MAX DENSITIES IN, FOR INSTANCE, THE URBAN CORRIDOR MIXED USE THE URBAN CORRIDOR AND THE URBAN CORE MIXED USE? I'M QUESTIONING THE RATIONALE FOR ONE OF 'EM BEING AT 10 UNITS PER FLOOR AND THE OTHER ONE BEING AT CLOSE TO 16 UNITS PER FLOOR. 
          BECAUSE THAT TELLS ME THAT LIKE, UH, ONE OF THEM IS DENT IS LIKE, IS ACTUALLY MORE DENSE THAN THE OTHER. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THAT, UM, THE, UH, EVEN LIKE, AND SO WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AS I'M TRYING TO GET THE MOST HOUSING UNITS THAT I CAN INTO THE BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE ALLOWING TO BE BUILT, UM, THAT'S MY GOAL, RIGHT? IS TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE AND TO PROVIDE CUSTOMERS FOR BUSINESSES. 
          AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE, UH, STATE DENSITY BONUS LOFT JUST A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE PROJECT WITHIN A HALF A MILE OF A SMART STATION, RIGHT. 
          THAT IS UNLIMITED DENSITY. 
          CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND IT'S A 33 FOOT DENSITY OR HEIGHT LIMIT INCREASE, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          SO A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE PROJECT THAT IS PROPOSED WITHIN A HALF A MILE OF OUR SMART STATION. 
          IF, IF THE EXISTING IS FOUR STORIES COULD GO UP TO, LIKE, IF IT'S 45 FEET, IT WOULD GO UP TO 78 FEET. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED. 
          WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT PRACTICAL. 
          LIKE WE'VE GOTTA LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD WHEN WE'RE MAKING POLICY DECISIONS. 
          WE CAN'T LIVE IN THE IMAGINARY LAND OF LIKE, WHAT IF THERE WAS SOME BILLIONAIRE THAT CAME IN AND BOUGHT UP ALL THIS PROPERTY AND THEN BUILT TALL BUILDINGS EVERYWHERE FOR POOR PEOPLE. 
          LIKE, WE'VE ACTUALLY MAKE POLICY THAT IS LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD. 
          WELL, I THINK IT IS A VERY REAL WORLD THING AND A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY. 
          SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DISCOUNT IT. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO PLAN THE NEXT 25 YEARS HERE. 
          WE CAN'T JUST SAY THAT SOMETHING'S NOT LIKELY. 
          SO WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE'RE GONNA PRETEND LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST, YOU KNOW? AND I, I THINK TOO THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT MAKING THINGS MORE DENSE AND PETALUMA HERE AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE ROOM SAYING THAT, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYBODY HERE LINING UP TO LIVE THAT WAY EITHER. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT PETALUMA WANNA LIVE IN TIGHTER CONFINED SPACES LIKE THAT. 
          OKAY, GOOD POINT. 
          UM, AND, UH, I JUST WANNA WEIGH IN A LITTLE BIT ON THIS TOO. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, UM, I I'M AS INTERESTED IN ACHIEVING HOUSING RESULTS AS ANYBODY, BUT I THINK, UM, MY PERSPECTIVE IS WE NEED TO HAVE IT FOR ALL TYPES AND, UM, SOMETIMES 
          [03:45:01]
THE DENSITIES WILL BE LOWER. 
          UM, SOMETIMES THE DENSITIES WILL BE PRETTY, UH, HIGH FOR PETALUMA AND SOMETIMES THE STATE'S JUST GONNA WALK IN AND, AND, AND, UH, CHANGE OUR GAME PLAN WITHOUT US REALLY HAVING, UM, UH, A, A SAYING IT. 
          SO, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S ROOM FOR THE PLAN TO INCLUDE ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING. 
          WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO ASK, I, I INVITED GPAC IN. 
          IS THERE A PART OF THIS YOU GUYS WANNA WEIGH IN ON, OR, BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF ALL OVER THE PLACE, I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO. 
          YEAH, I THINK I'LL, I'LL START AND THEN MY GPAC COLLEAGUES WILL FILL INTO, UM, I THINK WE DO SUPPORT INCREASED DENSITY AND THE FLEXIBILITY THAT THAT GIVES TO WITHIN THE SAME BUILDING FORM ADD MORE UNITS OR SMALLER UNITS BECAUSE THE TYPES OF HOUSING THAT WE HAVE IN PETALUMA ARE ACTUALLY, UH, KIND OF VERY SIMILAR. 
          AND WE, WE ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING A CONTINUUM OF DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, UH, AS PEOPLE AGE IN PLACE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY NOT NEED A LARGE FAMILY HOME. 
          THEY COULD, UH, GO TO A SMALLER HOME MICRO UNITS, INTERGENERATIONAL, ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A, UH, KIND OF VERY DIFFERENTIATED HOUSING SUPPLY. 
          SO, UH, I THINK THAT IS ONE COMMENT TOWARDS INCREASING DENSITY, UM, WITHIN KIND OF A, A SAME BUILDING FORM. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE A HIGHER BUILDING HEIGHT, UM, WITH THAT DENSITY IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. 
          UM, BECAUSE THAT IS, THAT IS THE WAY THAT WE WILL ACCOMPLISH THE LOWER VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, UM, GREENER DEVELOPMENT, INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO OUT INTO OUR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. 
          WE REALLY WANNA KEEP DEVELOPMENT CONCENTRATED IN THESE AREAS OF CHANGE THAT PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING CHANGE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, JUST QUICKLY TO ADD, UH, TO WHAT ALLIE SAID, UM, THE SMALL AREA THAT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE IS BRINGING UP TO ME SEEMS VERY REASONABLE TO INCREASE THE DENSITY OF 45. 
          AND IT'S BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION, IT'S RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE TRAIN STATION. 
          UM, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WILL, BUT IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSING IN A PLACE THAT WE REALLY COULD USE IT. 
          AND JUST TO, UM, BACK UP ON A COUPLE OF, UH, IN, UH, STUDIES THAT WERE DONE DURING THE PROCESS, WE LEARNED, I'LL, I'LL PROBABLY GET THESE NUMBERS A LITTLE BIT OFF, BUT WE LEARNED THAT, UM, SOMETHING LIKE 20,000 PEOPLE COMMUTE INTO PETALUMA AS FOR WORK, UM, THAT THAT'S NOT GREAT. 
          IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THEY COULD LIVE HERE. 
          SO THE IDEA OF HAVING MULTIPLE TYPES OF HOUSING CLOSE TO A TRANSIT, UH, CENTER IS EXACTLY WHAT THAT ADDRESSES. 
          SO THE HIGHER DENSITY MAKES TOTAL SENSE. 
          UM, AND THEN JUST AS A, A VISUAL, BECAUSE THERE WAS A VERY, UH, DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE, THE POLICY IDEAS ARE ALONG THE CORRIDOR, THE WASHINGTON CORRIDOR, IF YOU IMAGINE THE DENSITY OR THE, TO THE TALLER BUILDINGS ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF FEATHERING DOWN AS YOU MOVE AWAY FROM THAT. 
          BUT THAT IS A MAJOR CORRIDOR OF TOWN AND IT'S AN EXCELLENT PLACE TO KIND OF BUILD UP THERE. 
          AND THAT HAS BEEN A VISION FOR 25 YEARS. 
          IT'S JUST EXTENDING IT DOWN TOWARDS THE, UM, FAIRGROUNDS AND CLOSER TO THE HIGHWAY. 
          SO, UM, IT HELPS SOMETIMES WHEN THERE'S LIKE A VISUAL DESCRIPTION AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT, HOW MY BRAIN WORKS. 
          NOT EVERYBODY'S BRAIN WORKS IN A, YOU KNOW, A COLOR CODED PLAN WITH NUMBERS. 
          SO, UM, I DO, UH, UH, SUPPORT PEOPLE'S REQUESTS FOR, UM, VISUALS TO HELP BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T COMMUNICATE WHAT THE VISION IS, WE'RE JUST GONNA TALK, UM, NUMBERS AND QUESTIONS AND NOT GET ANYWHERE. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE EVERYBODY'S, UH, WISH, INCLUDING DARREN'S, UH, WISH THAT, UH, WE, WE, UH, LOOK INTO THAT FOR THE NEXT ROUND IS, UH, WHAT DIFFERENT FLOOR AREA RATIOS, DIFFERENT DENSITIES CAN ALL MEAN FOR ONE PROJECT, THE SAME PROJECT, VISUALIZE DIFFERENT WAYS, AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHRI. 
          OKAY. 
          TWO POINTS TO MAKE ON THE FIRST, I THINK THE TWO AREAS OF WEDNESDAY, I THINK WE'RE IN PINK ON THAT MAP, UM, ARE ACTUALLY HISTORIC BUILDING. 
          YOU HAVE THE BY BRICK BUILDING AND THE OLD WINE AND TWINE BUILDING, THEY'RE HISTORIC BUILDINGS, SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA BE ALLOWED TO PUT HOUSING TO REPLACE THOSE EVER. 
          UM, 'CAUSE THEY ARE HISTORIC BRICK BUILDINGS FOR OUR TOWN. 
          SO THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT, OKAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROPERTY THAT, AGAIN, BEING REALISTIC, BUT I WANNA GO WITH THE REALISTIC IF, IF STAFF CAN COME BACK AND SAY, UH, THIS IS THE REALISTIC PICTURE OF WHAT CAN BE BUILT AND WHAT DEVELOPERS MIGHT BE WILLING TO DO AND EVERYTHING. 
          SO OTHERWISE WE'RE GUESSING AND, UH, I'D RATHER NOT GUESS SO MUCH. 
          THE OTHER THING, UM, IN THAT SAME MAP, TURNS OUT 
          [03:50:01]
MY SON ACTUALLY WORKS AT THAT WAREHOUSE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A WAREHOUSE. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY O2 TREE HOUSE MAKING TREE HOUSES FOR BILLIONAIRES. 
          SO IT'S A VERY PRODUCTIVE, UH, UM, VALUABLE ASSET WE HAVE NOW HERE IN TOWN. 
          AND LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND LOOKING AT, AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD, EVEN BARE ENSS, UH, FOR ALL THE, THE MACHINE AGRICULTURAL, UH, STORES HOUSE HAVE SAID, WELL, MAYBE WE'D LIKE TO HAVE BE ZONED FOR SOME HOUSING HERE. 
          AND EVEN THE GRANARY, IT'S GETTING OLD. 
          AND SO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT WHOLE AREA THERE IS A VERY OLD OR USED TO BE A CHINESE RESTAURANT, UH, HOUSING THERE AT ONE POINT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PRETTY DILAPIDATED, UM, WHICH DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S INCLUDED, UH, IN ANY OF THIS. 
          WHY AREN'T WE INCLUDING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE RIVER EDGE, INCLUDING THE GRANARY AND THERE'S METAL SHOPS BACK THERE? WHY AREN'T WE MAKING THOSE AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE? SO I THINK THAT AREA NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD. 
          UH, INPUT ON THAT SIDE. 
          DID, DID YOU WEIGH, WANNA WEIGH IN ON THAT POINT? UH, I WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON, I CAN WEIGH IN, I WOULD SAY EXTEND THE, UM, EXTEND THE APPLICATION OF IT BACK FARTHER, I THINK MAKES SENSE. 
          WE'VE GOT A LETTER FROM, OR PETROSKI SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ON BEHALF OF HUNT AND BARON'S, UM, BUT ALSO HE BROUGHT UP, UH, UH, NATHAN APPLE'S WIZARDS OF METAL WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, INCLUDED IN ANY REZONING AND, AND WHATNOT TOO. 
          SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT I WANT TO INCLUDE THE GRAINERY TO BE HONEST. 
          I DON'T THINK I DO. 
          UM, WE'VE SAID THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO, BUT I THINK THAT WE, UH, ALSO NEED TO EITHER FACE THE FACTS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO, TO EXIT OR HELP THEM, YOU KNOW, FACILITATE A TRANSFER OF SOME SORT TO A, A WILLING BUYER OR SOMETHING, UM, UH, ON THE, ON THE SPECIFIC, IT'S NOT JUST, IT'S NOT JUST THOSE LITTLE PARCELS BECAUSE IN THE COMING SLIDES THAT WE'LL SEE, LIKE THAT SPECIFIC DESIGNATION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MIXED USE IS USED REPEATEDLY ALONG DIFFERENT CORRIDORS. 
          PETALUMA BOULEVARD, NORTH PETA BOULEVARD SOUTH. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING IT UP RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA SEE IT OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES. 
          AND, UM, I JUST THINK WE'RE LOCKING OURSELVES IN, UM, ON SOMETHING. 
          UM, AND IN TERMS OF WHO'S LINING UP TO LIVE IN THESE THINGS, WE JUST HAD 1200 APPLICATIONS IN THE FIRST 30 DAYS FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. 
          UM, AND I WOULD DEFINITELY BE LIVING DOWNTOWN IF I COULD, IF THERE WAS OPTIONS FOR ME. 
          UM, IF WE DON'T CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE, IT'S REALLY EASY TO SAY THAT PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT. 
          UM, AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S INSULTING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMPSON. 
          I JUST WANTED TO, I THINK I RECENTLY STATED THAT I WAS TALKING TO SOMEBODY THAT LIVES IN THE LAVIA APARTMENTS AND THEY LOVE IT THERE. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY PROPERTY TAX. 
          AND SO THERE'S ALL THESE REASONS WHY PEOPLE ACTUALLY RENT INSTEAD AND THEY LOVE BEING AND DOWNTOWN AND THEY HAPPEN TO LIVE IN A VERY SMALL, UM, SPACE BECAUSE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT SPACES. 
          BUT, UM, BACK TO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BARN'S, COMMENTS ON THE 30, UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT INCREASE AND YOU CAN DO IT WITHIN THE HEIGHT AND IT'S JUST REALLY THE, THE SIZE THAT YOU COULD, UM, CHANGE AROUND AND CREATE THAT TO HAPPEN. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMENTS? YES. 
          VICE MAYOR. 
          WELL, I WANT TO BRING UP THE, UM, THE LOST OPPORTUNITY WE HAD WITH BUILDING HOUSING AT OYSTER COVE. 
          THAT'S TOO BAD BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH LOTS OF PLANNING COMMISSION TIME, LOTS OF CITY COUNCIL TIME TO GET THAT APPROVED. 
          AND NOW IT'S NOT HAPPENING. 
          THAT WOULD'VE BROUGHT A LOT OF NEW INDIVIDUALS. 
          SOME OF THEM WERE GOING TO BE RETIRED INDIVIDUALS WHO WANTED TO BE ABLE TO WALK DOWNTOWN AND DINE AND THEN WALK BACK TO THEIR HOMES AND, YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED TO GIVE UP THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO LIVE DOWNTOWN. 
          AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE OTHER, I BELIEVE PARCELS ACROSS THE STREET NEAR SMART AND WASHINGTON IS CORRIDOR WERE ALSO APPROVED, BUT DIDN'T HAPPEN DUE TO SOME, I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE PROJECTS, BUT THOSE TWO PARCELS ARE LEFT, UM, LOOKING NOT AS NICE AS WE WOULD LIKE THAT ILLUMINA TO LOOK. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE CHAIN LINK FENCES, BUT THEY HAVE LOTS OF WEEDS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, I, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALSO, UH, THE STAFF SPENT A LOT OF TIME GETTING THOSE APPROVED. 
          SO I JUST WANNA THROW THOSE OUT THERE 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN GO CHASE DOWN THOSE DEVELOPERS AND ASK THEM TO RECONSIDER, UM, WALKING AWAY FROM THOSE DEVELOPMENTS. 
          SO. 
          RIGHT. 
          UH, THAT'S A GREAT POINT ABOUT THIS SMART STATION. 
          JUST QUICKLY, UM, I I WILL 
          [03:55:01]
SAY THE WE STAFF ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON, UM, ALL THE OPPORTUNITY SITES, UH, THE TWO THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, UM, OYSTER COVE, UM, AND ACTIVE CONVERSATIONS TO HELP SUPPORT THE PROPERTY OWNER TO, UM, NOW THAT THE RAIN HAS, IS MOST LIKELY BEHIND US, YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE THE, UM, THE SITE, UM, GETTING READY FOR ITS NEXT PHASE AND HOPEFULLY LOOKING FOR A NEW BUYER AND BUILDER. 
          UM, SAME GOES WITH HAYSTACK, UM, WHICH IS THE OTHER, UH, PARCEL. 
          UM, AND WE ALSO DON'T LIKE THE WEEDS EITHER, SO THAT'S, THERE'S MORE SHORT TERM FIXES TO KEEP IT NICE AND TIDY, UM, BUT ALSO NOT LOSE SIGHT ON, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME PRETTY CRITICAL REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS THAT WE'RE STILL PUSHING FOR. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMPSON, UH, JUST LIKE ON HAYSTACK AS AN EXAMPLE, WHY DIDN'T THAT PROJECT GO THROUGH? IS IT BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIONS WITH BUILDING WITHIN THE AREA THAT IT WAS NOT DENSE ENOUGH OR HEIGHT ENOUGH? THERE'S A NUMBER OF, SO IT, BOTH PROJECTS HAVE ACTIVE, UM, PLANNING ENTITLEMENT, SO, YOU KNOW, ALL IS NOT LOST. 
          UM, BUT THIS IS THE RISK, UM, WITH DEVELOPMENT AND JUST THE CHALLENGES, UH, YOU GET THROUGH THAT ONE HURDLE AND THEN, UM, THEN IT BECOMES TIME TO BUILD. 
          AND SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM ON, UM, SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT, UM, WE'RE PUT ON THE PROJECT AND JUST TRYING TO MAKE A VIABLE PROJECT. 
          AND SO LOOKING TO SEE IF WE CAN MODIFY, UM, AND HAVE THEM COME IN AND UM, UH, RESUBMIT SOMETHING. 
          SO THERE'S, YOU KNOW, ALL SORTS OF FACTORS, CONSTRUCTION FACTORS, TIMING, UM, BUT WE'RE ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH, WITH BOTH. 
          OKAY. 
          'CAUSE IT'S GOOD INFORMATION FOR US TO HAVE. 
          I MEAN, IF IT DOESN'T PENCIL OUT THE WAY IT IS NOW, WHAT WILL MAKE IT AND WHAT ARE THE RESTRICTIONS SO THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND THAT'S, IT'S LIKE THE BARRIERS ARE THE PROBLEMS AND SO, BUT WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THOSE BARRIERS ARE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND IT'S AT THE TIME OF HAYSTACK, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT PROPERTY COULD HAVE GONE UP TO SIX STORIES. 
          IT'S ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, BUT AT THE TIME THE, I RE RECALL THE APPLICANT SAYING IT DOESN'T PENCIL, IT DOESN'T PENCIL, IT DOESN'T PENCIL BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT THE TIME DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS ALSO, I THINK THERE WAS COMMUNITY INPUT, KEEP IT AT FOUR STORIES, KEEP IT AT FOUR STORIES. 
          SO I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE A PROJECT WORK AND THEN, AND I THINK THAT WERE NOTICING ENGINEERED, IT'S A BIG BROAD, UH, THING. 
          IT'S NOT, UH, PETALUMA HAS A PROBLEM OR SONOMA HAS A PROBLEM, STATE HA HAS A PROBLEM. 
          AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, UH, BUILDING OUT, UM, EVEN 125 UNITS A, A YEAR ON AVERAGE THE PAST FIVE, SIX YEARS. 
          AND OF THAT ABOUT HALF OF THEM ARE DEDICATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU KNOW, UM, OR, OR HOMELESS HOUSING THINGS. 
          I MEAN, MARKET RATE IS IN THE DUMPER AND, AND IT'S, IT'S NOT OUR RULES THAT ARE DOING THAT OR OUR FEES OR, OR, OR THAT ARE DOING THAT. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN HERE. 
          SO I THINK AGGRESSIVE CITY PARTICIPATION ON THE SMART SITE TO, TO TRY AND BRING SMART TO THE TABLE SOONER WITH A BIGGER, UH, BETTER PROPOSAL. 
          UM, IT, IT IS THE TRICK. 
          I MEAN, WE HAVE TO MARKET OUR OWN NEED FOR GETTING HOUSING DONE. 
          SO JUST TO FOLLOW THROUGH. 
          SO SIX STORIES IS ALLOWED. 
          YEAH, SIX STORY UP TO SIX STORIES IS ALLOWED THERE AND UNLIMITED DENSITY IS ALLOWED THERE. 
          SO THEY, THEY'VE GOT TWO LEVERS, BUT IT DIDN'T, I MEAN, I THINK A LOT OF IT IS MARKET, BUT, SO OKAY. 
          SO ID LIKE, THEY COULD COME IN AND SAY, I WANNA DO SIX STORIES AND THAT WOULD BE APPROVED AND THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT WHEN THEY CAME IN. 
          RIGHT, EXACTLY. 
          THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. 
          SO I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY IT'S NOT ALWAYS NO, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE REGULATION. 
          I'M SAYING THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT HAVE TO COME TOGETHER. 
          SO THAT IS AN, UH, YOU KNOW, A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS AND THERE WAS UNDER, WHEN THEY CAME THROUGH UNLIMITED DENSITY AND UP TO SIX STORIES AND IT STILL IS HAVING A HARD TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          PENCILING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO GET US INTO, UH, WHAT YOU NEED IN THE WAY OF STRAW POLL TO GET US TO THE NEXT SECTION. 
          AND SO, UH, THE FIRST AREA WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS THE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DOWNTOWN AREA CHANGE, AREAS OF CHANGE AND, UH, WHAT IS IT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR HERE? SO ON THE DOWNTOWN IT'S REALLY, UM, UH, CHANGING TO THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE, WHICH IS, UM, SIMILAR IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING THE FOUR STORIES, BUT IT'S PROPOSING INCREASING THE DENSITY FOR THIS AREA FROM, UH, 30 UNITS TO AN ACRE MAXIMUM TO 45 UNITS 
          [04:00:01]
TO AN ACRE MAXIMUM. 
          AND BECAUSE I WAS HEARING DENSITY, I'LL START AT, UM, UM, COUNCILMAN BARNACLES TO THE TABLE. 
          UH, YEAH, I'LL SUPPORT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN COMING ACROSS CATER THOMPSON? YES, KAREN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GO DOWN SMALLER OF COURSE, AND DO THE FOUR STORIES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, YOU'RE GOOD WITH FOUR IS IS THAT I'M GOOD WITH FOUR, BUT I, YEAH, I'D LOVE ANYTHING LESS THAN FOUR. 
          AH, OKAY. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT, IT'S PROPOSED FOR A MAXIMUM OF FOUR STORIES. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THEN NO MORE THAN FOUR, MAYBE LESS. 
          UM, FOUR STORIES, 30 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCILOR MCQUINN, I'M FINE WITH THE, UH, PROPOSED CHANGE AND COUNCILOR ALSO SAME, AND ALSO SAME. 
          SO, UM, A COUPLE OF REQUESTS. 
          I THINK, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS COMES BACK TO, UM, UM, SEEING WHAT THE FAR SLASH DENSITY SLASH ALL MEANS IN ONE PACKAGE THAT, THAT KEEPS BEING A REOCCURRING THEME. 
          NEXT ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT WAS STATIONARY MIXED USE. 
          RIGHT. 
          TO, UM, ELIMINATE THE STATIONARY MIXED USE DESIGNATION GIVEN, UM, THE DESIRE TO NOT SEE A DESIGNATION EXCEED SIX STORIES. 
          AND, UM, THIS TIME, I'LL START DOWN, DOWN YOUR END, IS THAT, UH, UH, THE ONLY THING I WOULD CHANGE IS INCREASING THE AREA, UM, ON THE, UM, I GUESS TOWARD THE RIVER FROM THAT ONE AREA, FROM, UH, TO INCLUDE THAT FOR UPTOWN TOWN CENTER MIXED USE. 
          UM, AND THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT. 
          LET ME ASK, DID WE RECEIVE LETTERS FROM LANDOWNERS REQUESTING THAT? AND DID WE REPLY? UM, SO WE HAVE RECEIVED REQUESTS FROM, UM, HUNT AND BARONS. 
          YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE RECEIVED, UM, UH, ABOUT THAT TRANSITION THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT BOTH AT THE COUNCIL AND AT THE GPAC. 
          NOT WANT WANTING TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND SOMETHING WE WANNA SUPPORT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF AG SUPPORT, UM, INDUSTRY IN PETALUMA TO SUPPORT THE AGRICULTURE IN THE, IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          UM, SO THERE IS A POLICY IN THE LAND USE FRAMEWORK THAT KIND OF SAYS WHEN, WHEN, IF REDEVELOPMENT MM-HMM. 
          UM, IT, IT'S THE RIGHT TIME FOR REDEVELOPMENT CONSIDER, UM, RE DESIGNATING THAT, BUT NOT DOING IT AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER, THAT'S THAT FLEX DESIGNATION. 
          THAT'S THAT FLEX DESIGNATION, YEAH. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN. 
          SO ONE QUESTION I HAVE. 
          THE, WITH THE, UM, THE AREA WHERE THE, WHERE WAREHOUSES ARE NEXT TO CVS MAKING THE CHANGE, IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT THEM IN ANY ADVERSE WAY? SO I, I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THEY WANT TO REDEVELOP THAT PROPERTY AT SOME POINT THE REDEVELOPMENT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS, BUT WOULD THIS REZONING HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THEM IF THEY WANTED TO DO PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS OR THAT TYPE OF THING? SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE PERMITTING. 
          SO IT, IF IT'S A, IF IT'S CURRENTLY A LEGALLY EXISTING NON, IT BECOMES A LEGALLY EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN IT WAS ESTABLISHED IT WAS LEGAL AND SOMETHING CHANGES IN THE, IN THE DESIGNATION AND OR THE ZONING THAT IT WOULD NO LONGER BE ALLOWED, THEN THAT USED BECOMES A LEGAL EXISTING NONCONFORMING AND A, THAT TYPE OF USE IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN PERPETUITY. 
          UM, THERE CAN BE SOME LIMITATIONS ON EXPANSION. 
          IT'S NOT GONNA BE A LIMITATION ON YOU NEED TO REPLACE THE SIDING ON YOUR BUILDING KIND OF THING. 
          BUT, UM, BUT IF THEY WANTED TO EXPAND A USE THAT WAS NOT AN ALLOWED USE, THEORETICALLY THERE COULD BE LIMITATIONS ON THAT. 
          I GUESS I'M NOT TOTALLY CLEAR ON WHAT THE CURRENT USE IS AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS ACTUALLY CREATES A SITUATION WHERE THEY WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE SOMETHING WE LOOK AT. 
          AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN WE ARE SENDING OUT THE PROPERTY OWNER LETTERS, THAT'S THE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO TALK TO PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT IS WHAT IS YOUR USE RIGHT NOW? HOW DOES THAT LINE UP DO, UH, YOU KNOW, AND A AND UNDERSTANDING THE LI THEORETICAL LIMITATIONS OF A NON-CONFORMING USE IF ONE IS CREATED. 
          GOT IT. 
          I GUESS. 
          UM, SO I THINK ABOUT, I THINK THOSE BUILDINGS ADD GREAT CHARACTER TO OUR TOWN AND 
          [04:05:01]
I, AND I THINK ABOUT THE, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE, THE WORK THAT'S HAPPENED ON ALONG THE RIVER WITH THE, I GUESS IT'S THE WATERSHED BUILDING, UH, WHERE THAT BUILDING USED TO BE A WAREHOUSE AND IT'S KIND OF TRANSFORMED INTO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          AND I WOULD, UH, I GUESS I'M, I'VE GOT SOME CONCERN, SOME RESERVATION ABOUT, UH, MAKING THIS CHANGE WITHOUT CONSIDERING IF, IF, IF, IF THIS WOULD PREVENT THAT KIND OF TRANSFORMATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT WOULD ADD VALUE AND CHARACTER TO THAT AREA. 
          I THINK ALSO IF YOU'VE GOT AN EXISTING BUILDING AND YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE BUILDING TO SOMETHING THAT IS ALLOWED, SO WE'VE GOT KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, RIGHT? WE'VE GOT THE STRUCTURE AND WE'VE GOT THE BUILDING. 
          AND SO IF YOU WERE TAKING A STRUCTURE THAT EXISTS AND YOU ARE PUTTING A NEW TENANT IN A NEW USE OF THAT STRUCTURE THAT IS A CONFORMING TENANT, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE SOMETHING THAT TRIGGERS YOU TO HAVE TO TAKE YOUR BUILDING DOWN TO BUILD SOMETHING CONFORMING. 
          GOT IT. 
          I'M JUST, YOU COULD PUT THE USE IN. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND, AND AGAIN, I GUESS THIS IS, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF MY, YOU KNOW, JUST ME BEING NAIVE, I, UM, SOMETIMES THOSE TYPES OF CHANGES MAY REQUIRE SOME, YOU KNOW, PERMITTING OR, OR IMPROVEMENTS THAT, UM, SOMEONE WOULD COME ALONG IN A COUPLE OF YEARS AND SAY, OH, I'M SORRY YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT. 
          UM, SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. 
          I, I'M, I'M, I'M, I WOULD SUPPORT THIS, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T DO SOMETHING THERE THAT WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE, WE CAN LOOK AT, WE CAN LOOK AT IT BECAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY DESIGNATED MIXED USE AND IT WOULD BE GOING TO A DIFFERENT MIXED USE. 
          I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A BIG CHANGE THERE IN TERMS OF THAT ISSUE THAT DOESN'T MAYBE ALREADY EXIST IF, IF ONE EXISTS. 
          UM, BUT WE COULD LOOK CLOSELY AT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IT'S A FAIR POINT TO RAISE BE, AND WE ALWAYS TRY TO BE MINDFUL OF, UM, UM, OF THE POTENTIAL FOR CREATING LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES, BECAUSE WHEN THAT HAPPENS, IT'S VERY RESTRICTIVE, RIGHT? IT'S RESTRICTIVE POTENTIALLY FOR CHANGE OF USE. 
          IT'S DEFINITELY PROHIBITIVE OF EXPANSION. 
          UM, AND SO IT CAN BE STULTIFYING AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT IS GOOD FOR TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT COULD HAPPEN THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL THAT WE DON'T WANT TO PREVENT. 
          SO THAT'S THE POINT I'M HEARING BEING RAISED. 
          AND THAT IS SOMETHING STAFF, YOU KNOW, WANTS TO CONSIDER. 
          ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, THESE CHANGES THAT ARE OUR DISCUSSION ARE MEANT TO, UM, PROMOTE BENEFICIAL USE. 
          RIGHT. 
          NOT STAND IN THE WAY, BUT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT RESULTS THAT WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, DON'T WANNA, DON'T WANNA HAVE HAPPENED. 
          YEAH, FOR SURE. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARLEY. 
          UM, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL AGREE WITH FRANK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IT DOES ADD TO THE CHARACTER OF THE TOWN HAVING THE MILLS DOWNTOWN AND, AND COUNCILWOMAN CATER SAID AT THE LAST MARCH 3RD MEETING THAT SHE ENJOYS COMING DOWN THE HILL AND SEEING HUNT AND BARONS AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE STILL AN AGRICULTURE TOWN DESPITE WHAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT THINK. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, I I DON'T WANT TO, UM, I DON'T REALLY WANNA SEE CHANGES THAT WILL ENCOURAGE HOUSING IN, IN SITES LIKE THAT. 
          AND BESIDES, BESIDES THE FLEX IS, IS IT CURRENTLY, IS IT D ONE OR IS IT JUST INDUSTRIAL? YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE AREAS OR, OR THEY ARE MIXED USE? UH, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT DAIRYMAN'S AND HUNT AND BARONS? YES. 
          SO THEY ARE CURRENTLY NO. 
          WELL, YEAH, I, YEAH, THEY'RE LIKE HISTORIC THAT, UH, AG AND OR INDUSTRIAL, I THINK THEY'RE AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURE SUPPORT. 
          INDUSTRIAL MM-HMM . 
          SO D ONE, I GUESS SO. 
          OKAY. 
          THE, THOSE ARE NOT BEING PROPOSED FOR CHANGES. 
          UM, RIGHT. 
          WELL IT'S BEING DISCUSSED NOW. 
          I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE TWO, BESIDES, YOU KNOW, IF WE ENCOURAGE HOUSING IN, IN THOSE AREAS, IF, IF WE WERE TO, IF WE WERE TO ENCOURAGE IT THERE, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OVER 50 
          [04:10:01]
DAIRIES THAT REPLY ON THE, UM, RELY ON THOSE BUSINESSES. 
          UM, THERE'S POULTRY OPERATIONS, THERE'S A LOT OF SMALL FARMS, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT DO FEED US HERE. 
          SO THOSE ARE VERY VITAL PARTS OF OUR TOWN. 
          I WOULDN'T WANNA REZONE THEM TO ENCOURAGE HOUSING AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT. 
          I WOULDN'T WANT TO CHANGE THE DI THE SIZE OF THE ZONE CHANGE SO THAT IT IMPACTED, UH, THOSE BUSINESSES IN ANY WAY. 
          AND, UH, COMING ACROSS HERE, VICE MAYOR, YOU'RE WE'RE RIGHT ON THE, UH, STATIONARY MIXED USE LAND DESIGNATION. 
          UM, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT MY NOTES FROM, UM, THE MEETING BACK IN THE FALL. 
          THE, UM, MIXED USE THAT'S FOR THE, THE, THE AREA BEHIND THE CVS CORRECT. 
          OR NEXT TO IT BEHIND IT. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT THAT'S FINE. 
          BUT CAN WE ALSO MAYBE TRY TO MAKE IT HISTORIC? 'CAUSE THAT DOES HAVE HISTORY JUST LIKE THE, UM, DAIRYMAN'S FEED AND HUNT BARON'S, THOSE THAT IS OUR HISTORY. 
          AG IS OUR HISTORY AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME DESIGNATION TO THOSE. 
          UM, I WAS TRYING TO FIND, UM, CATHERINE REINHARDT'S, I KNOW THERE'S SOME, SHE KNOWS HOW TO MAKE THOSE THINGS HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS. 
          YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MILLS ACT? PARDON? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE MILLS ACT? YES. 
          UM, SO THE MILLS ACT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          THE MILLS ACT IS A, UM, PROGRAM THAT THE CITY COULD DO TO, UM, IT'S AN, IT'S A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR REHAB. 
          I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT BE SAYING IS LOOK AT LIKE A HISTORIC DESIGNATION, UM, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE BUILDINGS NEXT TO CVS BECAUSE BEHIND CVS YEAH. 
          OR THEY'RE NEAR IT. 
          WOULD THAT FIT IN TO THE MILLS ACT? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, , WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          I WAS JUST, I AM, I AM WILLING TO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER QUINT AND DE CURLY BOTH HAD GREAT IDEAS WITH, YOU KNOW, KEEPING THOSE TEXAS DESIGNATED AS IS. 
          I WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX OF WHAT WE COULD DO TO, UM, APPLY, YOU KNOW, HISTORIC VALUE TO THOSE. 
          SO IF I COULD, I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IS WE'RE IN A CONCURRENCE WITH WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY. 
          YES. 
          BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR A, A LITTLE, UH, OTHER INVESTIGATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT OUTSIDE OF THE PURPLISH STUFF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          TO SEE IF WHAT THEIR INTEREST IN, IN ZONING BETTERMENT DURING GENERAL PLAN IS. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I RECAP WHAT I, WE WERE STRAW POLLING, BUT THEN I GOT A LITTLE LOST . 
          UM, DID WE FINISH THE STRAW POLL ABOUT, UM, ELIMINATING THE STATIONARY MIXED USE DESIGNATION? NO, WE GOT THIS FAR. 
          OKAY. 
          WE STARTED IT THE FAR END WITH, RIGHT, WITH, UH, YES. 
          THAT THE PROPOSED, UH, PROPOSAL FROM STAFF WAS WHERE WE WANTED TO GO FOR THE STATIONARY MIXED USE DESIGNATION. 
          I DID NOT, I'M SORRY, MAYOR, I DIDN'T CATCH THAT ON THAT SIDE OF IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, SO COULD WE JUST RE YEAH. 
          I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SAY WHAT THAT IS EXACTLY. 
          THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DELETE THE, THE MIXED USE LAND USE IN THIS AND WE DO WHAT? SO, UM, THE STATIONARY MIXED USE WAS THE LAND USE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TO GO UP TO EIGHT STORIES NEAR THE STATION. 
          FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY COUNCIL WAS NOT TO, UM, HAVE A DESIGNATION THAT WENT ABOVE SIX STORIES. 
          SO WE ARE PROPOSING JUST TO ELIMINATE THE STATIONARY MIXED USE DESIGNATION. 
          CHRIS LE CLARE, AND WE AGREE. 
          AND COUNCIL MEMBER STRIPS. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND ELIMINATE THE EIGHT STORIES. 
          MM-HMM . 
          YES, YES, YES, YES, YES. 
          CLEAN SWEEP. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THEN RELATED TO THAT IS ABOUT THE DESIGNATIONS IN THE, UM, THIS VISUAL HERE. 
          UM, SO IT'S THE, NOT THE WASHINGTON, SO ON THE WEST SIDE OF LAKEVILLE THERE. 
          SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY KEEPING, KEEPING THE DESIGNATIONS 
          [04:15:02]
SIMILAR TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE SMART CODE, THE DARKER PURPLE, ALLOWING UP TO SIX STORIES, AND THEN THAT KIND OF MAGENTA, UM, GOING UP TO FIVE STORIES. 
          THE ONE THING I THINK I HEARD, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE, WAS EXPAND THIS AREA OF CHANGE TOWARDS MADISON IN THIS ONE AREA. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. 
          I THINK SUPPORT THE STAFF, THE PRESENTATION THAT'S ON THE SCREEN, OR MODIFY THE, UM, LIMITS OF IT. 
          UH, PERSONALLY I'M GOOD WITH IT THE WAY IT IS. 
          UM, AND LET'S JUST GO FROM THAT. 
          IS IT, YOU'RE GOOD. 
          YOU'RE GOOD. 
          THE WAY IT SHOWS ON YEAH. 
          I DON'T THINK WE EXPAND IT. 
          AND, UH, FRANK? YES. 
          AND, AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHRIVES? YES. 
          AND YES AND YES. 
          AND I WANNA EXPAND IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S SIX, UH, SIX OUTTA SEVEN FOR NO CHANGE IN THE, IN THE UM, AREA. 
          YEAH. 
          WE DID TALK ABOUT DWELLING UNIT A DENSITY. 
          WHAT OCCURS TO ME IS JUST DID WE EVER SET A CITY MINIMUM DEN MAXIMUM DENSITY THAT YOU NEEDED FOR, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING? YEAH, WE DID. 
          GOOD. 
          SO THESE HAVE, ALL, THESE ARE ALL ESTABLISHING THE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE, THE URBAN CORRIDOR MIXED USE. 
          YEAH. 
          URBAN CORE MIXED USE AND THE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE OUR ESTABLISHING BASE DENSITY RANGES. 
          SO THAT VULNERABILITY IS MM-HMM . 
          SETTLED. 
          MM-HMM . 
          WE'VE SORTED THAT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I THINK THE CONVERSATION ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE AND WHETHER THE, UM, THE DENSITY SHOULD CHANGE IN THAT ONE CAN EITHER HAPPEN AS PART OF THE EAST WASHINGTON CORRIDOR SINCE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE FIRST KIND OF TOUCHING THAT OR AS PART OF THE STANDARDS. 
          SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT'S IT FOR THIS ONE. 
          AND, UH, OKAY. 
          THAT'S, UM, FABULOUS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NOW WE MOVE INTO SEGMENT THREE. 
          UM, AND PROBABLY WE SHOULD TAKE, I APOLOGIZE, I KNOW YOU'RE HERE FOR THIS NEXT SECTION, BUT I THINK I WANT TO TAKE, UM, UH, A FIVE MINUTE AND EVERYBODY'S GOTTA PROMISE IT'S FIVE MINUTES AND NO MORE, RIGHT? SO FIVE MINUTE BREAK RIGHT NOW. 
          WE'LL SET THE TIMER. 
          YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THE TIMER FOR A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE BACK. 
          AND, UM, WE'RE GONNA EDIT THE ORDER JUST A LITTLE BIT OUTTA RESPECT FOR AUDIENCE WHO'S BEEN HERE FOR HOURS. 
          AND SO, UM, I THINK WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH AS A STANDALONE ITEM, TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT AND HAVE A BIT OF A CHAT BEFORE WE MOVE THROUGH. 
          SO BACK TO YOU STAFF. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO WE'RE NOW TRANSITIONING TO, UH, SETS OF AREAS THAT, UM, WE HAVEN'T YET DISCUSSED. 
          WE WRAPPED UP THE FOLLOW UP ON THE MARCH 3RD, UM, DISCUSSION. 
          CONGRATULATIONS. 
          UM, IF, UM, THE SLIDES MOVING FORWARD ARE, FOR THE MOST PART GOING TO BE, UM, PAGES FROM THE BRIEFING BOOK. 
          UM, SO IT'S ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE HAD AT YOUR DISPOSAL FOR SOME TIME. 
          I'M JUST GONNA BE TOUCHING ON THE HIGHLIGHTS AND IF YOU DO WANNA FOLLOW ALONG IN THE BRIEFING BOOK, THIS IS PAGE 55, I BELIEVE. 
          UM, AND I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH THE FOUR, UH, CUT SHEETS FOR THIS AREA. 
          UM, AND AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE FIRST ONE IS JUST KIND OF A SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SOME OF THE DRIVERS THAT INFORMED OUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT WE MIGHT ADJUST IN THIS AREA. 
          UM, AND SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS AN AERIAL OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH AN OUTLINE OF THE AREAS THAT OF CHANGE WE ARE SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERING. 
          AND THEN IN THE BOTTOM LEFT HAND CORNER, A MAP OF THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS. 
          ALTHOUGH IN THE CASES WHERE THE, UH, THERE'S THE, UH, CENTRAL PETALUMA SMART, EXCUSE ME,  SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND SMART CODE, WE SHOW THOSE AS WELL AS YOU SEE HERE, THE T SIX AND T FIVE. 
          UM, AND THEN INFORMATION ABOUT THOSE CURRENT DESIGNATIONS. 
          WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO FOCUS ON, HOWEVER, IS THESE DRIVERS OR TEAMS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. 
          AND THAT IS MORE HOUSING NEAR DOWNTOWN AND ALONG KEY CORRIDORS REALLY ENHANCING THE CHARACTER SAFETY AND GROUND FLOOR ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY IN KEY CORRIDORS. 
          AND YOU'LL SEE THAT ONE POP UP A LOT IN THIS CORRIDOR SECTION AND 
          [04:20:01]
THEN PROVIDE A MORE WALKABLE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE CORRIDOR. 
          UM, SECOND SLIDE IN EACH OF THESE SETS, UH, FOCUSES ON WHAT OPTIONS WE PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC. 
          AND THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION, SO I'M GONNA REALLY SUMMARIZE IT IN A MUCH MORE SIMPLE WAY. 
          REALLY WHAT WE SHOWED PEOPLE AND REALLY WHAT THESE DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES TEST IS THE FEEL YOU GET AS YOU'RE TRAVELING DOWN THE BOULEVARD AND THE SENSE YOU GET FROM THE, THE, THE, THE FORM DENSITY AND HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS ON YOUR LEFT AND RIGHT TRAVELING UP OR DOWN THE, THE, THE BOULEVARD. 
          AND SO THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE REALLY WAS JUST MATCHING THE SETBACKS ON EITHER SIDE, KIND OF GOING FROM A THREE TO A FOUR ON EITHER SIDE. 
          THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE WAS A CONSISTENT MID-RISE, SO KIND OF FOUR ACROSS THE BOARD ON BOTH SIDES AND A BALANCED WAY. 
          AND THEN THE, THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE WAS ACTUALLY FEATHERING FROM A LOWER DENSITY AND HEIGHT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD SIDE, INCREASING INTENSITY AS YOU, UM, FEATHER TOWARDS UM, THE RIVER. 
          UM, SO WE REALLY, AFTER KIND OF A VISUAL SENSE AND FEEL THAT YOU GET AS YOU'RE TRAVELING DOWN THE CORRIDOR AND TRYING TO GET, TEASE OUT PEOPLE'S PREFERENCES FOR THAT. 
          AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT, UM, PEOPLE, UM, WE'RE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONSISTENT STEP BACK AND THEN VERY SPLIT ON THE CONSISTENT MID-RISE. 
          SOME UNHAPPY WITH THE, UM, THE HIGHER HEIGHTS AND THEN VERY LITTLE SUPPORT FOR THE FEATHERING AWAY FROM THE RIVER. 
          UM, WHEN WE ASKED PEOPLE ABOUT THE TYPES OF USES THEY WANTED TO SEE, THEY WERE INTERESTED IN QUITE A DIVERSITY, LIVE WORK HYBRID MAKER FABRICATION, CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, UH, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TWO TO FOUR MULTIFAMILY PLUS, UM, MIXED USE. 
          UH, THE GPAC WAS SUPPORTIVE OF A MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE, ONE IN WHICH THE EASTERN BLOCK BETWEEN D AND E IS LIMITED TO FOUR STORIES AND YOU'LL SEE THAT REFLECTED ON THE MAP. 
          UM, IT'S THE AREA CLOSEST TO, UM, THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND THEN A MAX OF THREE STORIES FRONTING THE BOULEVARD IT. 
          AND SO WHERE WE LANDED AT THE END OF THE DAY, UM, WAS REALLY, UM, I'LL START, START AT THE TOP OF THE DIAGRAM. 
          TOP TO THE LEFT, UM, IS, IS A SLIGHT ADJUSTMENT IN WHAT IS CURRENTLY, UH, PRETTY HIGH DENSITY T SIX DOWN TO A TOWN CENTER MIXED USE, WHICH, UM, IS SLIGHTLY LESS INTENSE. 
          UM, AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE, THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE TO THE LEFT ALLOWS UP TO, UM, UP TO SIX WITH UM, PC APPROVAL, BUT OTHERWISE, UM, FOUR AND THEN THREE STORIES FRONTING PETALUMA, UM, AND THEN LEAVING THE NORTHEASTERN SIDE AS IS PER THE SMART CODE, UM, WHICH IS CURRENTLY A, UM, IS THAT ACTUALLY THE NEXT MAP SHOWS IT BETTER. 
          UM, AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT, BUT UM, ACTUALLY I'M JUST GONNA JUMP RIGHT TO THAT SLIDE. 
          THIS, THIS SHOWS A LITTLE BIT BETTER, UH, THE ADJUSTMENTS WE MAKE 'CAUSE IT SHOWS THE EXISTING, UM, UH, LATERAL MOVE TO THE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE ON THAT, UM, NORTH EASTERN EDGE. 
          SO IT'S BASICALLY NO CHANGE AND IT'S SHOWING THAT THAT WOULD THEN BE CONSISTENT FROM WHAT'S I THINK JUST BEYOND I STREET ALL THE WAY UP TO D. 
          AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, UM, SCALING IT DOWN TO NEIGHBORS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE, UM, WHICH IS A SMALLER SCALE, UM, MATCHING THE STEP BACK, UM, ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THEN I'M MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTHWEST. 
          AND WE DISCUSSED THAT WITH GPAC IN JANUARY AND THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT CONCEPT AS WELL. 
          DID YOU WANNA PAUSE HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE KNOW WE HAVE ON THIS TOPIC? I DO. 
          AND I WANNA ASK ONE, UM, QUESTION. 
          THIS IS, UH, IS D TO I STREET? IS THIS WHAT THE GRAPHIC IS? I'M SORRY, D TO I STREET. 
          D TO I STREET? I, YEAH, I BELIEVE IT SAYS I HERE AT THE BOTTOM AND D AT THE TOP AND, AND DOES IT, UM, WHAT'S THE VISION FOR SOUTH OF I STREET? UM, SO SAW THAT PUBLIC COMMENT AND I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON WHY WE AT SOME POINT FOCUSED THIS AREA OF CHANGE TO THAT AREA. 
          AND IT HAPPENED SOMETIME BETWEEN NOVEMBER OF 2023 
          [04:25:01]
WHEN THE GPAC WAS CONSIDERING KIND OF GENERAL CHANGE IN THAT AREA. 
          AND, UM, JANUARY THE FOLLOWING YEAR. 
          AND I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK INTO THE SPECIFIC WHY, BUT I THINK IT GOES TO THE GPAC MEETING OR SERIES OF MEETINGS RIGHT IN THAT PERIOD WHERE THEY WERE REALLY TRYING TO HONE THE AREAS OF CHANGE AND WE'RE TRYING TO UM, UH, NOT EX SO NOT EXTEND IT BEYOND E TOWARDS THE BOWLING ALLEY BECAUSE UM, THEY'RE RECOGNIZING THE EXISTING USES ACROSS ON THE NORTHEASTERN SIDE, WHICH ARE LARGELY INDUSTRIAL. 
          UM, AND DIDN'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT, UH, AN ADJUSTMENT IN DESIGNATION IN THAT STRIP. 
          UM, WE COULD INVESTIGATE THAT MORE THOROUGHLY TO SEE IF THERE WAS MORE SPECIFIC. 
          WELL I THINK, UH, LET'S WAIT AND HEAR FROM THE, UH, PUBLIC AND FROM COUNCIL. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT THE, UM, SOUTH SIDE OF THAT IS UM, UM, UM, A BUNCH OF VACANT LOTS AND UNDERUTILIZED LOTS. 
          UM, YEAH, IT'S SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO THE REMAINDER OF THE CORRIDOR. 
          IT'S THE OPPOSITE SIDE. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S A A BIT DIFFERENT. 
          YES. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, SO, UH, LEHUA, UM, STEWART, YOU'VE BEEN HERE. 
          UM, THIS IS YOUR CHANCE, . 
          SORRY TO KEEP YOU SO LATE. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME'S LEHUA STEWART AND I AM A PETALUMA RESIDENT AS WELL AS I'M A HOMEOWNER ON THE PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH. 
          AND I'M HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT OUR PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGES, YET WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FORMAL NOTICE DESPITE WHAT APPEARS OR DESPITE WHAT, UH, OUTREACH EFFORTS HAVE BEEN STATED HERE THIS EVENING. 
          AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF INCLUSIVE AND INFILL HOUSING. 
          IN FACT, WE ADVOCATE FOR IT. 
          AND TONIGHT I WANNA ADVOCATE FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY IN INFILL HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN MIXED USE CORRIDOR CORRIDORS LIKE OURS, PRESERVATION OF MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL POTENTIAL FOR UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS, CLARITY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS LIKE MYSELF AND US ON PARCELS THAT HAVE A, BUT PROPERTIES THAT ARE MU TWO PUD RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING ZONING SHIFTS THAT ESPECIALLY NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, CLEAR GUIDANCE AND TRANSITION STANDARDS MATTER HERE. 
          WE'D APPROACH THE M GROUP WITH PLANS. 
          WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH SEVERAL ARCHITECTS, TEXT, AND BASICALLY WE WERE TOLD THAT OUR PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPABLE. 
          AND HEARING ALL OF YOU TONIGHT ABOUT INFILL HOUSING AND HOUSING AND HOUSING AND HOUSING AND HOUSING, I'M SOMEWHAT CONFUSED. 
          SOME OF MY COMMENTS ARE OUT OF PLACE NOW BECAUSE OF WHAT I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO. 
          SO I'M CONCERNED WHY THE M GROUP DIDN'T TELL MY ONE ARCHITECT. 
          'CAUSE I HAVE SEVERAL ARCHITECTS LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ON OUR PROPERTY THAT WE COULD HAVE USED SDBC OR ANY OF THOSE OTHER OPTIONS. 
          WE ARE INTERESTED IN DOING HIGH DENSITY IN FILL RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AND OUR PROPERTY IS A PERFECT SPOT FOR IT. 
          SO I'M RESPECTFULLY ASKING WHEN YOU GUYS ARE MAKING A LAW OVER PEOPLE AND THEIR PROPERTIES AND HOMEOWNERS THAT YOU CONSIDER SOME TRANSPARENCY AND NOTIFICATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND BALANCE THAT WITH A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY OF WHAT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE ON MY PROPERTY AS AN MU TWO OWNER. 
          SO MAYBE YOU USE ME AS A CASE STUDY THIS EVENING BECAUSE I AM PERFECT POINT IN CASE IF YOU GUYS NEED ONE. 
          AND I JUST WANNA THANK EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          MAY I ASK THE, THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY QUESTION PLEASE? WE HAVE A QUESTION. 
          I'D LOVE TO USE YOU AS A TEST CASE FOR MU TWO. 
          WHAT KINDS OF FLEXIBILITY WOULD YOU LOVE TO SEE, UM, IN ON THE ZONING TO, UH, SUPPORT YOUR VISION FOR YOUR PROPERTY? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UM, THE FAR GO AWAY AND HAVE LIVING ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR AS AN OPTION. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CONSIDERATION FOR 
          [04:30:03]
SIDE YARD SETBACKS, INTERIOR SETBACKS, REAR INTERIOR SETBACKS AND REAR SETBACK CONSIDERATIONS. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE TOP OF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW AND I COULD COME UP WITH A WHOLE LOT MORE AFTER I LOOK AT THE RENDERINGS I DO HAVE IN HAND SEND ME AN EMAIL. 
          I'D LOVE TO TALK. 
          THANKS. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO I GUESS THE, THE COMMENT'S NOT QUITE DIRECTLY IN THE CORRIDOR STUDY WE'RE LOOKING AT, BUT I THINK WE CAN WE CAN TAKE IT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, AND SEE HOW THAT ASK FITS WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. 
          UM, UM, WE, I I GUESS WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA BE ON WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TODAY, BUT WE CAN PUT THIS AS A REQUEST TO STAFF TO SEE IF AN OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO, UM, EXTEND THIS CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          YEAH. 
          ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I'M NOT SURE WHAT PROPERTY IT IS, BUT I'LL FOLLOW UP. 
          I THINK I, WE GOT AN EMAIL TODAY, SO I'LL FOLLOW UP AND ASK SOME QUESTIONS ON THE EXACT ADDRESS. 
          UM, I'M THINKING IT'S OUTSIDE OF THIS AREA OF CHANGE. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT I'LL CONFIRM AND, AND YEAH. 
          AND BRAINSTORM. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, AND FOR THE MATTER IN FRONT OF US, UM, UM, I GUESS THERE'S SEVERAL OPTIONS HERE. 
          I MEAN, YOU'VE TAKEN US THROUGH A, A, A KIND OF A, A PATHWAY THROUGH TO A RECOMMENDATION. 
          DO, DOES ANYONE COUNSEL, UM, WANNA WEIGH IN ON WHAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE? HOW THEY, HOW THEY, HOW FOLKS LIKE 'EM? OKAY, WE PLEASE. 
          SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE PRESENTATION AND I SEE THAT OPTION ONE OR ALTERNATIVE ONE CONSISTENT STEP BACK ALTERNATIVE, TWO CONSISTENT MID-RISE, AND THEN ALTERNATIVE THREE FEATHERING. 
          AND THEN YOU SAID THAT THE GPAC WENT WITH THE MODIFIED VERSION OF ALTERNATIVE ONE. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID ON 51. 
          UH, BUT THEN WHEN YOU GET TO 52, IT LOOKS LIKE THE FEATHERING, AND THEN WHEN YOU GET TO 53, IT DEFINITELY LOOKS MORE LIKE ALTERNATIVE THREE, WHICH WAS THE ONE THAT HAD THE LOWEST SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND WASN'T SUPPORTED BY GPAC. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, UM, LIKE HOW WE, HOW WE WENT FROM ALTERNATIVE ONE AND ALTERNATIVE TWO, HAVING MORE SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY. 
          ALTERNATIVE THREE HAVE KNOWN, AND WE GET TO, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE WOUND UP WITH ALTERNATIVE THREE. 
          I HAD THE SAME QUESTION WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS. 
          UM, AND SO WHAT WE, WHAT WE, WHAT THERE WAS THE MOST SUPPORT FOR SEEMED TO BE THE CONSISTENT STEP BACK. 
          AND AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE WAS THE FEEL BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES OF THE STREET. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, AND AS PRESENTED, IT WAS FOUR BEHIND THREE ON THE STREET. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO, UM, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THAT PLUS, UM, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE EXACT RATIONALE, BUT WE, WE THOUGHT WAS MOST CONSISTENT WAS MAINTAIN THIS EXACT STEP BACK ON THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE SIDE. 
          UM, BRING THE PARCEL BETWEEN D AND E INTO A DESIGNATION, CONSISTENT WITH THAT, UM, WITHOUT THE STEP BACK. 
          AND THEN THE THOUGHT WAS MAINTAIN THE SPIRIT OF ALT ONE, WHICH WAS CONSISTENCY ON THE TWO SIDES OF THE STREET, BUT NOT GO WITH THE MAX HEIGHT OF FOUR STORIES TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL IMMEDIATELY BEHIND. 
          SO THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS SO, SO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FEEL PEOPLE WERE LOOKING FOR, IN THIS CASE, KIND OF THREE STORIES CONSISTENTLY ACROSS AS YOU TRAVEL DOWN THE CORRIDOR. 
          UM, BUT MAIN MAINTAIN A, A, A LESS, UH, A SMOOTHER TRANSITION TO THE RESIDENTIAL BEHIND. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          [04:35:01]
THANKS. 
          UM, AND I'LL JUST POINT OUT THIS WHOLE CORRIDOR IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE THAT I WAS BRINGING UP IN THE LAST ITEM. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          THIS IS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT WHOLE CORRIDOR OF THAT. 
          AND JUST ON THAT QUESTION, ONE PIECE THAT IS A FACTOR AND WHY WE THOUGHT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE IS THE, UM, REQUIRED ACTIVE USE SO THAT YOU STILL HAVE THE ACTIVATION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR ALONG A CORRIDOR, WHICH IS TRUE ALSO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE EAST WASHINGTON CORRIDOR. 
          UM, SO TRYING TO KIND OF GET THE FEEL AND ACTIVITY YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT AT THE SCALE THAT SEEMS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONTEXT. 
          UM, AND ANOTHER QUESTION HERE, I GUESS, UM, IS THIS, UH, LIKE WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE OVERLAY PROCESS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MORE ADAPTABLE WAYS AND FLEXIBLE WAYS TO ACTIVATE THE GROUND FLOOR, RIGHT? LIVING SPACES AND ON THE FIRST FLOOR, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          WE WERE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ARE, ARE ALL OF THESE THEN AS THE MU TWO OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE THAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE? ARE ALL OF THOSE GONNA BE LIKE RETAIL SERVICE ON THE FIRST FLOOR? IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT? LIKE YOU, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE TABLE EVERY TIME QUESTIONS LIKE THIS COME UP AND I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS NO. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          IF YOU REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE ALLOW STANDALONE COMMERCIAL ALLOWS STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL. 
          UM, SO THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT, UM, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          SO IT ALLOWS STANDALONE COMMERCIAL AND STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL, WHICH I WILL, UM, THIS HAS BEEN A CONCERN IN SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO THE DOWNTOWN WHERE THE STRUCTURES WERE BUILT AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          AND CURRENTLY MANY OF OUR MIXED USE DON'T ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          SO IT DOESN'T ALLOW SOMEBODY TO ACTUALLY USE THE HOME AS A HOME IF IT'S EVER BEEN CONVERTED OUT, WHICH HAS BEEN AN ISSUE. 
          SO THIS GIVES SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE. 
          UM, SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE GROUND FLOOR. 
          UH, IT DOES SAY THAT THERE SHOULD BE A 0.10 FLOOR AREA RATIO IF IN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER OF, OF THAT, UM, OH YEAH, SORRY. 
          MINIMUM GROUND FLOOR ACTIVE USE. 
          YEAH. 
          I APOLOGIZE, I MISSPOKE. 
          THERE'S THAT CAVEAT. 
          IF IT'S IN A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, SO IT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED ALONG THE CORRIDOR NECESSARILY THE ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, FOLLOW UP ON THAT OR IS THAT, UH, YOU'RE GOOD ON ON THAT? UH, ANYONE WANTING TO WEIGH IN QUITE, UM, I, AND THIS IS, UM, UH, WHAT IS IT? SECOND AND FOURTH ARE, UH, PRETTY MUCH SINGLE FAMILY, UH, DWELLINGS, SINGLE STORY, UH, OR, OR, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE ONE AND A HALF STORY HOUSES IN THERE. 
          UM, IT'S, IT SEEMS A LOT TO ME TO PUT THE TOWN USE MIX CENTER THERE ON THAT SIDE. 
          UH, NO PROBLEM WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, BUT IT'S, UH, I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO RECOGNIZE, UH, YOU KNOW, HOW WHAT FOUR STORIES WOULD LOOK LIKE, UM, WHEREVER IT'S USED, EVEN IF IT'S A STEP BACK THAT'S REALLY BIG. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S BIG IN A ONE STORY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AM I ASSESSING THIS CORRECTLY? THE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE? SO ON THE, UH, RIVER SIDE OF THE BOULEVARD? YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S, I BELIEVE IT IS WHAT IS ALLOWED TODAY. 
          UH, SO IT'S REALLY TAKEN, CAME IN AS PART OF THE SMART, UH, EXISTING OR STATIONARY. 
          YEAH, IT, RIGHT. 
          THE BOULEVARD IS THE LINE BETWEEN IN THE SMART CODE AND OUT OF THE SMART CODE. 
          UM, SO IT IS WHAT'S THERE TODAY, ALTHOUGH THREE STORIES IS REQUIRED, SOME STEP DOWN TO THREE STORIES ALONG THE BOULEVARD. 
          AND YOU'LL NOTICE THERE ARE SOME OF THOSE SITES, UH, ESPECIALLY DEF MAYBE BETWEEN G AND H THAT ARE QUITE SMALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS, WHICH IS, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA DO A WHOLE LOT OF STEPPING UP TO FOUR STORIES ON THAT SMALL OF A LOT AND STAYING THREE STORIES ALONG 
          [04:40:01]
THE FRONTAGE, BUT FOR SOME OF THOSE LARGER PARCELS. 
          UM, SO HOW IS IS, IS IS STEP STEP BACK STIPULATED IN, IN, UM, THE SPECIFIC PLAN? UH, UH, YEAH. 
          AND IS IT ONLY, IT'S ONLY FOR BOULEVARD FACING? YEAH. 
          IT'S POSSIBLE TO MAKE IT FULL, FULL AROUND PROPERTY. 
          SO THE FRONT END BACK, IS THAT NOT A THING WE CAN DO WITH THIS KIND OF ZONING? UH, SO THAT FOUR STORIES WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED? UH, NO. 
          SO THAT THERE'D BE A STEP BACK FROM ANY, UH, PROPERTY LINE. 
          OH, ALL PROPERTY LINES. 
          UH, YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THAT'S ACTUALLY THE REASON WE AS A RESULT OF PUBLIC INPUT CAME UP WITH A STEP DOWN MIXED USE DESIGNATION. 
          THE INTENT WAS TO, UM, DO DO WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING AND, AND, BUT BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHERE YOU APPLY THE THREE FROM FOUR TO THREE STEP BACK OR STEP DOWN. 
          UM, RECOGNIZING THAT NOT ALL EDGES MAY REQUIRE IT. 
          UM, AND YOU'LL SEE THIS WHEN WE GET TO THE, UM, WASHINGTON SQUARE AREA. 
          UM, WE ACTUALLY GOT SOME GOOD FEEDBACK FROM GPAC WHEN DISCUSSING WHERE TO WHERE BEST TO APPLY THE, THE STEP BACK AND ADJUSTED IT ACCORDINGLY. 
          THE TOWN CENTER JUST GIVES SO MUCH MORE DENSITY POTENTIAL, WHICH IS GOOD, BUT IT'S SO HARD TO HAVE THAT HEIGHT THERE. 
          AND RATHER THAN TAKE THE HEIGHT AWAY FROM THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY, I'D RATHER TAKE A PERIPHERAL CARVE WITH SET STEP BACK. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THAT, AND THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC IS THEY JUST FELT IT WAS TOO, TOO HIGH, TOO MUCH HEIGHT ALONG THE CORRIDOR, HAVING IT ON BOTH SIDES. 
          SO ICE MAYOR, UM, I AM REALLY CONFUSED. 
          THE, THE AREA BETWEEN I STREET AND D STREET ON THE BOULEVARD ON BOTH SIDES HAS SOME BUILDINGS THAT ARE, ARE PRETTY, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY ARE VERY THRIVING BUSINESSES. 
          UM, JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THERE'S ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THAT IS NOW A TATTOO PARLOR THAT'S JUST TOTALLY RENOVATED. 
          UM, ANOTHER NEW BUSINESS IN TOWN IS CALLED GATHERING TIME, AND SHE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND TIME REDOING THAT HOUSE. 
          AND NOW IT'S HER, HER NEW BUSINESS AND SHE DOES SHOP, UM, CLASSES AND WHAT HAVE YOU. 
          UM, THERE'S A HISTORIC BUILDING, I THINK IT WAS MILLIE'S CHILI BAR, AND NOW IT'S AN ANTIQUE STORE. 
          AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, WESTGATE, I THINK EVEN WON AN AWARD FOR RE UM, DOING THAT OLD BUILDING AND IT'S NOW THEIR OFFICE. 
          AND THEN NEAR THERE IS ALSO A BUSINESS, I CAN'T THINK OF WHAT IT IS. 
          IT'S EITHER AN ARCHITE OR, OR, OR SOMETHING. 
          AND IN, IN A HOUSE THAT WAS A, WAS A HOUSE AND NOW IT'S A BUSINESS. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE OUR BELOVED PINKIES, OUR BELOVED SACKS. 
          AND THEN THERE'S THE CITY LOT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN PUT ON THAT SIZE. 
          IT'S A POSTAGE STAMP, BUT IT'S THE OLD CASA GRANDE MOTEL EMPTY SITE. 
          AND UM, THEN BEHIND THAT, BETWEEN FIRST AND THIRD STREET, WE DID A MIXED USE. 
          I THINK WE APPROVED IT IN 2005. 
          IT HAD A RIBBON CUTTING IN MAYBE 2008. 
          AND THE, THE UNITS WERE ACTUALLY, UM, FOR SALE. 
          SO THE PEOPLE FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS, AND ONE OF 'EM WAS EVEN A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          AND THEN THE RESIDENTS GOT IN THERE AS A MIXED USE WITH THE BUSINESSES MIXED IN WITH RESIDENTIAL AND STARTED COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NOISE. 
          AND THEN THEY SUED, UM, THE ICE CREAM COMPANY THAT WAS THREE TWINS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN THEY WERE ALSO SUING COW CREME TREE CHEESE. 
          SO I'M VERY CONFUSED ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THIS, IN THIS AREA. 
          SO CAN I HAVE SOME HELP IN THIS AREA? UM, WELL, A COUPLE COUPLE THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DES DESIGNATIONS, WHICH, WHICH OUTLINE THE ENVELOPE OF WHAT'S ALLOWED. 
          SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE EXISTING USES IN ANY WAY. 
          UM, WE ARE RETAINING MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS, WHICH ALLOWS A BROAD RANGE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF 
          [04:45:01]
USES. 
          AND IF I UNDERSTOOD THE ANECDOTES YOU SHARED, ALL OF THOSE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE PERMITTED USES. 
          UM, AND, AND ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION HERE IS THAT, UM, THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGES ALONE ARE NOT GONNA TRANSFORM THE CORRIDORS. 
          AND PART OF WHAT YOU WERE SHARING IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT PEOPLE ARE DOING WHAT THEY CAN IN A CREATIVE WAY WITH THE LOT SIZES THEY HAVE WITH THE STRUCTURES THEY CURRENTLY HAVE. 
          UM, AND YOU'RE GONNA PROBABLY CONTINUE TO SEE A LOT OF THAT. 
          THERE IS, HOWEVER, ALSO OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE SOME OF THE LARGER PARCELS, UM, AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          THERE'S ALSO THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE LOT CONSOLIDATION. 
          UM, IF SOMEONE WERE TO ACQUIRE A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORING PARCELS AND CONSOLIDATED LOTS, GOT A LARGER SITE, COULD BE MORE, BE MORE CREATIVE. 
          SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE ALLOWING FOR THOSE POSSIBLE LIKELY SCENARIOS. 
          THE REASON I WAS TOGGLING EARLIER TO THIS OTHER SLIDE IS JUST TO POINT OUT THAT THESE LAND USE CHANGES ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLEMENT A WHOLE RANGE OF OTHER STRATEGIES IN THE DRAFT POLICY FRAMEWORKS, MANY OF WHICH FOR FOCUS VERY MUCH ON CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION. 
          UM, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, IMPROVING GATEWAYS. 
          THERE'S A WHOLE WHOLE GOAL ON FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON IMPROVING CORRIDORS. 
          WE DON'T SAY A WHOLE LOT ABOUT IT HERE, BUT IT INCLUDES MASTER PLANNING, ADJUSTING, UH, STREET DESIGN STANDARDS, MAKING PUBLIC INVESTMENTS. 
          UM, UM, SO I JUST WANNA, JUST WANNA, I, I HOPE I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AND, AND THAT LAYING YOUR CONCERNS, IF YOU HAVE ANY, ABOUT ANY IMPACTS ON EXISTING USES, BUT ALSO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO EXPAND THE POSSIBILITIES OF WHAT, WHAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE. 
          CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE COULD DO ON THAT ONE PARCEL THAT THIS CITY OWNS RIGHT NOW? IT'S BEING USED FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHILE THEY'RE RETROFITTING THE FIRE STATION, BUT WHAT COULD WE DO WITH THAT SMALL LOT? WHAT COULD WE BUILD? CAN I JUST JUMP IN HERE? SURE. 
          SO FIRST OF ALL, STATE LAW REQUIRES SUR THROUGH SURPLUS LANDS ACT FOR ANY PROPERTY. 
          LIKE WE'RE GONNA END UP HAVING TO DO WITH THE POLICE, WITH THE OLD POLICE DEPARTMENT IS THAT, UH, WE HAVE TO OFFER IT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS. 
          UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S RIGHT OFF THE, RIGHT OFF THE TOP. 
          WE HAVE TO, UH, HAVE TO, UM, ALLOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO PROPOSE ON THAT. 
          AND THEN SECONDLY, HOUSING TO BE AN AMAZING USE OF THAT PROPERTY. 
          UM, AND YOU MIGHT CALL THE POSTAGE STAMP, BUT WE TALK ABOUT INFILL AND BEING ABLE TO PUT ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING. 
          UM, THAT'S A, THAT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE. 
          SO FOR THE NEXT THREE TO FOUR YEARS, IT WILL BE TEMPORARY PUBLIC SAFETY, YOU KNOW, FACILITY, BUT WE WILL HAVE TO OFFER IT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS AND IT'LL BE A VERY ATTRACTIVE SITE BECAUSE IT'S SO CLOSE TO OUR DOWNTOWN. 
          RIGHT? IT'S IN OUR GREATER DOWNTOWN. 
          NO, IT'S EXCELLENT. 
          BUT DO WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE ZONING IF WE'RE GONNA THINK OUT PAST WHAT USE WE'RE USING IT FOR NOW? NO. 
          WILL THERE BE A DIFFERENT ZONING? NO. 
          SO, AND I'M JUST GONNA KEEP REMINDING US, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING. 
          ZONING COMES WITH THE ZONING CODE. 
          BUT THIS LAND USE DESIGNATION, THE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTIAL, STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE AT 30 TO 55 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND UP TO FOUR STORIES. 
          UM, YES, IT'S ALMOST 11. 
          I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GO PAST. 
          OKAY. 
          APPRECIATE THAT. 
          CAN WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU. 
          UM, CAN I HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS WHO WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS? UH, WE'RE GONNA PICK A, AN EARLY FINISH SPOT. 
          WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ALL NIGHT. 
          I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE EARLY FINISH SPOT IS, BUT, UM, SO SHOULD WE FINISH UP THIS ONE AND THEN CALL IT YES. 
          THAT, THAT'S OUR GOAL IS THAT WE FINISH UP THIS SECTION AND THEN WE WILL BRING BACK THE NODES AND THE STANDARDS, UH, AT A REGULAR MEETING. 
          THIS SECTION HAS A FEW PARTS THOUGH. 
          WE'LL BE HERE A MINUTE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE GOOD? YES. 
          YES, YES, YES, YES. 
          LET THE RECORD SHOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WE WERE SO ON, ON THIS ONE. 
          UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD RIGHT NOW IN THE, IN THE PURPLE AREA TO FORCE STORIES, BUT IT'S NOT WITH THIS ZONING, IT'S WITH A DIFFERENT, SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GONNA BE DOING IS WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE KICKING OFF A ZONING CODE UPDATE PROCESS, WHICH WILL, UM, PUT US IN A POSITION WHERE WE ARE ADOPTING A NEW ZONING CODE CONCURRENTLY, OR AS CLOSE TO CONCURRENTLY 
          [04:50:01]
AS WE CAN. 
          UM, AND IT WILL PUT ALL THE ZONING IN PLACE TO IMPLEMENT THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. 
          SO WHAT I, WHAT I DON'T WANT IS TO SAY WE JUST PUSH THIS TO FOUR WHEN IT'S BEEN FOR, FOR 20 YEARS OR SO, RIGHT? SINCE THAT, UM, THAT PLAN WAS DEVELOPED. 
          SO WE CAN SAY, NO, IT DIDN'T PUSH OUT ONE OF OUR LOCAL FUND BUSINESSES, PINKIES, ET CETERA. 
          AND IT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST PUTTING THE, A NEW NAME ON THE SAME HEIGHT ON THE, UH, YES. 
          SO THE, THAT MAGENTA COLOR, THE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE IS TRACKING LARGELY THE SAME AS THE EXISTING DESIGNATION, EXCEPT FOR IT'S ESTABLISHING THAT BASE DWELLING, UH, DENSITY DENSITY WHERE THERE IS NONE NOW. 
          SO FOR ME, THE CONCERN IS IN THE BLUE PIPING THERE, UM, WHICH IS NEW AND DIFFERENT ZONING. 
          THAT'S THE SIDE THAT WE'RE INTENSIFYING. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY A SLIGHT DE INTENSIFICATION FROM A CURRENT MU TWO TO NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? BEING THE ZONING, WHAT WOULD BE THE, UM, HEIGHT AND DENSITY CURRENTLY? UH, FOUR, FOUR STORIES MAX HEIGHT, 30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S SAME DENSITY, JUST ONE STORY LOWER. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY WANNA START A STRAW POLL ON THIS? OR COUNCIL MEMBER SCH STRIPS? UM, NOT QUITE A STRAW POLL QUESTIONS FIRST OR, YEP, YEP. 
          COMMENTS. 
          UM, JUST SO, JUST LIKE, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER NOW, UH, A LITTLE CONFUSED AND A LITTLE BIT, UM, HAVING A HARD TIME MAKING A DECISION. 
          'CAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THE, UM, PROPERTIES IN FRONT OF AND BACK OF, UH, EACH OF THESE, UH, CORRIDORS. 
          AND I WAS, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE RESIDENCES 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT ALL THESE PROPERTIES EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE PIECES HERE. 
          THEY'RE ALL SMALL. 
          USED TO BE AT ONE POINT JUST SINGLE HOMES OR VERY SMALL BUSINESSES. 
          AND NOW TO, TO START PROPOSING MUCH LARGER STUFF, THEY'RE REALLY GONNA NEED TO PUT TOGETHER TWO OR EVEN THREE PROPERTIES TOGETHER TO, TO BUILD SOMETHING. 
          SO IF YOU BRING THAT BACK, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE MAP  PROPOSED OR IS THIS YEAH, THEY'RE PROPOSED. 
          JUST, JUST, OKAY. 
          'CAUSE I WANNA TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS ON THAT STRIP. 
          SLIDE 53 RIGHT THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, SO ONE CONCERN IS JUST THAT IT, IT, IT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA THAT WE HAVE T SIX ALLOCATED, UH, UH, RIGHT ON D AND, UH, PELLUM BOULEVARD. 
          BUT THAT'S BEEN AVAILABLE LIKE THAT FOR AT LEAST 35 YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. 
          AND IT WOULD BE A GREAT IF WE DO THAT, BUT IT'S A BROWN SIDE APPARENTLY. 
          AND, UH, BUT WE NEED TO RESOLVE HOW TO DO THAT AND TALK TO CHEVRON, UH, WHO OWNS THAT, ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES. 
          THEN, UH, BEFORE WE CAN DO ANYTHING WITH THAT ONE. 
          THEN, UM, ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF, OF THE WHOLE THING, UM, ALL BASICALLY SMALL COTTAGES. 
          THERE'S A SINGLE, UH, FAMILY HOMES, UM, USUALLY A LITTLE ON THE OLDER SIDE AND, UH, A LOT OF FOLKS LOVE THAT LITTLE AREA THERE. 
          AND IF WE START PUTTING UP, UH, UH, THREE STORIES PLUS 40 FEET RIGHT UP TO THEIR BACK FENCE WITHIN FOUR FEET, WHATEVER, UM, THEN THE MORNING SUN PRETTY MUCH GONE OUT OF THEIR, UH, BACKYARDS ENTIRELY. 
          UH, SO THAT, SO I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE SHADING FROM THAT TO THE, THE NEXT DOOR PROPERTIES WHEN IT'S BUILT UP THAT HIGH. 
          THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR STORIES UNDERNEATH. 
          FOUR STORIES. 
          IT SAYS FOUR STORIES, FRONTING PENAL BOULEVARD, BUT IT SAYS UP TO SIX STORIES AND 70 FEET WITH PC APPROVAL. 
          AND, UH, I'M NOT QUITE SURE I, I WOULD EVEN AGREE WITH THAT. 
          UH, EVEN ALLOWING THAT EVER, UM, THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED ENTIRELY. 
          AND THEN, UH, LOOKING AT EACH OF THOSE PROPERTIES, THERE'S A LOT OF HOUSES THERE AND SOME OF 'EM ARE GETTING A LITTLE ON THE OLDER SIDE. 
          UH, BUT THERE'S OTHER, A FEW COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. 
          OUR, OUR CITY PROPERTY IS PROBABLY THE, THE LARGEST SINGLE VACANT LOT ON THAT AREA. 
          SO FOR OUR AREA, UH, OUR, OUR PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE, UM, YEAH, SO, SO MAYBE SIX STORIES THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A STREET BEHIND IT AND WE'RE NOT SHADING ANY HOUSES REALLY, UM, IN, IN DIRECT CONTACT THERE. 
          BUT THERE'S SO MANY HOUSES THAT ARE, UH, GOING TO BE SHADED, UM, DURING THE DAY, UH, FRONT AND BACK. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS IN FOLKS THAT DO HAVE THESE SINGLE HOMES, LIKE EVEN IF YOU GO RIGHT ACROSS FROM QUAS CAFE, WHICH IS RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF H STREET, AND I GUESS IT'S A SECOND THERE, UM, THOSE ARE AGAIN HOUSES, SINGLE STORY HOUSES FOR THE MOST PART, A LITTLE ON THE OLDER SIDE WITH, UH, PRETTY SYCAMORE TREES ALL LINING THE, THE STREETS. 
          AND 
          [04:55:01]
NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONVERTING THOSE OVER FROM A SINGLE, OKAY, SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO COME IN AND, OKAY, I WANNA REBUILD, I WANNA TEAR DOWN THIS OLD OLDER HOUSE THAT, THAT THAT'S GOT TERMITES IN IT AND, AND BUILD ALL NEW, UM, AND THEY JUST WANNA BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CAN THEY STILL DO THAT? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY CAN'T, THEY, THEY'D HAVE TO GO UP AND DO SOMETHING ELSE. 
          UM, SO I KNOW MY, THE HOUSE I GREW UP IN GOT LEVELED AND, AND, AND NOW THERE'S A TWO STORY HOUSE IN IT, MODERN HOUSE IN ITS PLACE. 
          SO THAT'S PRETTY COMMON FOR THESE OLDER HOMES TO DO THAT CONVERSION. 
          SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS POSSIBLE ALSO IN THIS AREA IF FOLKS WISH TO DO THAT. 
          UM, WHEREAS IF YOU, THIS, THIS CONVERSION, I'M LOOKING IT, IT MIGHT MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DO THAT. 
          I MEAN, SO I'M, I'VE GOT A FEW CONCERNS AND I'M REALLY GONNA HAVE TO RIDE MY BICYCLE AND WALK BEHIND EACH OF THOSE STREETS, SECOND STREET AND UH, FOURTH STREET UP THERE TO REALLY LOOK AT THOSE HOMES AND HOW THEY'RE GONNA BE AFFECTED BY THESE TALLER BUILDINGS. 
          'CAUSE RIGHT NOW ON PAPER, LOOKING DOWN, I, IT'S UM, EASY TO SAY, YEAH, WELL THIS BUILD TALL, BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY WALK BACK THERE, I'M GOING, OKAY, IF I WAS IN THE ONE OF THOSE LITTLE HOUSES BE BEHIND, I'M GOING, I'D, I'D BE SCREAMING AND YELLING MAYBE. 
          SO I'D HAVE TO LOOK BEHIND, UH, ON ANY OF THOSE. 
          I THINK IF WE GET IT DOWN TO THE, A FEW OF THOSE PROPERTIES SAY, HEY, LET'S PICK THE LARGEST PROPERTIES. 
          OR IF YOU COMBINE AND BUY TWO OR THREE OF THESE HOUSES THAT ARE OLD, UH, OR PROPERTIES TO GET UP TO TWO ACRES. 
          'CAUSE THEY'RE ALL PROBABLY LESS THAN A HALF ACRE EACH. 
          BUT IF YOU GO UP TO, HEY, IF YOU, IF YOU CREATE A A TWO ACRE SITE, OH, LET'S, YEAH, AND YOU HAVE A FULL ALL THE WAY BACK TO A STREET ON ALL SIDES, FRONT AND BACK. 
          OH YEAH, WE, WE CAN GO FOUR STORIES FINE, BUT IF THERE'S A HOUSE RIGHT BEHIND JOHN, I'M, I'M WORRIED. 
          SO ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S SOME OF MY COMMENTS, BUT I'M GONNA HAVE TO TAKE A BIKE RIDE WALK OUT THERE TO, TO REALLY MAKE A DECISION. 
          WELL, IF I COULD, I THINK YOU'LL HAVE A GREAT CHANCE ON SATURDAY TO TOUR ALL OF THE BUTTER AND EGGS DAYS THAT ARE LINING UP ALL THE WAY DOWN TO, THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE LINING UP. 
          AND WICKERSHAM PARK IS PROMINENTLY FEATURED IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS. 
          AND SO IF YOU'RE THERE, YOU'LL SEE EXACTLY THOSE, UH, LITTLE HOUSES WHICH ARE PRACTICALLY, YOU KNOW, COULD QUALIFY AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT AT SOME POINT. 
          UM, AND THEN ON G STREET, IF YOU WALK G STREET, UH, YOU'LL NOTICE ALL THE THREE STORY INFILL THAT'S BEEN GOING ON THERE OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS OR SO WHERE, UM, UM, IT'S ALMOST CONDOMINIUM LOOKING ON G NOT ON FIRST, BUT ON ON G COMING UP. 
          UH, SO, YOU KNOW, LITTLE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO, BETWEEN FIRST AND THIRD, UM, BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND, UH, YEAH. 
          UM, AND, AND UH, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE HOW NEIGHBORHOODS CAN TRANSITION, UH, ONE LOT AT A TIME OR SEVERAL LOTS BUNCHED TOGETHER AT A TIME YOU WANTED TO WEIGH IN. 
          I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, UM, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BOULEVARD IN THIS GRAPHIC, SO THE MAGENTA COLOR, UM, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IT IS TODAY, IT IS CURRENTLY, UM, DESIGNATED MIXED USE. 
          IT'S T FIVE, WHICH ALLOWS FOUR STORIES AND UP TO SIX STORIES WITH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL, AND ITS UNLIMITED DENSITY. 
          SO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED THERE IN THE DOTTED RED LINE IS BASICALLY CARRYING FORWARD WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED THERE INTO THE GENERAL PLAN WITH THE ONE CHANGE IN ESTABLISHING THAT BASE DENSITY OF 30 TO 55 UNITS PER ACRE, WHERE RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO DENSITY MAX. 
          SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT INTRODUCING THE POTENTIAL OF A FOUR STORY BUILDING. 
          IT'S CARRYING FORWARD WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, WHAT ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES CURRENTLY ARE DESIGNATED AND ZONED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET IN THAT LIGHT PURPLE. 
          THEY'RE CURRENTLY, UM, DESIGNATED MIXED USE AND ZONED MU TWO, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO FOUR STORIES AND UP TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          THIS IS ACTUALLY TAKING IT DOWN TO THREE STORIES AND MAINTAINING THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 30 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          SO I JUST KIND OF WANNA SET THAT STAGE BECAUSE THERE'S LESS CHANGING HERE THAN I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER SHRUBS. 
          IT WAS, IT WAS FEELING THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY CARRYING FORWARD OR EVEN DECREASING THE INTENSITY ALLOWED CURRENTLY. 
          SO THE FINAL QUESTION I HAD WAS, CAN A HOME SOMEONE BUY A PROPERTY, TEAR DOWN A HOUSE AND PUT UP THEIR OWN PERSONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THAT SPOT? OR IS THAT WE'RE ELIMINATING THAT POSSIBILITY? SO 
          [05:00:01]
IN, LET'S SEE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE, UM, YOU ARE ALLOWED STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL IN THE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE, YOU WOULD BE ALONE STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL. 
          THE ONE CAVEAT WOULD BE THAT YOU HAVE MINIMUM DENSITY RANGES. 
          SO IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT, WHETHER YOU COULD BUILD ONE UNIT BECAUSE YOU'RE TYPICALLY NOT ALLOWED TO GO BELOW THE MINIMUM OF A DENSITY RANGE. 
          OKAY, SO A A POINT LOOKS LIKE 0.1 FAR IS LIKE 1 10, 1 10TH OF THE AREA WOULD BE COVERED BY A SINGLE STORY, AND THAT'S ALL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE ABOVE THE MINIMUM. 
          I THINK THE 10TH FAR IS THE ACTIVE USE. 
          YEAH, NO. 
          UM, SO LET'S SAY YOU HAVE, UM, A A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, KIND OF A TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE LOTS ARE, WHAT SIZE THEY'RE, BUT THAT'S A 50 BY A HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT LOT. 
          UM, UH, THAT IS 0.11 OF AN ACRE. 
          AND IF YOU ARE HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM DENSITY OF 30 UNITS AN ACRE, IT'S GONNA REQUIRE THAT WHEN YOU REBUILD IT, YOU AT LEAST HAVE THREE UNITS. 
          SO IF YOU WERE TO TAKE DOWN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND WANT TO BUILD STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL, THAT MINIMUM DENSITY, THAT 30, WHICH IS THE LOWER END OF THAT DENSITY RANGE, WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO AT LEAST BUILD THREE UNITS ON THAT SITE. 
          YEAH, I'M NOT SURE, I'M NOT SURE. 
          I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT'S A A, A BEST ROUTE TO GO. 
          UM, IF GIVING THE PROPERTY OWNERS MORE OPTIONS TO DO WHAT THEY WANNA DO, CAN I, UM, A, A ASK THAT IT WOULD THOSE THREE UNITS, UH, QUALIFY AS THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND A DU AND A-J-A-D-U, UM, AN A DU AND A-J-A-D-U ACTUALLY DON'T COUNT TOWARDS YOUR DENSITY. 
          OKAY, GOOD. 
          BUT I'M, BUT IT ALSO, IF SOMEBODY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE, THEY CAN KEEP THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE. 
          THERE'S NOTHING THAT REQUIRES SOMEBODY AND YOU CAN MAINTAIN YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN OR YOU HAVE TO REDEVELOP YOUR SITE. 
          RIGHT? BUT, BUT AT SOME POINT, THE FOLKS THAT ARE LIVING THERE NOW, UM, UH, WHEN, WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE, CAN'T CONTINUE, UH, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THAT SITE, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING. 
          IT'S, WE'RE GENTRIFYING THIS AREA, BUILDING IT UP, AND THEY HAVE NO CHOICE IF THERE IS A CHANGE. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S JUST THE BOTTOM LINE. 
          THEY CAN'T BUILD A, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THAT SITE. 
          THEY HAVE TO BUILD THREE UNITS OR WHATEVER ON THAT SITE, AND THAT CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THAT. 
          SO SOME OF THOSE ARE BACKING UP ON SECOND STREET, UM, SO IN THE AREAS, IF YOU HAVE SOME HIGHLIGHTED. 
          SO, UH, THAT'S WHERE I'M, I GET CONCERNED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, I THINK, UH, WE'RE LOOKING FOR STRAW POLL TIME ON THIS ONE AND UM, AND, UH, I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOU ON THIS ONE. 
          UM, ARE WE GOOD TO GO ON THIS? YOU HAVE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION GOOD TO GO? UM, EXCUSE ME. 
          MY ONLY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT ON THE, THE EAST SIDE WHERE THE PROPOSAL IS, UH, TCMU IS TO MAKE THAT MU TOO, TO PREVENT FROM GOING UP TO, YOU KNOW, 70 FEET. 
          I MEAN, I REALIZE NOT MUCH HAS BEEN BUILT THERE, BUT YOU KNOW, IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING WERE TO BE BUILT THERE IN THE NEXT 25 YEARS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          EXCUSE ME, YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF, OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK THE WAY PETALUMA'S LAID OUT RIGHT NOW IS IT, IT TAPERS OFF VERY NICELY FROM THE CENTER OF DOWNTOWN BEING ARGUABLY THE HIGHEST POINT TO, TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AND I THINK THE RESIDENTS IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS PARTIALLY LIVE THERE BECAUSE IT IS NICE AND QUIET. 
          YOU'VE GOT BUILDINGS ALL ROUGHLY ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT. 
          AND SO I I DON'T AGREE WITH, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR UP TO 70 FOOT TALL BUILDINGS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM. 
          IS THERE A PATHWAY TO SOLVING THAT? IT SAYS, UM, SMART CODE FOR HEIGHT, MINIMUM PLANNING, PLANNING, COMMISSION APPROVAL. 
          IS THERE A, IS THERE A PATHWAY TO NOT HAVING THAT APPROVAL TO, SORRY, ONE QUESTION. 
          JUST ANSWER. 
          HOW DOES NO NET LOSS WORK WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH A, AN UNLIMITED DENSITY 
          [05:05:01]
AREA? UM, RON, YOU MIGHT BE BETTER AT ANSWERING THIS, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH, LIKE WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT OUR HOUSING ELEMENT IN THOSE AREAS WHERE, UM, WE WERE ASSUMING A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS ON SITE, WE HAD TO SHOW TRENDS FOR THE AREAS THAT HAD UNLIMITED DENSITY. 
          WE HAD TO SHOW, UM, PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS ON THOSE SITES AND, AND KIND OF ESTABLISH, UH, A, A DENSITY, UM, FOR THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE UNLIMITED AND THEN WE COULD USE THAT ACROSS THE BOARD TO PROJECT HOW MANY UNITS WE COULD. 
          DO. 
          WE HAVE ENOUGH EXAMPLES OF THAT TO ACTUALLY SHOW IT. 
          I MEAN, WE'VE GOT THE LAVIA, WHAT OTHER ONES DO WE HAVE? BUT WHERE WE'VE SEEN THAT COME TRUE THAT WE COULD USE TO ESTABLISH THAT WE USED THAT WE ACTUALLY WERE ABLE TO USE APPLICATIONS THAT HAD COME IN BUT NOT BEEN APPROVED. 
          SO WE USED THE, UM, THE HINES PROPOSAL ON THE SMART SITE THAT CAME IN. 
          I THINK THAT WAS 400 UNITS. 
          I THINK WE MIGHT'VE LOOKED AT HAYSTACK. 
          UH, WE LOOKED AT LAVIA, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT ELSE WE LOOKED AT, BUT WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF 'EM, UM, THAT HAD COME IN, BOTH ONES THAT HADN'T EVER GONE ANYWHERE BUT HAD BEEN AN ACTUAL APPLICATION VIA DEVELOPER AND APPROVALS. 
          UM, SO IN TERMS OF REMOVING THE FLEXIBILITY TO GO UP TO SIX STORIES IN T SIX, UM, WE NEED TO, IF, IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO IS TO ACTUALLY REDUCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FROM THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, UM, THEN IT WOULD GO TO A LOWER INTENSITY MIXED USE DESIGNATION. 
          I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS, UM, AS IN THE SMART CODE, ARE THEY VIABLE HERE? YEAH, THAT'S MY QUESTION. 
          COULD MEAN SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN HERE OR WOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAY, NO, NO, NO, WE OBVIOUS WE STAY AT FOUR STORIES, 50 FEET. 
          WHAT ARE THOSE EXEMPTIONS? SO THEY HAVE TO MAKE, I THINK THERE'S TWO OR THREE FINDINGS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO MAKE AS PART OF THEIR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO FROM ABOVE FOUR STORIES AND THERE, IT'S IN THE SMART CODE, WHAT THOSE REQUIRED FINDINGS ARE. 
          IN YOUR ESTIMATION, COULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE THOSE FINDINGS ON THIS? IS IT, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM WHAT ARE, FROM MAKING THOSE FINDINGS? NO, THIS IS ALL VERY THEORETICAL, RIGHT? I DON'T HAVE A DEVELOPMENT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT'S THINGS LIKE, DOES IT UNDULY IMPACT? I THINK THERE'S ONE ABOUT UNDULY IMPACTING LIGHT AND AIR AND DOES IT OFFER, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UNIQUE DESIGN FEATURES, DESIRABLE DESIGN FEATURES. 
          IT'S, SO IT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          SO, WELL, I I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THAT TOO. 
          IF, YOU KNOW, TCMU IS FOUR STORIES, BUT IT'S, IT'S CONDITIONAL BEYOND THAT TO GO ANYMORE, YOU KNOW, THAT EXTRA BONUS, IS THAT PART OF, ARE THOSE PART OF THE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT NO NET LOSS, IS THAT PART OF THE NUMBERS OR IS IT STILL THE CONSIDERED THE SAME AS MU TWO AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, UNITS? IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, AS HEATHER SAID, I, THIS IS HCD THAT WOULD BE REVIEWING LIKE CITY'S NO NET LOSS CALCULATION. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY, THEY WOULD SUPPORT THE CITY USING THE SAME TRENDS ANALYSIS THAT THEY USED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ESTABLISH WHAT WOULD BE, UH, UH, ASSUMED DENSITY, ALLOWABLE DENSITY FOR THE SMART CODE ZONES. 
          UM, AND SO IF YOU WERE TO RE CHANGE THE DESIGNATION AND STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE INTENSITY OR DENSITY, THEN THEY WOULD ASSUME THAT'S A, A REDUCTION IN ALLOWABLE, UM, CAPACITY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND, AND THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW WHERE ELSE YOU'RE INCREASING ALLOWED CAPACITY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT LOSS. 
          AND I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY, THE EXERCISE THAT WE TOOK FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT ALLOWED US TO NOT SHOW HOUSING ON THE FAIRGROUNDS AND ON AREAS THAT WE KNEW THE COMMUNITY WOULDN'T SUPPORT. 
          SO IT WAS REALLY FOCUSING ON OUR DOWNTOWN. 
          I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE DID THAT, BUT I GUESS IF I RESTATE IT IS 
          [05:10:01]
MY QUESTION IS, ARE MU TWO AND TCMU ARE THOSE BOTH CONSIDERED THE SAME NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS? BECAUSE IN TCMU, ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT'S, WHAT'S ALLOWED WITHOUT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL IS, IS THAT, I, I ACTUALLY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, UM, BUT I THINK WE'RE MORE LOOKING AT THE ACREAGE AND THE DENSITY, NOT THE HEIGHT, RIGHT? SO WE'RE TALKING, WE'RE KIND OF FOCUSED ON HEIGHT, WE'RE TA FOCUSED ON THE CONCERN ABOUT HEIGHT, BUT FOR THE KNOWN NET LOSS, WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AND WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE LOT. 
          AND THAT'S HOW YOU GET WHAT'S THE ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF UNITS YOU CAN HAVE ON THAT. 
          AND IT'S THE, THE HEIGHT REALLY ISN'T PLAYING INTO THAT CALCULATION FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
          THEY DON'T CONSIDER THE HEIGHT ADDING MORE HOUSING OR ADDING MORE UNITS? NO, BECAUSE IT'S YOUR DENSITY RANGE, IT'S YOUR MINIMUM DENSITY TO MAXIMUM DENSITY. 
          RON, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? YEAH. 
          AND SO THAT, WHAT'S THIS IS TRIGGERING FOR ME IS THAT WHEN WE DID THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE HEINZ SITE, UM, THAT WAS LOOKED AT, WHICH IS THE SMART OWNED PARCEL THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GO UP TO SIX STORIES, WE WEREN'T WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS FOUR OR SIX STORIES. 
          WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THIS IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE PERCEIVED DENSITY AND THIS IS THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          SO THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE 10 UNITS PER ACRE BETWEEN MU TWO AND TCMU, UH, DOWNTOWN AS A MAX CASE IS GOES UP TO 45 UNITS AND TCMU GOES UP TO 55. 
          YEAH. 
          MM-HMM . 
          SO IT'D ONLY BE A NET LOSS OF 10 AND YOU'D PREVENT GOING UP TO 70 FEET. 
          SO TO ME THAT DOESN'T SOUND TOO BAD. 
          IT'S ALSO THE GOING UP TO 70 FEET IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          SO THAT'S THE OTHER THING. 
          IT'S NOT, IT'S, THERE IS A DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS. 
          JUST A REMINDER. 
          YEAH, IT'S DISCRETIONARY. 
          BUT I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE SEEING A CASE RIGHT NOW WHERE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE HOTEL, THE CITY GOING IN THAT DIRECTION AND PLANNING COMMISSION GOING IN THAT DIRECTION, I THINK THAT ALL, ALL EVERYTHING WE BUILD OUT CAN BE MODIFIED, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE, IN THE METHOD YOU'RE DESCRIBING THAT CURRENT SITUATION. 
          UM, NOW AS WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THE, THE PERFECT PLAN IN PLACE TILL WE START MODIFYING IT. 
          UM, SO I HEAR YOUR POINT ABOUT, UM, TRYING TO LOCK IN THE HEIGHT, NEVER GO INTO 70 FEET. 
          UM, I, I WOULD RATHER NOT MESS WITH ANY OF THE, UM, ZONINGS THAT WE HAVE AND CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE. 
          I'D RATHER DEFEND THIS IN PUBLIC AS WHAT WE HAD ALREADY, IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE. 
          SO, UM, SO LET, LET'S DRAW POLL ON THIS TO SEE WHETHER, I MEAN, THIS IS JUST ONE OF, UH, MANY CORRIDORS AND HOPEFULLY THE LIGHTEST INTENSITY. 
          UM, SO YOU WOULD RATHER MAKE THE MODIFICATION TO MU TWO OR ARE YOU OKAY WITH THIS IN THE END? I THINK I'D RATHER SEE MU TWO JUST TO KEEP THE HEIGHT DOWN. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN, I'M GOOD WITH THIS COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          UM, I'M NOT QUITE COMFORTABLE YET PICKING UP THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTIES. 
          I'D RATHER SEE A, A REDUCTION, SEE, UH, MICROPHONE PLEASE. 
          YOU YOU'D LIKE TO SEE A REDUCTION IN GENERAL? UM, YEAH, OR SPECIFIC PROPERTIES OR SO MANY AREAS OR SOMETHING THAT, UH, THERE'S TOO MANY SMALL PROPERTIES HERE. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF SMALL PROPERTIES COUNCIL, UH, VICE MAYOR, UM, THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN, LET ME JUST CLARIFY IS WHICH ONE, HOW IT IS WRITTEN. 
          SO ON, ON THE ONE SIDE, THE, THE AREA THAT'S GOT THE RED AROUND IT, IT, THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE CORRESPONDING ZONING ALLOWS UP TO FOUR, UP TO FOUR STORIES AND UP TO SIX STORIES WITH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY, THAT'S WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY IS. 
          AND WE DIDN'T DO IT IN 20 YEARS. 
          CORRECT. 
          BUT LOOKING AHEAD, SO WE'RE KEEPING IT THE SAME. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE TRANSFERRING IT TO, I I CAN SEE KEEPING IT THE SAME. 
          IT DIDN'T CHANGE 20 YEARS. 
          I DON'T THINK 
          [05:15:01]
IT'S GONNA CHANGE IN THE NEXT 20 COUNCIL MEMBER KATE THOMPSON, YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THAT. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE. 
          I'M FINE KEEPING THE, THE SECTION TOWN CENTER MIXED USE, I THINK THE WORD, UM, GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION IF WE'RE DOWN ZONING ALONG MAJOR CORRIDORS AND JUST GO BACK TO THE SECOND SLIDE AND LIKE, I CAN CHECK OFF AT LEAST SIX OF THE SO-CALLED VALUES THAT WE HAVE ON HERE THAT WE'RE NOT UPHOLDING AS WE'RE SETTING OUR POLICY. 
          AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET INTO IT AND WE START THINKING ABOUT, OH, WHAT ABOUT THIS AND WHAT ABOUT THAT? AND THEN WE WIND UP GOING TOTALLY AGAINST WHAT WE SAY IS OUR VALUES, CLIMATE CHANGE, PUTTING THINGS ALONG CORRIDORS, PUTTING, PRIORITIZING, INFILL, AND WE'RE JUST, UM, LIKE THE, THE GPAC WHO SPENT YEARS WORKING ON THIS AND COMING UP WITH THESE, UM, THESE GOALS AND THE, THE VISION STATEMENT AND THE VALUES AND LIKE APPLYING LIKE CAREFULLY OF, UH, APPLYING THE VALUES TO EACH OF THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT THEY WERE MAKING. 
          UM, WE'RE UNDOING THEM AT 1122 AT NIGHT BECAUSE, UH, WE DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH, UH, WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          AND, UM, IT'S JUST WE'RE, WE'RE NOT ATTACHING OUR VALUES TO OUR DECISIONS HERE, AT LEAST WHAT WE SAY OUR VALUES ARE. 
          AND SO YOU'D LIKE MORE DENSITY, MORE, MORE POTENTIAL. 
          SO I THINK WE HAVE FOUR, OUTTA SEVEN SAYING THAT WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THIS. 
          WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THIS PROCESS IS THAT, UM, THIS IS NOT THE FINAL THING. 
          UM, YOU'RE GETTING FEEDBACK. 
          SOME OF IT'S MIXED, BUT UM, THIS IS NOT THE END. 
          WE'RE NOT REALLY VOTING TONIGHT. 
          SO, UM, THAT TAKES US OFF OF, UM, BOULEVARD SOUTH. 
          UM, WHAT DO YOU GOT? WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO HIT NEXT? I, OKAY, SO, UM, THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO DO WASHINGTON CORRIDOR RIGHT AFTER DISCUSSING THE SMART STATION. 
          SO CIRCLING BACK TO SOME EXTENT TO THAT CONVERSATION, AGAIN, HERE'S A SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND AERIAL AND JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, THE CURRENT ZONING IS MIXED USE ONE IN THE ENTIRE AREA OF CHANGE AS OUTLINED IN RED. 
          IS THAT MY COMPUTER? YEAH. 
          THE DRIVERS HERE ARE TO TRANSFORM THE CHARACTER SAFETY AND ACTIVITY ALONG THE CORRIDOR, PROVIDE MORE HOUSING NEAR DOWNTOWN, AND AGAIN, ALONG KEY CORRIDORS PROOF ACCESS TO, UH, FOR THE COMMUNITY TO DAY-TO-DAY NEEDS. 
          THE IDEA HERE IS, UM, LOTS OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS COULD HAVE ACCESS TO, UM, SERVICES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ON THE CORRIDOR IF, UM, THERE WAS A DIVERSE SET OF USES THERE. 
          AND THEN, UM, HAVE THE WHOLE ENTIRE CORRIDOR BE MO BOTH MORE, UH, PEDESTRIAN BIKE AND TRANSIT FRIENDLY TO REDUCE VMT. 
          SO WE WERE PLAYING REALLY WITH JUST TWO DIFFERENT DEGREES OF INTENSIFICATION ALONG THE CORRIDOR WITH THE ALTERNATIVES, UM, BOTH WITH THE IDEA THAT, UM, IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE GREATER INTENSITY, UH, CLOSEST TO THE SMART STATION AND THEN TAPERING OR FEATHERING AWAY FROM THAT, UM, AS YOU MOVE TOWARDS THE FAIRGROUNDS AND THE HIGHWAY. 
          THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE WAS, UH, WAS A, A MORE MODERATE LEVEL OF INTENSIFICATION, UM, MOVING FROM, UM, THE EQUIVALENT OF T 5.5 TO MIXED USE TWO. 
          AND THE OTHER WAS A MUCH HIGHER, UH, INTENSIFICATION KIND OF MATCHING THE INTENSITY AT THE STATION AND THEN TRANSITIONING DOWNWARDS FROM THERE. 
          THE PUBLIC WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. 
          THE TYPES OF USES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE, THERE ARE TWO TO FOUR MULTI-FAMILY, UM, PLUS, UM, TOWN HOMES AND A LOTS OF, LOTS OF OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AS WELL. 
          UM, THERE WAS MORE SUPPORT FOR THE, UM, SLIDER, INTENSIFICATION AND SOME FAIR AMOUNT OF RESISTANCE AGAINST THE HIGHER HEIGHTS INVOLVED IN, UH, ALTERNATIVE 
          [05:20:01]
TWO. 
          WE BROUGHT THIS BACK TO THE GPAC IN JANUARY, UM, WITH THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, AND THEY, UH, BASICALLY, UM, AGREED WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WHICH IS THE, UM, URBAN CORRIDOR MIXED USE RIGHT AT THE TRACKS JUST ACROSS FROM THE STATION, UM, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO FIVE STORIES, UM, STEPPING DOWN TO FOUR ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES, UM, AND THEN TRANSITIONING FROM THAT TO THE STEP DOWN MIXED USE, WHICH IS ALLOWS UP TO FOUR AND THEN THREE STEPPING DOWN OR ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AND THEN THEIR THOUGHT WAS, DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGE. 
          UM, FROM, AND I FORGET THE NAME OF THE STREET. 
          UM, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? I THINK IT'S VALLEJO. 
          VALLEJO, UM, TOWARDS 1 0 1 AND REVISIT THAT AREA AS PART OF THE FAIRGROUNDS MASTER PLANNING PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DESIGNATIONS ACROSS WASHINGTON THERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE VISION FOR THE FAIRGROUNDS. 
          CAN I ADD SOMETHING? UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GPAC TALKED A LOT ABOUT, ABOUT THAT AREA THAT'S, UM, PROPOSED, LET'S SEE AS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE WAS THE SMALL SIZE OF A LOT OF THE PARCELS, UM, THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF SMALLER SIZE AND THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK TO ABOUT, UM, KIND OF THE, AN ECLECTIC MIX BEING A DESIRABLE, UM, CHARACTER ALONG THIS CORRIDOR THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE A HOUSE NEXT TO A STORE OR NEXT TO A GRO YOU KNOW, NEXT TO A GROCERY STORE. 
          AND EVEN THERE WAS EVEN SOME TALK ABOUT THE, THE AUTOMOTIVE USES THAT WERE ALONG THAT CORRIDOR AS BEING, YOU KNOW, PART AN OKAY PART OF THAT MIX. 
          SO JUST LOOKING AT HOW SMALL SOME OF THOSE PARCELS ARE ALONG WASHINGTON, THEY'RE VERY, UM, TINY. 
          SO AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO HAPPEN, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE, UH, SOMEBODY TO BUY SEVERAL OF THEM AND COMBINE THEM. 
          ONE OTHER ADJUSTMENT I SHOULD NOTE, UM, AND, AND, AND IT CAME UP EARLIER IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE, UH, STATION AREA IS THE, WE HAD ORIGINALLY INCLUDED THE BRUELL BUILDING AND THEN I THINK WHAT IS THE, UM, LIQUOR STORE ACROSS, UH, THE WAY THERE AS WE HAD ORIGINALLY DES UH, PROPOSED, DESIGNATED THEM THE URBAN CORRIDOR MIXED USE, UH, SIMILAR TO THE ADJACENT PARCELS, BUT THEN, UM, RECONSIDERED THAT GIVEN THE, UM, WAS IT THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE BURDALE BUILDING? WAS THAT THE CONCERN? MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          UM, YEAH, SO, UM, SO NO CHANGE THERE, BUT FOCUSING THE GREATER INTENSIFICATION, UH, NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVILLE AND EAST WASHINGTON, UM, SKIPPED OVER THIS, BUT THE, THE RATIONALE REMAINS THE SAME, REALLY ALLOW HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING TO SUPPORT HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT, ACTIVATE THE ENTIRETY OF THE CORRIDOR, UM, ACCOUNT FOR CHALLENGES RE WITH REDEVELOPING SMALL INDIVIDUAL LOTS AS HEATHER MENTIONED. 
          UM, AND THEN AS I NOTED, MAKE SURE THAT THE LAND USE POLICIES ARE CLEAR ABOUT THE NEED TO REVISIT THOSE PARCELS ACROSS FROM THE FAIR GROUNDS AS PART OF THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS. 
          DID YOU WANNA COVER THE RE THE FINAL CORRIDOR NOW AS WELL? UM, YEAH, LET, LET'S JUST THROW IN THE, THE NARRATIVE ON THE NORTH AND THEN WE'LL TAKE ALL OUR COMMENTS THERE ON TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FOR PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH DRIVERS HERE ARE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER CORRIDORS, MORE HOUSING NEAR DOWNTOWN, UM, GREATER MIX OF USE TO PROVIDE EASY ACCESS TO DAY-TO-DAY NEEDS, UH, ENHANCE THE CORRIDOR, IMPROVE WALKABILITY, ACTIVE TRANSIT, TRANSIT ACCESS ALONG THE CORRIDOR, JUST REDUCE VMT AND THEN ALSO IN THIS REGION INCLUDE A GATEWAY IMPROVEMENT. 
          THE OPTIONS WERE REALLY QUITE AN ECLECTIC MIX OF VARYING FOCAL POINTS ALONG THE BOULEVARD AS YOU TRAVEL, UM, UP OR DOWN, UM, AND A AND A VARIETY OF MIXES OF INTENSITIES. 
          AND SO THE FIRST ONE WAS KIND OF A FEATHERING DOWN FROM 
          [05:25:02]
THE DOWNTOWN, UM, TOWARDS THE MORE RURAL END OF THE BOULEVARD AS YOU MOVED THAT DIRECTION. 
          THE SECOND WAS KIND OF A TWO NOTED OR TWO CENTERED APPROACH WITH ONE CENTER BEING, UM, NEAR DOWNTOWN AT EAST WASHINGTON WITH THE HIGHER INTENSITY ALLOWED. 
          AND THEN ANOTHER SECOND CENTER, UM, AT THE LUCKY SHOPPING SHOPPING CENTER. 
          AND THEN A THIRD ALTERNATIVE WAS, UH, JUST A CONSISTENT CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE CORRIDOR. 
          WE WERE JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE FOR WHAT PEOPLE PREFERRED IN TERMS OF THE FEEL OF THE CORRIDOR AS THEY TRAVELED DOWN FROM DOWNTOWN TOWARDS THE RURAL AREAS WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC WAS, YES, THEY'RE OPEN TO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OR TRANSFORMATION, UM, OPEN TO A VARIETY OF TYPES OF MULTIFAMILY UP TO TWO TO FOUR STORY, OTHERWISE LOTS OF VARIED USES. 
          UM, AND, AND NO AND, AND A KIND OF SPLIT ON EACH OF THE THREE ALTERNATIVES, UM, WITH THE MOST RESISTANCE TO THE, THE HEIGHT ALL ALONG THE CORRIDOR. 
          UM, THE GPAC THEN THOUGHT THAT A MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE TO WITH LOWER MAXIMUM HEIGHTS WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE AND THEN, UM, MORE LESS LEAVE THE CURRENT, UM, CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLANT SMART CROW DESIGNATIONS IN THE AREA BETWEEN EAST WASHINGTON AND AND PAY RAN. 
          UM, AND SO, UM, WHAT WE CAME UP WITH IS, IS FOLLOWING THAT GPAC RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO AS YOU SEE BETWEEN EAST WASHINGTON AND PAY RAN, WE'RE RETAINING THE EQUIVALENT OF THE EXISTING SMART CODE DESIGNATION. 
          SO MOVING FROM THE EXISTING DESIGNATION TO LATERALLY TO THE, THE THE NEW PROPOSED EXISTING ZONE, EXCUSE ME, TO THE NEW PROPOSED DESIGNATION THAT HAS EQUIVALENT STANDARDS AND THEN HAS BEEN A, WHICH HAS BEEN A PRIORITY FROM THE GET GO, IS ALLOWING FOR DIVERSIFICATION AND INTENSIFICATION AT THE LUCKY SHOPPING CENTER, HOPING FOR, UH, REDEVELOPMENT AT THAT SITE. 
          UM, AND THEN IN THE PARCELS NEARBY ACROSS THE WAY MATCHING IT WITH A SIMILAR STEP DOWN MIXED USE LEVEL OF INTENSITY. 
          UM, AND THEN FURTHER FEATHERING DOWN, UH, TO NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE AS YOU TRAVEL UP THE CORRIDOR. 
          UM, AND THEN TR AND THEN TRANSITIONING TO A MAKER, WHICH IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING USE, UM, AS YOU TRAVEL UP BEYOND CINE BAR. 
          ONE NOTE, UM, IS THAT THE, THE STEP DOWN MIXED USES IS APPLIED IN THE IN AND AROUND THE LUCKY CENTER TO ACCOMMODATE, UM, COMPATIBILITY WITH BOTH THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES OR REALLY PRIMARILY ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES, UM, ON EACH OF THOSE SIDES AS INDICATED. 
          I THINK THAT IS IT. 
          THERE WERE JUST THE THREE CORRIDORS, RIGHT? MM-HMM . 
          ALL WHILE WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS, LET ME OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS AND INVITE ANY SPEAKERS WHO WISH TO SPEAK, IT'S ALL MISSED. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          AND UM, BACK TO COUNCIL, UM, UH, WE HAVE, UH, TWO, TWO IN FRONT OF US, THE EAST WASHINGTON CORRIDOR ON THE LUM BOULEVARD NORTH CORRIDOR. 
          AND UM, IS IT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY? UM, YOU KNOW WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS? MY PERSONAL, UM, UM, KUDOS TO YOU GUYS FOR, OR THE GPAC FOR SEPARATING THE WASHINGTON FROM UH, UM, FREEWAY AND TO THE LAKEVILLE AND AS INTO TWO, TWO DIFFERENT LOOKING THINGS. 
          UM, I THINK THAT THAT WORKS FOR ME. 
          ANYONE ELSE COMMENTS ON THIS? COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN? YEAH. 
          CAN YOU BRING UP THE, UH, SLIDE ON WASHINGTON? YES, PLEASE. 
          EAST WASHINGTON. 
          SO I, YOU KNOW, I'M INCLINED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE GPAC. 
          UM, AND I, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THIS. 
          ALTHOUGH I WOULD SAY THE AREA IN THE DOTTED LINE CLOSE TO THE CLOSER TO THE FAIRGROUNDS, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE AS I, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE, AT THE ACTUAL SATELLITE MAPS, IT'S NOT LIKE THOSE PARCELS ARE HOMES. 
          LIKE I DIDN'T SEE ANY HOMES IN 
          [05:30:01]
THERE. 
          AND SO THE, THE COMMENTARY THAT I HEARD WAS TO SORT OF PRESERVE THE ECLECTIC MIX. 
          AND AS I'M LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, JUST THE SATELLITE IMAGE OF THAT AREA, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT, I'M NOT LIKE REALLY SEEING THAT AND OR GETTING THAT. 
          UM, AND SO I, IF ANYTHING I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF MAYBE MAKING INSTEAD OF NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE, UM, HAVE THAT BE STEP DOWN MIXED USE WHERE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSIFICATION. 
          UM, THAT ASIDE, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THE PROPOSED, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY, IF WE WERE GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING, THAT WOULD BE IT. 
          AND THEN I WAS FINE WITH THE RECOMMENDED SOLUTION ON PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH. 
          THE ECLECTIC COMMENT ABOUT, UM, ABOUT THE LAKE PHIL OR THE FREEWAY INN. 
          I THINK IT WAS JUST A DESIRE TO SEE THE MIX HAPPEN, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL OR A RESTAURANT OR A GROCERY STORE, A TATTOO PARLOR, YOU KNOW, JUST THAT KIND OF, THAT THAT MIX TO CONTINUE. 
          AND SO AS THINGS REDEVELOP, IT CAN GO IN THERE, BUT, UH, NOT A DESIRE TO SEE EVERYTHING, JUST KIND OF LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME. 
          COUNCIL, VICE MAYOR, UM, ISN'T THERE, UM, A LOW INCOME HOUSING ACROSS FROM THE FAIRGROUNDS THAT IS ALREADY HAVE, UM, AN APPLICATION IN, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ALL THEIR FUNDING YET. 
          THERE, THERE, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S WALKED IN THE DOOR. 
          UM, NO. 
          UH, BUT WE, THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION AND I THINK MAYBE SOME PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ON THOSE, THAT PARCEL OR TWO ACROSS FROM THE LIBRARY THAT HAD GOTTEN A APPROVALS FOR A MARKET RATE PROJECT, RIGHT. 
          THAT NEVER WAS BUILT. 
          IT'S ON THAT, I, I JUST REMEMBER THERE WASN'T ENOUGH PARKING, BUT THEN WE FIGURED THEY WOULD PARK ACROSS THE STREET AT THE FAIRGROUNDS. 
          UM, BUT THAT WOULD BE MUCH LARGER THAN WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING ON THIS DOTS. 
          'CAUSE YOU'RE JUST SHOWING THE CORRIDOR, YOU'RE NOT SHOWING THAT LOT. 
          NO, THAT LOT IS IN THERE. 
          IT'S UM, AT THE CORNER OF, YEAH, IT'S THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. 
          OH, I WAS THINKING IT WOULD BE BIGGER THAN THAT. 
          I THINK IT'S MID-BLOCK THERE. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GAS STATION ON THAT CORNER. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN IT'S, THEN IT'S A LITTLE FURTHER UP THAT BLOCK. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE THEN AT THE OTHER CORNER IS JACK IN THE BOX, WHICH IN 1976, THAT WAS LIKE THE COOLEST NEW MODERN THING IN MY LIFE. 
          UM, AND THEN THAT SHOPPING CENTER, UM, HAS HOUSING AROUND IT AND THAT WOULD BE YOUR 15 MINUTE CENTER IN THAT CORRIDOR. 
          SO YOU HAVE THE, ACROSS FROM THE FAIRGROUNDS, YOU'VE GOT JACK IN THE BOX ON THE CORNER, AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET YOU HAVE THAT LITTLE SHOPPING CENTER, WHICH IS YOUR 15 MINUTE WITH HOUSING ALL THE WAY AROUND IT. 
          SO I WOULD BE OKAY WITH KEEPING WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY LOOKS LIKE, WHICH IS I THINK THE GEX RECOMMENDATION. 
          AM I CORRECT THAT'S THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS TO KEEP IT LIKE IT IS WITH THAT? YEAH. 
          SO WHERE THE, WHERE THE RED DOTTED OUTLINE THAT'S KEEPING IT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT, THAT SHOPPING CENTER WOULD REMAIN A SHOPPING CENTER WITH HOUSING AROUND IT? YEAH, THEY CAN ALWAYS REDEVELOP. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THERE'S NOTHING, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S HAPPENING HERE THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOMEBODY TO ABANDON THEIR CURRENT LEGAL USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE THERE'S A CONVENIENCE STORE AND SOME OTHER LITTLE SHOPS IN THERE AND I THINK THERE'S AN URGENT CARE, THERE'S A MEDICAL OFFICE IN THERE, SO THAT HELPS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THAT 15 MINUTE THOUGHT. 
          SO THAT'S MY 2 CENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER RES. 
          OKAY. 
          ON THE, UH, THE, THE WASHINGTON CORRIDOR, UM, THAT'S MOSTLY NOT HOUSING AND UH, A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES ARE ALONG THOSE STREETS AND IT'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES WILL BE COMBINED DOWN THE ROAD TO DO SOMETHING. 
          SO, UH, THAT'S A NICE SOLID PATTERN ALL THE WAY TOP TO BOTTOM. 
          EVEN THOUGH AT THE VERY TOP, THE, THAT PROPERTY WAS JUST RECENTLY 
          [05:35:01]
REBUILT AND RESTRUCTURED AND, UM, THE WINE AND LIQUOR STORE SEEMS TO BE THE FAVORITE ONE IN TOWN GATES GETTING NUMBER ONE READING. 
          SO I DOUBT IF THEY'RE GONNA CHANGE. 
          AND THE BEDELL BUILDING PROBABLY CAN'T CHANGE UNLESS WE ALLOW, UM, MORE LIVING INSIDE THAT BUILDING. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF UM, IT WOULD EVER GO THAT WAY. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THERE, BUT AT LEAST THERE'S A CONSISTENCY FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER END. 
          UM, IN THE PATTERN. 
          UH, I WANT TO COMPARE THAT TO THE NORTH PETALUMA. 
          IF YOU BRING THE NORTH PETALUMA UP. 
          OKAY. 
          IN THE NORTH PETALUMA, UM, THE PATTERN IS NOT CONSISTENT. 
          THERE ARE SEVERAL PROPERTIES AND I SUSPECT THERE IS A WHOLE BLANK AREA THERE. 
          AND I THINK MAYBE ONE OF 'EM IS THE SHOT WELL, UM, UH, PLACE THAT I ACTUALLY HAD MY CAR REPAIRED AT ONE TIME AND IT'S IN THE GRAY AREA, NOT EVEN INCLUDED. 
          AND SO I'M KIND OF WONDERING, UM, WHY ARE THERE NOT THE SAME CONSISTENCY, UH, THROUGHOUT THE REGION? IS WHY IS THERE, UH, IT'S SO SPOTTY AND UH, NOT UNIFORM PATTERNS HERE. 
          IF I WERE THINKING IN REZONING THAT I WOULD BE MUCH MORE CONSISTENT IN, IN, UM, IN THE PATTERNS. 
          SO WHY, WHY ARE THERE SO MANY BLANK SPOTS AND WHY IS THERE SO MANY ZIGZAGS? I THINK THE PART OF THE ANSWER HAS TO DO WITH WHAT THE CURRENT DESIGNATIONS ARE. 
          AND SO WHAT THE GPAC WAS TRYING TO DO UP TO PAY RAN WAS TO LEAVE THINGS AS IS. 
          BUT THEN THERE WAS A LOT OF FOCUS ON HOW TO HELP TRANSFORM, UH, THE AREAS NORTH OF THERE WITH A FOCUS ON THE SHOPPING CENTER, UM, WHICH IS CURRENTLY COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, IF I'M READING THAT CORRECTLY. 
          UM, AND SO GOING BACK TO THE RECOMMENDED, AGAIN, THE INTENT IS TO LEAVE THE AREA BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND PAY AS IS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING AND THEN FOCUS THE CHANGE IN THAT AREA IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE LUCKY SHOP CENT LOOKING LUCKY SHOPPING CENTER ALLOW A GREATER DIVERSIFICATION OF USES INCLUDING HOUSING, UM, TO HOPEFULLY ACTIVATE THAT AREA AND CREATE THAT NE THAT LUCKY CENTER AS A, UH, ACTIVITY CENTER FOR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THE AREA THAT, THAT'S BLANK, THAT'S, UH, ON THE NORTHERN AREA, I THINK BOUNTY FARM IS, IS THERE IN, IN THAT SECTION, BUT IN THE, UM, THE ACTUAL BORDER TO THE BOULEVARD THERE, I THINK THERE, THERE'S THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO REBUILD JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE AND THEN CONTINUING ALL THE WAY UP UNLESS WE'RE GETTING INTO COUNTY LAND OR CONTROLLED LAND ABOUT THAT POINT. 
          BUT I WOULD THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT IT FOR, FOR THE ZONING THAT WE'RE, UH, DOING HERE, UM, WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE SO THAT, UM, WE'RE MORE CONSISTENT. 
          JUST SO I'M CLEAR, I IS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE AREAS THAT ARE GRAY OR IS IT YOUR QUESTION ABOUT CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED? OKAY, SO IT, YOU HAVE THE, UH, THE GRAY AREAS, UH, THAT ARE, UH, YOU HAVE BLANK, THEN YOU HAVE, UH, COLORED PINK AND PURPLE, THEN YOU HAVE GRAY AREAS, UM, AND THEN THE STOP AND STARTS. 
          AND THEN RIGHT IN THE CENTER YOU HAVE A, A PROPERTY THAT GOES ZIGZAGS IN AND OUT, UH, QUITE A BIT. 
          SO IS THERE, UH, PROBLEMS WITH THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT BEING INCLUDED? OR SHOULD WE INCLUDE MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE, UH, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BOULEVARD? ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN YEAH, JUST LIKE WE DID ON WASHINGTON. 
          OH, WELL, SO, UM, PART OF YOUR QUESTION I THINK I, I DON'T THINK I CAN ANSWER IMMEDIATELY. 
          IT GOES BACK TO WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IN DETAIL WITH THE GPAC WHERE WITHIN EACH AREA OF CHANGE TO FOCUS SPECIFICALLY. 
          AND SO AT THE TIME, LOOKING AT BOTH EXISTING USES AS WELL AS EXISTING STANDARDS, WE TOOK SOME PORTIONS OF THE CORRIDORS OFF THE TABLE AS LIKE, THEY'RE FINE AS IS. 
          AND SO THERE'S NO NEED TO CONSIDER THEM AS AN AREA OF CHANGE. 
          SO, SO YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          SO I WANNA BE CONSISTENT IN THE, THE POLICY. 
          'CAUSE IF WE'RE DOING THAT HERE, WE SHOULD DO IT ON THE SOUTH PETMAN BOULEVARD ALSO. 
          THERE'S PROPERTIES THERE WE COULD DEVELOP MUCH TALLER, BUT MAYBE MORE SELECTIVE. 
          SO I'M, I'M LOOKING FOR, UH, A LITTLE MORE CONSISTENCY IN, IN THE WAY WE'RE SETTING POLICY ON THIS. 
          THIS IS THE, THE THIS AND THING I WANTED TO ADD ALSO IS THIS MAP IS A LITTLE MISLEADING IN THAT IT DOESN'T SHOW THE EXISTING DESIGNATIONS. 
          IT REALLY IS JUST HIGHLIGHTING THE DESIGNATIONS AND WHAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS AREAS OF CHANGE. 
          SO YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE FULL PICTURE HERE. 
          UM, YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE, THE PREVIOUS SLIDE MAYBE SHOWS IT BETTER. 
          IN THIS CASE IT'S A MODIFIED VERSION. 
          [05:40:03]
UH, WELL THIS IS, I BELIEVE IT'S CONSISTENT. 
          WHAT'S DIFFERENT HERE IS THAT WE, RATHER THAN SHOWING THE NEW DESIGNATIONS IN THE AREAS THAT ARE NOT CHANGING, WE'RE SHOWING THE EXISTING ZONING. 
          UM, BUT THIS IS, IF YOU, IF YOU KNOW THAT, UNDERSTAND THAT THESE WOULD REMAIN T FIVE AND THE EQUIVALENT OF MU TWO, WHICH IS DOWNTOWN MIXED USE. 
          AND THIS WOULD BE, UH, I'M FORGETTING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 
          BUT, UM, ONE OF THE OTHER MIXED USE, THEY WOULD BE RETAINING THE SAME STANDARDS AS EXISTING. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THE COLOR CONSISTENCY MOVING UP THE CORRIDOR, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          UM, AND THEN THE CHANGE REALLY IS FOCUSED ON THE LUCKY JOBS. 
          YOU WORRIED WHY ON WASHINGTON, EVERYTHING GOT A REVISED COLOR GOING ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN WASHINGTON. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND HERE WHEN WE GET THE SHOT WELLS AUTO AND, AND TOM ROSE CONSTRUCTION AND THOSE THREE BUILDINGS IN THERE, UH, BRODY'S, UM, IT SHOWS NOTHING. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND I THINK THAT'S 'CAUSE YOU WANNA LEAVE IT AS THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL. 
          IT IS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE LEAVING EVERYTHING BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND PAY AS IS. 
          THE ONLY REASON THEY SHOW UP IS DIFFERENT COLORS HERE IS 'CAUSE WE WANNA BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE CONSIDER CHANGE IN THAT, THAT PORTION OF THE CORRIDOR. 
          BUT WE'RE AT, BASED ON PUBLIC INPUT DISCUSSION WITH GPAC, WE'RE PROPOSING NO CHANGE. 
          SO IT'S, AND I THINK ALL THESE PURPLES ALL ALL REALLY GO TO HOUSING CHANGES. 
          AND, AND SO AN AWFUL LOT OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS HOUSING, HOUSING, HOUSING AND UM, AND, AND, AND THE NUMBER OF THESE MIXED USE ALLOW FOR THE OTHER COMMERCIAL RETAIL IN THEM. 
          BUT WE'VE BEEN FOCUSING. 
          SO WHEN IT DOESN'T HAVE A CHANGE OF TOOK TO RESIDENTIAL, WHICH YOU GPAC HAS NOT, HASN'T DIRECTED YOU TO LOOK AT THAT PARTICULAR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, THEN IT JUST SHOWS UP AS AS GRAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'D BE NICE TO KNOW THAT AHEAD OF TIME AND THAT, THAT IT'S REZONED, UH, FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT EXIST THERE AND WANNA KEEP 'EM THAT WAY. 
          SO THAT'S LIKE MISSING INFORMATION, UH, THAT COULD BE USED. 
          UM, SO, AND I DO AGREE WITH THE, UM, LIKE THE TWO, THE TWO ZONE AS WE WANT THE, UM, UH, THE SHOPPING CENTER TO BE BEEFED UP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE UP THERE. 
          AND THEN, UH, I THINK THIS IS THE AREA THAT COULD USE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT WE'RE SEEKING, UH, AS, AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE SPOT. 
          UM, THAT MIGHT BE MORE PRACTICAL I THINK FOR FOLKS THAT MIGHT BE MORE INTERESTED IN ACTUALLY BUILDING HERE. 
          THIS IS A HUGE AREA. 
          I THINK THAT IS POSSIBLE. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD COMMENT. 
          GOOD COMMENT. 
          SO I THINK, UH, WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO PROVIDE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENT IN HERE. 
          AND AT THE END OF THAT, WE'RE GONNA CALL THAT A SUCCESSFUL STRAW POLL. 
          SO, UM, SPECIFIC COMMENTS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BARNICLE. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I'M GOOD WITH, UH, EAST WASHINGTON FOR SURE ON THE, UM, BOULEVARD NORTH. 
          UM, I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE IDEA THAT, UH, WE'VE GOT THE, THE STUFF THAT'S NOT IN THERE RIGHT NOW, THE MU TWO THAT'S NOT IN THERE IS FOUR STORIES AND, AND 30 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          AND THEN RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET WE'RE ZONING IT FOR FOUR STORIES AND 45 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          AND THAT'S, UM, AND SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY, UM, WERE, YOU KNOW, WHY BEING ACROSS THE STREET MEANS YOU CAN, YOU CAN HAVE 50% FEWER HOMES ON YOUR, ON YOUR PROJECT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE AREA NORTH OF PAYON OR, UM, LET'S JUST LOOK LIKE, JUST 'CAUSE I KNOW THE, THE AREA OF VAN OF FLORAL, RIGHT? LIKE RIGHT THERE AT LAKEVILLE WHERE LAKEVILLE HITS INTO THE BOULEVARD, UM, ALL OF THAT MU TWO THAT'S ALONG THERE IS, IS GONNA BE FOUR, FOUR STORIES 30 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS FOUR STORIES, 45 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS NEW ZONE. 
          LIKE WE SHOULD JUST MAKE IT ALL MU TWO OR WE SHOULD MAKE IT, UM, MAKE IT STEP DOWN MIXED USE. 
          BUT IT SHOULD BE THE SAME, I THINK, OR TELL ME I'M WRONG, RIGHT? BUT LIKE, THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD'S AT. 
          JUST GET RID OF THAT. 
          TRYING TO MAKE BONS. 
          UM, I THINK SOME OF THAT IS JUST KEEPING THE STATUS QUO IN SOME WAYS. 
          LIKE IT WAS JUST LIKE, LET'S, LET'S NOT CHANGE IT. 
          THAT'S THE WAY IT IS NOW. 
          UM, IT'S NOT SO MUCH A, I I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          UM, AND WE DID LOOK AT A CONSISTENT, UM, CAN YOU GO BACK ONE? YEAH, WE DID. 
          SORRY. 
          WE DID. 
          SO LIKE IF 
          [05:45:01]
YOU LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE ONE, BOTH ONE AND ALTERNATIVE THREE, THEY HAD MORE OF A CONSISTENCY IN THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, AND SO THOSE WERE OPTIONS THAT WERE PUT OUT THERE. 
          I THINK THE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE PLAN FEST, UM, ON ALTERNATIVE THREE WAS REALLY THUMBS DOWN. 
          UM, AND THEN IT WAS KIND OF A, A MIX KIND OF SPLIT ON THE OTHER TWO. 
          AND SO I THINK THIS IS WHERE GPAC RECOMMENDATION, BUT TO YOUR POINT, UM, THAT WAS THE SAME HEIGHT, RIGHT? IT'S THE SAME BUILDING ESSENTIALLY. 
          RIGHT? SO IF IT'S THE SAME BUILDING, I WANT TO CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOUSING. 
          AND I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER RI THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS OF TOWN THAT HAS A LOT OF POTENTIAL FOR, FOR REDEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING DONE THERE. 
          SO I UM, PROPOSE THAT WE APPLY THE STEP DOWN MIXED USE TO THE, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY THE WHOLE CORRIDOR NORTH OF PAYAN. 
          RIGHT? I'M SAYING THIS, THIS CORRIDOR, THE WHOLE CORRIDOR FROM THE, YOU'RE SAYING THE WHOLE CORRIDOR FROM THE MU TWO. 
          HE'S SAYING FROM LAKEVILLE. 
          FROM LAKEVILLE SAYING THE UPDATED TOWN CENTER THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. 
          WE SHOULD APPLY THAT OUT UNTIL WE GET TO THE MICRO BUSINESS. 
          AND IT SHOULD BE A UNIFORM. 
          LIKE, I MEAN RIGHT NOW, LIKE EVEN WHERE THE LIGHT PURPLE IS WHERE YOU CAN BUILD, WE DON'T HAVE A SLIDE UP RIGHT NOW. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          EVEN SO IF YOU PULL UP THE, THE PREFERRED OPTION, RIGHT? OR WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS, THE, THE LIGHT PURPLE RIGHT NOW THAT'S IN HERE IS ACTUALLY A LOWER BUILDING HEIGHT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THEN WHAT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT AND CLOSER TO THE RESIDENCES. 
          SO WHAT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT LIGHT PURPLE CAN GO UP TO FOUR STORIES, BUT THAT LIGHT PURPLE CAN ONLY GO UP TO THREE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          WHAT'S THE NAME OF THAT AFFORDABLE COMPLEX IN THERE? WHAT'S THAT? WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE AFFORDABLE COMPLEX LOGAN? THE OLD ELM OR THE MID PEN ONE. 
          OH, IS IT LOGAN PLACE? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS SHOULD BE THE STEP DOWN MIXED USE IF WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, IF WE THINK THERE'S POTENTIAL FOR THIS CORRIDOR, UM, THE WAY, SO BASICALLY FROM LAKEVILLE UP TO C BAR, UM, I'M SAYING THE MU TWO ON, ON THE OTHER SIDE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          SHOULD BE LIKE WHEREVER IT'S MU TWO ALONG THIS CORRIDOR, IT SHOULD BE EITHER STEP DOWN MIXED USE OR NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE ONE OF THOSE TWO. 
          I PROPOSE STEP DOWN MIXED JUICE. 
          'CAUSE I WANT TO SEE THE STUFF ACTUALLY GET BUILT, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE UNIFORM JUST SO THAT WE WE'RE AT LEAST PROVIDING THE SAME SORT OF BUILDING FORM FACTORS. 
          YEAH. 
          GOT IT. 
          SO THAT'S A PROPOSED CHANGE FROM THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          QUICK STRAW, PAUL, ARE WE ALL LIKING THAT WITH THAT? A LITTLE BIT OF CONSISTENCY AND, AND INTENSITY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WAS A YES. 
          AND UM, ANY FEEDBACK ON UH, WASHINGTON CORRIDOR OR DID WE WE WERE STARTING WITH, UH, WHETHER WE, WE DID THAT WE GOOD ON WASHINGTON CORRIDOR? ALL RIGHT. 
          SOMEBODY TURN TO STAFF AND SAY, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? UM, IT'S, UM, I THINK WE'RE THROUGH MOST OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU FOR TONIGHT, GIVEN THAT WE'RE GONNA HOLD OFF ON FOUR AND FIVE. 
          AND SO WITH THAT, I, I HAVE ONE QUICK COMMENT ABOUT, UH, PLEASE THE BOULEVARD NORTH, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE VERY NORTH END OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING ATS CURRENTLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL, THEN YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL UNDERNEATH THAT. 
          I DON'T LIKE HOW WE'RE, YOU KNOW, JUST GETTING RID OF ALL THAT STUFF FOR, FOR HOUSING. 
          IT'S NOTHING AGAINST HOUSING, BUT, YOU KNOW, JOBS ARE IMPORTANT, INDUSTRY'S IMPORTANT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF GOING IN THAT DIRECTION WHERE WE'RE ELIMINATING, UM, THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE TO USE THOSE FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIOUS PURPOSES. 
          AND, UH, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT THAT, UM, COLLECTIVELY. 
          AND I THINK WE ASKED, I THINK BRIAN, YOU MIGHT HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE, UH, SUPERMARKET'S GONNA BE IF WE PUT ALL THIS HOUSING IN. 
          AND WHAT 
          [05:50:01]
I, I THINK, UH, WE ASKED THAT DIRECTLY AT ONE, MAYBE IN THE MARCH MEETING. 
          I DO LIKE THAT THESE DESIGNATIONS SAY STANDALONE COMMERCIAL IS AN ACCEPTABLE USE. 
          SO IT KIND OF GIVES US A LOT OF LATITUDE BETWEEN, BUT, BUT IT'S REALLY GOOD POINT THAT WE CAN'T OVERLOOK. 
          THERE'S MORE TO TOWN THAN HOUSING. 
          UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT IT TO BECOME SOLELY HOUSING FOCUSED ON THIS. 
          I MEAN, UM, SO, UM, ARE WE, WE, UH, WE GOOD TO GO? YEAH, I THINK SO. 
          OKAY, GOOD. 
          AND ANYONE I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT ALEX ON, ON ON THIS TOO. 
          YEAH. 
          WE NEED NEED TO HAVE SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY. 
          EVEN LIKE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WASHINGTON AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, THE TIRE SHOPS AND THINGS WOULD SEE RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          THE RV, THE OLD RV PLACE HANDLE, RV PLACE, THE, UM, THAT'S SITTING THERE AND NOW WE HAVE A, A EMERGENCY SERVICE THAT'S RIGHT THERE THAT WANNA DO HOUSING, BUT THEY HAVE A LARGE BUSINESS, SO THEY NEED TO PARK THEIR TRUCKS. 
          SO NEEDS TO BE, IT COULD BE, THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID IN THE EARLY PART OF A PRESENTATION IS, IS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHILE THIS IS FRAME FRAMED IN A RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT, IT IS NOT EXCLUDE THE OTHER. 
          WE JUST GET THAT UP FRONT IN OUR, IN THE PRESENTATION. 
          HEY, UM, 1, 2, 3. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, GOOD MEETING EVERYBODY. 
          THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. 
          THANK YOU.
* 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.