* 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]
RECORDING IN PROGRESS, . 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US HERE ON THIS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14TH, 2025 AT 6:00 PM FOR OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 
          UM, IF 
          [ROLL CALL]
THE CLERK COULD PLEASE TAKE ROLL. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER NER PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER NEWELL? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER ATKISSON. 
          ABSENT. 
          COMMISSIONER HILT HERE. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE. 
          PRESENT CHAIR MOSES. 
          HERE WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          ALRIGHT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON INTO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AND I'LL READ IT ANYWAY. 
          DURING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT ARE WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AND THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE CURRENT AGENDA. 
          PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO UP TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON, AND DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS, WE'LL ALLOCATE TIME AND EQUAL SHARES TOTALING NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES. 
          SO I'LL OPEN GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AND ASK SPEAKERS TO BRING THEIR CARDS TO THE CLERK. 
          ANY, UH, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BEFORE THE MEETING CLERK? WE RECEIVED NO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 
          ANY CARDS? WE HAVE NONE. 
          OKAY, THEN WE WILL CLOSE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONTINUE ON WITH THE AGENDA TO PRESENTATIONS OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE. 
          SO WE WILL KEEP ON TRUGGING TO APPROVAL OF MINUTES WHERE THERE ARE ALSO NO MINUTES TO REVIEW DURING THIS MEETING. 
          SO WE WILL CLOSE THAT ITEM AND 
          [1.
 Study Session - Recommendation to the City of Petaluma Planning Commission to Receive a Staff Presentation and Public Comment and Conduct a Study Session to Solicit Input and Provide Non-binding Comments on Proposed Amendments to Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance 2300, N.C.S., Section 7.030–Accessory Dwelling Units and Section 7.035–Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. This is a study session item only; no decision or other discretionary action will be taken that would require an environmental review finding under the California Environmental Quality Act for this meeting item. MATERIALS FOR THIS MEETING ITEM WERE PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2025.]
CONTINUE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS IN MATTER OF CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH WE HAVE MEETING ITEM ONE, A STUDY SESSION, WHICH IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECEIVE A STAFF PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDUCT A STUDY SESSION TO SOLICIT INPUT AND PROVIDE NON-BINDING COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          ORDINANCE, UH, 2300 NCS SECTION 7.030 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND SECTION 7.035 JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. 
          THIS IS A STUDY SESSION ITEM ONLY. 
          NO DECISION OR OTHER DISCRETIONARY ACTION WILL BE TAKEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FINDING UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THIS MEETING ITEM. 
          AND GIVEN THAT THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISCLOSING ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. 
          SO WITH THAT, WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF, UH, LARISSA ALGIN, OUR ASSOCIATE PLANNER TO PRESENT. 
          PLEASE, JUST SOME QUICK COMMENTS AS LARISSA PULLS UP THE PRESENTATION. 
          SO, GOOD EVENING CHAIR COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY BRIAN O DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, SO THIS EVENING WE APPRECIATE THE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO START THE CONVERSATION AROUND THE ZONING CODE UPDATE SO YOU COULD, UM, CONSIDER THIS SOMEWHAT OF A, UM, A SOFT LUNCH OF SORTS. 
          WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING CODE UPDATE, UM, AND TYING IT TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. 
          WE'RE ABOUT A YEAR AWAY FROM, UH, CONSIDERATION FROM BOTH PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, TO ADOPT AND CERTIFY OUR GENERAL PLAN. 
          UM, AND SO THE TIMING IS, IS NICE. 
          UH, WE'VE MADE ALL SORTS OF COMMITMENTS WITHIN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT ACTION PLAN, WHICH MANY OF US SAW, UH, JUNE OF THIS YEAR. 
          AND SO WE HAVE OVER A HUNDRED ACTION ITEMS. AND SO, UM, TONIGHT WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT TWO OF THE MORE, UM, CRITICAL ONES, AND WE WILL HAVE SOME PRESENTATIONS LATER THIS EVENING TO EXPLAIN WHY. 
          UM, AND ESPECIALLY ON ADUS, THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A MOVING TARGET EVERY YEAR. 
          IT SEEMS, UH, THE STATE LEGISLATURE, UM, ROLLS OUT NEW THINGS. 
          I THINK, UM, WE EVEN GOT SOME NEW LEGISLATION ON THE 10TH OF OCTOBER, SO ONLY A FEW DAYS AGO. 
          UM, THAT IS KEEPING US ON OUR TOES. 
          UH, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE EXCITED. 
          WE DO THINK, UH, WHAT WE HAVE THIS EVENING BETWEEN BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES AND THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, UM, GETS US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TOWARDS, UH, BEING ABLE TO BUILD SMALLER, FASTER AND DIFFERENT, UM, HOUSING TYPES THAT WE DON'T, UM, TYPICALLY HAVE AND HAVE NOT SEEN TYPICALLY HERE IN THE CITY OF PETALUMA. 
          UM, AND SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE CONVERSATION AND THEN COMING BACK TO YOU WITH, UM, HOPEFULLY A COUPLE ORDINANCES IN HAND, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO LARISSA. 
          THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. 
          O UM, MY NAME'S LARISSA HIN. 
          I'M AN ASSOCIATE PLANNER CONSULTING WITH M GROUP FOR THE CITY. 
          UM, AND TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STUDY SESSION ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, UM, AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. 
          [00:05:03]
SORRY, I HAVE TO FIND MY MOUSE. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          AND SO TONIGHT I'M GONNA, UM, GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS. 
          UM, SOME RECENT STATE LAWS, UM, THE CITY'S A DU PRODUCTION, UM, WHAT A 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 UNIT IS AND THE NON 6, 6 3, 2, 3 UNITS. 
          AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO A DISCUSSION. 
          SO TO START, UM, AN A DU PROVIDES SEPARATE LIVING FACILITIES, SLEEPING, EATING, COOKING, AND SANITATION, UM, AS A PRIMARY DWELLING, AN A DU IS DETACHED ATTACHED OR INTERNAL CO CONVERSION OF SPACE. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE LOCATED ON A LOT WITH A PROPOSED OR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNIT. 
          A JAU, UM, BY CONTRAST IS INTERNAL TO AN EXISTING, UM, RESIDENTIAL SPACE. 
          IT'S ONLY PERMITTED ON SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTIES. 
          UM, IT CAN SHARE SANITATION BATHROOM FACILITIES WITH THE PRIMARY, BUT IT DOES NEED TO PROVIDE, UM, UH, COOKING FACILITIES. 
          UM, AND IT CAN BE IN THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT ITSELF OR AN ATTACHED GARAGE. 
          IT CANNOT BE IN A DETACHED, UM, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR GARAGE. 
          AND SO, UM, BRIEFLY YOU CAN SEE HERE WE'VE GONE THROUGH QUITE A FEW RECENT CHANGES TO A DU LEGISLATION. 
          AND AS DIRECTOR WROTE MENTIONED, WE HAD SOME THAT WERE ASSIGNED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM ON FRIDAY. 
          UM, THAT MADE SOME CHANGES TO A FEW THINGS THAT WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU ON. 
          UM, SO SOME OF THE MAJOR THINGS THAT CHANGED RECENTLY WAS AN INCREASE TO THE DENSITY OF MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES THAT HAPPENED IN 2025. 
          UM, THE SEPARATE SALE OF ADUS, UM, WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PERMITTED FOR SPECIFIC, UM, NON AND LOW INCOME, UM, PEOPLE. 
          NOW IT IS, UH, YOU CAN OPT INTO THAT SORT OF SEPARATE SALE FOR ANYBODY THAT'S THE OPT-IN AND THEN, UM, SP UP, SPED UP SOME PERMITTING RESTRIC, UH, REMOVE SOME RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND, UM, REMOVED OWNER OCCUPANCY FOR J ADUS OR SORRY FOR ADUS J ADU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO HAVE AN OWNER OCCUPANCY. 
          AND THEN JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HOW, UM, ADUS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE CITY RECENTLY. 
          SO FROM 2022, WE'VE ISSUED 22 BUILDING PERMITS AND 15 WERE COMPLETED. 
          UM, GOING THROUGH, YOU CAN SEE THEY'VE KIND OF FLUCTUATED, BUT AROUND THIS, UH, KIND OF, UM, AROUND THE 20, UM, MARK THIS YEAR WE'VE DO DOING REALLY WELL. 
          WE'RE ALREADY AT 25, UM, WHICH IS, WHICH IS GREAT. 
          UM, THE REVIEW TIME FRAME IS, UH, FOR BUILDING PERMITS IS 15 TO 20 WORKING DAYS FOR THE FIRST SUBMITTAL, AND THEN ANOTHER 10 TO 15 FOR THE SECOND SUBMITTAL. 
          UM, AND THE PERMIT FEES ARE AROUND 3% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 
          UM, OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO THESE, UH, 6, 6 3, 2, 3 UNITS, WHICH USED TO BE CALLED STATEWIDE EXEMPT. 
          UM, IT'S HCD HAS RECENTLY CHANGED, UM, THEIR NAMING OF THESE UNITS BECAUSE OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE CODE. 
          UM, SO THEY CONSOLIDATED THESE STATEWIDE EXEMPT UNITS INTO A CODE SECTION CALLED 6 6 3 2 3. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE NOW CALLING ALL THESE UNITS. 
          UM, SO THESE ARE THE TYPE OF UNITS THAT THE CITY CANNOT, UM, IMPOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON. 
          THEY CANNOT IMPOSE ANYTHING THAT'S NOT EXPLICITLY IN THAT SECTION OF THE CODE AS COMPARED TO NON 6, 6 3, 2, 3 UNITS. 
          SO THESE UNITS, IF A A DU EXCEEDS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN, UM, 6, 6, 3, 2, 3. 
          SO IF IT'S LARGER THAN THOSE UNITS, UM, TALLER, IT'S THE TYPE OF UNIT IS DIFFERENT. 
          THE THE LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY IMPOSE SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT DO NOT CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW. 
          SO HERE'S A, UH, JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE TYPE OF UNITS THAT FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF STATEWIDE EXEMPT OR 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 UNITS, UM, ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT. 
          UM, NOW, HCD HAS MADE CLEAR THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED THREE UNITS, UM, ON EVERY SINGLE FAMILY LOT. 
          IT INCLUDES AN INTERNAL JADU, AN INTERNAL CONVERSION, A DU, AND A 
          [00:10:01]
DETACHED A DU. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE THREE UNITS YOU ARE PERMITTED ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT UNDER THIS. 
          UM, THIS 6, 6, 3, 2, 3. 
          AND THOSE, UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE VERY CLEAR IN THAT SECTION AND THEY'RE, UM, LAID OUT HERE AND WE'LL GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THOSE. 
          SO THIS IS, UM, JUST SHOWING YOU, UH, WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE ON A PARCEL. 
          SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A SINGLE FAMILY LOT WITH A PRIMARY DI PRIMARY DWELLING AND A TWO CAR GARAGE, UM, YOU COULD PUT A DETACHED A DU OF 800 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, THIS IS A NEW CONSTRUCTION, A DU, IT WOULD NEED TO HAVE FOUR FEET REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS. 
          UM, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK CANNOT PRECLUDE AN A DU BEING BUILT ON THE PROPERTY. 
          SO IF THERE'S NO SPACE IN THE REAR AND THERE IS SPACE IN THE FRONT, THE CITY COULD NOT DENY AN A DU, UH, THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED IN THE FRONT YARD. 
          UM, THE MAX HEIGHT IS 16 OR 18 FEET, DEPENDING ON, UM, IF IT'S IN WALKING DISTANCE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP OR HIGH QUALITY CURRENT TRANSIT CORRIDOR. 
          I BELIEVE THE SMART STATION IS THE ONLY, UM, MAJOR TRANSIT STOP IN PETALUMA. 
          UM, AND THEN THE PLUS TWO FEET TO ACCOMMODATE ALIGNMENT WITH A ROOF PITCH. 
          NO PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR ANY OF THESE UNITS. 
          UM, SO IN ADDITION TO THE DETACHED, A DUA LOT COULD ADD A-J-A-D-U. 
          SO THIS IS 500 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, THERE'S NO EXPANSION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING OR NO EXPANSION BEYOND THE EXISTING LIVING SPACE. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE BUILT ENTIRELY WITHIN THE DWELLING OR ATTACHED GARAGE. 
          SO WE'RE SHOWING IT BEING BUILT INSIDE THE PRIMARY DWELLING, BUT IT COULD BE PROPOSED INSIDE THAT TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE. 
          UM, IT MUST HAVE INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL ACCESS. 
          SO, UM, FROM THE OUTSIDE IT MUST HAVE ITS OWN ACCESS. 
          IF IT HAS SHARED FACILITIES WITH THE PRIMARY, IT DOES NEED TO HAVE INTERIOR ACCESS AS WELL. 
          UH, IT NEEDS AN EFFICIENCY KITCHEN, WHICH IS LESS, UM, SMALLER KITCHEN FACILITIES THAN A NORMAL A DU. 
          AND CURRENTLY THERE IS AN OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRIMARY OR THE JADU. 
          AND THEN, UM, OUR LAST ADDITION TO THIS PARCEL WOULD BE AN INTERNAL CONVERSION, A DU. 
          UM, THE MAX SIZE IS NO SIZE LIMIT. 
          IT'S BASICALLY, UM, YOUR RESTRICTED BY THE SIZE OF SPACE YOU HAVE IN YOUR STRUCTURE OR YOUR HOME OR YOUR GARAGE IS WHAT THE LIMITATION IS. 
          UM, IT CAN EXPAND IN A 150 SQUARE FEET BEYOND THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS FOR EGRESS AND INGRESS. 
          UM, IT CAN BE LOCATED IN A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UNLIKE A-J-A-D-U. 
          SO IF YOU HAD A DETACHED, YOU KNOW, GARAGE OR YOU KNOW, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BARN IN YOUR BACKYARD, UM, THAT COULD BE CONVERTED INTO AN INTERNAL CONVERSION, A DU. 
          UM, IF IT'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, UM, AND IT DOES NOT MEET THE FOREFOOT REAR INSIDE SETBACKS, WE CANNOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS, BUT IT DOES NEED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT SETBACKS FOR FIRE AND SAFETY. 
          AND THEN, UM, FOR MULTIFAMILY UNITS, THESE ARE ALSO 6, 6 3, 2, 3 UNITS. 
          UM, THIS IS WAS A CHANGE RECENTLY TO, UM, INCREASE THE, UH, AMOUNT OF DENSE OR THE AMOUNT OF ADU THAT ARE ALLOWED ON MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. 
          UM, SO YOU GET TWO OPTIONS HERE. 
          THEY CAN BE COMBINED, UH, INTERNAL, INTERNAL CONVERSION, ADUS AND DETACHED ADUS. 
          SO WITH THE INTERNAL ADUS, THERE IS NO SI SIZE LIMIT EXCEPT FOR THE SIZE OF SPACE YOU HAVE. 
          UM, THAT'S EXISTING. 
          AND THIS SPACE NEEDS TO BE NON LIVABLE SPACE. 
          SO IT COULD BE, UM, GARAGE SPACE OR YOU A LEASING OFFICE, SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ALREADY USED AS LIVABLE SPACE. 
          UM, THERE'S NO INCREASE OF HEIGHT. 
          UM, AND YOU GET 25 AT LEAST ONE AND UP TO 25% OF THE EXISTING LEGAL PERMITTED UNITS. 
          AND THEN WITH THE DETACHED A USE, UM, AGAIN, THERE'S NO SIZE LIMIT LISTED IN THIS SECTION. 
          UM, THERE'S REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS AND THERE'S A HEIGHT LIMIT SIMILAR TO THE SINGLE FAMILY EXCEPT FOR THAT WITH THE, IF THERE'S A MULTI-STORY BUILDING ON THE LOT, YOU GET 18 FEET, UM, YOU ARE ALLOWED AT LEAST THE NUMBER OF EXISTING UNITS, BUT NOT MORE THAN EIGHT. 
          THAT IS ON A LOT WITH A PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY, OH, SORRY, THAT WAS ON A LOT WITH AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY. 
          IF THE LOT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR MULTIFAMILY, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED, YOU'RE ALLOWED MORE THAN TWO. 
          [00:15:02]
CAN I JUST ASK A QUICK CLARIFYING QUESTION AT THIS POINT? YEAH. 
          ARE, ARE WE GOING THROUGH WHAT THE CURRENT STATE LAW SAYS? YES. 
          AND HOW DOES THAT OVERLAY TO WHAT PETALUMA CURRENTLY SAYS? SO THIS IS WHAT THE, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT'S ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT IS, IS ONLY SHOWING YOU WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES. 
          GREAT. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE. 
          GREAT. 
          UM, AND THEN WHEN WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION, WE'LL START THINKING ABOUT WHAT PETALUMA WANTS TO DO IN ADDITION TO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS REPRESENTS WHAT THIS, WHAT THE STATE IS REQUIRING, SOME OF WHICH MAPS NEATLY ONTO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE, SOME OF WHICH DOES NOT, BUT ALL OF WHICH NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED TO CATCH UP WITH THE STATE, CORRECT? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          EVERYTHING I'M SHOWING YOU AND HAVE SHOWN YOU SO FAR IS REQUIRED BY THE STATE. 
          SO, UH, MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS, UM, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST SHOWING YOU WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE ON A PARCEL WITH A MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNIT. 
          UM, IF IT WAS A 12 UNIT APARTMENT, YOU COULD CONVERT GARAGE STORAGE ROOMS, UM, INTO ADUS. 
          SO AT LEAST ONE AND UP TO THREE INTERNALS. 
          NO PARKING AGAIN, IS REQUIRED FOR THESE. 
          AND THEN THE DETACHED ADUS. 
          SO WHEN THEY SAY DETACHED, THAT MEANS DETACHED FROM THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THEY CAN BE ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER. 
          UM, SO NOT ON A LOT WITH AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY, NOT MORE THAN EIGHT, BUT NOT MORE THAN THE EXISTING UNITS. 
          AND THEN ON A PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING, NOT MORE THAN TWO. 
          SO, SO THAT WAS THE STATEWIDE REQUIREMENT  THAT WE WENT AT. 
          UH, SO WE ALSO HAVE THESE NON 6, 6 3, 2, 3 UNITS. 
          THEY ARE ALSO IN THE REQUIRED SECTION. 
          WE HAVE TO ALLOW THE MINIMUM, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T FALL INTO THAT STATEWIDE EXEMPT, THEY ARE PERMITTED. 
          UM, THEY JUST DON'T, WE CAN, UM, WE CAN MAKE SOME CHANGES. 
          WE HAVE TO ALLOW THE MINIMUM HERE, BUT WE, YOU CAN GO ABOVE AND BEYOND. 
          YOU CAN, UM, MAKE SOME BE MORE PERMISSIVE IN THIS SECTION AS WE GO THROUGH. 
          SO, UM, HERE YOU, WE GET INTO AN ATTACHED A DU, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT BEFORE. 
          UM, BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED AN ATTACHED AND A DETACHED OR DETACHED, SORRY, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED BOTH. 
          THIS IS, UH, EITHER OR. 
          UM, AND THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ATTACHED, UM, 50% OF THE PRIMARY, WHICHEVER IS LESS. 
          UM, IT HAS THE SAME REAR INSIDE SETBACKS. 
          UM, AND THEN THE HEIGHT IS 25 FEET OR THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH ALIGNS WITH OUR ZONING DISTRICTS AND, AND SINGLE FAMILY RIGHT NOW. 
          AND THEN FOR THE DETACHED IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE STATEWIDE EXEMPT. 
          THEY'RE ALLOWED A BIT BIGGER. 
          SO STUDIOS ARE 8 52 BEDROOMS OR MORE IS A, IS A THOUSAND. 
          UM, BUT THE SAME HEIGHT OF 16 FEET. 
          AND THIS IS WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. 
          YOU'RE ALLOWED POSSIBLY A A CURRENTLY EVEN THE CITY AND WHAT THE MINIMUM IS IS A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. 
          AND THIS IS THE DETACHED, OR SORRY, AN ATTACHED. 
          SO IF YOU HAD A 2000 SQUARE FOOT PRIMARY DWELLING, YOU COULD ATTACH A 1000 SQUARE FOOT A DU AND THAT A DU COULD BE AS TALL AS 25 FEET. 
          UM, I DID WANNA STOP HERE AND ASK IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO KIND OF DISCRETIONARY ITEMS AND THINKING ABOUT, UM, THE DISCUSSION AS WE GO FORWARD. 
          I'VE GOT A QUICK ONE FOR THE UNINITIATED. 
          CAN WE GET A QUICK DEFINITION OF WHAT WOULD QUALIFY? A 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 AND A NON, UH, 6, 6 3, 2, 3 IS THE, THE, THE THREE TYPES OF SINGLE FAMILY ADUS THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED. 
          THE JUNIOR, A DU AND INTERNAL CONVERSION, A DU AND THE DETACHED, A DU. 
          AND THEN MULTIFAMILY. 
          THE ONLY A D YOU'RE ALLOWED IN A MULTIFAMILY ARE 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 UNITS. 
          UM, THEY ALL HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS AND, AND STANDARDS. 
          UM, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT IT FROM IF, IF I'M A HOMEOWNER WHO'S GOT SOME EXTRA LAND ON MY PARCEL, CONSIDERING WHAT MY OPTIONS ARE, HOW DO I GET ROUTED TO A 6, 6 3, 2, 3 OR NON? WELL, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE ORDINANCE VERY CLEAR. 
          UM, BY SEPARATING THOSE 
          [00:20:01]
OUT AND MAKING, THAT'S THE FIRST SECTION YOU'LL SEE IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE ATTACHED. 
          AND WHAT WE PLAN TO BRING BACK TO YOU IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE STATEWIDE ACCEPT AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY STANDARDS THAT YOU CAN APPLY. 
          UM, SO WE, WE HOPE THAT THAT MAKES IT CLEAR, BUT ALSO PART OF THE DISCUSSION IS MAKING, YOU KNOW, A PAMPHLET EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL, UM, THAT WILL HOPEFULLY HELP PEOPLE GET, GET THERE. 
          AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE ADOPTED THESE, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTS, BUILDERS, HOMEOWNERS ARE, ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY CAN DO THESE NOW AND ARE, ARE PUSHING PEOPLE TOWARDS THOSE. 
          UM, SO, SO I THINK IT'S ALL KIND OF COMING TOGETHER BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE STATE CITIES ARCHITECTS, UM, ALL GETTING ON THE SAME PAGE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY. 
          COMMISSIONER, NO, THANK YOU FOR BREAKING THAT DOWN. 
          UM, I HAVE A, PERHAPS A WONKY QUESTION, AND MAYBE THIS ONLY APPLIES TO A 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 UNIT, BUT WHERE THERE IS A, UM, SAY A PLAN DEVELOPMENT WHERE THERE ARE COVENANTS, CODES AND RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE DOES A 6, 6 3, 2, 3 UNIT TRUMP THOSE CCNRS? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT WAS ONE OF THE STATE REGULATIONS, I CAN'T REMEMBER, PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO, UM, THAT, UH, A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT COULD NOT, UM, AN A DU AND IT, IT APPLIES TO ALL ADUS, NOT JUST THE 6, 6 3, 2, 3 UNITS. 
          OH, SO EVEN NON MM-HMM . 
          ARE ALSO, UM, FREE OF THOSE KINDS OF RESTRICTIONS. 
          CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, ANY PUD THAT SAYS ADUS ARE NOT ALLOWED, THAT IT, IT DOES NOT APPLY AT THIS POINT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER NER, COULD YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE NON 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND LIKE WHAT DISCRETIONARY OR MINISTERIAL PROCESS LOOKS LIKE FOR THAT? YEAH. 
          THERE, THERE IS NO, THERE'S NO DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FOR ADUS. 
          UM, THEY'RE ALL MINISTERIAL. 
          UM, I THINK WHAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT TONIGHT IS THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT YOU COULD APPLY TO THESE NON 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 UNITS. 
          THEY HAVE TO BE OBJECTIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE REVIEWED MINISTERIALLY. 
          UM, IT WOULD BE A VERY CLEAR STANDARD SO STAFF COULD LOOK AT IT AND SAY YES OR NO, DOES IT MEET THE STANDARD, UM, IN A BUILDING PERMIT? SO IT'S THE SAME PROCESS. 
          UM, THERE WOULD JUST BE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DECIDED TO AN ADDITIONAL STANDARD, SAY, YOU KNOW, IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, MAYBE YOU WANT TO SAY NO FINAL WINDOWS, WHICH IS ONE OF MY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT A STANDARD LIKE THAT AS LONG AS AS IT'S APPLIED AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND OBJECTIVE. 
          SO IT'S, THE REVIEW IS THE SAME. 
          YEAH. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT. 
          OH, GO AHEAD. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UM, FOR THE CASE OF THE NON 6, 6 3, 2 3, THAT 25 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, DOES THAT INCLUDE A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES, LIKE TWO STORY MAX OR ANY ANYTHING ELSE? IT DOESN'T, IT DOES NOT MENTION STORIES. 
          IT JUST, UM, REFERENCES THE HEIGHT. 
          SO IT'S 25 FEET OR THE HEIGHT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, I THINK IN ALL OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS, I BELIEVE ARE 25 FEET. 
          YEAH. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY A BROADER POINT, THE WHOLE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO STREAMLINE THE ABILITY FOR THESE TO GET BUILT SO THAT BY HAVING VERY STRICT MEASURES ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES AN A DU OR A JUNIOR A DU, SO THAT PEOPLE WHO BUILD SOMETHING WITHIN SPECIFICATIONS KNOW THAT IT WILL BE PART OF THAT STREAMLINED PURPOSE, DOESN'T PREVENT SOMEONE FROM POTENTIALLY STILL TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING LIKE BIGGER OR DIFFERENT OR ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT. 
          IT JUST MEANS THAT THAT IS THEN OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THAT STRICT A DU DEFINITION. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THE MAX HEIGHT THE, THE MAX PEAK HEIGHT OF THE ROOF OR WOULD IT BE LIKE AN AVERAGE? WELL, PETALUMA MEASURES THE HEIGHT BY THE MIDPOINT BETWEEN THE PEAK AND THE EAVES, I THINK IS THE DEFINITE. 
          WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF HOW TO MEASURE HEIGHT IN PETALUMA, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN OTHER CITIES. 
          THAT IS HOW WE MEASURE IT ACROSS 
          [00:25:01]
FOR MOST PLACES. 
          UM, I THINK IN THE HILLSIDE, UH, CHAPTER OF OUR ZONING DISTRICT, IT IS TO THE PEAK OF THE ROOF. 
          UM, BUT GENERALLY THAT'S HOW WE MEASURE ROOF, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'D APPLY. 
          UNLESS YOU WANT TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO APPLY THAT, THAT DEFINITION OR THAT MEASUREMENT STANDARD TO ADUS AND YOU WANT TO SAY IT TO THE PEAK THAT YOU COULD DO, UM, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S KEEP GOING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FROM HERE WE'RE GONNA GO ON TO WHAT WE'RE HOPING IS THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT IS THE STATE COMPLIANT DRAFT A DU ORDINANCE THAT IT WAS ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT. 
          UM, REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE OVERALL APPROACH OF REPLACING THE EXISTING A DU SECTION WITH A NEW CONSOLIDATED SECTION, THE ORGANIZATION, THE CONTENT OF THE DRAFT OR, UM, ORDINANCE WITH KEEPING IN MIND THAT WHAT IS THERE IS STATE REQUIRED. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE STATE REQUIRED MINIMUMS THAT ARE IN THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY. 
          UM, SO REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE ORGANIZATION AND HOW THAT'S ALL LAID OUT AND THE PURPOSE, AND IF YOU WANT CERTAIN SECTIONS, UM, REORGANIZED, UM, AND THEN GOING ON TO LOCAL DISCRETION ITEMS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO REGULATE, ENCOURAGE A DU DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, SO AS I SAID, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE DRAFTS, UM, 80 ORDINANCE, THESE ARE KIND OF WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO GET SOME FEEDBACK ON. 
          UM, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT, THAT YOU'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, LET US KNOW ABOUT THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT, THE PURPOSE SECTION, IF YOU'VE READ THROUGH THE PURPOSE SECTION AND HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT, UM, WE COULD STOP HERE AND, AND TALK THROUGH THOSE COMMENTS. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO BE, UM, OBSERVANT OF OUR TYPICAL ALLOWANCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO I THINK WE'LL WANT TO, ARE YOU, ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR ARE YOU STAFF? YOU'RE PUBLIC. 
          GREAT. 
          OKAY, THEN I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE A CHANCE. 
          SORRY. 
          A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE SIT DIFFERENT PLACES AND I DON'T ALWAYS KNOW WHO'S WHO GO THROUGH. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL COME BACK AROUND TO THE, UM, DISCUSSION ONCE WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH OUR QUESTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A DEEPER, UM, COMMISSION DISCUSSION. 
          PERFECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          I'M SURE EVERYONE'S GETTING VERY USED TO WHAT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ARE. 
          UM, FOR ADUS, IT INVOLVES NO PERSONAL OR SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND IS UNIFORMLY VERIFIABLE BY REFERENCE TO AN EXTERNAL AND UNIFORM BENCHMARK OR CRITERION AVAILABLE AND KNOWABLE BY BOTH A DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT AND PUBLIC OFFICIAL PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL. 
          LARISSA, YOUR MIC IS A LITTLE POPPY. 
          CAN WE MAYBE HAVE YOU SWITCH WITH DYLAN JUST IN CASE IT'S GOING ALL THE WAY INTO THE RECORDING? I DON'T WANT IT TO BE FUNKY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IT MIGHT JUST BE THE SPEAKERS IN HERE, BUT JUST IN CASE. 
          IS THIS BETTER? I THINK SO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UM, NOW WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT, UH, WE'LL GO THROUGH SOME SLIDES. 
          WE'LL COME BACK TO THEM. 
          THESE ARE VERY WORDY. 
          UM, JUST LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, ONE BY ONE AND WHERE THE CITY CAN, UM, HAVE SOME OPTIONS, UM, MAKE SOME CHANGES AND GO ABOVE AND BEYOND OR, UM, OR REGULATE ADUS. 
          SO, UM, FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED ADUS, UM, WHAT WE ARE SEEING ON THE STATE MANDATED SECTION IS THE MINIMUM. 
          AND THEN UNDER OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ARE SOME THINGS THAT THE CITY OR COULD CHANGE. 
          UM, AND I DID ADD THE RED TEXT THERE TO SHOW WHAT THE CITY'S ALREADY DOING, WHICH IS GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND, UM, WHAT THE STATE MANDATED. 
          SO THIS IS CURRENT IN OUR IZO. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO KEEP, KEEP THAT OR GO ABOVE WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING. 
          AND THEN, UM, OR JUST GOING WITH THE, WHAT THE STATE MINIMUM IS. 
          UM, SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE ALLOWING A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT, UM, ATTACHED ADUS REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. 
          [00:30:02]
AND THEN WITH THE ACH ONES AS WELL. 
          UM, WE ALREADY ALLOW, UM, A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, THE STATE ONLY ALLOWS A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WHEN YOU HAVE TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS. AND THEN A DAY A DU SIZE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INTERNAL CONVERSIONS, THE ADUS AND THE J ADUS, THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO WITH THESE ONES. 
          UH, THERE'S NO SIZE LIMIT FOR THE A DU. 
          THAT'S, UM, VERY, UM, THAT'S LEAST RESTRICTIVE. 
          AND THEN JA ARE PRETTY, UM, REGULATED BY THEIR SIZE OF FIVE THOU, 500 SQUARE FEET. 
          AND THEN WITH SETBACKS, UM, YOU CAN BE MORE, UM, YOU CAN BE LESS RESTRICTIVE, SO YOU COULD GO LESS THAN FOUR FEET, UM, IN ZONING DISTRICTS, IT COULD BE SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICTS, OR IT COULD BE ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          UM, EXAMPLE IS IN R THREE AND R FOUR, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THE PRIMARY DWELLING IS ONLY REQUIRED TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE OR FOUR FEET FROM THE SIDE. 
          UM, BUT THE A DU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE FOUR FEET. 
          UM, SO THE ADU A DU WOULD HAVE A LARGER SETBACK THAN THE PRIMARY. 
          UM, SO YOU, YOU COULD HAVE TARGETED REDUCED SETBACKS, I THINK THE EXAM, SO THE EXAMPLE HERE IS SETBACKS SHALL BE FOUR FEET, OR THE SETBACK OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, WHICHEVER IS LESS. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT YOU COULD APPLY, UM, THAT WOULD BE LESS RESTRICTIVE. 
          AND THEN WITH HEIGHT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE ATTACHED ADUS ARE, ARE RIGHT AT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. 
          OUR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING IS 25 FEET, THAT'S THE MAG MAX FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE STATE MANDATED, UNLESS YOU WANTED TO GO ABOVE THAT, ABOVE WHAT THE PRIMARY DWELLING COULD BE. 
          UM, THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE THAT STANDARD IS, IS CURRENTLY. 
          AND THEN THE DETACHED, WE CURRENTLY ALLOW A 21 FOOT 80 DU, UM, THE STATE CODE REQUIRES 16 FEET OR 18 FEET. 
          WHEN YOU'RE, UM, CLOSE ENOUGH TO A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP, YOU KNOW, THE, THE OPTIONS ARE TO CONTINUE THE 21 FEET, ALLOW SOMETHING LARGER, OR IT'S TALLER THAN 21 FEET, OR JUST, UM, ALLOW ACROSS THE BOARD THE 18 FEET. 
          SO THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS, UM, TO GO ABOVE, UH, AND BEYOND THE HEIGHT LIMIT. 
          AND SIMILARLY WITH THE, UH, MULTIFAMILY DETACHED ADUS, UM, WE CONTINUE, WE COULD CONTINUE TO ALLOW THE 21 FEET IN R THREE AND THROUGH R FIVE. 
          UM, MU MU ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, RIGHT NOW ARE REQUIRED TO ONLY HAVE 18 FEET OR 16 FEET, UH, BUT THEY COULD GO ACROSS THE BOARD WITH 21 FEET OR SOMETHING HIGHER. 
          AND THEN, UM, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, WE DO REQUIRE PARKING FOR NON 6, 6 3, 2, 3 UNITS, WHICH IS A STATE STANDARD. 
          UM, BUT PETALUMA DOES NOT REQUIRE PARKING FOR ANY A DU, UM, SO THAT, SO WE COULD CONTINUE TO DO THAT, UM, OR WE COULD ACCEPT THE REGULATIONS, UM, FROM THE STATE. 
          AND THEN, THEN WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO SOME OF THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE, UM, WHICH IS OPEN SPACE. 
          UM, THE STATE DOES NOT MANDATE OPEN SPACE IN THE, IN THEIR REGULATIONS. 
          UM, WE HAVE A CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR A A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. 
          THIS IS ONLY APPLIED TO THOSE NON 6, 6 3, 2, 3 UNITS. 
          UM, WE COULD REDUCE IT, COULD ELIMINATE IT, UH, BUT THAT IS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. 
          UH, IT'S QUANTIFIABLE. 
          WE CAN, WE CAN APPLY IT. 
          UM, THIS IS WHERE WE GET INTO EXISTING IZO STANDARDS THAT ARE NOT OBJECTIVE. 
          WE CANNOT APPLY THESE CURRENTLY. 
          UM, THIS IS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT STANDARD. 
          UM, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO EITHER REMOVE IT, COMPLETELY AMEND IT TO MAKE THEM, UM, OBJECTIVE OR, UM, YOU COULD INCLUDE THEM IN A, IN A A DU HANDBOOK AS RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          UM, YOU CAN DO BOTH. 
          SO YOU COULD HAVE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN THE CODE. 
          YOU COULD ALSO ADD THEM TO A GUIDEBOOK AS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS. 
          UM, SO SOME OF THE OPTIONS YOU CAN SEE THERE AS EXAMPLES, FINAL MATERIALS ARE PROHIBITED. 
          SO THAT IS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT YOU COULD APPLY. 
          UM, THEY, THEY, THEY DO GET DIFFICULT WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THEM OBJECTIVE IN A 
          [00:35:01]
HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          UM, BUT HAPPY TO TALK MORE ABOUT THOSE. 
          AND THEN THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY, UM, THIS IS CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE. 
          IT CANNOT BE APPLIED. 
          IT'S NOT OBJECTIVE. 
          UM, EITHER IT COULD, UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND IT OR REMOVE IT. 
          UM, I DO RECOMMEND EITHER, I MEAN, ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY, NOT VERY OBJECTIVE, MAYBE MORE OF A OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR, UM, SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES COULD BE APPLIED. 
          UM, BUT JUST COMPATIBILITY IS A, IS A HARD ONE. 
          UM, AND THEN OUR PRIVACY STANDARD, THIS IS ANOTHER EXISTING ONE. 
          UM, THE PRIVACY STANDARD THAT IS IN OUR CODE CURRENTLY IS NOT OBJECTIVE. 
          UM, AN EXAMPLE OF A WAY TO CORRECT THAT AND MAKE IT OBJECTIVE IS PROVIDED, UM, HERE ON THE SCREEN. 
          UM, IT NEEDS TO, CURRENTLY IT'S GIVES YOU A COUPLE OPTIONS, UM, BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR, UM, HOW TO FULFILL THAT PRIVACY REQUIREMENT. 
          BUT THIS EX EXAMPLE, UM, WOULD BE OBJECTIVE HERE. 
          AND THEN AS WE GET OUT OF OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, UM, WE CAN TALK ABOUT, UH, SOME OTHER WAYS CITY CAN, UM, IN INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF ADUS. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLY REDUCING IMPACT FEES. 
          UM, CURRENTLY WE DO THE MINIMUM STATE REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO ALL ADUS UNDER 400 AND 749 SQUARE FEET OR LESS ARE EXEMPT FROM IMPACT FEES. 
          UM, SO THAT'S A STATE MANDATE. 
          AND THEN ADUS OF 750 SQUARE FEET OR MORE ARE CHARGED PROPORTIONALLY. 
          UM, I INCLUDED AN EXAMPLE OF 80 OF IMPACT FEES FOR 946 SQUARE FOOT A DU WITH A THOUSAND WITH AN EXISTING 1,800, UH, 1089 SQUARE FOOT PRIMARY DWELLING. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THE, THE FEES CAN ADD UP. 
          WE ACTUALLY GET A LOT OF ADUS THAT ARE UNDER 749 SQUARE FEET, UM, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THESE COST SAVINGS THAT THEY GET. 
          UM, AND WHEN PEOPLE, WE TALK TO PEOPLE AT THE COUNTER, WE TEND TO MENTION THIS TO THEM, UM, AND ENCOURAGE THEM IF THEY'RE CLOSE TO THESE NUMBERS TO KEEP IT UNDER, UM, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. 
          CLARIFY, CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, AND THAT WOULD MEAN THAT PRETTY MUCH ALL THOSE ONES THAT ARE UNDER 749 SQUARE FEET OR ONE BEDROOM, IS THAT, HOW MANY DO WE SEE THAT ARE TWO BEDROOM, I GUESS, OR WHAT PERCENTAGE? HI, MY NAME'S ELENA LIP AND I DO MOST OF THE A DU REVIEWS AND PETALUMA, THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEWS FOR THE PLANNING DIVISION. 
          UM, I WOULD SAY MOST OF OUR UNITS STAY UNDER 750 SQUARE FEET TO AVOID DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. 
          UH, REGARDLESS OF BEDROOMS ON THE INTERIOR, WE DON'T REALLY LOOK AT THAT WHEN WE'RE APPLYING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. 
          WE JUST LOOK AT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNIT. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT DOES DISCOURAGE LARGER UNITS OR UNITS THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, LARGER FAMILIES OR HOUSEHOLDS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN THIS SIDE JUST SHOWS, UM, KIND OF THE, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IMPACT FEES AND THE APPLYING OF OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          SO, UM, UNDER A HUNDRED, UNDER 750 SQUARE FEET, NO IMPACT FEES APPLY AND NO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS APPLY. 
          AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT MIDDLE AREA, UM, WHERE THE CITY CAN IMPOSE SOME FEES. 
          THERE'S STILL NO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          ANYTHING UNDER 800 SQUARE FEET WOULD FALL INTO THAT, UM, STATEWIDE EXEMPT OR 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 UNIT. 
          AND THEN ONCE YOU GET ABOVE THAT, UM, YOU CAN APPLY SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND THEN ALSO THOSE IMPACT FEES, UM, START TO REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE ADUS. 
          AND THEN, UM, ANOTHER PROGRAM THAT WE'VE SEEN ACTUALLY ONLY ONLY APPLIED IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO. 
          IT WAS THE ONLY CITY I SAW THIS BEING ADOPTED, WAS A BONUS, A DU PROGRAM, UM, WHICH ALLOWED, UH, SPECIFIC PARCELS NEXT TO TRANSIT, UM, TO HAVE ADDITIONAL BONUS ADUS, UM, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THEY'RE DEED RESTRICTED TO AFFORDABLE, UM, TO VERY 
          [00:40:01]
LOW OR LOW INCOME OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THE CITY COULD ADOPT. 
          IT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND, UM, WHAT THE STATE REGULATION REQUIRES. 
          AND THE LAST, UM, ONE I THINK THAT WE ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT IS CONDO CONVERSIONS. 
          UM, CURRENTLY, UM, LIKE I SAID THERE, THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW CONDO CONVERSIONS FOR, UM, NONPROFITS. 
          UM, I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE EVER PROCESSED ONE FOR A NONPROFIT. 
          UM, BUT CITIES CAN OPT IN TO ALLOWING CONDO CONVERSIONS WITH ADUS FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUYERS. 
          UM, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE A DU AND PRIMARY DWELLING COULD BE CONDO ICED. 
          UM, SO THEY WOULD COVER, THEY'D HAVE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND, AND SHARED OUT OPEN SPACE OR SHARED, UM, YARD SPACE. 
          SO A FEW THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN THINKING ABOUT ADOPTING A CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NEW CONSTRUCTION, A DU THAT WAS ANTICIPATED TO BE CONDO AND EXISTING ADUS THAT ARE COMING AND ASKING TO BE CONDO LATER. 
          UM, THERE'S KIND OF DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. 
          A LOT OF ADUS ARE BUILT TO RELY ON THE PRIMARY DWELLING SUIT. 
          SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE SEPARATE, UM, UTILITIES OR, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY WEREN'T JUST, THEY WEREN'T BUILT TO BE SOLD SEPARATELY. 
          SO THAT'S KIND OF A DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN IF YOU'RE COMING TO US NOW WITH A CONDO IN MIND AND YOU WOULD ALREADY BE THINKING ABOUT SETTING THAT UP FOR YOUR CONDO. 
          UM, SO THOSE SITUATIONS, THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WOULD BE REQUIRED. 
          SO CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS, UM, YOU'D BE SHARING RESPONSIBILITIES, MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS BETWEEN THE CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND THOSE, UH, UNITS ARE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE. 
          THERE'S, UM, REGULATED BY THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND THE, SORRY, LET'S SEE. 
          THE, THE DUR DAVIS STERLING COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT ACT, WHICH IS ANOTHER CIVIL CODE OF CALIFORNIA. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN THE LAST THING WE WANNA TALK ABOUT IS THE PUBLIC INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT. 
          THIS IS, UM, SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN WANTING TO DO FOR A WHILE AND, AND PUT TOGETHER A HANDOUT AS WELL AS AT A DU, UH, HANDBOOK. 
          I, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS TO YOUR STAFF REPORT, UH, WAS AN EXAMPLE OF AN A DU HANDBOOK, UM, WHICH CAN BE REALLY HELPFUL TO HOMEOWNERS, PARTICULARLY WHO ARE STARTING OUT, UM, AND INVESTIGATING WHETHER OR NOT A DU WOULD BE USEFUL FOR THEM. 
          SO, UM, THAT IS THE END OF THAT PRESENTATION. 
          SO WE CAN GO BACK TO ANY SLIDE YOU LIKE, ONCE WE GET INTO THIS, JUST LET ME KNOW. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IF WE'VE GOT, UM, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AT THIS STAGE, LET'S GO FOR IT. 
          OTHERWISE, IF IT'S MORE OF A COMMENT OR DISCUSSION OR FEEDBACK, WE'LL, WE'LL DO THAT IN A MINUTE. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          YEAH. 
          HAVE WE LOOKED AT, OF THE ADUS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH, UM, THE IMPACT ON PROPERTY TAX REVENUES THAT THE CITY SEES? NOT SPECIFICALLY. 
          WE DID DO A SURVEY OF THE, UH, PERMIT, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          WE COULD EASILY JUST, YOU KNOW, DO AN ASSESSMENT. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A LAG FROM WHEN SOMETHING GETS PERMITTED, SO IT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A COUPLE YEARS BACK. 
          BUT, UM, SOMETHING WE CAN COME BACK, UM, WITH A MEMO ON. 
          THANKS, COMMISSIONER, GOVERNOR IS, UH, THE CONDO CONVERSION, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE SB NINE, LIKE POSSIBILITIES? IT SEEMS LIKE KIND OF JUST A MORE RESTRICTIVE SHORTCUT TO BEING ABLE TO DO A VERSION OF A LOT SPLIT WITH CCNRS IN PLACE. 
          LIKE COULD YOU MAYBE JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE ON THAT AND IF THEY COMPARE IT ALL? YEAH. 
          UM, THE CONDO CONVERSION IS, UH, MORE DIVIDING THE UNITS WHERE SB NINE IS DIVIDING THE PARCEL, UM, INTO SEPARATE PARCELS. 
          SO YOU WOULD HAVE, 
          [00:45:01]
STARTING WITH ONE, YOU WOULD THEN HAVE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, ONE WITH ONE UNIT OR TWO, UM, WHEREAS THE CONDO IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. 
          YOU'RE HAVING SHARED, SHARED SPACE. 
          UM, THE OPEN SPACE THAT'S NOT A UNIT ITSELF IS STILL SHARED BETWEEN THE TWO CONDOS. 
          UM, SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. 
          UM, YOU'RE NOT MAKING TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, UM, WITH, WITH SB NINE UR. 
          GOTCHA. 
          AND RIGHT NOW WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE A CONDO CONVERSION, ANYTHING IN PLACE FOR, TO ALLOW THAT WITH ADUS, IS THAT CORRECT? WE DO ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC, UM, NON-PROFITS OKAY. 
          ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. 
          BUT OTHERWISE, NO, THANKS. 
          JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. 
          SO, UM, I THINK YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE A NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE STATE CONSIDER, UM, AND SO IF WE WERE TO DO IT, WE'D HAVE TO INTRODUCE IT AS A SEPARATE ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          I, I DON'T KNOW IF DYLAN YOU WANNA ADD INTO THIS, BUT I THINK I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY COMBINE THEM. 
          YEAH. 
          MAKE IT JUST LIKE A BIG LARGE A DU OR AN INSTALL ENCOMPASSING. 
          HAVE WE HEARD ANY MURMURINGS AT THE COUNTER OF PEOPLE WISHING FOR SUCH A, AN OPTION? UH, NO. 
          I HAVE NOT, UH, SEEN A NOTABLE UPTICK IN, UM, CLEARANCE LOOKING TO CREATE ADUS TO USE AS SALEABLE UNITS. 
          THEY'RE USUALLY COMING IN TO LOOK TO RENT THEM OR HOUSE FAMILY MEMBERS. 
          UH, COULD SOMEONE SHARE WHAT THE FIRE AND LIKE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE RELATED TO ADUS? LIKE I UNDERSTAND THERE MIGHT BE LIKE STRUCTURE SETBACKS ARE THERE, OR ARE THEY APPLICABLE TO A DS USED IF STRUCTURES? AND MY UNDERSTANDING AS A NON-EXPERT IN THE BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE, 'CAUSE I AM A ZONING CODE PLANNING CODE TECHNICAL PERSON, IS THAT IF STRUCTURES ARE BUILT CLOSER, THEN I THINK THREE OR FOUR FEET, THEN THEY HAVE TO BE BUILT TO RESIST A FIRE. 
          UM, IT INCREASES THE, UM, ASSEMBLY REQUIREMENTS ON THE WALLS BETWEEN THOSE TWO STRUCTURES. 
          UH, AND THAT CAN ADD COST TO THE STRUCTURE WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING IT. 
          AS FAR AS FIRES REQUIREMENTS, UM, WHAT CURRENT STATE A DU LAW SAYS IS THAT IF FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE NOT REQUIRED OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, THEY SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE SEEN A COUPLE SITUATIONS IN WHICH SPRINKLERS WOULD BE REQUIRED OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, BUT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS LACKING THEM. 
          AND WHEN THEY COME IN TO BUILD AN A DU, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT, UH, ACCESSIBLE FIRE ACCESS ROAD OR, UH, HYDRANTS WITHIN REACH, THEN THE A DU IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL SPRINKLERS. 
          THANKS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR NOW? OKAY, NOW LET'S MOVE ON IN TO PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. 
          PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON, AND IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD AND BRING IT TO THE CLERK. 
          HAVE WE HAD ANY COMMENTS? UH, COME IN PRIOR TO THE MEETING? WE RECEIVED ONE PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 
          IT'S BEEN POSTED ONLINE AND IS AVAILABLE IN THE BACK FOR READING AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY SPEAKER CARDS? NONE. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN WE CAN CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION. 
          UM, LARISSA, I, I, I'M CURIOUS YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT WOULD MAKE THIS THE MOST ORGANIZED AND PRODUCTIVE, SINCE I KNOW YOU DO HAVE SOME DISCREET AREAS THAT YOU'RE WISHING FOR FEEDBACK. 
          UM, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S DIFFERENT AREAS OF INTEREST ACROSS THE COMMISSION, UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE KEEPING OURSELVES, UH, UH, TICKING DOWN THE LIST APPROPRIATELY. 
          YEAH, I, I THINK IF WE START BACK, UM, ON THE SLIDES, SO WE GO INTO THE TABLES, WE'LL JUST GO ONE BY ONE, STOP AT EACH, UM, ELENA'S GOING TO TAKE NOTES FOR ME FOR US TO KEEP TRACK OF YOUR COMMENTS. 
          UM, AND THEN WE CAN JUST GO SLIDE BY SLIDE, UM, AND GO FROM THERE. 
          SOUNDS GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE, UM, WE WOULD LIKE SOME FEEDBACK ON IS THE A DU SIZE. 
          UM, SO YOU SEE 
          [00:50:01]
IN FRONT OF YOU SOME WHAT THE STATE OR WHAT THE CITY CURRENTLY ALLOWS THE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, REGARDLESS THE NUMBER OF 80 OF BEDROOMS, AND THEN ALSO WHAT THE STATE MANDATES. 
          SO KEEPING IN MIND, UM, THE CITY CAN ALLOW SOMETHING THAT'S MORE PERMISSIVE, IT CANNOT REDUCE, UM, ANY OF THE STATE MANDATES. 
          ANY COMMENT? YEP. 
          MM-HMM . 
          JUST A QUICK CLAR QUICK CLARIFICATION. 
          RIGHT NOW WE ALLOW A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, CORRECT. 
          AND SO, BUT WHAT WE'RE HEARING MORE THAN ANECDOTALLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS EVIDENCE IS MOST OF THEM DON'T GO TO THAT LEVEL BECAUSE THE ADDED EXPENSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          AND SO BY THE MARKET IS SORT OF DETERMINING THAT BASED ON THE FEES THEN, RIGHT? WOULD THAT BE CORRECT WAY OF PHRASING IT? YES. 
          I WOULD SAY MOST OF OUR ADUS ARE SMALLER. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, THEY'RE SMALLER BECAUSE THEY'RE EITHER CONVERSIONS OF GARAGES OR THEY'RE SMALLER BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO STAY UNDER THAT 749 SQUARE FEET. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT SO FAR, IF WE LOOK AT THIS AS A MARKET TEST, WE'RE, WE'RE STAYING PRETTY MUCH PREDOMINANTLY UNDER SEVEN 40. 
          7 49 BELOW, CORRECT? I THINK AROUND, YEAH, 800, 7 49, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY, IT'S AROUND THAT, THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS TYPICAL. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST TO CAVEAT TO THAT, I DO THINK THERE'S, IT'S, IT'S ALL COMPOUNDED, RIGHT? IT'S THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE. 
          AND SO IF WE ARE INCENTIVIZING THINGS TO BE LESS THAN, WE'RE GONNA SEE MORE OF IT. 
          UM, AND THEN ALSO I WOULD SAY, I THINK THERE'S SOME MENTION IN THE STAFF REPORT WHEN WE SURVEYED PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY BUILDING THESE THINGS. 
          SO NOT ONLY IS THERE AN ADDITIONAL COST, SO EVERY SQUARE FOOT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT TO EVERYTHING. 
          AND SO THAT INCREASES THE COST. 
          UH, BUT THE WAY PEOPLE ARE USING IT, UM, WE'RE TYPICALLY SEEING, UM, IT'S HOUSING, UM, UH, A DIFFERENT GENERATION OF THE FAMILY, RIGHT? SO THERE'S A GRANDMOTHER, THERE'S A GRAND, UH, PARENT. 
          UM, AND SO THAT USUALLY JUST MAKES IT MORE CONDUCIVE TO A SMALLER UNIT. 
          UM, IF WE WERE TO, YOU KNOW, IF TO, TO ME, LIKE IF WE'RE GONNA REALLY, IF ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES IS TO, YOU KNOW, EVOLVE OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS INTO SOMETHING ELSE, AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, I THINK IT'S AT LEAST WORTH EXPLORING, OKAY, HERE'S ALL THE DIFFERENT LEVERS, HOW, YOU KNOW, WHICH LEVERS DO WE NEED TO PUSH OR TAKE OFF THE TABLE TO MAKE IT EASIER. 
          UM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T GONNA ATTRACT YOUR TRADITIONAL SUBDIVISION BUILDER. 
          I MEAN, THIS IS REALLY, WE'RE TRYING TO REINVENT LIKE THE MOM AND POP DEVELOPERS TO COME BACK AND WE'RE JUST, WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF IT. 
          'CAUSE IT, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE, UM, FINANCIALLY, BUT WHAT WE MAY BE CONSIDERING TONIGHT COULD HELP MOVE THE NEEDLE TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THAT. 
          UM, AND SO I THINK IT IS PRUDENT TO LOOK AT ALL OPTIONS TO MAINTAIN MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY. 
          YEAH, I THINK I'M, I'M ON THAT SAME PAGE, BRIAN, OF, OF WANTING TO MAINTAIN MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THESE ARE HOMEOWNERS AND USUALLY THEIR MATH IS, UH, A LOT MORE FLEXIBLE AND INFLEXIBLE. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF LIKE, DOES IT PENCIL, THAT'S NOT REALLY THE ISSUE. 
          IT'S, IT'S, CAN WE MAKE THIS WORK? CAN WE, YOU KNOW, MAKE SPACE FOR X, Y, Z FAMILY MEMBER IN MOST CASES? UM, SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN BE FLEXIBLE TO LET PEOPLE MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT ARE RIGHT FOR THEIR, AGAIN, IN MANY CASES FAMILY, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD, SO TO MY MIND, ALLOWING FOR A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF BEDROOM I'M ALL FOR, BECAUSE IF YOU KNOW IT, IT MAKES SENSE AND GRANDMA WANTS A POTTING STUDIO, THEN LIKE, LET'S BUILD HER ONE. 
          UM, IF SHE, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T NEED THE SECOND BEDROOM, LET'S NOT FORCE HER TO . 
          YEAH, I THINK MY POINT WAS EXACTLY THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          IN THAT WE, WE CAN GO MORE PERMISSIVE, HOWEVER, WE CAN GO TO 1200 IF WE WANTED TO, I ASSUME, RIGHT? SO DO WE WANNA HAVE THAT KIND OF FLEXIBILITY FOR THE REASONS YOU JUST SAID? WE KNOW THAT TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THE MARKET DOESN'T GO FOR THAT LARGE, BUT YEAH. 
          WELL NOW WE'RE JUMPING AHEAD TO THE, DO WE WANNA MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE IMPACT FEES? WHICH MAYBE WE SHOULD JUMP AHEAD BECAUSE THAT DOES SOUND LIKE A PRETTY MAJOR DRIVER OF OUR CURRENT APPETITE. 
          ARE WE, DO WE WANNA JUMP, OH, GO AHEAD. 
          WELL, I GUESS RELATED TO THE SIZE OF DEVELOPMENT, IS THERE A TYPICAL PETALUMA LOT SIZE THAT'S RESTRICTING THE A DU SIZES BASED ON SETBACKS OR PROXIMITY TO OTHER STRUCTURES? 
          [00:55:02]
I THINK OUR, OUR TWO ZONING, WHICH IS OUR TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT IS 6,000 SQUARE FEET IS, IS THE STANDARD. 
          UM, SO YEAH, AND THEY ARE, THEY'RE RESTRICTED BY, YOU KNOW, THE PLACEMENT OF HOMES, UM, KIND OF, THEY HAVE LARGE SETBACKS IN THE FRONT, SO SOMETIMES THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF YARD SPACE IN THE BACK TO PUT BIG ADUS. 
          UM, SO THEY'RE RESTRICTED ON JUST THE, THE CONFIGURATION OF THEIR PARCELS, I THINK, UM, BECAUSE OF HOW THEY WERE DEVELOPED ORIGINALLY. 
          AND THEN I THINK IT ALSO DEPENDS ON THE ERA, RIGHT? SO POST WORLD WAR II, FIFTIES, SIXTIES, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT, UM, AS YOU GET TO THE NEWER HOUSING STOCK. 
          SO NORTHEAST, UH, CLOSER TO DOWNTOWN, SOME OF THE INFILL THAT'S HAPPENING, LIKE THE RIVER BEND PROJECT, YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE LESS AND LESS. 
          SO FOUR, 5,000, I MEAN EVEN SMALLER. 
          SO I DO THINK THERE'S GONNA BE A CONSTRAINT, UM, WITH THE PLACEMENT. 
          'CAUSE TYPICALLY THE HOUSES ARE LITERALLY PLACED RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE , SO IT'S NOT GIVING YOU A WHOLE LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S ALSO A CONFOUNDING FACTOR. 
          BUT AGAIN, IF, UM, THE IDEA IS TO MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY, MAKE IT WORK ON ONE OF THE, YOU KNOW, 10 LOTS ON A STREET, UM, THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE IT, THEN UM, WE SHOULD AGAIN EXPLORE IT OR CREATE A MECHANISM TO ALLOW THE CITY TO CONSIDER IT EASILY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FROM OUR, UM, , I WAS THE ONE WHO SAID, LET'S TRY TO STAY ON EACH TOPIC, BUT , DO WE THINK IT'S VALUABLE TO JUMP AHEAD TO THE IMPACT FEES? IF THAT'S GONNA SORT OF GUIDE SOME OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS HERE IS, OR OH, OR MAYBE JUST SHARE WHAT, LIKE, THOUGHTS JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING. 
          SURE. 
          JUST FEELS LIKE A LOT OF THE THINGS ARE KIND OF SILOED. 
          SO LIKE UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM MIGHT BE HELP MORE HELPFUL THAN LIKE PIECE BY PIECE. 
          LET'S HEAR YOUR THEORY OF THE CASE THEN. 
          I'M NOT SURE I HAVE ALL OF MY THINGS TOGETHER, BUT I'M HAPPY TO, TO JUMP IN AND LET'S BUILD ON IT. 
          UM, SO I FEEL LIKE WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK FOR FAMILIES. 
          SO THINGS THAT CAN CLEAR THE WAY FOR LIKE TWO BEDROOM UNITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, OR THINGS THAT I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF. 
          UM, AND THAT MEANS LOOKING AT THE IMPACT FEES. 
          UM, WHEN WE COME BACK, I'D LOVE TO SEE LIKE THE PROPERTY TAX IMPACTS OF ADDING AN A DU AND THINGS LIKE THAT BECAUSE I, MY HYPOTHESIS IN MY MIND IS THAT LIKE, JUST CLEARING THE WAY FOR LARGER UNITS MIGHT INCREASE THE PROPERTY VALUE AND THEREFORE, LIKE THE PAYBACK ON THE, ON THE IMPACT FEES IS GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, A WASH, RIGHT? SO I'D LOVE TO, TO LOOK AT THAT AND, AND, UM, LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE INCREASE IN, I GUESS OPERATING REVENUES, LET'S SAY FROM MORE PROPERTY TAXES. 
          UM, I AM IN FAVOR OF GOING UP TO 1200 SQUARE FEET. 
          I THINK, UM, MAYBE THERE'S SOME, SOME LIMITATIONS IN THERE. 
          I DEFINITELY LIKE PROMOTING THINGS THAT ARE FOR SALE. 
          UM, SO IF THERE'S, IF THERE WERE LEVERS IN THERE AROUND FEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT I WOULD WANT TO APPLY IS TRYING TO PUSH FOR MORE THINGS TO ACTUALLY BE SOLD AND, AND NOT RENTED. 
          BECAUSE I'D LOVE TO SEE MORE LIKE EARLY STAGE YOUNG FAMILIES, UM, LIKE TRYING TO BUILD EQUITY IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND SO I THINK, UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN PROMOTE FOR SALE UNITS WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. 
          UM, I'M JUST SORT OF SHARING MY VALUES, I GUESS MORE THAN LIKE, SPECIFIC THINGS ON THIS BECAUSE I REALLY HAVEN'T DUG INTO THE POLICY AS MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HOW, UM, IT WOULD DO THAT. 
          UM, I'M IN FAVOR OF, UH, OBJECTIVE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE THEM, UM, INCLUDING PRIVACY STANDARDS. 
          SO ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO AROUND THAT IS HELPFUL, UM, SO THAT WE DON'T GET OURSELVES INTO HOT WATER WITH THE NEIGHBORS ANYMORE THAN WE ALREADY WILL. 
          UM, AND THEN, UM, I THINK THE BONUS A DU PROGRAM IS REALLY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE, UM, TO THE EXTENT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT, I'VE READ A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SAN DIEGO'S. 
          DO THEY? I'M NOT SURE THEY STILL HAVE IT IN PLACE, RIGHT? AND LIKE THAT'S REALLY CAUSING A, UH, A STIR DOWN THERE. 
          IT'S . 
          UM, SO I'M INTERESTED IN IT. 
          I'M INTRIGUED BY THE IDEA OF IT. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, MORE LIKE I HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, HORROR STORIES FROM PEOPLE LAMENTING IT AND PEOPLE CELEBRATING IT AT THE SAME TIME, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST HOW HOUSING IS THESE DAYS. 
          UM, SO I'D LIKE TO ACTUALLY SEE LIKE HOW MUCH HAS IT ACTUALLY RESULTED IN HOUSING PRODUCTION VERSUS RESULTED IN NIMBYS AND YIMBYS, LIKE YELLING AT EACH OTHER, UM, 
          [01:00:01]
TO BE QUITE FRANK. 
          UM, SO, AND THEN I GUESS I HAD A QUESTION TOO ON THE, THE CONDO CONVERSIONS IN OUR, IN A, UH, AN A DU GUIDE, WOULD WE PROVIDE LIKE TEMPLATE CC AND R AND THINGS LIKE THAT? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE SORT OF LEAVE TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT TRY TO TAKE A STAB? YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRIVATE. 
          THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE CREATING THIS CONDO, IF YOU'RE THE PROPERTY OWNER, YOU PROBABLY WANT TO HAVE YOUR OWN KIND OF RESTRICTIONS FOR PRIVACY AND OTHER REASONS. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD DO THAT, PROBABLY NOT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION HAS, WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          YEAH, THAT'S MY STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS FOR NOW. 
          ANYONE ELSE WANNA SHARE THEIR SORT OF HIGH LEVEL THOUGHTS, VALUES AROUND THIS TOPIC? YEAH, I, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOME TENSION WITH ADUS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND AS I UNDERSTAND THE, THE 6, 6 3, 2, 3 SCENARIO, NO PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR AN A DU PROJECT. 
          UM, BUT FOR THE NON 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 WHERE WE HAVE ROOM TO WIGGLE, UM, WE DO REQUIRE A PARKING. 
          WE DO NOT, WE CURRENTLY DO NOT REQUIRE PARKING FOR ANY A DU FOR ANY A DU. 
          WE COULD WITH THIS ORDINANCE UPDATE REQUIRE PARKING. 
          OKAY. 
          FOR SPECIFIC ADUS. 
          I, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT WITH AS IT IS WITHOUT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL PARKING. 
          THAT'S A WAY TO KILL, UH, AN A DU FOR, FOR SURE. 
          UM, I THINK I, I HAVE A, UH, I FEEL SOME TENSION BETWEEN WAIVING IMPACT FEES FOR THE LARGER UNITS BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CITY. 
          AND I'M JUST, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ANALYSIS THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER WAS ASKING FOR, BUT ALSO KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IF WE HAVE A LOT OF POLICIES THAT WAIVE IMPACT FEES AND WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO OUR, THE SERVICES THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO PROVIDE? UM, IS IT AT SOME POINT WE'RE, WE'RE HURTING OURSELVES, UM, AND OUR ABILITY TO, TO MAINTAIN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S JUST ONE, ONE CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT INCENTIVIZING, UH, EVERYTHING WITH, WITH WAIVING IMPACT FEES. 
          UH, I, I LIKE THE IDEA OF, UH, DEED RESTRICTED IF, IF WE'RE INCLUDING SALE OF ADUS, THEN HAVING, UM, SOME DEED RESTRICTED POLICIES TO, UM, ENSURE THAT SOME OF THESE FOR SALE ADUS CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE TO, UH, MODERATE AND AND BELOW INCOME FAMILIES. 
          UM, I'D ALSO LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW ADUS IN A HISTORIC, UH, PROPERTY WOULD, WOULD BE ALLOWED AND AND ALLOW FOR THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          AND THEN THERE WAS ONE, ONE PROVISION THAT, THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE TOO NITPICKY, BUT, UH, IN THE PROCESS FOR ISSUING A PERMIT ON AN A DU, UM, IT SAYS THAT AN A DU REPLACING A DETACHED GARAGE SHALL RECEIVE REVIEW ISSUANCE OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT CONCURRENTLY WITH THE A DU PERMIT. 
          UM, AT ONE POINT A FEW YEARS AGO, MY FAMILY REQUESTED DEMOLITION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND IT TOOK A LONG TIME AND WE HAD TO HIRE A HISTORIAN TO DO A ANALYSIS ON WHETHER, YOU KNOW, HEWLETT PACKARD FOUNDED THEIR COMPANY IN OUR GARAGE. 
          I'M JUST, I'M MAKING A JOKE, BUT I I'M NOT SURE IF, I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT PERHAPS DOES SOMETHING ELSE IN THE ZONING CODE, IMPLEMENTING 
          [01:05:01]
ZONING ORDINANCE NEED TO BE CHANGED TO ALLOW THE DEBT DEMOLITION TO OCCUR QUICKLY TOO. 
          UM, WE WILL LOOK INTO THAT FOR THE DEMOLITION, I'M ASSUMING YOU LIVE IN HISTORIC DISTRICT OR THE HOUSE ITSELF WAS OLD ENOUGH, OR THE GARAGE ITSELF WAS OLD ENOUGH THAT YOU NEEDED TO HAVE A EVALUATION OF THE GARAGE. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, AND NOTING THAT THIS IS RELATED TO AN A DU WHERE YOU, IF YOU WERE CONSTRUCTING AN A DU VERSUS NOT CONSTRUCTING A DU TO REPLACE THAT GARAGE, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. 
          UM, SO, BUT YEAH, THAT, THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. 
          WHETHER OR NOT THAT DEMOLITION PERMIT COULD BE APPROVED WITHOUT A RES A EVALUATION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE, UM, THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL LOOK INTO. 
          UM, BUT OTHERWISE, IF YOU'RE A NON HISTORIC DISTRICT OR IF THE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REQUIRE THAT YOU WOULD RECEIVE BOTH THE DEMO PERMIT AND THE A DU PERMIT AT THE SAME TIME. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK, THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER, DID YOU HAVE A THOUGHT ON THE IMPACT FEES WAIVING TREND? UM, SHARE THE CONCERN. 
          UM, I'LL JUST, I GUESS THAT'S WHY I'M JUST INTERESTED TO SEE THE, THE, THE DELTA BETWEEN LIKE A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT AND A 750 SQUARE FOOT AND WHAT THAT DOES TO OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUES. 
          AND THEN, UM, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, IMPACT FEES ARE LIKE, THEY'RE SORT OF LIKE THIS, LIKE SUGAR HIGH, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LIKE THERE WHEN YOU HAVE 'EM AND THEN THEY'RE NOT. 
          BUT LIKE SEEING YOUR PROPERTY TAXES HAVE LIKE A STABLE UPWARD TRAJECTORY IS LIKE VERY NICE. 
          AND SO IF WE CAN PROMOTE, YOU KNOW, LARGER UNITS THAT CAN HOUSE FAMILIES, LIKE I WOULD, UM, UM, I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT, THAT ANALYSIS. 
          COULD I ASK A KIND OF A CLARIFYING QUESTION? KIND OF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER BARNICK WAS TALKING ABOUT. 
          SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THESE ADUS THAT ARE THEN PUT ON THESE LOTS, THEY CAN THEN BE DEEDED AND SOLD. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S PART OF THE CONVERSATION IS THAT'S PART OF THE CONVERSATION, RIGHT? WHETHER THE CONDO ATION, SO THAT GETS BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER BARN'S, QUESTION ABOUT THE PROPERTY TAX. 
          MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, NOT US, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THEN TO PROVIDE MOTIVATION TO MAKE SURE THAT COULD OCCUR WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST BECAUSE THEN THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY GOES UP THEN, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CONSTRICTED BY, YOU KNOW, PROP 13. 
          JUST CURIOUS IF THAT IS THAT PROPER LOGIC. 
          YES, YES. 
          THAT'S LIKE A BIG . 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          WHAT'S DRIVING THE 749 SQUARE FOOT THRESHOLD FOR THE IMPACT FEES? WHAT DETERMINE THAT? UM, IT IS COMING FROM THE STATE. 
          I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT NUMBER COMES FROM. 
          UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY BACKGROUND ON  ON WHY THEY CAME UP WITH THAT PARTICULAR NUMBER. 
          UH, BUT IT HAS BEEN THAT SAME NUMBER FOR QUITE A WHILE, SO. 
          OH, YOU'RE OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I GUESS THE OVERALL, MY THINKING ON ADUS IS THE WAY IN WHICH THE POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN ROLLED OUT TO BOTH, UM, INCENTIVIZE THEM TO BE BUILT AND THEN KIND OF AT THE SAME TIME THE REALITIES THAT HAVE RUN INTO WITH BOTH PEOPLE, UH, RENT, FIGURING OUT HOW TO ACTUALLY RENT THEM, HOW TO POTENTIALLY BUY THEM, HOW TO UTILIZE THEM TO THEIR FULLEST, ASIDE FROM JUST CREATING THEM TO BE FAMILY UNITS WHERE YOU PUT YOUR GRANDMA WHEN YOU STILL WANT HER CLOSE, BUT NOT TOO CLOSE. 
          UM, I ARE ARE WE DOING OTHER THINGS AROUND THIS TO REALLY BRING THIS ALL TOGETHER SO THAT THE POLICIES THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING, AND I KNOW THAT THE STATE'S, THIS STATE IS DRIVING A LOT OF THIS, BUT ARE WE DOING ANYTHING INTERNALLY TO ALSO SAY, PETALUMA IS A PLACE WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, WANT ADUS, WHERE WE ACCEPT THOSE AS FULL PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY AND NOT JUST A SORT OF SECONDARY BEHIND THE HOUSE CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE FOR WHATEVER REASON. 
          THERE'S A LOT, I THINK ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH WE TALK ABOUT THESE THAT REALLY DOESN'T THINK ABOUT HOW PEOPLE LIVE ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS AND REALLY UTILIZE THESE SPACES. 
          SO WHETHER IT'S, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN DO THIS WITHIN THE STANDARDS THEMSELVES, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN QUITE GET THERE, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IF YOU'RE BUILDING FOR, YOU KNOW, UM, 
          [01:10:01]
A, UH, 700 SQUARE FOOT SPACE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VERSUS, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND OR UH, 120 SQUARE FOOT SPACE FOR A FAMILY TO MOVE IN. 
          AND THOSE REALLY DO HAVE DIFFERENT IMPACTS ON THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, I THINK, SOLVE WITH THAT AS A HOUSING SOLUTION. 
          AND SO IF WE REALLY HAVE A PREFERENCE TO DRIVE ANY PARTICULAR SOLUTION, WE SHOULD REALLY FOCUS ON THAT ALTOGETHER RATHER THAN POTENTIALLY ONE THAT ONLY THAT INCENTIVIZES, YOU KNOW, A SMALLER SOLUTION FOR A MORE INTERMEDIATE SORT OF LIVING SITUATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO GO ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST KIND OF MY OVERALL THINKING ON HOW THIS HAS BEEN DEVELOPING FOR THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS. 
          YEAH, I AGREE THAT THIS, THE, THE WAY WE TALK ABOUT THESE IS IMPORTANT, AND I'M ENCOURAGED BY THIS EXAMPLE OF A HANDBOOK AND SOME OF THE SORT OF PUBLICITY MATERIALS THAT WE'VE SEEN OTHER JURISDICTIONS DO. 
          AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT PETALUMA IS LOOKING TO DO SOME OF THAT. 
          UM, BECAUSE I DO THINK THERE IS, UH, UH, I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO SAY, OH, I TRIED TO BUILD AN A DU 20 YEARS AGO AND IT WAS A PAIN IN THE NECK AND I GAVE UP. 
          AND TO THOSE PEOPLE, I SAY THERE'S BEEN A TON OF CHANGES AND THE STATE HAS REALLY TRIED TO CLEAR THE WAY . 
          SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CITY CAN ALSO CLEAR THE WAY AND THEN DO A BIT OF REBRANDING, I'M HOPEFUL, UM, THAT THERE MIGHT BE A SORT OF FRESH WAVE OF FOLKS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD SOME ASPIRATIONS TO BUILD AN A DU THAT NOW, UM, COULD ACTUALLY ACHIEVE IT. 
          UM, SO I TOTALLY AGREE THAT THE, THIS PUBLICITY PIECE IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND AS IT PERTAINS TO THE, YOU KNOW, SIZE AND, AND WHAT TYPES OF FOLKS ARE MOVING IN, THAT'S WHERE I COME TO THE LIKE, LET'S, LET'S BE, YES. 
          AND LIKE WE NEED ALL OF THE HOUSING TYPES WE CAN GET, AND I'M IN, I'M INCLINED TO GIVE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY, UM, TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE LOOKING TO, TO ADD TO THEIR PARCEL IN WHATEVER WAY MAKES SENSE FOR THEM. 
          , I AM WITH YOU ALL , BUT ULTIMATELY LIKE INCREASING THE SIZE OF THEM, REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RESTRICTIONS THAT TETHER THEM TO THEIR CURRENT, UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. 
          UM, I DO THINK THE PRIVACY AND TO WHATEVER LEVEL WE CAN CONTROL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE LARGER A DU UNITS WOULD BE, UH, PROBABLY VALUED VALUED CONTROLS FOR EVERYONE, FOR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. 
          UM, YEAH, ESPECIALLY, AND I THINK THE DENSER THE DENSER AREAS IN TOWN MIDTOWN, EVEN PARKING RESTRICTIONS, I'M ALL FOR REDUCING PARKING EVERYWHERE EXCEPT WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY A LOT OF, UM, A LOT OF LIKE ON STREET PARKING, UM, LIKE JUST TIGHT SPOTS, TIGHT CAPACITY. 
          SO I THINK LOOKING AT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BY NEIGHBORHOOD AND UH, APPLYING A COUPLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THERE MIGHT BE HELPFUL TOO. 
          THIS IS GOING TO GET OFF OF THE POLICY AND BE MORE ON BUILDING THE MARKET THE WAY WE WANT TO SEE TOO. 
          UM, WE BROUGHT UP LIKE TRYING TO RECREATE THE SMALL SCALE DEVELOPERS. 
          THERE'S LIKE THE SMALL SCALE INVESTORS DO THAT, LIKE PROVIDING CAPITAL FOR THINGS LIKE THIS FOR HOMEOWNERS AND AND WHATNOT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE SANTA ROSA AND SONOMA COUNTY HAVE, WHAT IS IT? THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSING INVESTMENT ORGANIZATION, THE, OR RED, RED, THERE WE GO. 
          YEAH. 
          LIKE IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO TRY AND ACTUALLY HELP CLEAR FINANCIAL HURDLES FOR THIS SORT OF THING? BECAUSE LIKE SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS, UM, MIGHT DO IT SO THAT THEY CAN STAY IN THEIR HOME AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPITAL TO LIKE ACTUALLY BUILD A THING, BUT IF THERE'S, THAT'S AVAILABLE AND THEN IT GOT SOLD AND THEY COULD LIKE THEN REPAY A LOAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M INTERESTED IN JUST OTHER SORT OF LIKE MARKET SOLUTIONS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP CATALYZE TO, TO MAKE THIS SORT OF THING COME TO LIFE. 
          'CAUSE I AGREE WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN, THAT LIKE THE POLICIES AREN'T NECESSARILY PLAYING OUT AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF LIKE, NOT WELL-INTENTIONED POLICIES NECESSARILY. 
          IT'S LIKE, JUST LIKE MARKET FAILURES WHEN NOBODY WANTS TO INVEST IN SMALL THINGS LIKE THIS AND THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD LOVE TO DO IT TO HELP STAY IN THEIR HOME DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT. 
          AND JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY THOUGHT BEEN GIVEN TO THAT SORT OF THING. 
          UM, DEFINITELY THOUGHT GIVEN. 
          I, I DO THINK, I MEAN, SORT OF THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM ON WANTING TO SEE MORE 
          [01:15:01]
OF THIS, EVEN IF WE DO OPEN UP ALL THESE LEVERS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, CREATE THESE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOME OWNERSHIP, UH, 7 49 IS NOT THAT BIG FOR A FAMILY, RIGHT? SO AGAIN, YOU'RE, WE'RE KIND OF PIGEONHOLING AND LIMITING THE TYPE THAT WE'RE SEEING AND WE'RE REALLY INCENTIVIZING SMALLER ONE UNIT STUDIO, UM, PRODUCT TYPES. 
          UM, I, I STILL THINK THE BIGGEST HURDLE IS GONNA BE THE COST AND THE FINANCING. 
          SO TO YOUR POINT, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE INVESTORS, UM, YOU KNOW, I, YOU KNOW, PICK YOUR BARBECUE THAT YOU GO TO, UM, ON ANY GIVEN WEEKEND AND THERE'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY THAT STARTS TALKING ABOUT THIS. 
          LIKE, OH, WE TRIED, UM, YOU KNOW, TRIED TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK. 
          I MEAN, IT ENDS UP BEING $500,000 RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? PLUS WITH THE INTEREST RATES WHERE THEY'RE AT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT ALMOST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, UM, UNLESS YOU'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, SELL A LARGER HOME AND THEN TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, BRING GRANDMA, GRANDPA, UM, INTO THE BACKYARD. 
          SO I DO THINK THINGS LIKE CONIZATION, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE LITTLE THINGS THAT CAN HELP MOVE THE NEEDLE, BUT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE FIND SOME OF THESE BIGGER, WHETHER IT'S THE RENEWAL ENTERPRISE DISTRICT, UM, THAT TYPE OF FINANCING MECHANISM. 
          AND SO WHAT TRIGGERS IN MY HEAD IS, UM, A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, UM, UH, WE WEREN'T UNDER INVESTIGATION AS PART OF THE CIVIL GRAND JURY, BUT THERE WAS A SORT OF CALL TO ACTION FOR ALL CITIES IN, UM, WITHIN THE, UH, COUNTY OF SONOMA TO GET TOGETHER, COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, WORK ACROSS, UM, CITY BOUNDARIES, UM, INCLUDE ADVOCATES TO TRY TO MAKE SENSE OF BRINGING MORE HOUSING THAT'S AFFORDABLE ONLINE. 
          AND SO I COULD SEE THIS AS SOMETHING, UM, THAT MAY REQUIRE A MORE REGIONAL SLASH COUNTYWIDE EFFORT. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN, UM, ABSOLUTELY FOLLOW UP, UM, AS PART OF A LARGER CONVERSATION. 
          HERE'S JUST ANOTHER LIKE TIDBIT FOR PROBABLY, UM, DYLAN YOU TO TAKE IS LIKE, I HAVE THIS FEELING THAT LIKE, WE CAN'T JUST LIKE BE HANDING LIKE WE'RE NOT A FINANCING AGENCY, BUT I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A NEXUS WITH OUR WATER RATES. 
          AND I FEEL THE SAME WAY WITH SONOMA CLEAN POWER ON ELECTRIC RATES AND LIKE THE LOAD GROWTH IS ULTIMATELY LIKE, IN ORDER FOR US TO KEEP WATER RATES DOWN, WE HAVE TO LIKE USE MORE WATER. 
          THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE WATER SYSTEM WORKS IS LIKE, THE REASON WHY OUR WATER RATES IS GOING UP IS BECAUSE OF WE'RE USING LESS WATER. 
          IT'S REALLY LIKE SORT OF A PERVERSE LIKE INCENTIVE, BUT LIKE USING MORE WATER, THERE'S ACTUALLY LIKE A HUGE NEXUS IF LIKE OUR CITY LIKE GREW OUR WATER CONSUMPTION, OUR RATES WOULD ACTUALLY STABILIZE AND COME DOWN BECAUSE WE'RE PAYING FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE, RIGHT? AND SO, LIKE, I JUST THINK THERE'S, THERE'S A NEXUS IN THERE I GUESS FOR LOOKING AT, UM, LIKE USING OUR UTILITIES AND OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS TO MAYBE HELP, UM, YOU KNOW, CLOSE GAPS AND MOVE THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, UNSTICK THINGS. 
          YEAH, WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE GOTTEN OURSELVES, UM, FAR FROM THIS GRID OF DISCREET ASKS THAT THEY'VE, UH, REQUESTED OF US . 
          UM, BUT GREAT THOUGHTS. 
          UM, AND I THINK FROM WHAT I'M HEARING UP HERE ON THE COMMISSION, WE'RE SORT OF FORMING A CONSENSUS AROUND THE, UH, MORE FLEXIBILITY. 
          MORE FLEXIBILITY, UM, LESS RESTRICTIONS BE, BE BE YOU KNOW, ALLOWING WHERE WE CAN, UM, BUT POTENTIALLY STILL LOOK TOWARDS THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS, UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO OBJECTIVES, UH, MAKING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS WHERE WE CURRENTLY HAVE SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR, UM, PRIVACY AND POTENTIALLY HISTORIC IMPACT. 
          SO DO WE WANNA JUST TICK THROUGH THOSE SORT OF JUDGMENT CALLS ON PERMISSIVE VERSUS NOT AND GET A QUICK CONSENSUS TO AGREE, UM, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE, THE MORE, UM, NUANCED SHIFTING OF SUBJECTIVE TO OBJECTIVE? THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          AND, UM, AND WE CAN START WITH THIS FIRST ONE. 
          UM, AND WHAT I'M WE'RE HEARING IS THAT YOU WANNA BE MORE PERMISSIVE WITH THE CODES. 
          SO, UM, THAT WOULD MEAN YOU, YOU HAVE SOME OPTIONS, UM, CONTINUING WITH BEING THE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, REGARDLESS OF THE BEDROOMS, REMOVING THAT 50%, UM, LIMIT ON THE, COMPARED TO THE PRIMARY, UM, AND ALLOWING OVER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. 
          THE, UM, A DU ORDINANCE MENTIONS, UM, 1200, UM, BUT I BELIEVE YOU CAN GO OVER THAT. 
          I, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE 
          [01:20:01]
CODE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO STOP AT 1200, BUT THAT'S WHERE THE A DU, THE STATE LAW IS, UM, PUTTING THAT LIMIT. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT IS HERE MENTIONED. 
          SO IF YOU WANNA, YOU KNOW, LET US KNOW WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED ON THE SIZE OF ADUS, UM, WE CAN START THERE. 
          THOUGHTS, IF I COULD CHIME IN, HAVING DESIGNED A FEW ADUS, A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET IS SUPER RESTRICTIVE. 
          , I THINK 1200 PLUS GETS YOU A COMFORTABLE TWO BEDROOM, LIKE LIVING ROOM, KITCHEN, FAMILY COMPATIBLE 1500 WOULD BE EVEN BETTER, I WOULD SAY, UH, NOT LIKE THAT MIGHT FIT EVERY CONDITION, BUT I, I WOULD CHIME IN AND SUGGEST WE COULD ALLOW UP TO 1500. 
          WHAT WOULD THE, I GUESS WHAT IS THE PRECEDENT AND WHAT WOULD THE DOWNSIDE BE OF NOT RESTRICTING SIZE AND INSTEAD IM IMPOSING OUR RESTRICTIONS WHERE IT MATTERS ON, ON PRIVACY AND, AND CHARACTER. 
          CAN WE SAY LIKE, JUST USE THE FORCES ELSEWHERE? SO THE DOWNSIDE, I GUESS, OF NOT RESTRICTING SIZE, UM, ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT OUR CURRENT IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE IS IF YOU WERE BUILDING AN A DU WOULD, AND YOU WERE GONNA SELL IT OR EVEN RENT IT, UM, TO SOMEONE OTHER THAN GRANDMA, RIGHT, WHERE YOU'RE LIKE, IT'S, IT'S A REVENUE DRIVING THING, UM, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ENC ENCOURAGED TO BUILD AS LARGE AS YOU CAN SO THAT YOU CAN SELL IT FOR MORE AND THEN YOU KIND OF LIKE SKEW THE AFFORDABILITY THING. 
          I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WITH, UM, WITH ADUS BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S THIS HUGE LIKE LAND COST THAT PEOPLE HAVE. 
          SO I'M, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF SOMEONE WHO'S DESIGNED ADUS TO SAY WHAT IT SHOULD BE. 
          I WILL SAY I HAVE 950 SQUARE FEET IN MY HOUSE AND I HAVE TWO BEDROOMS AND IT FEELS LIKE . 
          SO LIKE IF I BUILT A 1500 SQUARE FOOT, A DU WOULD ALMOST BE LIKE I'M MOVING INTO THAT . 
          SO I WOULD SUGGEST RESTRICTIONS ON HEIGHT AS LIKE A FIRST ONE OR MASSING IN BULK. 
          SO NOT HAVING, YOU KNOW, A GIANT FOOTPRINT EITHER WAY OR OVERLOOKING ISSUES. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF PLANNING HAS ANYTHING, ANY FEEDBACK THERE, BUT THAT 25 FOOT FOOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION RESTRICTION FEELS LIKE IT MIGHT WANNA BE A STANDARDIZED OR PART OF A, A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD IF WE'RE GOING OVER A THOUSAND OR 1200 SQUARE FOOT ADUS. 
          UM, FOR THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 25 FEET, THAT ONLY APPLIES TO ATTACHED ADUS AND THAT'S COMING FROM THE STATE. 
          SO WE CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. 
          WE COULDN'T MAKE IT LESS, UM, FOR DETACHED ADUS THAT'S DIFFERENT. 
          UM, WE CURRENTLY ALLOW 21 FEET, UM, THAT'S MORE THAN WHAT THE STATE ALLOWS. 
          UM, SO WE CAN CONTINUE ON THAT OR WE CAN BRING IT DOWN TO WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES. 
          , THAT'S A REALLY TOUGH HEIGHT, RIGHT? LIKE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, 21 FOOT TWO, UH, YOU CAN'T GET A TWO STORY STRUCTURE IN 21 FEET UNLESS YOU'RE GOING SUPER LOW CEILING, FLAT ROOF, LIKE NO, NO PLENUM. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN ADVANTAGE TO TALKING ABOUT THAT AT ALL OR IF WE'RE COMFORTABLE LIKE WHAT'S BEEN WORKING FOR OTHER A DU I'M SEEING BRIAN NOD, SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS LIKE A, LIKE IF WE'VE SEEN 18 FOOT EVERYTHING KIND OF MAXES OUT THERE AT A SINGLE STORY OR IF WE'RE USING THAT EXTRA FEW THREE FEET. 
          YEAH, I WILL, I WILL SAY THAT KEEPING, IF WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION ABOUT THE HEIGHT, KEEPING IT CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE IS EASY FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. 
          IT'S EASY FOR ARCHITECTS TO KNOW WHAT THAT THAT STANDARD IS. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE TO JUMP BETWEEN ONE STANDARD TO ANOTHER BETWEEN CITIES. 
          UM, SO YOU KNOW WHERE WE CAN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION ABOUT THE HEIGHT OR, OR SOME OTHER STANDARD, KEEPING IT WITH THE STATE STANDARD MAKES IT VERY EASY FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          I THINK WE ARE LOOKING FOR EASE WHERE WE CAN . 
          I I I'M STILL CURIOUS ABOUT THE, UH, SIZE RESTRICTION BECAUSE I MEAN, COUNCIL MEMBER BARNICLE, IF YOU HAD A BIG PLOT OF LAND ON WHICH YOU COULD BUILD A A DU THAT IS BIGGER THAN YOUR PRIMARY HOME, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BAD THING. 
          I DON'T EITHER. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T EITHER. 
          I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A BAD THING. 
          OKAY. 
          I HONESTLY, I THINK IT'S, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF 1500 SQUARE FEET. 
          SO THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE 50% PRIMARY LIMIT AND BUMPING OUR MAXIMUM TO 1500 SQUARE FEET IF YOU WANNA UNRESTRICT IT, COULD WE ASSOCIATE THAT WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OR IS THAT JUST IZING EVEN FURTHER? I DON'T KNOW. 
          UM, IT FEELS TO ME LIKE THE SETBACKS, THE FOUR FOOT SETBACK TO NEIGHBORING LOT LINES PLUS THE HEIGHT IS REALLY THE PRIVACY ISSUE. 
          AND IF WE'RE 
          [01:25:01]
ALLOWING LARGER AD ON LARGER LOTS THAT FEELS APPROPRIATE. 
          I THINK IF WE START ADDING, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN A DU SIZES PER THE LOT, IT GETS A LITTLE, IT GETS MORE COMPLICATED, UM, WHICH WE CAN DO. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, YOU'RE ALLOWED UP TO THIS SIZE A DU IF IT'S NOT ONE OF THESE STATE EXEMPT OR YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT A STATE EXEMPT A DU TALKING ABOUT THESE OTHER ONES, UM, THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD WRITE INTO THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT DOES MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED, UH, FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY CAN BUILD WHEN THEY COME IN, UM, AND ARE DESIGNING. 
          SO DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON WHAT AN ARCHITECT WOULD WANT ? I I WOULD LOVE LIKE A, A MINIMUM, LIKE A 1500 SQUARE. 
          YOU CAN BUILD UP TO 1500 SQUARE FEET OR ABOVE WITHIN A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF A LOT SIZE EXCEEDING WHATEVER SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUM. 
          WE SEE THAT A LOT WITH LIKE TIERED SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IT SEEMS TO WORK OKAY FOR PROFESSIONALS. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS FOR THE HOMEOWNER TRYING TO FIGURE THEIR WAY OUT. 
          HOW DOES IT SIT WITH YOU IF, IF WE EXPLORED NO SQUARE FOOTAGE GUIDANCE, BUT AMPLE SETBACK AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD SORT OF PUSH YOUR BOX IN FROM THE OUTSIDE AS OPPOSED TO, UH, SETTING YOUR MAXIMUM FROM THE INSIDE? I THINK THAT WORKS FOR LIKE WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE ORDINARILY WHEN WE MEET MORE FLEXIBLE A DU UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          THE HOMEOWNERS, IF THEY HAVE THE MEANS, WILL JUST PUSH IT. 
          SO SOMETIMES A HARD NUMBER HELPS EVERYONE PUSH BACK ON THAT. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S TO COUNCIL MEMBERS' POINT TOO OF LIKE, THERE MAY BE, THERE MAY BE THE ODD FOLKS THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT INCENTIVE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. 
          UM, BUT EITHER WAY I THINK, I THINK HAVING A HARD NUMBER IS HELPFUL OR AT LEAST A WAY TO MEASURE A HARD NUMBER. 
          UM, I WOULD ALSO PROBABLY RESTRICT ADUS DEVELOPING IN THE FRONT YARD AND JUST DISALLOW THAT AT A CERTAIN SIZE. 
          BUT I'D LEAVE THAT UP TO EVERYONE TO DO. 
          WE HAVE THAT IN OUR, SO ALLOWING ADUS IN THE FRONT YARD APPLIES TO THOSE 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 UNITS WHEN THEY ARE, WHEN THEY DON'T FIT IN A BACKYARD. 
          UM, SO IT'S ONLY ADUS OF 800 SQUARE FEET. 
          I I DON'T KNOW IF WE, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE UNITS, YOU, YOU COULD MAKE THEM LARGER, BUT THEN YOU START GETTING INTO, UM, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING A UNIT THAT BIG IN THE FRONT YARD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ALLOW IT IF YOU'RE, IF IT'S ONE OF THESE UNITS, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 
          SO IF YOU START CHANGING WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THESE STATE EXEMPT UNITS, UM, YOU HAVE TO APPLY IT ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          UM, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, ONCE THEY GET OUT OF THAT STATE EXEMPT, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE LARGER , YOU CAN APPLY THOSE OTHER STANDARDS MEANING NOT ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD. 
          UM, IF THEY HAVE SPACE, THEY CAN GO UP TO THAT SIZE. 
          I WILL NOTE THAT WE CAN'T APPLY A BIGGER STEP BACK THAN FOUR FEET. 
          SO THAT'S THE CONSTRAINT. 
          THE FOUR FEET REAR INSIDE, WE DO HAVE THAT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. 
          IT'S A, IT'S A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, SO THAT WILL ADD SOME CONSTRAINT IF YOU WANNA KEEP THAT IN THE CODE. 
          YOU COULD MAKE IT LARGER IF, UM, THE UNIT'S LARGER. 
          SO DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE UNIT, THE OPEN SPACE MAYBE IS REQUIRED TO BE 200 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, SO IT COULD, IT COULD CHANGE IF YOU WANNA HAVE MORE OPEN SPACE ON THE LOT COMPARED TO THE SIZE OF THE A DU, BECAUSE I WANTED TO MENTION THE OPEN SPACE PART OF IT. 
          GETTING TO THAT, ARE WE PREVENTING ODD SHAPE LOTS FROM THEN BEING ABLE TO, IF WE KEEP IT AT A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE, DOES THAT MINIMIZE LIKE FLAG LOTS OR OTHER TYPES OF DIMENSIONS OF LOTS FROM BEING ABLE TO GET AN A DU THEN LET'S, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? LET'S PAUSE THAT LINE FOR A SECOND JUST 'CAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT COMMISSIONER NEWELL WAS ABLE TO CHIME IN ON THIS TOPIC THAT WE'VE BEEN ON FOR A FEW MINUTES. 
          YEAH, THANKS. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THE SETBACK ISSUE. 
          'CAUSE I WAS CONCERNED THAT CREATING TWO LARGER SETBACKS WAS GONNA BENEFIT LARGE LOTS AND NOT ALLOW FOR ADUS REALLY IN A SMALLER LOT SCENARIO. 
          UM, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME IMAGINING A, IF WE, WE ALLOW IT UP TO 1500 FEET FOR AN A DU, WE COULD BE ALLOWING ADUS THAT ARE LARGER THAN THE PRIMARY DWELLING. 
          AND THAT SEEMS, SEEMS ODD TO ME FROM A, YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR, THE GOALS, OR AT LEAST THE DRAFT GOALS IS TO, YOU KNOW, PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, 
          [01:30:01]
UH, AND PRIVACY. 
          HAVING A, MY MY HOME IS 1300 SQUARE FEET, YOU KNOW, A 1500 SQUARE FEET FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, YOU KNOW, SEEM, SEEMS A LITTLE OUT OF BALANCE. 
          YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S, MAYBE THE LIMIT IS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING, SO MAYBE WE'RE TALKING OURSELVES BACK INTO HAVING A PERCENTAGE, BUT MAYBE BUMPING IT UP FROM 50 TO 60 75. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH, BUT I, I HEAR YOU. 
          I THINK THAT IS, I WILL AGREE ODD, BUT I I ALSO DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY BAD. 
          YEAH, I FEEL LIKE IF YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN BUILD A 2000 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY ADRENALINE UNIT, YOU SHOULD BE DOING THAT LOT SPLIT. 
          YOU KNOW THAT WHAT IS SB NINE? CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO IF, IF YOU'RE LIVING LARGE AND YOU CAN BUILD A GIGANTIC HOME IN YOUR BACKYARD, JUST SPLIT THE LOT AND, AND I THINK YOU CAN DISTINGUISH MAYBE BETWEEN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT, YOU KNOW, A HOME THAT DWARFS THE MAIN PRIMARY HOUSE. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT I CAN SEE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          DID, I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION KIND OF ALSO THERE, THERE'S LIKE A RETROFIT, A DU SCENARIO, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO LIKE A INFILL DEVELOPMENT, A DU SCENARIO. 
          AND I FEEL LIKE THOSE LOTS ARE KIND OF, WHETHER IT'S AN SB NINE AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE OPTION TO DEVELOP TWO EQUAL SIZE UNITS. 
          ONE HAPPENS TO BE AN A DU ONE HAPPENS TO BE A PRIMARY UNIT THAT FEELS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE PARTICULAR LOT. 
          BUT I DO THINK THAT SHOULD COME UP AND FOLLOW MORE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THAT CASE. 
          UM, SO I THINK NO MATTER WHAT, IF WE'RE PERMITTING LARGER THAN A THOUSAND OR LARGER THAN, IS IT EIGHT 50 SQUARE FEET? UM, THAT THAT COMES WITH CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS. 
          YEAH, I, I'D LIKE TO PRESENT LIKE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT INSIGHTS THAT I'VE SEEN WHAT PEOPLE ARE COMING TO ASK FOR, UM, ON LARGER LOTS WHERE PEOPLE ARE BUYING A LOT WITH A HOME THAT IS POTENTIALLY VERY OLD OR VERY SMALL. 
          UM, IN SEVERAL INSTANCES WE'VE SEEN PEOPLE COME AND THEY WANT TO BUILD AN A DU, WHICH IS REALLY THEIR INTENDED PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND THEN USE THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON SITE AS THEIR EVENTUAL A DU AND THEY'RE JUST LOOKING TO PHASE THEIR CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATELY SO THAT THEY CAN AFFORD IT. 
          UM, THAT'S A SITUATION IN WHICH WE MAY WANT TO ALLOW AN A DU THAT IT QUOTE UNQUOTE AN A DU THAT IS LARGER THAN THE PRIMARY. 
          UM, SO THAT THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, U UTILIZE THE SPACE THAT THEY HAVE, UH, TO MAX BENEFIT. 
          AND I, I USUALLY SEE THIS ON LOTS WHERE THEY'RE LARGER AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS VERY SMALL AND SO THEY WANNA BUILD, UM, YOU KNOW, A STRUCTURE FOR THEIR FULL FAMILY. 
          AND THEN AS FAR AS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO BUILD A WHOLE SECOND FLOOR ON THEIR EXISTING STRUCTURE, THEY COULD DO THAT AND HAVE IT DEDICATED AS AN A DU AND THEY WOULD ONLY, IT WOULD BE THE SAME FOOTPRINT, BUT THEY WOULD ONLY BE LIMITED TO SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED IN OUR A DU ORDINANCE. 
          SO IF YOU HAD, SAY IN A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT HOME, YOU COULD UNDERCURRENT LAW BUILD A SECOND FLOOR, DUPLICATE A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT HOME 'CAUSE YOU'RE UTILIZING THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT, UM, AND THEY'RE ONLY LIMITED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF, YOU KNOW, IN THE ADUS THEY CAN, BUT THAT'S KIND OF A SCENARIO WHERE YOU COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO RESTRICT THE FOOTPRINT OF THESE UNITS FROM TAKING OVER ALL OF THE OPEN SPACE ON THE PARCEL, BUT ALLOW FOR, YOU KNOW, LARGER UNITS, UM, THAT THEY'RE STAYING WITHIN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          WHAT WE DO SEE IS, UH, WE HAVE HAD A QUESTION A COUPLE OF TIMES THAT, UM, HAS COME IN WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO PUT AN A DU IN THE FRONT YARD AND SOMETIMES THEY WANNA BUILD IT STICK-BUILT OR THEY WANT TO PUT A PREFAB UNIT IN THE FRONT YARD IN THE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR AS CLOSE FOUR FEET TO THE, TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAT'S ABUTTING THE STREET. 
          UM, STATE A LAW DOESN'T DEFINE FRONT SETBACKS OR GIVE US A MINIMUM. 
          UM, AND WHAT OUR CURRENT POLICY IS IS THAT THE A DU CAN BE, AS LARISSA SAID, THE A DU CAN BE IN THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOME. 
          IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU CAN'T FIT IT IN THE BACK, LIKE SHOW US THAT YOU CAN'T PUT IT IN THE BACK AND IF YOU CAN'T PUT IT IN THE BACK, WE LET YOU PUT IT IN THE FRONT. 
          OTHERWISE THE CURRENT, UM, THERE, THEY'RE CURRENTLY ALLOWED TO BUILD AN ATTACHED A DU THAT HAS TO SHARE, YOU KNOW, WALLS WITH THE PRIMARY RESIDENTS TO THE FRONT AS LONG AS THEY'RE WITHIN THE FRONT ZONING SETBACK. 
          SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU 
          [01:35:01]
KNOW, WE'RE CURRENTLY ALREADY DOING. 
          UM, AND THAT IS LANGUAGE AND A POLICY THAT WE HAVE CONFIRMED WITH HDD IS COMPLIANT WITH STATE A DU LAW. 
          SO THAT IS NOT AN OVERREACH. 
          LOTS OF CONSIDERATIONS. 
           UM HMM. 
          CAN I OFFER A THOUGHT ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE PLEASE? DISCUSSION? I I THINK PART OF I OBVIOUSLY MORE, UM, MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY IS GOING TO PRESUPPOSE, UM, MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD MORE, RIGHT? SO I THINK IF THAT'S THE INTENT AND THAT'S THE SOLE INTENT, THEN YOU'D WANT TO LOOK BIGGER AND BIGGER, 1500 PLUS, ET CETERA. 
          UM, WHAT WE DO SEE HOW THE MARKET SETS SALE PRICES, SO LET'S SAY WE DO SWITCH OVER TO THIS CONDO PROGRAM, UM, WHICH SEEMS TO LINE UP WITH THE INTENT OF WANTING TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, BIGGER, UM, UNITS, UH, YOU'RE GONNA GET A HIGHER PRICE POINT, RIGHT? SO AS 15, A 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOME IS JUST, IS NATURALLY GOING TO COMMAND A HIGHER PRICE. 
          AND SO IF WE'RE STILL, IF THE INTENT, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OUR MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING STRATEGY AND A DU, UM, IS ONE PIECE OF THAT LARGER STRATEGY, UM, I THINK WE JUST, WE ALSO DO NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF, OKAY, WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF GOING UP TO THAT 1500? IS IT GOING TO, IS THERE GOING TO BE THIS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF PERHAPS RAISING IT HIGHER, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU GET THE BIGGER SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          SO IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. 
          THAT SAID, I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER SEEN, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UM, WE LOOK AND READ A LOT ABOUT ADUS AND IT'S, THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE ABNORMAL TO SEE IT AT THAT SIZE. 
          UM, THERE'S A REASON WHY THESE NUMBERS ARE ALSO HERE. 
          I MEAN, A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT. 
          UM, AND ALSO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SO MUCH VARIATION IN THE DIFFERENT, UM, ZONING DISTRICTS HERE IN TOWN. 
          AGAIN, MOST OF, I MEAN, ONCE YOU HIT REALLY NORTH OF, UM, WASHINGTON, UM, ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO FIT MUCH OF THIS, RIGHT? SO IN THAT SENSE IT MAY BE A LITTLE MORE THAN IS NECESSARY. 
          UM, AND SO THERE'S SOMEWHERE, AND I'VE NEVER ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION OF WHY 1200, LIKE IT ALWAYS STICKS IN MY MIND WHY THAT NUMBER HAS ALWAYS BEEN FLOATED OUT THERE AND THERE HASN'T REALLY BEEN A GOOD REASON, UM, WHY, LIKE TO ME, IF THE STATE TALKS ABOUT 1200, UM, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT AND A 1200 SQUARE FOOT UNIT IS KIND OF NOMINAL. 
          IT'S NOT MUCH, RIGHT? SO I, I DO THINK SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA, UM, DOES CONFORM WITH SOME OF THE BIGGER INTENTIONS THAT WE HAVE WITH RESPECT TO, YOU KNOW, BUILDING SMALLER, UM, TRYING TO BUILD SOME FOR SALE UNITS. 
          UM, IT WOULDN'T BE THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S A TYPICAL SIZE THAT WE SEE ON THE MARKET RIGHT NOW, 1215, UM, A HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT, AND OF COURSE THE SMALLER STUFF IS CHEAPER, RIGHT? SO IF THAT'S THE INTENT, THEN WE MAY WANNA LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE ADUS. 
          I HAVE ANOTHER POINT ON THAT. 
          AND WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHETHER WE CAN APPLY SOME OF THE, UM, OUR ORDINANCE THAT RESTRICTS A DU SIZE TO A THOUSAND FEET. 
          AND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, GREAT MANY PARTS OF OUR ORDINANCE ARE NOT COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW. 
          UH, WE ASSUME THAT THEIR INTENTION, AND I THINK THERE'S A NEW, ONE OF THE NEW LAWS THAT CAME OUT A COUPLE DAYS AGO, CLARIFIED THAT, THAT ANY PART OF YOUR ORDINANCE CANNOT BE APPLIED. 
          SO IN PRACTICE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN RESTRICTING ADUS TO A THOUSAND FEET OR LESS, UH, BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO UNDER CURRENT STATE A DU LAW. 
          BUT IF WE IMPLEMENT AN ORDINANCE AND IT IS PASSED AS COMPLIANT, CERTIFIED AS COMPLIANT BY THE STATE, THEN WE COULD IMPOSE LESS THAN 1200 SQUARE FEET OR MORE. 
          BUT CURRENTLY WE HAVE TO DEFAULT TO WHAT THE STATE LAW IS. 
          IN THE INTEREST OF, UH, GETTING OURSELVES TO A NUMBER, I'M GONNA MAKE A SUGGESTION, WHICH IS I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER, UH, LIMIT OF 1600 SQUARE FEET WITH NO PERCENTAGE PRIMARY LIMIT AND ASSUME THAT LOT 
          [01:40:01]
SIZE WILL BE THE LIMITING FACTOR, BUT WE ARE STILL ALLOWING FOR THAT USE CASE OF BIG PLOT, SMALL OLD PRIMARY UNIT , UH, THAT SOMEONE WISHES TO BUILD A NEW. 
          SO THAT'S MY PITCH. 
          I'D SUPPORT THAT IF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CAN ALSO KIND OF DICTATE SOME OF THE MINISTERIAL REVIEW AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT SOME OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS TO HOLD THOSE TWO FURTHER THOUGHTS ON 1600 MAX, NO PERCENTAGE ELEMENT. 
          YEAH, I'M NOT ON BOARD WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT DO, WHAT DO YOU COUNTER ? I THINK, I THINK WE NEED TO RETAIN A, A PERCENTAGE OF THE PRIMARY AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK BRIAN WAS MAKING A REALLY GOOD POINT THAT THE A DU MARKET ALLOWS FOR, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, IF OUR POLICY OBJECTIVE IS TO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LESS AFFLUENT FAMILIES, THAT'S MY POLICY OBJECTIVE FOR ADUS. 
          THAT IS TO, UM, HAVE A CAP ON, ON THE SIZE, UM, EVEN, EVEN WHERE, UH, SOMEONE COULD BUILD MORE. 
          UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M, WHERE I'M COMING FROM. 
          I THINK ON THE AFFORDABILITY PIECE, I'M JUST SO SENSITIVE TO THE PART OF TOWN THAT WE'RE IN BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT LIKE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK IS REALLY VARIABLE ACROSS DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          SO I AM AGAIN INCLINED TOWARDS SORT OF WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR, FOR A FAMILY AND ASSUME THAT MUCH OF OUR, UM, PARCELS WON'T BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE. 
          I MEAN, 1600 SQUARE FEET ISN'T A PALACE TO BEGIN WITH, UM, BUT YOU KNOW, MOST PARCELS ARE GOING TO STRUGGLE ANYHOW WITH THAT. 
          BUT WE'RE SORT OF GIVING THE FLEXIBILITY FOR THOSE EDGE CASES THAT HAVE COME TO THE, TO THE WINDOW ASKING ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS A MORE, A MORE RURAL APPLICATION FOR, UH, OLDER EXISTING PRIMARY UNIT. 
          DOES THAT SWAY YOU AT ALL? WELL, THE, THE FLEXIBILITY FOR BUILDING, YOU KNOW, A BIG ONE IN THE BACKYARD AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE OLD SMALL HISTORIC BUNGALOW IN THE FRONT YARD, THAT, THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE EVEN THAT REMAINS PROBLEMATIC IN THAT THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, IS LIKE THAT. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT WOULD SORT OF CHANGE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IN A, IN A DISPROPORTIONATE WAY, UM, WITH, WITH A MUCH LARGER STRUCTURE IN IN THE BACK. 
          UM, CAN I ASK WHAT THOSE FOLKS DO NOW WHEN THEY ARE TOLD THAT, UH, THEY'VE GOT A RESTRICTION TO 50% OF THE PRIMARY? SO IF SOMEONE COMES IN WITH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE HISTORIC BUNGALOW THAT'S OLD AND, AND NEEDS A LOT OF WORK AND WE WANT TO BUILD A BIGGER, UH, SPACE FOR OUR FAMILY, DO THEY, DO THEY LEAVE TOWN? DO THEY KNOCK DOWN THE BUNGALOW FIRST AND THEN BUILD JUST THE ONE HOUSE? LIKE HOW, HOW DOES IT USUALLY PLAY OUT? SO THE RESTRICTION THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN OUR CODE IS FOR ATTACHED. 
          IT USED. 
          SO IF YOU'RE GONNA BUILD ONTO YOUR ATTACHED HOUSE, WE'RE GONNA RESTRICT IT TO BEING LESS THAN THE PRIMARY UNIT. 
          AND I, I DON'T KNOW THE ORIGIN OF THE INTENT OF THAT FROM STATE. 
          IT MIGHT BE THAT THEY WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM, UM, YOU KNOW, BUILDING AN A DU AND THEN TAKING DOWN A WALL LATER WITHOUT A PERMIT AND JUST ADDING ONTO THEIR PRIMARY. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          BUT CURRENTLY FOR OUR DETACHED ADUS, WE HAVE BEEN, UH, PERMITTING ADUS UP TO 1200 SQUARE FEET. 
          GOT IT. 
          AND THERE'S NO PERCENTAGE, UM, CALCULATION INVOLVED. 
          GOT IT. 
          WOULD IT HELP IF IT WAS RESTRICTED TO LIKE A MUCH LARGER LOT THAT IMPLIES NOT LIKE AN IN-TOWN LOT, BUT RATHER LIKE A ONE ACRE PROPERTY, A TWO ACRE PROPERTY, A HALF ACRE PROPERTY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? 'CAUSE I COULD SEE LIKE THERE BEING A KIND OF A BALANCING ACT TO, TO FIGURING OUT WHAT DOES MEET URBAN COMPATIBILITY, 
          [01:45:05]
WHAT WE COULD DO, UM, JUST TO MOVE THE CONVERSATION ALONG. 
          UM, IT WOULDN'T TAKE MUCH FOR US TO DO THE ANALYSIS, UM, ON OUR EXISTING, UM, LAND USE WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, JUST TO GIVE US A SENSE, GIVE THE COMMISSION A SENSE, GIVE THE PUBLIC, GIVE OUR, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS A SENSE OF WHAT DO WE GOT ACROSS THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, RIGHT? AND WHAT'S THE POTENTIAL IMPACT? SO NOW THAT WE HAVE THESE NUMBERS, UM, IN MIND, TAKING IT A STEP FURTHER AND LOOKING AT THE FEASIBILITY JUST TO POTENTIALLY ASSUAGE SOME OF THE CONCERNS, UM, IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE GONNA GAME IT RIGHT? HOW MANY 1600 SQUARE FOOT  ADUS COULD WE NET? UM, YOU KNOW, I I I DO THINK THAT'S PRETTY FEASIBLE FOR US TO LOOK AT. 
          THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. 
          SO WITH ALL ALL OF THOSE THOUGHTS,  AND THE SPIRIT OF THOSE THOUGHTS IN MIND, GIVEN THAT WE ARE NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING TONIGHT, UH, AND, AND ARE ARE INDEED IN A STUDY SESSION, DO WE WANNA MOVE OFF OF THIS ONE WITHOUT AS DEFINITIVE AN ANSWER AS PERHAPS WE HAD ORIGINALLY SOUGHT? YES, WE CAN MOVE ALONG. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I THINK WE HAVE THE GENERAL IDEA THAT WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS MORE PERMISSIVE, AT LEAST A THOUSAND, UM, AND MAYBE MORE. 
          GREAT. 
          SO WE CAN, UH, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU WITH MORE INFORMATION, IT SOUNDS, DO YOU WANNA SEE WHAT AWAITS US ON THE NEXT OKAY. 
          ANY SIZE? SO THIS, THIS SLIDE, UM, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO LINGER ON THIS ONE. 
          UM, THERE'S NOT MUCH, UH, TO, TO CONSIDER WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY INTERIOR, A DU CONVERSIONS. 
          THOSE ARE LIMITED BY THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING DWELLING OR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS BEING CREATED FROM. 
          UM, SIMILAR WITH THE ADUS, THOSE ARE RESTRICTED BY THE STATE TO 500 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, GENERALLY THOSE ARE SMALLER BECAUSE OF THE SMALLER KITCHEN SIZE AND THE BATHROOM. 
          UM, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A BATHROOM THEY CAN SHARE WITH THE PRIMARY. 
          SO THAT'S THE, UM, LIMITING FACTOR I THINK WITH THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          SO THEY'RE MEANT TO BE SMALLER, THEY, UM, CAN BE DEPENDENT ON THE PRIMARY. 
          SO IF YOU, IF WE CAN'T, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WE, THEN WE CAN, OR I CAN JUST SKIP AHEAD. 
          I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED ON THIS. 
          YES. 
          SETBACKS. 
          SETBACKS, YES. 
          SO, UM, WITH THE SETBACKS, UM, THE MINIMUM OR THE MAXIMUM THE CITY CAN, UH, REQUIRE FOR AN A DU IS FOUR FEET, AND THAT'S ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL ADUS. 
          UM, IF THERE'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, UM, LIKE A DETACHED GARAGE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR LESS THAN FOUR FEET, IF IT'S BEING CONVERTED TO AN A DU OR EVEN BEING DEMOLISHED AND AN A DU IS GOING INTO THAT SAME SPACE, UM, WE CAN'T REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS. 
          UM, SO THAT'S WHAT THE STATE, UM, IS TELLING US WITH THE MINIMUM IS. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN GO, UM, YOU CAN REDUCE SETBACKS, UM, HOWEVER YOU LIKE. 
          UM, THEY JUST CAN'T NOT BE MORE THAN FOUR FEET. 
          I JUST HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT THIS. 
          HOW, HOW DOES THIS PLAY OUT WITH THE SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICES LIKE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS OR OTHER ACCESS POINTS? BECAUSE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU'RE RUNNING INTO CONFLICTS THERE POTENTIALLY DO, HAS, DID ANYONE LOOK AT THAT? IT, IT DOES, UM, HAPPEN SOMETIMES, UM, WHERE PEOPLE PROPOSE A AIR CONDITIONING UNIT CLOSER TO THE REAR SIDE SETBACK THAN IS ALLOWED. 
          USUALLY THERE ARE TWO SIDES AT LEAST OF THE A DU THAT AREN'T A BUDDING A SETBACK. 
          UM, SO THERE ARE OPTIONS, HOPEFULLY  FOR THEM TO MOVE THE, UM, THE DOOR, THE ACCESS POINT OR THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, TO A DIFFERENT WALL. 
          SO IT'S NOT BUMPING OR IT'S NOT ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK, UM, REQUIREMENT. 
          SO ELENA CAN SPEAK MORE TO IT, BUT THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT WE DO. 
          WE JUST RECOMMEND THAT THEY MOVE THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT TO THE OTHER WALL. 
          YEAH, OUR SECTION OF THE CODE THAT GOVERNS WHAT CAN BE IN A SETBACK THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE IS 12, UH, OH FIVE OH. 
          AND THE MAJORITY OF MY COMMENTS ON ADUS TEND TO BE ABOUT YES, YOUR A DU CAN BE THERE, BUT YOU HAVE TO MOVE THAT MINI SPLIT HVAC UNIT SOMEWHERE ELSE. 
          OR, UM, IN SOME CASES WHERE 
          [01:50:01]
AN ESSENTIAL LANDING IS REQUIRED TO BE OUTSIDE OF A SETBACK, THE ENTIRETY OF IT HAS TO BE OUTSIDE THE SETBACK. 
          UM, EVEN THOUGH THE A DU STRUCTURE ITSELF IS THERE, WE CAN'T HAVE, UH, AN ESSENTIAL LANDING FROM THE BUILDING INTO THAT SIDE AREA. 
          SO WE'LL HAVE TO LIKE, HAVE THEM REORIENT THE ENTRANCE SOMEWHERE ELSE IF THEY CAN. 
          UM, THOSE TEND TO BE, UH, MOST OF MY COMMENTS I'D SUGGEST. 
          WE, UH, ALTHOUGH I I'M A PROPONENT OF MAINTAINING MAXIMUM SETBACKS IN GENERAL FOR PRIVACY, I THINK ALIGNING IT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES OR BORROWING WHICHEVER'S LOWER FEELS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO RELAX SOME OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON DENSER LOTS. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING TO ALIGN WITH THIS ZONING DISTRICTS THIS SECOND BULLET MM-HMM . 
          OPTION. 
          MM-HMM. 
          YEAH. 
          AND JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, LIKE ADUS CAN'T HAVE WINDOWS ON A ZERO ZERO FOOT SIDE SETBACK LINE, OR THERE'S A LIMIT TO OPENINGS LOOKING ONTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITHIN A CERTAIN SETBACK, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          THE, YES, THERE ARE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, UM, WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING ON A PROPERTY LINE OR EVEN WITHIN, I THINK IT'S THREE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, THERE'S CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS WHEN YOU'RE THAT CLOSE. 
          WOULD IT MEAN ON A ZERO FOOT SETBACK LINE THAT IF A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS ALSO ALREADY AT A ZERO FOOT SETBACK LINE AND HAS LIKE A BATHROOM OR A BEDROOM WINDOW THAT THE A DU HAS A RIGHT TO OBSTRUCT THAT? OR IS THERE A WAY TO AVOID SOMETHING LIKE THAT? UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS THAT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. 
          IF IT, I MEAN, IT WOULD APPLY TO A PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS WELL. 
          UM, SO IF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAS A ZERO FOOT SETBACK AND THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE ALSO DOES, SO I'M SURE WE DEAL WITH THAT, UM, IN OTHER INSTANCES, BUT THIS IS A MINISTERIAL APPROVAL, SO IT WOULDN'T BE COMING TO A PLANNING COMMISSION TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT. 
          UM, SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. 
          IT GETS COMPLICATED WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING ON A PROPERTY LINE. 
          UM, NOT ONLY ARE YOU, UM, VERY CLOSE TO YOUR PROPERTY, YOUR NEIGHBORS, EVEN MAINTENANCE ON, ON A BUILDING IS DIFFICULT. 
          YOU HAVE TO GET PERMISSION TO GO ONTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY IF YOU WANNA DO ANY MAINTENANCE ON YOUR WALL. 
          SO TYPICALLY PEOPLE DON'T,  DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY BUILD RIGHT THERE ON A PROPERTY LINE. 
          UM, SO I MEAN, IT COULD BE THAT YOU HAVE TWO FEET OR, OR ENOUGH TO, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE SOME ACCESS AROUND THE UNIT. 
          UM, SO MAYBE ZERO FOOT SETBACK IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU'D WANT TO CONSIDER. 
          UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S AN OPTION THAT IS THERE. 
          UM, BUT IT DOES MAKE IT A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO REGULATE. 
          I THINK AS, AS YOU OUTLINED IT, THIS EXAMPLE OF TARGETED REDUCED SETBACK, STANDARD OF FOUR FEET OR THE SETBACK OF THE PRIMARY, WHICHEVER IS LOWER LOGICALLY MAKES GOOD SENSE TO ME. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, IF MUCH OF OUR FOCUS ON SETBACK IS PRIVACY AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER ALIGNING TO THE PRIMARY, UM, MAKES LOGICAL SENSE TO ME. 
          HAVE THERE BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ISSUED ABOUT ADUS GOING UP BY NEIGHBORS THAT HAVEN'T HAD LIKE, OPPORTUNITIES TO BE NOTIFIED? WE, WE DO GET THOSE. 
          UM, SOMETIMES I THINK PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN USED TO THEM OVER THE YEARS. 
          UM, BUT WHEN THE STATE STARTED TO CHANGE THOSE REGULATIONS AND THEY STARTED TO BE BUILT WITHOUT NOTICES, WE DID HAVE NEIGHBORS WHO WOULD COME IN AND SAY, WHY DIDN'T I GET A NOTICE? I, THERE'S A, MY NEIGHBOR'S BUILDING RIGHT HERE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          UM, AND SO YEAH, IT HAS, UM, STARTED. 
          PEOPLE DON'T COME TO US AS OFTEN ANYMORE. 
          I THINK THE EDUCATION ON ADUS IS, IS STARTING TO SEEP THROUGH EVERYTHING. 
          NOT ONLY IF YOU BUILD AN A DU, BUT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, UM, THAT ADUS ARE, UM, BEING BUILT EVERYWHERE. 
          THERE'S ONE GENERAL CASE WHERE WE SEE, UM, STATE EU LAW ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE A DETACHED EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND USE THAT FOOTPRINT, UH, EVEN IF IT HAS NON-COMPLIANCE SETBACKS AND REPLACE IT AND REBUILD A A DU IN THAT EXISTING, UM, FOOTPRINT. 
          AND WE SEE THAT A LOT IN THE OLDER PARTS OF TOWN WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE AT, OR IN SOME CASES EVEN OVER THE PROPERTY LINE ONTO THEIR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. 
          AND, UM, IN THOSE CASES, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ALLOW THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS TO REBUILD OR BUILD 
          [01:55:01]
A A DU IN ON THE ZERO LOT LINE. 
          UM, THEIR NEIGHBORS CERTAINLY AREN'T THRILLED ABOUT IT. 
          UM, BUT WE HAVE TO DO THAT AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT. 
          UH, THERE ARE A COUPLE, MOST RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS HAVE A, YOU KNOW, FOUR TO A THREE TO FIVE FOOT ISH MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK. 
          UM, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME EXISTING PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING RESIDENCES IN OTHER DISTRICTS SUCH AS, UH, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS PARK, UM, AND, UH, MIXED USE. 
          AND IN SOME OF THOSE DISTRICTS THERE CAN BE ZERO FOOT SIDE SETBACKS. 
          UM, AND THAT IS ALWAYS A QUESTION OF HOW WE DEAL WITH, UH, PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE IN A DISTRICT THAT ISN'T DESIGNED FOR RESIDENTS RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          THOUGHTS ON MOVING FORWARD WITH A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION OF THIS TARGETED REDUCED SETBACK STANDARD? DO WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT? NEUTRAL TO GOOD ABOUT IT?  ALL RIGHT. 
          NO STRONG OBJECTIONS, . 
          YEAH, I, I I THINK THAT'S STAYING IN LINE WITH WHAT THE PROPERTY ALREADY HAS IS YEAH, THE GREAT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. 
          GREAT. 
          PERFECT. 
          LET'S CLICK ON FORWARD HEIGHT. 
          OH BOY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO , THE FIRST ONE I THINK WE'VE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED ABOUT THIS ONE, THIS IS THE ATTACHED ADU. 
          UM, IT ALIGNS WITH OUR ZONING DISTRICTS CURRENTLY, UNLESS YOU WANTED TO GO ABOVE 25 FEET, UM, WE CAN SKIP ON THROUGH THAT ONE. 
          UM, THAT WOULD MEAN THE A DU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE TALLER THAN THE PRIMARY DWELLING. 
          UM, AND THEN THE DETACHED ADUS, UM, FOR THE STATE IT'S 16 FEET OR 18 FEET WHEN IT'S IN A HALF MILE WALKING DISTANCE OF THE MAJOR TRANSIT STOP. 
          CURRENTLY WE ALLOW 21 FEET. 
          UM, SO, UH, YOU COULD ALLOW ALL DETACHED A USE TO BE 18 FEET PLUS THOSE TWO FEET FOR THE ROOF PITCH OR INCREASE IT TO SOMETHING ABOVE THE 21 FEET. 
          UM, SO I'LL HAND IT BACK TO YOU. 
          I'M A CLARIFYING QUESTION ABOUT, SO DOES THE STATE USE THE SAME MEASURING TECHNIQUE THAT PETALUMA USES FOR THE HEIGHT? THEY DON'T TELL US HOW TO MEASURE HEIGHT, THEY JUST SAY THE HEIGHT. 
          UM, THEY LEAVE THAT TO CITIES. 
          UM, SO WE ARE MORE, I WOULD SAY MORE GENEROUS WITH HOW WE MEASURE HEIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO WE COULD APPLY IT A DIFFERENT HEIGHT FOR A DU SPECIFICALLY. 
          OKAY. 
          OR AS IT'S WRITTEN CURRENTLY, I THINK IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, IT POINTS TO OUR, OUR MEASUREMENT FOR THE ICO. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT I'M GONNA SAY IT OUT LOUD AND SEE WHAT REACTION IT GETS. 
           WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT LAND USE. 
          WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. 
          HEIGHT HAS COME UP A LOT AND I AM INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING THE IDEA OF REMOVING A LIMITATION AND INSTEAD RELYING ON THE ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE THOSE ARE WHAT WILL BE WELL CONSIDERED AND INTENTIONAL FROM A A, A CONFORMING STANDPOINT THAT I FEEL LIKE WE WILL GET OURSELVES, UH, WHERE WE NEED TO GO IN TERMS OF LIKE, NOTHING CRAZY OUT OF THE NORM WILL GET PLOPPED ON A PARCEL. 
          AND AS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD EVOLVES AND ITS ZONING EVOLVES AND THE ZONING STANDARDS EVOLVE, SO TOO CAN THE A DU HEIGHT ALLOWANCES. 
          I WONDER IN THE SITUATION OF YOU'RE SHORT ON SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PROPERTY, BUT YOU'RE PERMITTED TO BUILD UP TO WHATEVER, 28 FEET, IF YOU'RE GOING WITH A TWO STORY, 400 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT AND IT BECOMES LIKE A LITTLE SALT BOX OR SOMETHING ODD, LIKE I WOULD CONSIDER THAT WE'VE GOT A VERY SMALL LOT, I DON'T KNOW, UM, IF THAT PAVES THE WAY FOR KIND OF MORE CREATIVE CONFIGURATIONS. 
           ODD, BUT NOT BAD . 
          YEAH,  ODD, BUT NOT NECESSARILY BAD. 
          I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. 
          UM, LOGICALLY SPEAKING TO, YOU KNOW, ADOPT A PREVAILING, YOU KNOW, CODE, 
          [02:00:06]
CAN WE ENCOURAGE THAT TO BE DRAFTED? DO YOU NEED FURTHER FROM US ABOUT IT? NO, I, I WILL SAY THAT THE PRIVACY ISSUE, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO TOUCH ON THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO STORY ADUS ON FOUR FEET FROM THE REAR AND THE SIDE, UM, IN THE BACK OF THOSE PROPERTIES. 
          SO THEN THEY'RE POSSIBLY LOOKING INTO THEIR NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD, WHICH TENDS TO CAUSE  NEIGHBOR PROBLEMS MORE THAN THE SINGLE STORY ADUS DO. 
          UM, BUT THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY DRAFT A ORDINANCE THAT INCLUDES THAT. 
          UM, AND WE CAN TOUCH ON THE PRIVACY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR TWO STORY ADUS AS WELL. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK LOGICALLY IF SOMEONE WERE TO KNOCK DOWN THEIR PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND THEY'RE THEREFORE BUILDING A NEW IN TODAY'S STANDARDS, THEN THEY MAY END UP WITH A TWO STORY HOUSE. 
          YOU KNOW, IT JUST, THAT SEEMS LIKE, UM, PART OF THE EVOLUTION. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS ON, UM, I DON'T, I THINK THESE FALL UNDER SUBJECTIVE, NOT OBJECTIVE, BUT I'LL ASK IT ANYWAY. 
          UM, ON ROOF MASSING AND DESIGN, LIKE CAN WE REQUIRE PITCHED ROOFS AS AN OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD AT ALL? IF YOU'RE EXCEEDING A CERTAIN NUMBER OF STORIES OR, I'M JUST, JUST WONDERING HOW WE MIGHT RESTRICT FOLKS FROM DEVELOPING A SUPER TALL A DU WITH A FLAT ROOF, SAY IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS THE MATCHING HEIGHT, BUT NOT IT, IT DOESN'T FIT WITHIN THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY OF THINGS. 
          WE COULD, WE COULD HAVE A DEVELOPMENT OR A OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT REQUIRES IT MATCH THE PITCH OF THE ROOF, UM, OF THE EXISTING. 
          IF THAT'S SOMETHING FOR THESE PARTICULAR UNITS THAT ARE OVER TWO STORIES, UM, WE COULD APPLY IT OBJECTIVE STANDARD LIKE THAT WOULD WE SAY LIKE MATCH THE PITCH OF THE ROOF, GIVE OR TAKE 10, 20%. 
          JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF DESIGN FLEXIBILITY. 
          I'VE LIKE HAD ANECDOTES OF LIKE OUR NEIGHBORS COMING BACK WITH LIKE, STORIES OF ROOF PITCH BECOMING LIKE A REALLY TENUOUS SUBJECT WITHIN PRESERVATION AND HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          SO I GUESS I WONDER LIKE WHERE IS, WHERE'S, YEAH, HOW DO YOU GOVERN THAT? BECAUSE IT BECOMES LIKE A SUBJECTIVE STANDARD, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING UP IN HEIGHT, YOU WANNA BE EXTRA KIND OF CONSIDERATE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MASSING AND IT'S, IT'S NEIGHBORING CONDITIONS. 
          I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO CRAFT AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD ABOUT THE, THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF. 
          UM, THAT'S QUANTIFIABLE. 
          WE CAN, YOU JUST HAVE TO TELL US WHAT THE ROOF OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY SLOPE IS AND, AND TELL US WHAT THE PROPOSED A DU IS AND WE CAN SAY, YES, THEY ARE THE SAME OR WITHIN 10 DEGREES, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. 
          UM, SO THAT IS, THAT'S A STANDARD WE COULD APPLY I THINK. 
          UM, BUT YEAH, UH, MASSING OR THINGS THAT WE REQUIRE SOME SORT OF A SUBJECTIVE, UM, STANDARD. 
          I, I WOULDN'T SUGGEST GOING DOWN THAT ROAD . 
          DOES STAFF FORESEE ANY, LIKE, I GUESS OF THE A DU APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED? MOST OF THEM ARE SMALLER. 
          THEY'RE MOSTLY SINGLE STORY. 
          I THINK THEY LEND THEMSELVES WELL TO WORKING WITHIN THE EXISTING KIND OF HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. 
          IF, IF WE ENLARGE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY. 
          I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          IS THERE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS OR LIKE BASED ON OTHER APPLICATIONS OR CASE STUDIES YOU'VE ALL COME ACROSS? I WILL SAY TWO STORY EIGHTIES ARE MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD. 
          UM, SO WE DON'T SEE A TON OF THEM. 
          UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN, YOU CAN GET A TWO STORY A DU WITH 21 FEET , UM, BUT ATTACHED ADUS YES, YOU CAN, WE GET THE 25 FEET. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ALINA HAS, YEAH, SO THE 16 FOOT RESTRICTION TYPICALLY KEEPS ALL STRUCTURES UNDER A SINGLE STORY, BUT PEOPLE WILL START BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE HEIGHT BUT PLAY WITH THE PITCH. 
          WE START SEEING A LOT OF THE, UH, ANGLED ROOFS WHERE, SO THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, ACCOMMODATE SOME KIND OF LOFT. 
          UM, AND DEPENDING ON WHERE THAT LOFT IS ORIENTED, IF IT'S ORIENTED TOWARDS THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN YOU GET A LOT OF MASS TOWARDS THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND IF IT'S ORIENTED TOWARDS THE INTERIOR, THEN IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AS BURDENSOME ON SIDE PROPERTIES. 
          UM, 
          [02:05:01]
PRIOR TO 2020, UM, PETALUMA WAS MORE FAIRLY GENEROUS ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND THEY ALLOWED, IF YOU HAD A FIVE FOOT STEP REAR SETBACK, YOU COULD HAVE A HEIGHT OF 21 FEET AND THAT'S WHERE THE 21 COMES FROM. 
          SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY BY PULLING DOWN TO 16 FEET AND ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY OF A TWO FLOOR A DU. 
          UM, WHAT WE SAY NOW IS IF YOU WANNA GO HIGHER THAN 16 FEET, YOU NEED TO STEP IT ONE FOOT BACK OFF OF THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN YOUR HEIGHT LIMIT IS 21 FEET. 
          AND SO I IMAGINE YOU COULD DO SOME KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE TO DO OR EVEN LEGAL TO DO TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A A, A OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT WORKS WITH SETBACKS, UH, PER FOR HEIGHT. 
          I'M GONNA BREAK MY OWN RECOMMENDATION AGAIN AND SAY MAYBE NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO TALK ABOUT WHAT LEVERS ARE AT OUR DISPOSABLE FOR PRIVACY, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE A RECURRING THEME AROUND THESE, UM, NUMBERS. 
          IF, IF WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE BOUNDARIES TO ENSURE PRIVACY, WHAT, WHAT ARE OUR OBJECTIVE LEVERS TO PULL? UH, I THINK, WELL THE ONE WE HAVE IN OUR CODE CURRENTLY IS ABOUT SECOND STORY WINDOWS. 
          UM, IT'S NOT OBJECTIVE. 
          UM, BUT I THINK I, I CAN CLICK THROUGH TO IT. 
          THIS ONE HERE. 
          UM, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN OUR IEO AND THEN TRYING TO CRAFT SOMETHING THAT WAS OBJECTIVE, UM, WITH NUMBERS,  INCLUDED, SO CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE FLOOR, UM, AND IT REALLY DESCRIBING EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO SEE AND WHICH WINDOWS WOULD NEED TO BE DESIGNED IN THIS WAY, UM, THAT WE COULD APPLY, UM, TO TWO STORY ADUS WHEN THEY'RE WITHIN THE SIDE, YOU KNOW, UH, WITHIN FOUR FEET OF THE, OF A SHARED PROPERTY LINE. 
          UM, ANY WINDOW THAT'S NOT ON THAT SHARED PROPERTY LINE THAT'S FACING TOWARDS THE, THE PROPERTY, THE HOUSE WOULD NOT HAVE TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS. 
          IT'S JUST THE ONES THAT ARE FACING THE, THE NEIGHBORS. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER TYPES OF YOU HAVE. 
          UH, WE ALSO SEE AND HAVE REQUIRED THAT, UH, THE GLASS IN THOSE WINDOWS BE MADE OPAQUE. 
          UM, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T, I MEAN THEY CAN CERTAINLY WHEN OPEN, IF THEY'RE BELOW AT EYE LINE, LINE OF SIGHT, THEN YOU COULD SEE OUT OF IT. 
          BUT, UM, OTHER THINGS THAT ARE HARDER THAT I'VE SEEN PEOPLE SUGGEST BUT ARE IN OUR CODE AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS AS LIKE SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, SCREENING TREATMENTS, FENCING, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD UPDATE OUR CODE IF THOSE THINGS COULD BE OBJECTIVE. 
          UM, AND THERE ARE OTHER CODES THAT, UM, ONLINE LANDSCAPING AND, AND SCREENING FENCING, UM, THAT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT. 
          CAN I PUT YOU ON THE SPOT FOR HOW THIS FEELS AN ARCHITECT OR WHAT OTHER SUGGESTIONS MIGHT BE VALUABLE? UH, I THINK HEIGHT IS TENUOUS. 
          , I THINK YOU GIVE FOLKS HEIGHT, THEY'LL USE HEIGHT AND UM, THAT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD THING, BUT I THINK WE NEED LIKE SOME PRETTY STURDY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS TO RESTRICT THE PRIVACY. 
          I THINK CLAIRE'S STORIES ARE A GREAT WAY TO DO IT. 
          UM, I DO WORRY ABOUT LIKE SHADING, LIKE SHADOW CASTING TOO, OR VIEW CORRIDORS, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          JUST WHERE HEIGHT STARTS TO BUILD UP. 
          BUT IT FEELS LIKE THE 21 FEET, THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO TO TRIGGER A TWO STORY. 
          AND I THINK IF ANYTHING, IF WE COULD APPLY A LARGER HEIGHT, IT MAY BE JUST MOST PRACTICAL IN A BIGGER LOT. 
          AGAIN, , YOU MENTIONED OPAQUE WINDOWS AS AN OPTION. 
          IS, IS THAT A SUFFICIENTLY OBJECTIVE STANDARD? LIKE, OR LIKE, LIKE THE CLARA STORY? WINDOWS ARE SEEM GOOD, BUT AN ALTERNATIVE WINDOWS YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH. 
          I THINK IF YOU NEED EGRESS WINDOWS FOR BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS OKAY. 
          FOR EMERGENCY EGRESS AND YOU CAN'T, AND YOU CAN'T ONLY HAVE CLAIRE STORY WINDOWS. 
          OKAY, THEN USING OPAQUE GLAZING WOULD BE ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, NEXT BEST THING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ORIENTATION OF BALCONIES AWAY FROM SIDE PROPERTY LINES. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THAT KIND OF THING. 
          IS IT WRITTEN INTO THE CODE THAT THE 
          [02:10:01]
OPAQUE TREATMENT NEEDS TO BE A PERMANENT ONE? 'CAUSE WE'VE SEEN FILMS GO ON AND FOLKS PEEL FILMS OFF . 
          IT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S HARD TO, UH, REQUIRE AND EVEN SOMETIMES WE'VE HAD, UH, CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE BUILDER DIDN'T READ THE NOTE AND ORDER A CLEAR WINDOW. 
          SO IT'S BEEN HARD TO, UH, IMPOSE AND WE, IT'S NOT, UM, A STANDARD THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY LEGALLY REQUIRE RIGHT NOW UNDER STATE A DU LAW. 
          SO, BUT I WOULD THINK IF THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM, RIGHT? LET'S SAY A NEIGHBOR CALLS THAT IN, I MEAN, WE HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT RIGHT, TO ADDRESS IT, RIGHT? THAT'S WHERE PRIVACY IS SO SUBJECTIVE THAT IT MIGHT BE THAT YOU'RE UP ON THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE FACING MY PANTRY AND WHO CARES OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR DOESN'T ACTUALLY CAUSE THAT BIG AN ISSUE. 
          SO CAN WE JUST SAY WE WANT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR PRIVACY AND YOU BRING US BACK LIKE A PROPOSAL FOR THAT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE DOING A LITTLE BIT OF SAUSAGE MAKING HERE ON THIS AND I THINK WE ALL WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PRIVACY'S TAKEN SERIOUSLY, BUT LIKE, I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE, I JUST FEEL LIKE I'M GETTING LOST IN ALL THE CONVERSATION BACK AND FORTH SURE. 
          TO BE HONEST. 
          SURE. 
          YEP. 
          WE CAN, UM, COME UP WITH A COUPLE MORE. 
          JUST WANTING TO KNOW IF YOU ARE THINKING OF OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR PRIVACY MORE TOWARDS TWO STORY ADUS BEING BUILT WITHIN FOUR FEET OF REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS. 
          SO OBJECTIVE PRIVACY STANDARDS GEARED TOWARDS THOSE. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WE, WE WANT TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY IN THE MINI IN, IN THE, IN THE MAXIMUMS, BUT SORT OF PUSH IN FROM, FROM THE OUTSIDE TO BE SURE, UM, THAT IT'S WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO THAT WE WENT THROUGH HEIGHT AND TOOK A DETOUR TO PRIVACY. 
           PARKING, WAS THAT NEXT ONE MORE? YEAH. 
          YES. 
          PARKING. 
          UM, I THINK WE GOT A PRETTY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'D LIKE TO KEEP THE NO PARKING REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, BUT IF I'M HEARING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, MY ONLY CONCERN IS IF YOU INTRODUCE THREE A DU UNITS TO A LOT THAT'S MUCH DIFFERENT, AT LEAST IN MY KNOWLEDGE, THAN ONE OR TWO POTENTIAL IF YOU INCLUDE A-J-A-D-U. 
          SO JUST THE POTENTIAL OUTCOME IS YOU'VE GOT FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS NOW PARKING WITH ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT'S WORTH OF SPACES THAT DOES INCREASE THE LOAD BEYOND I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN FOR CURRENT A DU DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND IT, IT FEELS LIKE CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS MIGHT FEEL THAT STRESS MORE THAN OTHERS THAN YES. 
          I, I AGREE. 
          SO NOW WE'RE CONSIDERING FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELL, SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, THEY ARE PERMITTED THREE UNITS, A-J-A-D-U, A NEW, UM, CONSTRUCTION, A DU AND AN INTERNAL CONVERSION, A DU. 
          NONE OF THOSE WE CAN REQUIRE PARKING ON. 
          UM, THE CON INTERNAL A DU OR THE JADU COULD BE A GARAGE CONVERSION. 
          IT COULD REPLACE ALL THE GARAGE SPACE FOR PARKING AND WE CANNOT REQUIRE PARKING TO BE REPLACED. 
          SO THOSE ARE ALL THINGS TO CONSIDER. 
          UM, SO THAT IS OFF THE TABLE. 
          WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THERE. 
          UM, IF YOU WANT TO REQUIRE PARKING FOR OTHER TYPES OF ADUS, THE MINIMUM IS, IS HERE, WHICH IS THE ONE PARKING SPACE, UM, FOR EACH BEDROOM AT STUDIOS DON'T REQUIRE PARKING SPACE. 
          UM, BUT, AND THERE'S, UM, THE EXCEPTION FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS, IS PRETTY GENEROUS. 
          UM, THE LOCATION NEAR TRANSIT IS NOT THE MAJOR TRANSIT STOP. 
          IT IS A BUS STOP. 
          UM, WHICH MEANS PROBABLY MOST OF PETALUMA  WOULD BE, EXCEPT FROM THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, I HAVEN'T DONE, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT A MAP RECENTLY, BUT IT'S A PRETTY EASY STANDARD TO MEET. 
          SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU DECIDE TO GO WITH THE STATE MINIMUM, IT MIGHT NOT BE APPLIED VERY OFTEN. 
          UM, SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER COMES MY, YEAH, I'M INCLINED TO, UM, NOT ESTABLISH PARKING STANDARDS. 
          UM, LIKE OVER THIS AREA OVER HERE HAS NO BUS STOPS. 
          SO LIKE THAT AREA WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH, UM, WOULD BE IMPACTED. 
          AND 
          [02:15:01]
THIS DOESN'T SUPPOSE WE GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE ALL OF A SUDDEN THESE THINGS JUST START POPPING UP AND EVERY LOT HAS THREE ON THERE, IT WOULDN'T PREVENT US FROM BEING LIKE, OKAY, FOLKS, WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM. 
          WE NEED TO APPLY PARKING STANDARDS TO THIS. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS JUST LIKE, WE ACTUALLY WANNA SEE HOUSING BUILT AND WE'RE LESS CONCERNED ABOUT, LIKE, IMPACTING PARKING. 
          ALL OF OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR STREETS, YOU KNOW, I THINK PRETTY WELL HAVE ENOUGH PARKING. 
          MOST OF THE SUBURBAN STREETS THAT I'M AWARE OF, AT LEAST FEW AREAS OF THE CITY, MAYBE NOT SO MUCH. 
          BUT, UM, SO I'M INCLINED TO, YOU KNOW, WAIVE THE PARKING STANDARDS AT THIS POINT. 
          YOU COULD COME BACK AND REQUIRE PARKING FOR THOSE ONES THAT FALL OUT OF THE, THE STATE EXEMPT ONES. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO THAT WE COULD DO, UM, SO IF YOU WANNA KEEP THE NO PARKING REQUIREMENT NOW, AND YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY WE DON'T, THE THREE UNITS IS PRETTY NEW. 
          WE DON'T SEE THAT VERY OFTEN. 
          WE SEE ONE, UM, NOBODY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE EVER HAD TWO ADUS, MAYBE WE HAVE AN A DU AND A JDU VERY RARELY. 
          UM, BUT, UM, I'VE NEVER SEEN THREE. 
          SO, UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S A NEW LAW. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S A, IT'LL TAKE SOME TIME FOR PEOPLE TO UPTICK ON THIS AND, AND REALIZE THEY CAN CONSTRUCT THAT MANY, BUT CURRENTLY IT'S NOT HAPPENING. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK I'M HEARING AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN THE NO MINIMUM PARKING POLICY, OBVIOUSLY, UH, WITH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CAVEAT THAT IF IT BECOMES, UH, UH, AN ISSUE WE WOULD POTENTIALLY BRING BACK THE, UM, ORDINANCE TO, TO ADDRESS IT. 
          AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOUR ANALYSIS OF LOT SIZE AND SORT OF LIKE HOW MANY PARCELS COULD EVEN ACCOMMODATE 1600, IF THAT EXERCISE COULD ALSO EASILY ACCOMMODATE THE, HOW MANY LOTS WOULD EVEN BE NON-EXEMPT FROM PARKING. 
          UM, THAT COULD BE A HELPFUL EXERCISE BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE AREN'T THAT MANY PARTS OF TOWN THAT WOULD BE EVEN ABLE TO INSTITUTE ANY TYPE OF PARKING MINIMUM GIVEN THE LENIENT, UM, EXEMPTION POLICY HERE UNDER STATE MANDATED. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL GO ON TO OPEN SPACE. 
          I'LL PUT OUT A PITCH AND SAY, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ALIGN WITH THE STATE AND HAVE NO MANDATE NODS ALL AROUND. 
          OKAY. 
          GREAT. 
          THAT WAS QUICK. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          , THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, A DU OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, UM, CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE, NONE OF THEM ARE OBJECTIVE. 
          UM, WE CANNOT APPLY THEM. 
          UM, THEY'RE PRETTY HARD TO CRAFT AS OBJECTIVE. 
          UM, I'VE PROVIDED A COUPLE EXAMPLES. 
          WE CAN ALSO INCLUDE THEM IN A HANDBOOK AS RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE. 
          UM, WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING ADUS, OF COURSE, NONE OF THESE WOULD APPLY TO THOSE 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 3 UNITS. 
          WE CANNOT APPLY, UM, HISTORIC DISTRICT STANDARDS TO THOSE. 
          UM, BUT THEY ARE ONE STORY. 
          THEY, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE HOPEFULLY AS, UM, IMPACTFUL AS THE LARGER UNITS OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ATTACHED. 
          SO THOSE UNITS DO NOT INCLUDE ATTACHED ADUS. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR AN HISTORIC DISTRICT, AN ATTACHED A DU MAY REMOVED SIDING OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT STRUCTURE. 
          UM, SO THAT'S WHERE WE WANNA, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT HOW, HOW TO APPLY STANDARDS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS. 
          UM, SO WHATEVER FEEDBACK YOU HAVE, CAN YOU REQUIRE IT MATCH THE LOOK AND FEEL OF MATERIALS? NOT NECESSARILY BE LIKE FOR LIKE, BUT IF IT'S LIKE A TONGUE AND GROOVE, SIX INCH, WHATEVER, HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING FOLKS COULD GO, LIKE WITH A SIMILAR CEMENT BOARD? OR IS THAT SUBJECTIVE? UH, THERE, UM,  LOOK AND FEEL YEAH, LOOK AND FEEL PROBABLY WOULD BE SUBJECTIVE. 
          YEAH. 
          I WAS JUST THINKING MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR HISTORIC GUIDELINES, AND IF THEY SAY LIKE, HEY, THESE FIVE STYLES OF, UH, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENTS ARE ALLOWED, THESE COLORS ARE ALLOWED, THEN WE CAN SAY THEY, THEY NEED TO MATCH THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN THE GUIDELINES. 
          HOPEFULLY THEY HAVE THOSE, ESPECIALLY WITH, I DON'T KNOW, SB 35 AND ALL THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT IT'S HARD 'CAUSE SOME OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE PRETTY ECLECTIC. 
          IT'S A MIX OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT STYLES OF HOUSING. 
          SO IT COULD BE STUCCO, IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, SIDING AND SOME OF THE HOUSES 
          [02:20:01]
HAVE MULTIPLE TYPES OF SIDING MATERIALS. 
          UM, SO HOW DO YOU MATCH THAT? UH, IT GETS DIFFICULT. 
           IT ALSO PREVENTS FOLKS IN HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS FROM BUYING A PREFAB A DU UNIT, WHICH SEEMS A LITTLE PUNITIVE, UH, IF IT'S OUT OF SIGHT, BEHIND A FENCE LINE BEHIND LANDSCAPE SCREENING IN A BACKYARD. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S, AND THAT'S, THAT'S A, A COST SAVING MEASURE, UM, TO BUY THOSE PREFABS. 
          UM, SO YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CHOICE ON THE SIDINGS OR THE MATERIALS, THE ROOF PITCH. 
          THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRE-MADE AND IT CAN BE PLOPPED IN YOUR BACKYARD. 
          SO WHEN YOU START, UM, APPLYING STANDARDS, YOU KNOCK THEM OUT OF THOSE ABILITIES, BUT THEY STILL HAVE THOSE OPTIONS. 
          WHAT THOSE STATE ACCEPT WAS SO THAT THEY CAN STILL USE THAT AS AN OPTION. 
          AND I'LL JUST SAY, I REMEMBER IT WAS PROBABLY THREE YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A HISTORIC PROPERTY THAT WAS DOING A HISTORIC SPAR, AND THEY WERE BUILDING A A DU, AND THEY, I THINK JUST WANTED TO MATCH THE IDU WITH THEIR PRIMARY BUILDING JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, HARMONY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO HOPEFULLY WE SEE THAT. 
          BUT YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. 
          ELENA, EXAMPLES. 
          YEAH, WE'VE SEEN, UM, SOME SUGGESTIONS WHERE THEY WANNA DO A DIFFERENT SIGHTING, LIKE WE WANNA DO BOARD AND BATTEN IN THE PRIMARY IS STUCCO IN HISTORIC DISTRICT, OR WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, REALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRIMARY. 
          UM, RIGHT NOW, THE, THE ONLY PART THAT IS EVEN MARGINALLY OBJECTIVE ABOUT OUR SECTION OF THE CODE THAT APPLIES HISTORIC DISTRICT IS YOU HAVE TO MATCH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUALITIES OF THE A DU TO THE PROPOSED, INCLUDING COLOR SETTING MATERIAL AND PATTERN AND WINDOW TYPE. 
          BUT IT DOESN'T ADDRESS ROOF PITCH, IT DOESN'T ADDRESS DOOR DESIGN OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS. 
          SO WELL, AND THAT, THAT ALSO COMES UP AGAINST OUR EC ECLECTIC NATURE OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT MAYBE YOUR HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE THIS FEATURE, BUT NEXTDOOR DOES. 
          SO IT'S NOT THAT IT IS OUT OF SYNC WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, BUT IT'S JUST SUCH AN ECLECTIC NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YEAH, I, I FEEL LIKE FORCING A MATCH TO THE PRIMARY ALMOST, I DON'T KNOW, YOU COULD END UP LOOK MAKING IT LOOK A LITTLE BIT HOKEY BECAUSE YOU'VE SORT OF JUST MADE A MINI ME, UM, WHERE, WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A MUCH MORE INTERESTING, UM, ARCHITECTURAL STORY TO, TO FILL OUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, SO I DON'T LOVE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT FORCES A MATCH TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING. 
          JUST LOOKING BACK AT OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AS DISCUSSED BACK IN 2023, I'M JUST TRYING TO QUICKLY SEARCH AROUND AND SEE, WE'VE GOT HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHICH I'M SURE CHOCKFULL OF SUBJECTIVE, BUT THERE IS A NOTION OF OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS. 
          SO IS THERE ANYTHING TO BORROW FROM PREEXISTING DOCUMENTS THAT ADDRESS DESIGNS IN HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS? I MEAN, PULL OUT MAYBE AND ASK IF WE DO, LIKE, THIS IS ONLY FOR ADUS THAT EXCEED THE KIND OF THE 6, 6 3, WHATEVER, SIX THREE. 
          UM, SO WE'RE TALKING LARGER SIZES, UH, FOR WHATEVER REASON, LIKE, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, AND, AND IN THAT CASE, IT FEELS ALMOST LIKE, IT'S LIKE, DO WE WANNA MATCH THE EXISTING NATURE OF THE HOME? I GUESS THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. 
          LIKE, DO WE WANNA PROTECT A HISTORIC CHARACTER OF A LOT AND TRY AND FORCE IT TO BE CONSISTENT? AND WOULD THERE BE ANY PROJECTS THAT WOULD EVEN, THAT EVEN HAVE THAT VENN DIAGRAM? YEAH. 
          TO BE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND BIG ENOUGH TO BE NON 6 6 2 3, 2 3. 
          THAT FEELS LIKE PROBABLY NON TWO SEPARATE CIRCLES. 
          WHY DON'T WE COME BACK WITH ? I, I THINK WE RIGHT DOWN WE HEAR THE INTENT. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE'LL, WE'LL POUR THROUGH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK OUR EXISTING CODE SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD, IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH HELP, UM, BUT AT LEAST COME BACK WITH SOME OPTIONS. 
          BUT I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF TRYING TO PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN SOME WAY. 
          GREAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SAME, SAME . 
          YEAH, SAME. 
          SAME. 
          YEAH. 
          THIS IS ANOTHER ONE. 
          UH, WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU WITH SOME ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT UP A EXAMPLE HERE WITH EXTERIOR LIGHTING. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OBJECTIVE IN OUR CODE RIGHT NOW ABOUT LIGHTING AND THE EXTERIOR OF AN A DU. 
          UM, SO WE CAN, UM, CRAFT SOME MORE STANDARDS RELATED TO THESE, UM, TYPES OF, UM, DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          JUST ON, ON THE NOTE THAT YOU MADE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING THESE, UM, POTENTIALLY ONEROUS GUIDELINES FOR A STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BE SEEN BY JUST THE HOMEOWNER, IF ANYONE, UM, TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE, UH, 
          [02:25:02]
A DU REGULATION SORT OF FORCE THAT HAND AND, AND, AND ENSURE THAT THE A DU IS, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, UN UNNOTICEABLE, UM, THE STATE LAW, I MEAN, THEY KEEP 'EM SMALL, THEY KEEP 'EM UNDER, YOU KNOW, 800 SQUARE FEET, UM, ONE STORY. 
          SO THAT'S HOW THEY, THEY MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS AND I GUESS OUR FRONT YARD RESTRICTION. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN, THEY DO ALLOW, THEY DO ALLOW THEM IN THE FRONT YARD IF YOU CANNOT PLACE THEM IN THE BACK. 
          SO THAT WOULD, THAT'S NOTICEABLE TO NEIGHBORS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A HOUSE , YOU KNOW, ON THE STREET. 
          SO NOT, NOT HORRIBLE. 
          I MEAN, IT'S A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, SO HOUSING IN THE FRONT ON THE STREET IS PRETTY NORMAL. 
          UM, BUT YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S HOW THE STATE MAINTAINS THE PRIVACY OF NEIGHBORS AND, UH, MINIMIZES THE IMPACT, UM, IS BY KEEPING THEM SMALLER. 
          AND, AND ONE STORY I WOULD SAY, JUST AS YOU GUYS ARE, ARE CONSIDERING THESE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT ROUND, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, FOCUS IN ON THOSE INSTANCES WHERE IT MIGHT BE IN THE FRONT YARD AND, AND JUST SORT OF ALLOW FREE REIGN FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY IMPACTS. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY IF IT'S, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UP AND OVER, THAT'S DIFFERENT. 
          IF, IF, IF IT'S A TWO STORY AND THE PRIMARY IS NOT. 
          UM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS BENEFICIAL TO, UH, THE, THE HOMEOWNERS WHO WISH TO BUILD ADUS NOR THE CITY WHO IS SPENDING TIME TO REVIEW THOSE ADUS TO, TO, UH, UH, SPEND TIME ON STANDARDS FOR UNITS THAT ARE GONNA BE HIDDEN. 
          AND I WOULD ADD THAT ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT WE ADD, UM, RUNS THE RISK OF HAVING HCD TELL US YOUR CODE DOES NOT COMPLY . 
          SO THE MORE WE ADD ON, UH, THE MORE RISK THAT WE RUN OF, OF HCD SENDING US BACK OUR ORDINANCE AND SAYING TRY AGAIN, UM, WHICH THEY DO OFTEN. 
          SO THE CLOSER WE CAN KEEP TO THE STATE STANDARDS, THE EASIER IT'LL BE TO GET IT CERTIFIED. 
          UM, SO, OKAY. 
          PRIVACY, WE TALKED THROUGH IMPACT FEES OPENING. 
          THOUGHTS ON IMPACT FEES, I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BARNER COLE'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE SEE WHAT THE IMPACT OF POTENTIALLY REMOVING IMPACT FEES BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED TAX VALUE ON THE PROPERTY. 
          B, UM, BEFORE WE DISCUSS MUCH FURTHER, JUST BECAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS, I THINK IT'S BLOCKED BY THE TEXT CURRENTLY, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE OVERALL IT'S $20,000 OR MORE IN FEES, WHICH IS OF COURSE A BUNCH OF MONEY TO ADD ONTO AN ALREADY EXPENSIVE PROJECT. 
          AND IF WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THESE SORTS OF UNITS TO BE BUILT, WHICH IS WHAT THE STATE'S GOAL IS, UM, WE SHOULD JUST UN FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RAMIFICATION OF DOING ANYTHING HERE IS. 
          BECAUSE IF WE VOID ALL FEES, THEN WE COULD POTENTIALLY GET OURSELVES IN A PLACE WHERE WE'VE BEEN WITH A LOT OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE BROADLY, WHERE WE'RE UNDERFUNDING THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP THE CITY RUNNING. 
          UM, SO I JUST WANNA BE REAL CAREFUL BEFORE SAYING, YES, WE NEED TO DO THAT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A BENEFIT FOR THE INCENTIVIZATION OF BUILDING THESE THINGS, WE REALLY DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE LONG-TERM ACTUAL IMPACT OF WHAT THAT ACTUALLY IS. 
          SO FURTHER ANALYSIS NECESSARY. 
          I THINK THAT SOUNDS GOOD. 
          NODS. 
          OKAY, PERFECT. 
          AND, AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IN THE ORDINANCE ANYWAY, SO WE'LL SEPARATE TOPIC. 
          YEAH, AND I'LL JUST, I'LL MENTION WE DID, WE HAVE STARTED THE PROCESS. 
          UM, SO AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, UM, ALSO COMPELLED AND DRIVEN BY A CHANGE IN STATE LAW, WE DO HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR IMPACT FEES DIFFERENTLY. 
          SO CURRENTLY IT'S A UNIT, UH, PER UNIT BASIS. 
          UM, ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, WE NOW HAVE TO SHIFT TO A, UM, UH, A SQUARE FOOT COUNT. 
          AND SO WE'VE STARTED THE PROCESS AS A CITY WITH THE NEW GENERAL PLAN. 
          UM, IT WILL TRACK. 
          AND SO WE EXPECT NEW FEE STUDY TO BE COMPLETED, UM, RIGHT 
          [02:30:01]
AROUND THE SAME TIME COUNCIL HAS THE, UM, CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT. 
          AND SO WE'LL HAVE A NEW STUDY COMPLETE BY THE END OF NEXT SUMMER, UM, WHICH WILL INCLUDE A LOT OF THIS. 
          NOW THAT DOESN'T, THAT WOULDN'T PRECLUDE US FROM LOOKING AT IT SOONER, BUT JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO, I THINK, UM, UH, SOME COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID THROUGHOUT THE EVENING, THIS ISN'T JUST A WE'RE GONNA THROW SOMETHING IN, RIGHT? THERE'S GONNA BE SOME ANALYSIS THAT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED. 
          WE DID SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR, UM, ON OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND, UM, A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE. 
          AND SO THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, BEEN, UH, VERY SUCCESSFUL, RIGHT? WE'RE, UM, ESSENTIALLY SUBSIDIZING PROVIDING, UM, YOU KNOW, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO MAKE SOME OF THOSE LARGER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS WORK. 
          AND SO, UM, THAT POLICY HAS BEEN VERY POSITIVE, BUT ALSO WE PUT SOME WORK INTO GETTING TO THAT POINT, AND SO WE WOULD WANNA DO SOMETHING SIMILAR, UM, UH, FOR THIS AS WELL. 
          UM, SO WE'LL COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, SO THIS NEXT SLIDE IS THE BONUS, A DU PROGRAM. 
          SO THIS ONE, THE BONUS, A DU PROGRAM, AND THEN NEXT SIDE, THE CONDO CONVERSION. 
          UM, BOTH OF THESE, UM, COULD EITHER BE ROLLED INTO THE A DU ORDINANCE, UM, WE COULD COME BACK TO YOU WITH MORE INFORMATION, UM, ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AS A, AS A PROGRAM. 
          UM, BUT, UH, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE A DU BONUS PROGRAM AND THEN THE CONDO CONVERSION SEPARATELY, IF YOU LIKE. 
          MY INSTINCT HERE, GIVEN WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AROUND OUR NON-COMPLIANCE, I'M, I'M SORT OF IN THE, LIKE, LET'S WALK BEFORE WE RUN, UM, CAMP. 
          AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE DEMAND, MAYBE WE READDRESS THESE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SLOW DOWN WHAT IS ALREADY A BIG NECESSARY BECAUSE WE ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE UPDATE WITH, UM, BONUS PROGRAMS IS ONE APPROACH. 
          AND KNOWING STAFF'S CONSTANTLY STRAPPED AND WORKING VERY HARD ON LOTS OF THINGS, , UM, YEAH, I'M INCLINED TO SAY PERHAPS LET'S SEE HOW THINGS GO IN SAN DIEGO AND, UH, UH, OTHER SPOTS THAT ARE DOING THE CONIZATION AND PERHAPS PICK IT UP ONCE WE'VE GOT THE DEMAND. 
          I AM INTERESTED TO HEAR HOW SAN DIEGO'S THING IS GOING. 
          SO I WOULD SAY MORE RESEARCH IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S ACTUALLY PRODUCING UNITS, UM, MORE THAN IT'S PRODUCING OUTCRY, THEN I'M INTERESTED IN IT. 
          BUT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN LIKE, JUST RUFFLING FEATHERS TO RUFFLE FEATHERS BECAUSE THERE'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, THREE PROJECTS THAT MIGHT GO THROUGH IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          THAT'S NOT OF INTEREST TO ME. 
          UM, SO THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE BONUS PROGRAM IS LIKE, IF IT'S ACTUALLY DOING, LIKE, MAKING MEANINGFUL IMPACT IN TERMS OF PRODUCING AFFORDABLE UNITS, THEN I WON'T WANT TO SEE IT. 
          BUT IF IT'S, IF IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF CHAOS, RIGHT? I CAN DO WITHOUT IT. 
          THAT SOUNDS GOOD. 
          WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU WITH MORE INFORMATION. 
          UM, SEE HOW IT, IT ROLLS OUT IN SAN DIEGO. 
          LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF ADUS GOING ABOVE, YOU KNOW, ONE OR TWO ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, MAYBE ON MULTI-FAMILY PARCELS. 
          THEY MIGHT USE SOMETHING LIKE THIS MORE OFTEN. 
          UM, MY GUESS IS THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THIS WOULD COME MORE IN HANDY. 
          UM, AND THEN THE, SO THE CONDO CONVERSION AS WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE AREN'T A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE ADOPTED THIS, UM, CURRENTLY. 
          UM, MOST OF THEM ARE THE LARGER JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE, UM, ALLOWING THESE CONDO CONVERSIONS. 
          UM, IT IS NICE TO SEE HOW OTHER CITIES ADOPT THEM AND ROLL THEM OUT. 
          UM, I DID MEET WITH BUILDING AND FIRE, UM, AND, AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN, UM, FROM THEIR SIDES. 
          UM, AND IT WOULD TAKE A COORDINATION AND, AND, UM, SO IT WOULD TAKE SOME WORK TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN. 
          CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE A CONDO CONVERSION PROCESS FOR OTHER TYPES OF UNITS THAT I'M AWARE OF, SO IT WOULD BE SOMETHING NEW THAT WE'D BE DOING. 
          UM, SO IT WOULD BE, I, I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW OTHER CITIES GO ABOUT IT. 
          YEAH, I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER ONE WHERE WE CAN, WE CAN SORT OF SIT BACK AND, AND HANDLE WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, UM, AND ASSESS WHETHER THIS IS VALUABLE. 
          AND IT MAY END UP THAT THE, THE 
          [02:35:01]
LOT SPLIT IS THE CLEANER OPTION FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, AND WE DON'T WANT A BUNCH OF TEENY TINY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS RUNNING AROUND TOWN. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT AS THOUGH THERE ARE ZERO OPTIONS FOR, FOR OWNERSHIP WHEN YOU'VE GOT IT DEACH. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, I'M ENCOURAGED TO LET THIS BE A, A WAIT AND SEE. 
          AND I, I WILL SAY, SEEING HOW THE STATE ROLLS THESE TYPES OF THINGS OUT, IT MIGHT BECOME A REQUIREMENT IN A COUPLE YEARS. 
          , THEY MAKE IT AN OPTION AND THEN, AND THEN MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT. 
          SO, UM, IS WAS A SIMILAR, IT WASN'T ON THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, BUT CREEKWOOD, THE CREEKWOOD DEVELOPMENT, THAT WAS A CONDO, WAS THAT A CONDO DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION, OR WAS THAT FULLY SPLIT? I THINK IT WAS CONDOS. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THE PRECEDENT FOR CONDO VERSUS LOT SPLITS ARE AND WHETHER IT'S MORE ATTRACTIVE TO LARGER SCALE DEVELOPMENTS OR SMALLER SCALE INFILL OR MOM AND POP INITIATIVES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GROW. 
          SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A HISTORY OF THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          DO WE HAVE MANY MOM AND POP CONDOS? YEAH. 
          , IT SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE OUT OF REACH FOR MOST FOLKS. 
          YEAH. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS SOMEWHAT UNCHARTED TERRITORY, AGAIN, WHAT WE SEE FROM THE STATE, RIGHT? THEY'RE THROWING ALL SORTS OF THINGS OUT. 
          UM, SOME, YOU KNOW, STICK, I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE GETTING READY IN THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS TO TALK ABOUT, OR NOT NEXT COUPLE MONTHS, NEXT MONTH, UM, TO TALK ABOUT THE BUILDING CODE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AND THAT SORT OF PAVES THE WAY FOR OTHER CONVERSATIONS, LIKE SINGLE STAIRCASE, UM, ON FOUR PLUS STORIES, ET CETERA. 
          UM, SO I DO THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE COMING DOWN AND SOMETIMES THEY SAY, HEY, IT'S AN OPT-IN, AND THEN LIKELY IT BECOMES A REQUIREMENT. 
          SO SOMETHING WE CAN JUST KEEP AN EYE ON, UM, WEIGH THE BENEFITS. 
          I DO KNOW HIGH LEVEL CONDOS IN CALIFORNIA, JUST, UM, AS A CONCEPT, YOU'RE SEEING LESS AND LESS OF IT. 
          UM, AND SO THERE IS A TREND THAT WE'RE GOING AWAY FROM IT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. 
          UM, AND SO THIS MAY BE ONE WHERE WE JUST, WE WOULD WANNA CONSIDER SOME OF THE COST BENEFIT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH ARE WE ACTUALLY GONNA NET BY PUSHING FORWARD ON THIS ORDINANCE? UM, SO WE CAN COME BACK WITH, WITH AN ANALYSIS ON THAT TOO. 
          YEAH, I THINK, UM, UH, A COMMON THEME HAS BEEN IF, IF WE'RE WRITING AN ORDINANCE FOR NO ONE, MAYBE LET'S JUST NOT WRITE IT. 
          . 
          I WOULD, THAT'S A, A GOOD RULE OF THUMB. 
          THAT'S HOW I FEEL LIKE IF YOU LOOK AROUND AND THIS IS ACTUALLY WORKING IN PLACES, LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT COME BACK MM-HMM . 
          UM, BECAUSE I JUST, I THINK CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOME OWNERSHIP ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          SO IF IT'S ACTUALLY WORKING IN PLACES WHERE IT'S BEING ROLLED OUT, I'M INTERESTED. 
          GREAT. 
          I THINK THAT IS IT. 
          THE LAST SLIDE WAS JUST ABOUT, UM, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS HANDOUTS. 
          UM, JUST, YOU KNOW, A TOPIC, GENERAL TOPIC ON, ON THAT. 
          UM, I THINK WE'RE, I'VE HEARD FROM YOU THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA,  TO, UH, PROVIDE THAT SORT OF ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWNERS, UM, AND, UM, DEVELOP THESE SORTS OF HANDBOOKS TO HAVE, UM, EITHER AT THE PLANNING COUNTER, UM, AND ALSO MAYBE OUTREACH, UM, IN THE FUTURE. 
          DO WE, DO WE DO THAT IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES, OR IS THAT ONLY ENGLISH? IDEALLY WE DO IT IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. 
          THERE ARE VERY FEW OF OUR FORMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY TRANSLATED MUCH LESS GUIDEBOOKS THAT WE DON'T HAVE. 
          UM, IT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AWARE THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE, UM, JUST THROUGH IT OUT. 
          YEAH. 
          DO WE WANNA TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT THE PURPOSE STATEMENT, SINCE I KNOW THAT WAS ANOTHER SPOT OF INPUT REQUEST YOU HAD? I THINK WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF HAND OF, OF PUBLICITY. 
          YEAH. 
          PERFECT. 
          UM, YEAH, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE PURPOSE STATEMENT. 
          I DON'T HAVE A SLIDE ON THAT PARTICULARLY, BUT, UM, IT'S IN YOUR STAFF REPORTS IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. 
          ARE YOU ABLE TO PULL UP, UH, ATTACHMENT ONE? YEAH, LET ME SEE THE DRAFT, JUST SO WE CAN HAVE IT UP. 
          YES, I CAN, I CAN PULL IT UP. 
          GREAT. 
          [02:40:03]
I THANK YOU. 
          ANY OPENING THOUGHTS ON THIS SIX POINT PURPOSE STATEMENT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBER FIVE, I THINK OUR DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD TONIGHT, THAT SEEMS MAYBE COUNTER TO WHAT WE KIND OF THE MOVEMENT, THE DIRECTION WE WERE HEADING. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          IF WE'RE TRYING TO OPEN THAT DOOR FOR THE, THE LARGE LOT LOOKING TO REPLACE ITS PRIMARY, I WOULD AGREE THAT FIVE WOULD POTENTIALLY RUN COUNTER TO THAT. 
          I'LL ALSO SAY FOUR DOESN'T SIT WELL WITH ME. 
          THE WORD PROTECTION KIND OF IRKS MY SENSES WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENCOURAGING  TO SAY WE'RE PROTECTING FROM, UM, I DON'T LOVE, AND IT FEELS LIKE IT IS, IT IS THE, IT IS THE ORDINANCE AND THE REGULATION AND THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT APPLY THAT, UM, ASSURANCE. 
          UM, SO I WOULD HATE TO DISSUADE AN INTERESTED A DU POTENTIAL BECAUSE OF THE, THE TONE OF FOUR. 
          WHAT IF WE JUST STRIKE OUT PROTECTION OF, FROM THAT JUST BALANCE ADUS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? I PREFER THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, UH, WITH FIVE, JUST DELETE IT COMPLETELY. 
          WANNA JUST GET RID OF THAT ONE, I THINK, OR JUST TBD BASED ON WHERE IT LANDS. 
          OKAY. 
          AROUND, UM, MAX SIZE AND WHETHER WE COULD EVEN ACCOMMODATE ANY BIG ADUS AROUND TOWN MM-HMM . 
          GIVEN THE PARCELS WE HAVE IN REALITY. 
          UM, BUT YEAH, JUST MAKE A NOTE THAT IF WE ARE CHANGING UP OUR, UH, ALLOWABLE SIZE AND UNAFRAID, ALBEIT MAYBE WEIRD TO DWARF YOUR PRIMARY UNIT, UM, ODD BUT NOT BAD. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO STRIKE FIVE AND MAYBE, MAYBE NOT SUBORDINATE, BUT ACCESSORY OR SOMETHING LESS  COMPLIMENTARY. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN, IT'S, YEAH, THEN YOU'RE GETTING KIND OF FLUFFY, BUT MM-HMM . 
          COMPLIMENTARY, MAYBE COMPLIMENTARY. 
          OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE PURPOSE? ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON THIS BIG MEATY TOPIC? WE'VE SPENT NEARLY THREE HOURS ON  IMPORTANT. 
          I'M GLAD WE DID LOTS OF GOOD STUFF. 
          ONE BROAD QUESTION. 
          UH, HOW DOES THE ORDINANCE WE'RE KIND OF CONSIDERING HERE TODAY AND A WORK AHEAD COMPARE WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS? LIKE, ARE WE AHEAD OF THE CURVE? ARE THERE OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE WORTH CONSIDERING DETAILED OR NOTES FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ANYTHING REALLY THAT, THAT ARE JUST WORTH KNOWING? UM, WELL, EV EVERYBODY'S UPDATING THEIR A D ORDINANCE CONSTANTLY . 
          UM, UH, I'VE SEEN A, SOME JURISDICTIONS JUST ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT POINTS TO THE STATE AT THIS POINT, UM, BECAUSE IT'S TOO ONEROUS ON THEM TO KEEP UPDATING IT. 
          SO I'VE SEEN THAT DONE, UM, HCD, UH, POST THEIR REVIEW LETTERS, UM, FOR EVERYBODY TO REVIEW, UM, SO YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHERE THEY POINT TO AN ORDINANCE THAT DOESN'T COMPLY. 
          SO THAT'S HELPFUL WHEN WE'RE CRAFTING OURS. 
          UM, BUT, UH, I THINK EVERYONE IS TRYING TO STICK AS CLOSE 
          [02:45:01]
TO THE STATE REGULATIONS AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. 
          UM, BUT OF COURSE, EVERY JURISDICTION'S DIFFERENT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, A APPLYING SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR YOUR CITY IS, IS IMPORTANT AS WELL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I THINK WE ARE READY TO CLOSE MEETING ITEM ONE. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE. 
          UH, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS SO STAFF CAN SWITCH QUICK BY OR BREAK. 
          WE'LL BE BACK AT EIGHT 50. 
          WE'RE BACK. 
          LET'S 
          [2.
 Study Session - Recommendation to the City of Petaluma Planning Commission to Receive a Staff Presentation and Public Comment and Conduct a Study Session to Solicit Input and Provide Non-Binding Comments on Proposed Amendments to Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance 2300, N.C.S. Chapter 4–Zone Districts and Allowable Land Uses, Chapter 11–Parking and Loading Facilities, Off Street, and Chapter 28–Glossary, and SmartCode Section 3–Building Function Standards, Section 6–Parking Standards & Procedures, and Section 9–Glossary, to Implement Required Sixth Cycle Housing Element Program 7: Zoning Amendments Pertaining to Zoning Regulations for Residential Care Facilities. This is a study session item only; no decision or other discretionary action will be taken that would require an environmental review finding under the California Environmental Quality Act for this meeting item. MATERIALS FOR THIS MEETING ITEM WERE PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2025.]
MOVE ON INTO MEETING ITEM TWO, STUDY SESSION, A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECEIVE A STAFF PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDUCT A STUDY SESSION TO SOLICIT INPUT AND PROVIDE NON-BINDING COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          ORDINANCE 2300 NCS, CHAPTER FOUR ZONE DISTRICT AND ALLOWABLE LAND USES CHAPTER 11, PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES OFF STREET AND CHAPTER 28, GLOSSARY AND SMART CODE SECTION THREE, BUILDING FUNCTION STANDARDS, SECTION SIX, PARKING STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES, AND SECTION NINE GLOSSARY TO IMPLEMENT REQUIRED SIX CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM, SEVEN ZONING AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO ZONING REGULATIONS, FOUR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES. 
          THIS IS A STUDY SESSION ITEM ONLY. 
          NO DECISION OR OTHER DISCRETIONARY ACTION WILL BE TAKEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FINDING UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THIS MEETING ITEM. 
          THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE DISCLOSING ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. 
          AND IN THAT WHOLE THING, I'LL JUST UNDERLINE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, , THAT'S WHAT THIS ONE IS ABOUT. 
          SO LET'S TURN IT ON OVER TO EMMANUEL FOR OUR STAFF PRESENTATION. 
          OR BRIAN, DID YOU HAVE A PREAMBLE FOR THIS ONE? OKAY, TO EMMANUEL THEN. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, CHAIR MOSES, MEMBERS OF THE, UH, COMMISSION MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. 
          UH, MY NAME'S EMMANUEL SSU, AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM THIS EVENING. 
          UM, SO I'M NOT SURE WHY MY, YEAH, YOU'RE SHARING THAT ONE. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, THERE WE GO. 
          IN THE PRESENTATION MODE, I'VE GOT IT ON TWO SCREENS, ONE IN PRESENTATION MODE AND ONE NOT. 
          SO, UM, THIS IS A REALLY CONTINUATION OF, UH, THE PRIOR ITEM IN THAT WE ARE, UH, IMPLEMENTING THE, UH, HOUSING ELEMENT AND PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT. 
          UM, THERE'S, UH, PROGRAM SEVEN OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, UH, ADDRESSES ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND, UM, SO THAT IS WHAT THIS ITEM IS, UH, THIS EVENING. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          SO, UH, FIRST GIVE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT BACKGROUND, UH, HOW THIS TIES INTO THE HOUSING ELEMENT, DISCUSS THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, STATE LAWS THAT APPLY ARE EXISTING REGULATIONS, SOME PROPOSED REGULATIONS, UH, THAT IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTION, POLICY DIRECTION PROVIDED IN THE, UH, HOUSING ELEMENT. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, WE'LL GET, UH, INPUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND, UH, PROCEED ONTO THE NEXT STEPS, WHICH WILL BE, UH, PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          WE ARE TARGETING THE DECEMBER NINE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO, UH, INTRODUCE OR PRESENT A, AN ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          THEN THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD TAKE THAT UP, UH, AT, UH, IN THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW YEAR. 
          PART OF THE TIMING OF THIS IS DRIVEN BY AN APPLICATION WE HAVE, UH, FROM GALLAGHER, UH, GALLAGHER SENIOR LIVING. 
          UH, THEY HAVE, UH, SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSAL FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, UH, WITH, UH, INDEPENDENT SENIOR APARTMENTS IN MEMORY CARE, UH, UH, STUDIOS OR UNITS, UH, ON, UH, PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH, AS PRESENTED AS DESIGNED. 
          UM, IT HAS GROUND FLOOR SPACES DEDICATED TO RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, WHICH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, CURRENT ZONING CODE, UM, BUT WOULD BE ONCE THIS CODE AMENDMENT IS IN EFFECT. 
          SO, AS I MENTIONED, UH, PROGRAM SEVEN OF THE, UH, HOUSING ELEMENT, UH, INCLUDES, UH, IDENTIFIES CONSTRAINTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF, UH, OF HOUSING AND AMONG THOSE CONSTRAINTS, 
          [02:50:01]
UM, IDENTIFIED OR CONSTRAINTS ON RESIDENTIAL CARE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES. 
          AND THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF OTHER, UH, AREAS, TOPIC AREAS THAT THAT PARTICULAR PROGRAM ADDRESSES. 
          UM, WE'LL BE FOCUSING, UH, JUST ON THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES THIS EVENING. 
          SO THE GENERAL PLAN, UH, HOUSING ELEMENT SAYS THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES BEHIND THE STREET FRONTAGE, UH, IS A CONSTRAINT. 
          UH, THIS IS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES, AND THAT, UH, WE ARE TO, UH, ALLOW, UH, FACILITIES FOR SEVEN OR MORE PERSONS IN BROADER AREAS AND MORE AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          UM, AND SO WE'RE TO REMOVE THE CONSTRAINT ON, UH, THE GROUND FLOOR AND TO FIND, UH, OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT PROVIDE CERTAINTY AND OUTCOME FOR FACILITIES WITH SEVEN OR MORE, UM, RESIDENTS. 
          SO THERE ARE FIVE TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THE, UH, CURRENT ZONING CODE. 
          UH, ONLY THE FIRST THREE ARE ACTUALLY DEFINED IN OUR CODE. 
          UH, THERE'S IN THE GLOSSARY SECTION, THE FIRST THREE ARE DEFINED, UH, THE FOURTH AND FIFTH, THERE'S NO DEFINITION, BUT THEY SHOW UP AS PERMITTED USES IN THE LAND USE ALLOWED LAND USE TABLE IN CHAPTER FOUR. 
          UM, SO IN ESSENCE, UH, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, A FACILITY THAT PROVIDES, UH, ASSISTANCE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING TO PERSONS IN, IN NEED OF THAT ASSISTANCE. 
          UM, AND THEY'RE REALLY KIND OF DIVIDED INTO ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO, UH, ADULTS. 
          AND THEN FOR MINORS, AND TYPICALLY FOR MINORS, IT'S FOR MINORS THAT CANNOT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, LIVE WITH THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS UNDER STATE LAW. 
          UM, THERE'S A PREEMPTION THAT DOES NOT ALLOW CITIES TO REGULATE, UH, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES WITH SIX OR FEWER PERSONS, UH, DIFFERENTLY THAN, UH, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO WE CANNOT IMPOSE ANY STANDARDS DIFFERENT THAN WE WOULD REQUIRE FOR A REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE OR A MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, UH, ON A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY THAT DOESN'T, UH, PROVIDE MORE, UH, SERVICES TO MORE THAN SIX PERSONS. 
          AND THIS IS IN, UH, IT'S NOT IN THE, UH, GOVERNMENT CODE, IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE WHERE THIS IS, UH, LAID OUT IN, IN TWO SECTIONS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AS CITED. 
          UH, HERE, UH, COINCIDENTALLY, THE, THIS, UH, ONE OF THESE SUBSECTIONS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE ALSO PROHIBIT, UH, LOCAL AGENCIES FROM IMPOSING RENT RESTRICTIONS OR BASICALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, IF YOU WILL, ON RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES. 
          UH, SO WHEN THE SPIRIT LIVING PROPOSAL CAME BEFORE THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THAT QUESTION CAME UP. 
          WE TOOK A LOOK AT, AND AT THAT POINT WE LEARNED THAT WE CANNOT IMPOSE OUR, UH, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT ON THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES. 
          UH, WE DID A, A SURVEY OF THE EXISTING, UH, FACILITIES IN, IN PETALUMA, UH, UH, HAD TO CALL THE STATES TO DETERMINE HOW MANY THERE ARE, UH, FOR RESIDENTIAL OR FOR, UH, FOR MINORS. 
          THEY'RE NOT IN DISCLOSED LOCATIONS FOR, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. 
          THERE ARE EIGHT OF THOSE FACILITIES, UH, THAT WOULD ALL BE IN SINGLE FAMILY OR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AND THEN THERE ARE 18 FACILITIES, UH, FOR ADULTS. 
          UH, 15 ARE EXISTING, THREE ARE PROPOSED. 
          OF THE 15 EXISTING, UM, 11, REALLY 12 ARE SMALL FACILITIES. 
          11 OF THEM, UH, HAVE SIX BEDS. 
          THERE'S ONE WITH, UH, 11 BEDS. 
          AND THEN, UH, THREE REALLY LARGE ONES OR LARGE ONES. 
          SO, UM, 80, 95 AND 112, UH, BEDS. 
          THE THREE LARGE ONES, UH, TWO OF THEM ARE ON MCDOWELL, UM, KIND OF, UH, EAST, OR EXCUSE ME, WEST, UH, NORTHWEST OF, UH, WASHINGTON. 
          UM, AND THEN ONE IS, UH, IN THE, UH, NORTH, OR EXCUSE ME, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF, UH, EAST WASHINGTON. 
          AND, UM, CINEMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY, I BELIEVE IS THE, THE INTERSECTION THERE. 
          UH, THERE'S, UH, THREE PROPOSED. 
          THERE'S ONE SMALL FACILITY THAT WAS PENDING A LICENSE, UH, FROM THE STATE IN A EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          UH, A FEW YEARS AGO. 
          THE CITY APPROVED, UH, THE SPIRIT LIVING PROPOSAL THAT PROPOSAL'S A FOUR STORY BUILDING, UM, IN, UH, THE RIVERFRONT PROJECT, UH, HAS, UH, SOME GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE AND SPACE, 
          [02:55:01]
UH, AMENITY SPACE FOR THE FACILITY. 
          THE SECOND, UH, STORY WAS 36 UNITS OF MEMORY CARE, AND THEN THE THIRD AND FOURTH FLOORS HAD 35, UH, UNITS ON EACH FLOOR FOR, UH, THESE ARE LIKE APARTMENTS, ONE AND TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS FOR SENIORS. 
          UH, THAT PROJECT WAS APPROVED. 
          UH, A BUILDING PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN PULLED YET. 
          UH, THE, UH, UH, APPLICANT HAS, UH, EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH THE, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THAT SPACE. 
          UM, THEY DID WRITE A LETTER, UH, THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED, UH, TO THE, UH, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER MADE AVAILABLE ON THE, ON THE WEBSITE. 
          UM, THEY SUPPORT TO THE CHANGE TO ALLOW, UH, THE USE, UH, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY USE ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN COMMERCIAL SPACE. 
          UH, AND THEN THE OTHER PENDING APPLICATION IS THE ONE I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, UH, FROM, UH, GALLAGHER, UH, SENIOR LIVING. 
          UH, AND, UH, WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM GALLAGHER HERE THIS EVENING. 
          THEIR, UH, PROPOSAL IS FOR A FOUR STORY BUILDING AT 1221 PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH. 
          UM, AND THAT WOULD CONTAIN 82 SENIOR APARTMENTS, UH, I THINK ONE, TWO, AND THREE BEDROOM, UH, APARTMENTS FOR SENIORS. 
          AND THEN, UH, A WING FOR, UH, MEMORY CARE UNITS, UH, A MEMORY CARE UNIT WING WITH, UH, EIGHT, UH, STUDIOS IN THAT, UH, WING. 
          SO THESE ARE THE FIVE TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES THAT OUR CODE IDENTIFIES IN, UH, CHAPTER FOUR IN THE, UH, ALLOWABLE LAND USE TABLE. 
          UM, AND SO THERE'S RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR LESS THAN SEVEN RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR SEVEN OR MORE. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER THREE TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL CARE, UM, THERE FOR SIX OR LESS, THEY'RE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 
          UM, THE SEVEN OR MORE, AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THE SEVEN OR MORE, AND ANY OF THE OTHER THREE TYPE, UM, SEVEN OR MORE IS NOT DEFINED IN THE CODE. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE UNCLEAR. 
          UM, BUT THEY'RE A ALLOWED, UH, BY RIGHT IN THE MIXED USE ZONES, UH, EXCEPT ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE MU ONE AND MU, UH, MU ONE A AND MU ONE B ALLOWED ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE U ONE C, UM, AND THEN SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UH, IN THE MU TWO C ONE AND C TWO, AND NOT ALLOWED ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THOSE SPACES. 
          UM, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE GOING ALONG, UH, SIMILAR, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OTHER THREE TYPES OF, UM, UH, CARE FACILITIES. 
          SO I SHOULD PROBABLY GO BACK AND, UM, BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW THE CODE DEFINES THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FACILITIES. 
          UH, SO RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR ADULTS BASICALLY ARE FACILITIES, UH, LIMITED TO 25 PEOPLE, UH, AGED 18 TO 59 THAT NEED ASSISTANCE. 
          RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR CHRONICALLY ILL ARE, UH, CARE FACILITIES FOR, UH, UH, DEFINED FOR PEOPLE WHO, UH, HAVE AIDS OR HIV AND THEN RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY ARE FOLKS IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE THAT ARE 60 YEARS OR OLDER, OR THOSE YOUNGER THAT HAVE COMPATIBLE NEEDS. 
          SO IT, IT'S, SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE  SOME OF THESE, UH, THESE DISTINCTIONS. 
          UM, AND I THINK THEY'RE REALLY, UH, BASED ON REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW AND LICENSING UNDER STATE LAW, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT, WHAT DROVE THEM. 
          FROM A LAND USE STANDPOINT, UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE DISTINCTION REALLY MATTERS OR, OR MAKES A DIFFERENCE. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO, NUMBER ONE, CONSOLIDATE THE DEFINITION OF ALL THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES INTO ONE DEFINITION. 
          UM, AS I MENTIONED, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A, A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE FROM A LAND USE REGULATIONS STANDPOINT. 
          REALLY, THE, UM, PRIMARY DRIVING FACTOR I THINK IS GONNA BE TRAFFIC IN TERMS OF IMPACTS. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'D WANT TO CONSIDER. 
          UH, THEN, UH, WE WOULD, UH, CHANGE THE, UM, WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES ARE ALLOWED. 
          SO WE'D ALLOW, UM, OKAY, SO THE DEFINITION WOULD BE CHANGED TO BASICALLY BE A, A CARE FACILITY, UH, A FACILITY THAT CARES FOR PEOPLE IN THAT ARE IN NEED, UH, HAVE, HAVE NEEDS WITH, UH, ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING OR MINERS WHO CANNOT LIVE WITH THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS REGARDLESS OF SIZE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THE DEFINITION OF RCF WOULD BE. 
          THEN IN TERMS 
          [03:00:01]
OF WHERE THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED, THEY'D BE ALLOWED IN ALL THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES, ALL RESIDENTIAL PUDS AND PCDS IN ALL THE COMMERCIAL ZONES, MIXED USE ZONES, AND IN THE THREE TRANSECT ZONES, UH, T FOUR, T FIVE, AND T SIX OF THE SMART CODE, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS. 
          UM, IF THEY, UH, SERVE SEVEN OR MORE CLIENTS, UM, THEY NEED TO BE AT LEAST 500 FEET APART, UNLESS THEY'RE ON AN ARTERIAL COLLECTOR OR A CONNECTOR. 
          UM, IF THEY ARE IN A COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE ZONE AT A COMMERCIAL NODE, WHICH IT WOULD BE DEFINED AS THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIALS OR AN ARTERIAL IN A COLLECTOR, THEN, UH, IF THEY'RE WITHIN 500 FEET OF, OF THE, OF THAT TYPE OF A INTERSECTION, THEY'D BE SUBJECT TO A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          UM, AND THEN THE OTHER IS THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, UH, ON THE GROUND FLOOR WHERE SHOP FRONTS ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE SMART CODE. 
          AND THAT'S A FAIRLY LIMITED AREA AND ALL. 
          I'VE GOT A MAP THAT, UM, THAT I CAN SHOW WHERE THAT AREA IS LOCATED, SO THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED. 
          AND THEN, UH, PARKING WOULD BASICALLY BE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY THREE RESIDENTS OR FOR EVERY THREE CLIENTS IN A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY. 
          AND THEN FOR SENIOR APARTMENTS THAT ARE PART OF RESIDENTIAL THAT HAVE A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY LICENSE, UM, THOSE WOULD BE, UH, HALF A SPACE PER, UM, PER UNIT PER APARTMENT. 
          SO, UM, SO THERE ARE KIND OF FIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS, UM, THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH, BUT I WANTED TO SHOW THE EXHIBIT, LET ME, UH, STOP SHARING THIS. 
          UM, IT'S BETTER WHEN I CAN SEE, AND I WILL SHARE THIS EXHIBIT THAT HAS, I'LL SHARE THE EXHIBIT THAT HAS THE, UM, SO THIS IS FROM THE SMART CODE. 
          UM, SO THE, THE, UH, THE SMART CODE BASICALLY COVERS, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 400 ACRES. 
          UH, THIS IS, UH, LAKEVILLE, UM, SO SOUTH OF LAKEVILLE, UH, UP TO HIGHWAY 1 0 1, UM, AND THEN NORTH OF PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S THIS, THIS AREA THAT'S, UM, IN THE SMART CODE THAT'S REGULATED BY THE SMART CODE THAT'S PART OF THE CENTRAL PEDAL, PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. 
          THESE AREAS THAT ARE SHOWN IN THE SOLID RED LINE, THAT'S WHERE A SHOP FRONT IS REQUIRED. 
          SO IN THOSE AREAS, THE SMART CODE BASICALLY REQUIRES KIND OF GROUND FLOOR PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. 
          SO IN THOSE AREAS, UM, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT, UM, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE GROUND FLOOR, STREET FRONTAGE IN THOSE LOCATIONS IN ADDITION TO WITHIN 500 FEET OF MAJOR INTERSECTIONS, UM, AS I DEFINED THE TWO ARTERIALS OR AN ARTERIAL AND A COLLECTOR. 
          SO, UH, WITH THAT, UM, WE COULD WALK THROUGH THE FIVE DISCUSSION POINTS, BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, UH, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION, THAT MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO, TO TAKE THOSE. 
          GREAT. 
          ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? AND THEN WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN BACK FOR A DEEPER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN LET'S DO OUR, NOPE, NOT TOO FAST. 
          ALL GOOD. 
          OKAY, THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          UH, THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. 
          PUBLIC COMMENT ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. 
          AND IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY, PLEASE FILL OUT YOUR SPEAKER CARD. 
          I'VE GOT ONE. 
          AND CLERK, COULD YOU LET US KNOW IF WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING? WE RECEIVED ONE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 
          IT'S BEEN POSTED ONLINE FOR READING, AND IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE BACK. 
          GREAT. 
          THEN WE'VE GOT OUR ONE COMMENTER IN THE ROOM. 
          UH, BROOKE ROSS, TAKE IT AWAY. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? OKAY. 
          UM, GOOD EVENING. 
          UM, IT'S LOVELY TO BE HERE WITH EVERYONE THIS EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS BROOKE ROSS AND I'M WITH GALLAGHER COMPANIES, AND I'M JUST HERE THIS EVENING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT IN FRONT VIEW. 
          I THINK THAT IT WIDENS OPPORTUNITIES FOR MUCH NEEDED SENIOR HOUSING, UM, HELPS 
          [03:05:01]
TO STREAMLINE AND CREATE A MORE FLEXIBLE SITE DESIGN, AND ALSO, UM, BRINGS THE ORDINANCE IN MORE ALIGNED WITH THE REALITIES OF CARE-BASED RESIDENTIAL AND SENIOR LIVING. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU, . 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ANY DISCUSSION AMONG, WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THESE FIVE DISCUSSION POINTS, BUT IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO, UM, YEAH. 
          USE THIS AS A, AS A, A GOOD FRAMEWORK. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THOUGHTS ON 0.1, THE OVERALL APPROACH CONSOLIDATING THE DEFINITIONS OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE WE JUST, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH THE ADUS AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CREATE A LEVEL OF CERTAINTY FOR PEOPLE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR IN THE CASE OF ADUS BUILT ANOTHER HOUSE. 
          YES. 
          I DO HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION JUST GIVEN THE WORK WE'VE DONE ON COMMISSION FOR ACTUAL DISCRETE PROJECTS IN, IN MANY CASES, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, UH, THE INDEPENDENT SENIOR APARTMENTS WITH LIKE A FEW, OR NOT A FEW, BUT A, A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF THE PROJECT BEING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY IN THE FORM OF MEMORY CARE APARTMENTS. 
          AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? YES. 
          AND DOES THAT THEN HAVING, YOU KNOW, A HANDFUL TO A COUPLE DOZEN MEMORY CARE UNITS OBLIGATE THEM TO OUR CF STANDARDS HOLISTICALLY? YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE LICENSED, UH, BY THE STATE AS RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES. 
          UM, AND SO, UM, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE MEMORY CARE UNIT TO IT, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE OR THEY, THEY MIGHT BE, I THINK THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT, UH, LICENSING LEVELS. 
          SO WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE THE, UM, MEMORY CARE UNIT, UM, THE, UM, THE APARTMENTS WOULD STILL WOULD HAVE THAT, UM, PARKING STANDARD THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE, TO THE APARTMENTS, TO THE SENIOR APARTMENTS, WHAT REGULATIONS WOULD GOVERN A HUNDRED PERCENT INDEPENDENT SENIOR APARTMENTS, THEN THERE'D BE UNDER OUR EXISTING MULTIFAMILY ZONING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHATEVER THOSE REGULATIONS ARE. 
          GOT IT. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          YEP. 
          IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC ADDED ZONING PLANNING REVIEW REQUIREMENTS OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO SCALE, UM, JUST FOR THESE LARGER SCALE UNITS VERSUS SMALLER SCALE? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A WIDE RANGE IN SCALE. 
          YEAH, SO, SO WE, WE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT AND ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. 
          SO WE, WE HAVE THE TOOLS ALREADY IN PLACE TO ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD COMPA COMPATIBILITY FROM A SCALE MASS STANDPOINT. 
          UM, AND ALL OF THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, LANDSCAPING AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE ADDRESSED THROUGH, THROUGH SPAR. 
          SO, UM, I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL THAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, THE STATE ACTUALLY HAS OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, UH, FOR, FOR THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES. 
          UM, AND, UM, AND THEN PARKING WAS THE ONLY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT, UH, OUR CODE WAS SILENT ON WHEN IT COMES TO THESE FACILITIES. 
          SO, UH, I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO, TO DEVELOP A, A PARKING STANDARD. 
          UM, SO THERE'S KINDA REMOVES SOME OF THE UNCERTAINTY IN TERMS OF THE, THE REVIEW PROCESS AND THE STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I THINK ON 0.1, WE'RE IN FAVOR OF THE OVERALL APPROACH TO CONSOLIDATE YOUR DEFINITIONS ONTO TWO, THE PROPOSED 500 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THOSE FACILITIES WITH SIX OR MORE THAN SIX CLIENTS, UNLESS ARTERIAL COLLECTOR OR CONNECTOR. 
          I THINK THAT IS, I'LL SAY FOR MY PART, A HANDY WAY TO DO IT. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S WORKED WELL FOR US AND, UH, PROVIDES A OBJECTIVE SIMPLE APPROACH. 
          COULD I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION JUST ON WHAT, UH, WHAT'S DRIVING 500 FEET AND LIKE, JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND ON THE BUFFER? YEAH, IT COULD HAVE BEEN 300, IT COULD HAVE BEEN SEVEN 50, COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND. 
          UM, SO I, UM, I WENT BACK AND FORTH ON, ON WHAT THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER IS AND THERE'S, THERE'S 
          [03:10:01]
NOTHING MAGICAL ABOUT THE 500 FOOT NUMBER. 
          UM, I DID LOOK AT KIND OF CUL-DE-SAC LENGTHS IN TOWN, TYPICAL BLOCK, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL BLOCK LENGTHS. 
          UM, THE IDEA WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, I WAS LOOKING AT THIS FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT, WOULD THERE BE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS INTO, INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS JUST SO YOU PEOPLE HAVE TRAFFIC HAS, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE WAYS TO DISPERSE. 
          SO THERE'S, THAT WAS KIND OF THE, THE FIRST KIND OF THING I LOOKED AT. 
          UM, AND THEN, UM, AND THEN JUST LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON THESE THINGS, THEY'RE FAIRLY, FAIRLY LOW. 
          UM, AND THEN ALSO LOOKED AT THE EXISTING FACILITIES AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM. 
          UH, THE TWO LARGE FACILITIES ON MCDOWELL. 
          NOW THIS 500 FOOT SEPARATION WOULDN'T APPLY TO THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE ON A ARTERIAL, BUT THEY HAPPEN TO BE ABOUT 500 FEET APART. 
          PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE. 
          IT JUST SEEMED LIKE A KIND OF A COMFORTABLE NUMBER. 
          AGAIN, THERE'S NOTHING MAGICAL ABOUT THAT NUMBER. 
          IT COULD BE 700 FEET, SEVEN 50 COULD BE LESS. 
          UM, I DUNNO IF THAT'D GO MUCH LESS THAN THAT, BUT, UM, IT JUST SEEMED LIKE AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER. 
          AGAIN, GIVEN ALL THOSE FACTORS I DESCRIBED. 
          I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION I FEEL LIKE HAS HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED, BUT MAYBE I MISSED IT. 
          WHAT'S THE POINT OF A BUFFER? UH, LIKE WHY, WHY DO WE NEED TO YEAH, TO, TO, UH, I THINK MOSTLY FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT IS JUST TO, TO ADDRESS KIND OF DISPERSE THE TRAFFIC. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE EMPLOYEES SHOWING UP. 
          UM, THEY PROBABLY WOULD ALL, YOU KNOW, BE COMING IN AROUND THE SAME TIME ASSUMING THEY HAVE THE SAME, SAME SHIFT CHANGES IN THESE VARIOUS FACILITIES. 
          UM, SO I THINK IT'S MORE OF A, PRIMARILY A TRAFFIC ISSUE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN, UM, IT SAYS ALONG, UNLESS ALONG AN ARTERIAL COLLECTOR CONNECTOR, UM, IS THAT TO SAY THAT THERE'S NO BUFFER ON THOSE STREETS? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          AND THERE ALSO WOULD BE NO BUFFER FOR FACILITIES WITH SIX OR FEWER CLIENTS BECAUSE UNDER STATE LAW WE CANNOT, THERE IT GOES. 
          UM, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, THE THE MEASUREMENT OF THAT 500 FOOT BUFFER, UM, DOES IT, WOULD IT BE IMPACTED BY IRREGULAR SHAPED LOTS OR IS IT AL ARE WE ALWAYS ASSUMING IT'S A RECTANGLE OR A SQUARE? YEAH, SO THE WAY WE DO IT IS A, IN GIS WE'D SELECT THE PARCEL. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN JUST DO A 500 FOOT BUFFER. 
          SO IT'D BE 500 FEET FROM THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WAS THERE ANY REVIEW OF LIKE SENIOR AMENITIES THAT MAYBE THESE CENTERS USE OR MAKE SENSE TO BE CENTRALIZED AROUND THAT MIGHT BE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS BUFFER AT ALL? I DON'T KNOW. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THESE FACILITIES MIGHT BUST SENIORS TO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT OR HAS THAT BEEN DISCUSSED WITH OTHER PROJECTS? JUST THINKING THROUGH LIKE SENIOR CENTERS ON AN ARTERIAL KAISER? I, I FEEL IT, IT MAY, IT MIGHT BE AGAIN, THAT SORT OF VENN DIAGRAM OF LIKE, WELL, IT'S, IT'S ON, YEAH, IT'S ON A, UH, AN EXEMPT HIGH VOLUME ROAD ANYHOW, IS MY HUNCH. 
          RIGHT? YEAH. 
          I I'M KIND OF FEELING LIKE THERE'S LIKE A PART OF THIS THAT FEELS A LITTLE ARBITRARY TO ME. 
          UM, 'CAUSE LIKE A FACILITY WITH SEVEN CUSTOMERS OR RESIDENTS, UM, VERSUS LIKE 80 SURE. 
          SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, RIGHT? MM-HMM . 
          UM, SIMILARLY SPEAKING, IF LIKE YOU'RE ON A CUL-DE-SAC AND YOU HAVE THREE, SIX UNIT ONES, LIKE YOU COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, SO I, I'M JUST FEELING THERE IS LIKE A SENSE OF LIKE THE NUMBER SIX AND THE NUMBER 500 FEET FEELS A LITTLE ARBITRARY. 
          I, I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC. 
          IT'S UM, YOU KNOW, I'M LIKE, I'M ALMOST TRYING TO THINK TO MYSELF LIKE, IF IT'S NOT ON AN ARTERIAL COLLECTOR OR CONNECTOR, LIKE WHERE WOULD IT BE WHERE LIKE YOU COULD SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF MY QUESTION. 
          LIKE, WHERE WOULD YOU SEE AN 80 UNIT, YOU KNOW, UM, FACILITY. 
          UM, SO I GUESS I'M JUST NOT, I'M NOT SOLD ON THIS AS LIKE A STANDARD BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT COULD ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT, THE, THE SIX NUMBER COULD BE, UM, COULD CREATE ISSUES. 
          I GUESS. 
          DOES THE SIX NUMBER HAVE TO STAY OR COULD, I MEAN, COULD WE, COULD WE ADDRESS THAT MAYBE IT'S BUFFER FOR 20, 25 PLUS CLIENTS? IT COULD, YEAH, WE COULD GO HIGHER. 
          UH, WE COULDN'T GO LOWER. 
          RIGHT. 
          NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IF, 
          [03:15:01]
YEAH, I, I SUPPOSE THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD WORK. 
          UM, I LIKE THE IDEA TOO OF UH, LIKE CONSIDERING THE SURROUNDINGS. 
          SO LIKE IT MIGHT BE A GREAT IDEA TO HAVE A CLUSTER OF THESE THINGS AROUND OUR SENIOR CENTER MM-HMM . 
          FOR EXAMPLE MM-HMM . 
          UM, SO I DON'T KNOW, JUST MAYBE A LITTLE MORE, MAYBE THERE'S NOT LIKE A HARD FAST RULE ON THAT THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE OR SOMETHING. 
          AND IT'S, UM, YEAH, THAT'S MY, MY THOUGHT ON THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          I'D BE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING WHAT THE, THE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD IS FOR THE SIX AND, AND INSTEAD FLEX THAT NUMBER. 
          UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE SEE AN INFLECTION POINT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL USES AND, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY. 
          JUST LIKE, DOES IT START TO GET STICKY AT MM-HMM . 
          AT DOES BEDS AT 25? DOES THAT START TO IMPACT LOAD? UM, 'CAUSE I DO, YEAH. 
          I MEAN THE MORE YOU TALK ABOUT IT, I'M LIKE, OH YEAH, WE COULD HAVE A A, A GRAY DISTRICT OR WHATEVER,  HAVE A LITTLE CLUSTER OF THESE AND IT WOULD MAYBE BE GOOD, DO SOME BRANDING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WANT A LITTLE BIT MORE ANALYSIS SO IT DOESN'T FEEL QUITE AS ARBITRARY FOR THE 500 AND THE SIX. 
          AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS FURTHER CONSIDERATION ABOUT APPROPRIATE AMENITIES AND CLUSTERING, WE'RE OPEN TO IT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER LAND USE THAT HAS A BUFFER STANDARD THAT'S BASED ON TRAFFIC? I MEAN OUR CANNABIS, CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION OR, UH, RETAIL. 
          THAT IS A NEW ONE. 
          UM, CANNABIS. 
          THAT'S NOT TRANSPORTATION THOUGH, RIGHT? NOT TRANSPORTATION. 
          UM, OTHER BUFFERS. 
          TRYING TO THINK. 
          I THINK OUR TOBACCO RETAILERS HAVE A BUFFER, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT TRAFFIC RELATED. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY GUN SHOPS. 
          AGAIN, NOT TRAFFIC RELATED, BUT PROBABLY MORE I'M THINKING THE BEST ANALOG WOULD BE LIKE SCHOOLS, BUT WE DON'T SAY SCHOOLS HAVE TO BE ALL THAT FAR APART OR YEAH. 
          I MEAN IT'S REALLY THE, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT LAND USE, THAT'S THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND. 
          RIGHT? BUT THAT WAS FOR A REASON OR A MULTITUDE OF REASONS. 
          UM, ONE OTHER WAY WE COULD LOOK AT THIS IS, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF GETTING TO THIS, UM, EDGING TO THIS IS, UM, LET'S SAY WE SORT OF CONSIDER THIS AS A COMMERCIAL, SOMEWHAT OF A COMMERCIAL ENTITY. 
          I ACTUALLY THINK, AREN'T WE? UM, WHEN WE FEED THIS OUT, IT'S CONSIDERED A NON-RESIDENTIAL. 
          UM, AND TO YOUR POINT, I DON'T, WE DON'T DO THAT TO ESSENTIALLY ANYTHING. 
          AND SO IT DOES OPEN THE QUESTION OF WHY OR IF IT'S NEEDED MM-HMM . 
          UM, IS THIS TIED AT ALL TO POTENTIALLY THE NEED FOR, UH, HIGHER THAN A NORMAL EXPECTED UH, ACCESS OF EMERGENCY SERVICES? OR IS THAT NOT REALLY PART OF THE CONSIDERATION? I DIDN'T FACTOR. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT DIDN'T FACTOR IN TO, TO THE BUFFER. 
          REMIND ME WHAT IT, IF WE WERE TO GAME THIS OUT, IT IT'S GONNA GO THROUGH SPAR AND QUA IN MOST CASES ANYWAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO THEN WE'RE ALREADY GONNA HAVE SORT OF VMT CONSIDERATIONS. 
          DO WE, DO WE HAVE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS ELSEWHERE IN THE PROJECT'S REVIEW THAT SUCH A BUFFER WITH ITS INTENT TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IS MOOT? YEAH, I GUESS WE WOULD THROUGH, THROUGH CQA. 
          UM, YEAH, IT'S GONNA BE MORE VMT DRIVEN THAN I THINK. 
          I DUNNO, DO WE HAVE A, WE DON'T HAVE ANY. 
          THE, THE SE A NO LONGER CONSIDERS YEAH, QUA DOESN'T, IT'S RIGHT. 
          PARKING. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I MEAN OUR SPAR FINDINGS HAVE SOME PRETTY LIMITED JUST MAINLY EGRESS AND INGRESS OF VEHICLES, UH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. 
          WE CAN OBVIOUSLY CONDITION, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC THAT WAY. 
          YEAH. 
          THESE WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. 
          SO NOT SO NOW, SO I'LL JUST SAY LIKE, IT CAN'T BE WORSE THAN LIKE VALLEY VISTA SCHOOL DROP OFF IN THE MORNING. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND LIKE NO, 
          [03:20:01]
WE'RE NOT LIKE RUNNING VALLEY VISTA OUT OUTER THOSE PARENTS. 
          SO I'M OF THE MIND THAT LIKE, WE PROBABLY DON'T NEED A BUFFER. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I JUST DON'T THINK, LIKE, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT MANY EMPLOYEES SHOWING UP TO WORK ALL AT ONCE. 
          UM, IF ANYTHING, THE BUFFER SHOULD BE AROUND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. 
          LIKE WE SHOULD , LIKE WE DON'T WANT MORE PEOPLE GOING TO SCHOOL, RIGHT? LIKE, I MEAN, NOT LIKE NOT NO, NO, NO. 
          NOT I'M SAYING LIKE, WE DON'T WANT LIKE A MESS OF PEOPLE SHOWING UP TO LIKE RIGHT AROUND THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BUT LIKE, UM, YEAH, IT'S A, YEAH. 
          MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S EASY TO REMOVE THE BUFFER. 
          OKAY. 
          FURTHER THOUGHTS ON BUFFER BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO 0.3. 
          COMMISSIONER NOELL, DID YOU WANNA CHIME IN? WELL, SOMETHING THAT UNMUTE HERE, SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE JUST SAID ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A BUFFER ZONE AROUND EXISTING HIGH TRAFFICKED AREAS LIKE SCHOOLS. 
          I MEAN, I COULD THINK OF A BUFFER ZONE AROUND, YOU KNOW, UH, THE WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR, UH, WHERE THERE'S ALREADY A LOT OF TRAFFIC. 
          UH, SO I'M JU I'M JUST, THAT ENTERED MY BRAIN. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A VERY WELL FORMED THOUGHT OR NOT. 
          IF, IF THE IDEA IS, ESPECIALLY ON THE LARGER END OF THE SPECTRUM MM-HMM . 
          UM, IF TRAFFIC IS AN ISSUE, THEN WE, WE WOULDN'T APPLY A BUFFER IF LIKE TWO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS WANTED TO OPEN UP AND LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEIR FIVE STORY A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND EVERYBODY'S SHOWING UP THERE AT BETWEEN EIGHT AND NINE FOR WORK OR WHATEVER. 
          IT'S TOTALLY FAIR. 
          WE WOULDN'T DO THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE APPLYING STANDARDS TO YEAH. 
          REGULATIONS TO THIS THAT WE WOULDN'T APPLY TO OTHER COMMERCIAL USES THAT HAVE SIMILAR PATTERNS. 
          RIGHT? YEAH. 
          BUT ISN'T THE DIFFERENCE THAT WE'RE SORT OF THROWING THE DOORS OPEN FOR MORE OF THIS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES FAIR. 
          UM, ALSO THOSE ZONE COMMERCIAL OR THE, WE'RE PUTTING THIS INTO OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONES, LIKE THEY STILL HAVE TO BE ZONED FOR, LIKE, I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD JUST ALLOW AN 80 UNIT THING IN LIKE SOME CUL-DE-SAC IN, YOU KNOW, FAR EAST PETALUMA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT MM-HMM . 
          RIGHT? LIKE WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE OUR PREVAILING ZONING CODE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO, WELL THESE WOULD BE ALLOWED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          SO CURRENTLY, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, ALL RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES IN PETALUMA ARE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, INCLUDING THE LARGE ONES OR IN, IN PUDS THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL PUDS. 
          SO, UM, THE, THE LARGE ONES ARE, UH, SOME OF THEM ARE IN THE R TWO AND SOME ARE IN THE R FIVE ZONE. 
          UM, BUT THEY'RE ALL IN, UH, RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 
          AND ACTUALLY THERE ARE, UH, I DUNNO IF YOU SAW THE ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORTS THERE, I THINK THERE ARE FOUR OR SO, UH, SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES, UM, THOSE ARE ALSO IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 
          DO ANY OF THOSE EXISTING FACILITIES HAVE BUFFER ZONES ATTACHED TO THEM? UM, SO AS I SAID, THE TWO CLOSEST LARGE FACILITIES ARE 500 FEET APART, THE TWO ON MCDOWELL, WHICH WOULD, WHICH WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT 'CAUSE IT'S ARTERIAL ANYWAY, BUT THEY'RE NOT, THOSE JUST HAPPEN TO BE 500, RIGHT? NO. 
          RIGHT. 
          I THINK YOU WERE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SORT OF IS OUR EXISTING REALITY, UH, WORKING OKAY, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YES. 
          EVEN IN A BUNCH OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          SO, SO FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE CANNOT, UNLESS THEY'RE GONNA ACQUIRE AND CONSOLIDATE, YOU KNOW, FIVE, SIX, 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCELS, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BUILD A LARGE 80 PERSON FACILITY. 
          RIGHT? SO, UM, SO I THINK WE HAVE THE, THE OTHER LAND USE CONTROLS ARE IN PLACE TO PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENING. 
          AND IF WE DO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENING, RIGHT, LIKE IT WOULDN'T, WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT HAVE ONE HORSE STORY AND THEN LIKE WE CAN COME BACK AND UPDATE OUR, OUR CODE AGAIN. 
          RIGHT? BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S LIKE, I DON'T PRACTICALLY I DON'T THINK WE SEE THAT COMING ANY FEASIBLE PATHWAY TO THAT HAPPENING. 
          YEAH, I MEAN LITERALLY IF WE SAW SOMEONE TRYING TO LIKE GROOME LAND IN LIKE SOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WE COULD PROBABLY TAKE PROACTIVE ACTION, YOU KNOW, BUT LIKE YEAH. 
          AND IT WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO, SUBJECT TO SPAR AND THERE'S A FINDING OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND YEAH. 
          SO I THINK WE HAVE THE TOOLS TO, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          ONTO THREE, 
          [03:25:02]
PROPOSED 500 FOOT SETBACK FROM COMMERCIAL NODES FOR GROUND FLOOR, STREET FRONTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES. 
          SO WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS, IS THAT FOR GROUND, GROUND FLOOR, STREET FRONTING FACILITIES, THEY HAVE TO BE 500 FEET AWAY FROM COMMERCIAL NODES. 
          SO YEAH. 
          IN, IN A COMMERCIAL NODE, BASICALLY I DEFINED AS THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIALS OR AN ARTERIAL AND A COLLECTOR IN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND I CAN SH PULL UP THE MAP OF, IT'D BE HELPFUL TO SEE. 
          YEAH. 
          MY, I'LL SAY MY LIKE, GUT REACTION TO THIS IS LIKE, I THINK WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE CLOSE TO, TO THINGS THAT THEY CAN WALK TO AND LIKE YOU THAT MIGHT LIKE, DEPENDING ON WHERE THE COMMERCIAL NODES ARE. 
          I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT OVERLAID WITH LIKE A BUS STOP. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND LIKE, WHERE'S OUR BUS STOPS IN THE CITY? 'CAUSE I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO PREVENT THESE THINGS FROM GOING IN NEAR BUS STOPS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT HELP PEOPLE STAY MOBILE. 
          NOW THIS DOESN'T SHOW US WHERE THE COMMERCIAL ZONES ARE. 
          SO FOR INSTANCE, ONE OF THE LARGE FACILITIES IS RIGHT HERE AT THIS INTERSECTION OF EAST WASHINGTON. 
          AND UH, YES. 
          UH, ELI, I SAID SOUTH CINEMA MOUNTAIN, BUT YEAH, I THINK WHERE THE STREET NAME CHANGES AND THEN THE OTHER SAYING THAT IT'S IN, AND THAT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL PUD AND IT'S SURROUNDED BY, UH, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          SO NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A COMMERCIAL NODE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO, COMMERCIAL NODE WE TRY TO PROTECT, I GUESS WOULD BE LIKE PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH AND PAYIN. 
          I THINK THAT'S, UH, IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE. 
          UH, LAKEVILLE AND PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH, YOU KNOW, WASHINGTON WESTERN, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE INTERSECTIONS ARE ALL IN COMMERCIAL ZONES. 
          UM, THIS, THESE INTERSECTIONS HERE IS ACTUALLY NOT THAT MANY. 
          SO JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE OF LIKE WITH THE PAY RAN THING WITH THE PAYAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE THE LUCKY'S, RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          IS WHERE THAT IS. 
          SO YOU WOULDN'T WANT A CARE FACILITY WITHIN 500 FEET OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. 
          OF THE INTERSECTION. 
          OF THE INTERSECTION. 
          AND THE PURPOSE AGAIN, IS FOR THE TRAFFIC. 
          NO, IT'S TRUE. 
          NO, THIS, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS MORE TO CONSERVE COMMERCIAL NODES, SO WHERE YOU HAVE MORE OF THAT PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER PLACE WHERE THIS WOULD APPLY IS IN THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ON THE, THE AREAS DESIGNATED AS SHOP FRONTS. 
          THAT FIRST OR THAT EARLIER EXHIBIT I SHOWED, UM, WHICH IS THIS EXHIBIT, I GUESS FROM MY PART, YOU KNOW, THE, THIS, THIS MAP I CAN UNDERSTAND, UM, HAVING A DESIRE TO PRESERVE SOME OF THOSE STOREFRONT OPPORTUNITIES. 
          I THINK THE OTHER MAP WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, PAY AND CAULFIELD GETTING AN ADDITION OF A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY AT THAT INTERSECTION DOESN'T SCARE ME. 
          UM, I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A, A, YOU KNOW, ARTERY OR A CORRIDOR OR A COLLECTOR AND A WALKABLE STREET AND A PEDESTRIAN CENTER OR, OR FOOT TRAFFICKED, UH, FRONTAGE. 
          AND WE MIGHT BE A LITTLE TOO BROAD, PARTICULARLY WHERE I LIVE OVER ON THE EAST SIDE OF, OF, UH, BEING SO PROTECTIONIST AROUND SOME OF THESE BIG RED, UM, STRODE THAT DON'T HAVE MUCH COOKING FOR FOOT TRAFFIC ANYWAY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          YEAH, IT ACTUALLY WOULD BE THE INTERSECTION OF THE TWO RED LINES OR A RED AND GREEN. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          [03:30:01]
THE GREEN ARE THE COLLECTORS. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING, UH, WE CAN DO TO PROMOTE MORE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OR THIS SPIRIT PROJECT SEEM TO KIND OF JUST PROMOTE AN ACTIVE STREET FRONT AND LIKE A HEALTHY MIX OF THESE UNITS? YEAH, SO THE, THE SMART CODE REQUIRES, UM, ON GROUND FLOOR SHOP FRONT THAT IF YOU DO HAVE THAT, IT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE MIXED USE WITH RESIDENTIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 
          BUT THE RESIDENTIAL NEEDS TO BE DESIGNED WITH TALL CEILINGS AND IN A MANNER THAT IT CAN BE CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL IF THAT BECOMES FEASIBLE TO DO SO. 
          UM, SO THAT, THAT'S THE APPROACH THE SMART CODE TAKES TO TO THOSE SPACES. 
          CAN I ASK, UM, DIRECTOR O IF THERE'S ANY LATE 2025 UPDATE YOU CAN GIVE US ON THE MIXED USE COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR VIBES? UH, THE VIBES ARE, IT'S NOT WORKING. 
          ? YES. 
          I STARTED MY DAY THIS MORNING WITH A CONVERSATION WITH A PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPER, UM, SINGING THE SAME TUNE, RIGHT? SO I THINK IT'S BEEN CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THIS YEAR, YEAR PLUS THAT WE NEED TO RETHINK AND REIMAGINE WHAT MIXED USE, HOW IT LOOKS LIKE, HOW IT CAN WORK. 
          UM, AND SO WE ARE, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY HAS DIRECTED US TO DO. 
          AND SO OUR DEFINITION OF MIXED USE IS GONNA BE MUCH MORE VARIED. 
          SO, UH, A HUNDRED PERCENT STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL, A HUNDRED PERCENT NON-RESIDENTIAL, HORIZONTAL, VERTICAL MIXED USE, UM, TO GIVE THAT VARIATION. 
          UM, AND SO IT'S STILL A CHALLENGE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE SEE SPANOS STOREFRONT AS AN EXAMPLE. 
          UM, THE APARTMENTS, WE, YOU KNOW, SPIRIT LIVING, THIS IS AN ONGOING CONVERSATION. 
          I THINK WE'RE CLOSER NOW. 
          UM, AND WHAT REALLY IS CHANGING THEIR ABILITY TO RECONSIDER THAT ONE IN PARTICULAR IS THE INWARD FACING RESTAURANT CAFE, UM, BEING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, RIGHT? MM-HMM . 
          SO IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT RIVERFRONT, UM, AREA, IT'S, IT'S LARGELY HOUSING WITH THE, WITH THE HOTEL. 
          UM, AND SO THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A LOCAL COFFEE SHOP OR LOCAL CAFE TO SORT OF SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, AND SO WE ARE SOMEWHAT COMPELLED TO THINK A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY ABOUT WHAT, YOU KNOW, IS JUST NOT WORKING. 
          UM, IN THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN. 
          RELATED TO THAT, I THINK, WAS IT THE OVERLAY DISCUSSION WHERE GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS CAME UP OR JUST LIKE TRYING TO PROMOTE MORE GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL? AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT PLAYS INTO THIS PARTICULAR USE, BUT, UM, AND I'D BE CURIOUS, WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE, UM, BUT JUST LIKE IF THERE IS, UH, LIKE PROGRAMMING, LIKE IF IT'S FEASIBLE TO CONSIDER A CARE FACILITY LIKE THIS, TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR UNIT THAT COULD INTERFACE WITH THE PUBLIC REALM, SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE UNITS WE'RE TRYING TO PROMOTE FOR MULTIFAMILY, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN INVITE OUR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC JUST TO EDUCATE US A LITTLE BIT OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE COULD DO TO FOLLOW UP WITH, UM, LIKE UPCOMING APPLICANTS TO SEE IF THAT'S LIKE AN INDUSTRY STANDARD THAT WE COULD START TO THINK ABOUT. 
          SO YOU'RE THINKING OF A, A STANDARD THAT WOULD ALLOW A GROUND FLOOR SPACE TO EVENTUALLY BE CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL, UH, OR, YEAH, OR IF LIKE THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS AND MEMORY CARE PRECLUDES GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT UNITS FROM HAVING THE SAME KIND OF LIKE PATIO INTERFACE OR SEPARATE ENTRY INTERFACE FROM, UM, FROM THE SIDEWALK MM-HMM . 
          IF IT'S JUST NOT AN OPTION WITH THESE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, THEN I THINK THAT MAKES IT A NEW POINT TO PUT ON TREATMENT. 
          SO THE GALLAGHER PROJECT, THEY'RE PART OF THE REASON FOR THE TIMING OF THIS CODE AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW THAT PROJECT TO PROCEED AS DESIGNED WITH GROUND FLOOR CARE FACILITY UNITS, RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 
          AND I'LL SAY JUST MY MEMORY FROM OUR SPAR PREVIEW, WHATEVER WE CALLED THAT MEETING, THAT WORKSHOP, IT WAS, IT WAS A, A BEAUTIFUL FACILITY AT THE BACK AND JUST A FRONTAGE AT THE FRONT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WITH, WITH NOT AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC INTERFACE, UNLESS I'M MISREMEMBERING, I'LL HAPPILY BE CORRECTED, BUT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU HAD A COMMENT? 
          [03:35:01]
YEAH, I, I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF TRYING TO CREATE SOME PROGRAMMING ON THE, ON THE, THE GROUND FLOOR WHERE WE CAN, UM, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S SECURITY REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT BRINGING, UH, LIKE, UH, REC ROOMS, THINGS LIKE THAT UP TO WHERE LIKE PEOPLE CAN SEE OUT ON THE STREET, THERE'S SOME PERMEABILITY, YOU KNOW, OF BEING ABLE TO, TO SEE INSIDE, SEE ACTIVITY. 
          UM, JUST MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE AREN'T JUST LOOKING AT LIKE BIG STUCCO WALLS ON OUR STREETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          UM, BECAUSE EVENTUALLY WE'D LIKE TO MAKE THESE S ROADS INTO WALKABLE STREETS TOO. 
          SO, UM, TRYING TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN DO THAT, RECOGNIZING WHERE WE ARE AND WHATNOT. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          YES, EVENTUALLY THERE WILL BE A CORNER STORED, YOU KNOW, JUST GOTTA LIKE, YOU KNOW,  GOTTA HAVE FAITH. 
          UM, I GUESS I'M JUST SENSITIVE TO THE REALITY WE KEEP COMING UP AGAINST, WHICH IS AS MUCH AS WE WISH FOR ACTIVATED STREETS, THEY AREN'T WORKING AND THEREFORE WE GET NOTHING  WE AREN'T GETTING THE CORNER STORE NOR THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ABOVE, RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE. 
          I'M, I'M NOT SAYING THEY REQUIRE THE YEAH. 
          THE CORNER STORE IN THIS. 
          I'M SAYING THAT EVENTUALLY WHEN THERE'S ENOUGH DENSITY AND ENOUGH, LIKE YOU'RE LIKE THE, THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS IS BETTER, THERE'S MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE LOOKING OUTSIDE AND SEEING ACTIVITY, IT JUST STARTS TO CREATE A DIFFERENT VIBE. 
          SO THEN DOES THE 500 FOOT SETBACK HELP OR HURT THAT FUTURE? I, I DON'T THINK IT HELPS. 
          I DON'T THINK IT HELPS. 
          SO IT'S A, IT'S A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. 
          I WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR. 
          I DON'T KNOW, UM, SOMEONE MAKE THE CASE FOR IT. 
          I GUESS I'M, BUT I'M NOT SEEING IT. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I FEEL LIKE IT MAYBE DEPENDS A LITTLE ON THE NATURE OF THESE FACILITIES AND IF THEY JUST SIMPLY CAN'T, YOU KNOW, PRACTICALLY FACE THE STREET, HELP ACTIVATE THE STREET ALSO FROM THE INSIDE OUT, HELP THE STREET ACTIVATE COMMON SPACES OR RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THEN MAYBE WE'RE FORCING SQUARE PEG INTO A ROUND HOLE AND ALLOWING THEM MM-HMM . 
          TO, TO SIT ON A, LIKE A, A MAJOR RETAIL OR ARTERIAL AREA, UM, THAT ISN'T A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, BUT IT FEELS LIKE THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR THAT, I DUNNO, NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS OR, OR MAYBE IF A CARE FACILITY CAN DO THAT, LIKE WE'RE NOT GONNA SACRIFICE THE, THE ACTIVATION, THE STREET ACTIVATION WITHIN 500 FEET OF THOSE, THOSE NODES, LET'S SAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT SUPPOSE SOMEONE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING THERE AND AND ACTIVATE IT, LIKE, HELL YEAH. 
          GO FOR IT. 
          RIGHT? LIKE, WHAT WE CARE ABOUT IS THE STREET ACTIVATION AND WANTING TO SEE THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO IF IF IT'S GONNA COME WITH WITHOUT ACTIVATION, THEN YEAH, WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE'RE LESS INTERESTED IN IT, BUT IF IT'S COMING WITH ACTIVATION, LIKE THEN WE'RE INTERESTED. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR THIS ORDINANCE AND WHAT YOU DESCRIBED, WHILE I TEND TO AGREE WITH IT SEEMS VERY SUBJECTIVE, IT'S A FAIR, A FAIR POINT. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT WE, LIKE IN THE, JUST DEVELOPING THE OVERLAY, WE STARTED TO LOOK AT WHAT LIKE NON-RETAIL ACTIVATED STREET FUNDS LOOK LIKE. 
          SO WE DID COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF MORE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE THAT MAYBE COULD BE DUSTED OFF AND APPLIED HERE. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, DO YOU SEE THROUGH WINDOWS AND SEE THINGS OR IS IT LIKE A WALL? YOU KNOW? AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE DID HAVE A LOT ABOUT BLAZING AND EVEN IF IT WAS GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL, IT WASN'T GONNA BE JUST TOTALLY SHUT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I GUESS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, I'D LIKE TO NOT CLOSE THE DOOR ON THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, UH, THAT WOULD APPLY ON GROUND FLOOR, REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE OR JUST AT THESE COMMERCIAL NODES, THESE MAJOR INTERSECTIONS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE MAJOR INTERSECTIONS. 
          I'M, I'M GONNA THROW OUT THAT MAYBE WE'RE POTENTIALLY OVERTHINKING THIS A LITTLE BIT, JUST SO IN PLACES THAT ARE BUILT OUT, I'LL TAKE SAN FRANCISCO AS A VERY WELL, COULD ALWAYS BE MORE BUILT, BUT RELATIVELY BUILT OUT WALKABLE, UM, MIXED USE AREAS. 
          IF YOU THINK ABOUT THEIR MAJOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS AND THE THINGS THAT EXIST ON THEM NEXT TO EACH OTHER AND COEXISTING PRETTY WELL. 
          UM, YOU HAVE A MAJOR HOSPITAL NEXT TO, 
          [03:40:01]
OR LIKE LESS THAN A BLOCK AWAY FROM LIKE, UH, MULTIPLE RESTAURANTS THAT PEOPLE GO TO. 
          UM, I, I, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE OVERPRESCRIBE THE SORTS OF THINGS THAT CAN BE THERE, THEN THINGS THAT WILL NATURALLY OCCUR AS THAT ACTIVATION DOES HAPPEN AND OTHER THINGS GET BUILT. 
          I THINK THAT THEY TEND TO MAKE IT, IT WORKS REGARDLESS, UM, OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT PARTICULAR ENTITY IS NECESSARILY INVITING AS LONG AS THERE'S THINGS NEXT TO IT THAT IT DOESN'T IMPEDE PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO GET THERE TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING. 
          LIKE IF YOU'RE JUST GONNA CROSS IT AND GO TO A RESTAURANT OR STORE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE IT'S STOPPING. 
          AND ALSO DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S DESIGNED IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE'S SOME ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL CARE FACILITIES THAT YOU WALK PAST AND YOU'RE LIKE, OH, THAT LOOKS REALLY NICE, I WONDER WHAT THAT IS. 
          AND THAT'S ALL YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, AS OPPOSED TO THEN BEING LIKE, OH, IT'S NOW TURNING ME OFF FROM GOING BY FOOT, OR, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER ELSE YOU'RE TRANSPORTING YOURSELF FROM A PARTICULAR LOCATION TO ANOTHER. 
          SO JUST DRAWING IT BACK TO DISCUSSION ITEM THREE, WHAT ARE YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT? UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT MIGHT NOT NEED TO BE ABSOLUTELY TIED TO A GROUND, YOU KNOW, TO EITHER A FRONTAGE SORT OF SCENARIO IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          SO YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED THIS, THE, THE BAY WINDOWS OR WHATEVER ELSE LOOKING IN, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NOT FEASIBLE FOR THE THING. 
          THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DEAL WITH THAT. 
          AND THEN IT ALSO DOESN'T NECESSARILY IMPEDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THINGS AROUND IT, WHERE IF YOU DO HAVE A 500 FOOT BUFFER NECESSITY, THEN YOU PRECLUDE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO A REDEVELOPMENT ANYWAYS, THEN IT, I GUESS IT BECOMES A LITTLE BIT TRICKIER OF A PROPOSITION BECAUSE YOU'RE EXCLUDING THAT AREA FROM BEING SOLIDLY ONE THING. 
          BUT I DON'T SEE MIXED USE AS A MONOLITH OF ALL MIXED USE. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUILDINGS NEXT TO EACH OTHER IS WHAT I ENVISION WHEN I SEE MIXED USE. 
          AND I, I THINK JUST TO BRING US BACK TO THE PRINCIPLE FROM PREVIOUSLY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A USE CASE FOR THE ORDINANCE,  DON'T SPEND THE TIME TO WRITE THE ORDINANCE. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HANDFUL OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES THAT WE EXPECT TO COME ONLINE IN THE NEXT DECADE OR TWO. 
          THERE'S NOT, I DON'T THINK THE APPETITE NOR THE FUNDING FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ON EVERY CORNER THAT YOU HAD ON THAT MAP. 
          SO TO THE EXTENT THAT LIKE MAYBE PAY RAN IN LAKEVILLE GETS SLIGHTLY LESS ACTIVATED AT THE CORNER, BUT THEN WE HAVE TONS MORE INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE LIVELY. 
          YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I, IT GIVES ME THE SAME FEELING I GET AROUND THE, UM, THE 15 MINUTE NEIGHBORHOOD THING WHERE WE PUT STARS ON A MAP AND WE SAY THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE HUB SHOULD BE. 
          AND IT'S LIKE, WELL IF THE LANDOWNER DOESN'T WANT IT, THEN WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO? AND SO IF WE'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALL THESE, UH, PARTS OF TOWN THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD THIS, BUT THAT'S WHERE THE, THE DEAL CAN BE MADE. 
          UM, I DON'T WANNA STAND IN THE WAY OF IT. 
          IS THERE A WAY TO MAYBE HAVE THE SMART CODE DO SOME OF THE HEAVY LIFTING FOR THE KIND OF DOWN DOWNTOWN CORE OR LIKE THAT AREA, BUT THEN THE REST OF IT, LIKE TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THAT MAP MAYBE BEING THE ONE WE WANNA PROTECT MORE CONTINUOUS RETAIL FRONT, UM, AND IT HAS A SEPARATE IZO RIGHT? OR SEPARATE CONTROLS TO IT, WE COULD WORK IT INTO THAT INSTEAD. 
          SO MAINTAIN THE SHOP FRONT LIMITATION ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND THEN, BUT NOT ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE, THE SMART CODE ZONE. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT IS MORE IN LINE WITH HOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE AREAS OF TOWN THAT NEED THAT PRESERVATION. 
          I'LL JUST SAY, I, I WOULD LIKE TO LIKE CROSS REFERENCE THIS WITH SOME OF THE LAND USE STUFF THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND LIKE SOME OF THE, LIKE THE AREAS FOR ACTIVATION AND, UH, AREAS OF CHANGE THAT WE LOOKED AT THAT IT FEELS LIKE, UM, JUST COM COMPATIBILITY WITH SOME OF THOSE, THOSE THINGS. 
          UM, I'M SAYING I'M OPPOSED TO IT, BUT LIKE THE CORNER OF SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY AND WASHINGTON, LIKE, THERE'S LIKE NO, NO INTERACTION WITH THE STREET THERE AND LIKE, UM, IT COULD BE , LIKE THAT'S THE LIKE TO, LIKE, THAT'S WHAT I ENVISION ON LIKE EVERY CORNER IN PETALUMA WHEN I THINK OF THIS. 
          AND I KNOW THAT'S 
          [03:45:01]
NOT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN, BUT LIKE, THERE'S CERTAIN CORNERS WHERE I JUST WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN DO, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL FOR THAT CORNER. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S WHERE I'M LIKE STRUGGLING WITH IT. 
          I FEEL LIKE MAYBE THE PARKING STANDARDS, IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN CONTROL FOR SOME OF THOSE CORRIDORS OR SOME OF THOSE COMMERCIAL AREAS? OR MAYBE DO WE HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT, LIKE PARKING IN THE BACK? IT'S A GREAT SEGUE. 
          NUMBER FOUR ONTO NUMBER FOUR,  THE PROPOSED PARKING STANDARDS. 
          DO YOU WANNA REMIND US OF WHAT THOSE ARE? I FEEDBACK CAN SUMMARIZE THE PARKING STANDARDS. 
          SO IN ESSENCE, IT'S ONE SPACE FOR EVERY THREE CLIENTS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, A HALF A SPACE PER APARTMENT FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, A SENIOR APARTMENT THAT'S PART OF A, A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY. 
          UM, AND THEN FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, IF IT'S IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, LESS THAN SIX, IT'S THE IEO STANDARD FOR, FOR PARKING. 
          UM, AND THEN IF IT'S IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND YOU GET UP TO 10, THEN IT WOULD BE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS THREE PARKING SPACES. 
          UM, AND THEN ONE FOR EVERY THREE, UH, RESIDENTS OR CLIENTS. 
          UM, SO BASICALLY YOU'D ADD A FOURTH SPOT ONCE YOU GET TO 12 CLIENTS, A FIFTH SPOT, 15 AND SO ON. 
          COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ, DO YOU WANNA TAKE IT AWAY FIRST? JUST REALLY QUICK, ARE WE BASING THE PARKING ASSUMPTION ON THE CLIENTS USING IT OR STAFFING NEEDS OR SOME COMBINATION OF BOTH? UH, THE CLIENTS IN A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY GENERALLY DO NOT DRIVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEIR VISITORS OR, SO IT'S VISIT, IT'S REALLY VISITOR AND STAFF IS AND STAFF, YEAH. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          NOW FOR THE SENIOR APARTMENTS, IT'S THE, THE, THE RESIDENTS. 
          SURE. 
          NOW, IN, IN SPEAKING WITH, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM GALLAGHER, THEIR, THEIR PARKING, THEIR FACILITIES AT CLOSER TO ONE TO 1.5 SPACES FOR THEIR, UH, APARTMENTS. 
          UM, THE SPIRIT LIVING PROJECT, UH, THAT CAME OUT WITH, SO IF WE APPLIED THE PROPOSED PARKING STANDARD TO THAT, UM, IT WOULD COME OUT TO ABOUT, I THINK IT WAS 41 SPACES THAT WOULD BE, UH, REQUIRED. 
          UH, THE PARKING STUDY THAT THEY HAD PREPARED SHOWED THEY HAD A NEED FOR 47 SPACES. 
          UM, SO IT WAS PRETTY CLOSE TO, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR. 
          I THINK, UM, I MAY HAVE THAT 41 AND 47 BACKWARDS, BUT THERE WAS NO, YOU DO, IT'S, IT'S, THE APPROVED PROPOSED WAS 41 AND THE TOTAL, UH, IF YOU DO THE MATH OUT BETWEEN THE 36 MEMORY CARE AND THE 70 APARTMENTS WOULD TAKE YOU TO 47. 
          47. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I HAD IT BACKWARDS UP, BUT, UM, BUT YEAH, SO, SO IT WAS WITHIN, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO, IT WAS ACTUALLY A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT THEIR PARKING STUDY SHOWED. 
          UM, SO, SO I FELT THAT THAT WAS A, FELT LIKE A, A GOOD NUMBER. 
          AND THEN WHEN I LOOKED AT, SO SANTA ROSA HAS ONE FOR EVERY THREE IS THEIR STANDARD. 
          SOME CODES I SAW HAD AS LITTLE AS ONE TO EVERY FOUR, SOME HAD ONE FOR EVERY TWO. 
          UM, SO THE ONE TO THREE SEEMED LIKE A, A GOOD, GOOD STANDARD, UH, TO, TO USE. 
          UM, SO, UM, I'M INCLINED TO DO ONE TO FOUR JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE MARKET WILL, WILL BUILD IT IF THEY NEED IT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO OVER REQUIRE IT. 
          LIKE, I MEAN, PEOPLE NEED HOMES. 
          UM, I'M MORE INTERESTED IN BUILDING HOMES FOR PEOPLE THAN CARS. 
          UM, AND IF THEY NEED CAR, IF THEY NEED PARKING, LIKE, UM, LIKE LET'S LET THE OPERATORS DETERMINE THAT. 
          UM, BUT I, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I'M NOT IN, YOU KNOW, IN A HURRY TO OVER, OVER PARK THINGS. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT. 
          SO IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, UM, THE PARKING STANDARD IS ONE PARKING SPACE FOR PER SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH UP TO FOUR BEDROOMS. AND THEN ONCE YOU HAVE MORE THAN FOUR BEDROOMS, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY BEDROOM. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL EVER COME UP, BUT WOULD YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT? SO THE WAY I HAVE IT WRITTEN RIGHT NOW WOULD BE THAT BASE REQUIREMENT WOULD APPLY AND THEN THE ONE TO THREE WOULD BE ON TOP OF THAT. 
          SO IT WOULD BE ONE TO FOUR ON TOP OF THAT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANY, UM, AND MAYBE OUR, OUR, UM, SOLE AUDIENCE MEMBER HAS SOME INSIGHT HERE. 
          IS THERE A RATIO FOR STAFF TO 
          [03:50:01]
JUST, IF, IF WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PARKING IS GOING TO BE STAFF AND STATE LICENSING IS 10 TO ONE, AND WE'RE SAYING PARKING IS FOUR TO ONE? I, DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING? BUT LIKE, YEAH, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE STAFFING LEVELS UNDER STATE LAW FOR, THERE'S NOT RATIOS. 
          NO, THERE ARE FOR SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES. 
          FOR SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, I'M PRETTY SURE THERE IS NOT, AND YOU'LL HAVE TO GO TO THE MIC IF YOU WANNA RESPOND FOR SENIOR LIVING. 
          I THINK THEIR PARK IS BASED ON RESIDENCE THOUGH. 
          YES. 
          FOR, FOR THE INDEPENDENT SENIOR APARTMENTS. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN, WHAT WE EXPERIENCED. 
          YEAH. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OKAY. 
          UH, WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IN THE MANY YEARS EXPERIENCE OF DOING THESE FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE, THE, YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA AND THE WESTERN STATES IS THAT, UM, THE FOLKS WHO MOVE INTO THESE COMMUNITIES ARE PRETTY ABLE-BODIED, UM, OVER TIME AND THE WHOLE, UM, I, I THINK THE WHOLE PREMISE OF THIS IS THE ABILITY TO AGE IN PLACE. 
          AND SO WE TYPICALLY DO THE, UM, LIKE EMMANUEL SAID, ONE TO FIVE PER SPACE AND WE CALCULATE THE EMPLOYEES INTO THAT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GONNA BE COMING, I THINK PROBABLY FOR FACILITY OF THIS SIZE, WE WOULD HAVE 20 TO 22 STAFF MEMBERS AND THEY WOULD BE PHASED DURING DIFFERENT, UM, SHIFTS. 
          SO, I MEAN, YOU COULD PROBABLY APPLY THE SAME 0.5 TO STAFF MEMBERS. 
          ALTHOUGH AT THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY, I KNOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT OVERALL WE HAVE AMPLE PARKING. 
          YOU OH YEAH. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE WAY OVER. 
          WHAT YOU, WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE, BY THE MATH, I GUESS WE'RE SORT OF GETTING BACK INTO PARSING DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FACILITIES BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE INDEPENDENT SENIOR APARTMENTS, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE R CV RCF, UM, YOU WOULD POTENTIALLY WANT TO KEEP YOUR CAR. 
          BUT FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY THAT IS MADE UP OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED ADULTS WHO LIKELY AREN'T DRIVING, I'M, I'M WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT I DON'T WANNA OVER PERK IT. 
          UM, GIVEN THAT THE COLLAPSING OF OUR DEFINITIONS HAVE HAVE MEANT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, WE ARE CAPTURING, UM, THOSE FACILITIES WITH FOLKS WHO AREN'T GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE DRIVERS. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY IN THE, UM, TRAFFIC REPORT, THE WAY THAT IT'S STUDIED IS THE 0.5 FOR MEMORY CARE WOULD REALLY BE GUESTS OR, OR STAFF MEMBERS. 
          YEAH. 
          THIS IS THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE FOR THE SPIRIT LIVING PROJECT AND THEY BASED IT ON A NURSING HOME, UH, WHERE THEY SAID THERE'D BE 30 EMPLOYEES. 
          THIS WAS FOR 36 MEMORY CARE UNITS. 
          SO I, I THINK THAT WAS, I THINK THEY MAY HAVE APPLIED MISAPPLIED. 
          'CAUSE IT REALLY ISN'T IN NURSING HOME. 
          UM, YEAH, IF YOU APPLIED THE SMART CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT, IT REALLY ISN'T APPLICABLE THERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEFINED AND IT JUST SAYS FOR, SO THE WAY THE SMART CODE IS SAYS IT'S ONE SPACE PER UNIT FOR RESIDENTIAL, UM, TWO SPACES PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          AND THEY KIND OF THREW THIS IN THE EVERYTHING ELSE CATEGORY. 
          BUT HOW WOULD EXEMPTION EXEMPTIONS WORK IF A PROPOSAL CLAIM FORWARD THAT DID NOT MEET THIS ONE FOR THREE OR ONE FOR FOUR, IS THERE OPPORTUNITY FOR A WELL-RESEARCHED REDUCTION IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENT? SO, UM, I GUESS THEY COULD EITHER APPLY FOR A VARIANCE OR IF THERE ARE ANY PAR I NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK THE PARKING STANDARDS, SEE IF THERE'S OTHER, I KNOW THERE'S LIKE OFFSITE PARKING ALLOWANCES, UM, IF IT'S WITHIN A CERTAIN, I THINK 300 FEET. 
          UM, SO THERE ARE SOME, SOME ALLOWANCES. 
          THERE'S, UH, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS THAT COULD BE APPLIED. 
          UM, MOST OF THESE FACILITIES HAVE THEIR OWN SHUTTLE, UM, FOR, FOR THEIR RESIDENTS SO THAT THEY'RE SORT OF BUILT IN A TDM PROGRAM, AT LEAST FOR THE RESIDENTS, NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE EMPLOYEES. 
          SO THERE IS A CATCHALL IN THE CODE. 
          UH, IT'S A DIRECTOR DETERMINATION. 
          SO IF, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE, UM, AN ADEQUATE PLAN, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND PLAN OR SECURING SOMETHING OFFSITE, UM, THEY COULD ESSENTIALLY EXEMPT FROM, UM, ON, ON SITE PARKING REQUIREMENT. 
          SO THERE'S A CATCHALL ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY FOR THAT. 
          AND BRIAN, I I, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT IT IS, BUT WE ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL AS PART OF THE, WHAT'S THE HOTEL RIGHT THERE ON LAKEVILLE BY, REMEMBER WE DID A, THE SOAP, NO, YEAH. 
          GAS FLEXIBILITY SORT OF, OR A PARKING FLEXIBILITY 
          [03:55:01]
ORDINANCE THERE. 
          UM, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, BRIAN, OR YEAH, I WASN'T AROUND FOR THAT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT I JUST, THERE IS A CATCHALL, SO IF, IF YOU CAN'T, UM, PROVIDE THE AMPLE PARKING, UM, OR THE REQUIRED, SORRY, THE REQUIRED PARKING, UM, THERE IS AN ABILITY TO, UH, GET A DIRECTOR DETERMINATION THAT, UM, SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY. 
          UH, WE FEEL THAT IT'S PARKED APPROPRIATELY. 
          UM, AND THAT COULD BE DONE WHETHER THROUGH A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND PLAN OR, AND OR OFFSITE PARKING ACCOMMODATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT ONE TO FOUR THUMBS UP ALL AROUND? ALRIGHT, SO THE LAST DISCUSSION ITEM IS, AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THE, THE CODE, I WAS LOOKING AT THE LAND USE, ALLOWABLE USE TABLES AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND A MIXED USE CONFIGURATION ON THE GROUND FLOOR IS, UM, ALLOWED IN SOME LOCATIONS AND UNDER THE SMART CODE, UH, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONES. 
          AND I WAS LOOKING AT THIS THINKING UP, WE'RE GONNA ALLOW RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, THEY DON'T LOOK VERY DIFFERENT FROM JUST NON AGE RESTRICTED FACIL UH, HOUSING. 
          UM, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO, AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OUTTA THE SCOPE OF THIS PROGRAM, SEVEN OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, BUT IT JUST CAUGHT MY EYE AND SO I THOUGHT IT'D MAKE SENSE TO CHANGE THAT NOT PERMITTED TO PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 
          UM, WE CAN TAKE THAT UP THIS EVENING AND DISCUSS IT OR NOT. 
          THIS SEEMS RELATIVELY RELATED TO OUR NUMBER THREE AROUND THE NODES AND SORT OF OUR GROUND FLOOR CONSIDERATIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHAT I HAD UH, SUGGESTED IS WE, UM, ALLOW IT YES, BUT NOT WITHIN 500 FEET OR WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF IT'S WITHIN 500 FEET OF A MAJOR INTERSECTION. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS IN TWO VENUES OVERLAY DOWNTOWN OVERLAY, RIGHT? THAT WAS A VERY FOCUSED, UM, CONVERSATION AND THEN, UH, TO MANUEL'S POINT, UM, LARGER CONTEXT AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          SO, UM, I MENTIONED EARLIER IN COMMENTS ABOUT PROVIDING MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR, UH, RESIDENTIAL, UM, PARTICULARLY IN THE MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS AS THE PROTOTYPICAL GROUND, GROUND FLOOR, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL ON TOP. 
          UM, JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE, SEEMS TO BE PROBLEMATIC. 
          AND SO, UM, THIS SORT OF BACKS INTO THAT CONVERSATION, UM, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THIS, THIS TABLE SHOWS, UM, SO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE RIGHT NOW IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONES, UM, ON THE, ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 
          SO THE IDEA WOULD BE TO ALLOW IT, UH, ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE SMART CODE, IT ALLOWS, UM, RES UH, RESIDENTIAL, UH, IN A MIXED USE BUILDING IS PERMITTED IN THE GROUND FLOOR. 
          UM, BUT THEIR SECTION FOUR POINT 70.303 REQUIRES THAT IT BE POSSIBLE TO DESIGN IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO CONVERT TO COMMERCIAL USE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. 
          SO WE COULD APPLY THAT SAME STANDARD KIND OF CITYWIDE TO ALL COMMERCIAL ZONES OR, OR, OR SOME OTHER SIMILAR STANDARD. 
          I THINK THIS IS SOUND. 
          I MAKES SENSE. 
          YEP. 
          YEAH, WE CAN INCLUDE THAT THEN IN THE, UH, DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WE BRING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, NEXT MONTH AND A HALF, HOW IN DECEMBER, HOW DO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LIKE HOW ARE WE REGULATING THOSE POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR UNITS, LIKE TO AVOID THE WALL AGAINST 
          [04:00:01]
A SIDEWALK? LIKE I GUESS HOW IS THE OVERLAY KIND OF GETTING IMPLEMENTED OR THE, THOSE KIND OF STANDARDS FROM THE OVERLAY GETTING IMPLEMENTED AND HOW MIGHT THAT CARRY THROUGH TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ACROSS ACROSS AREAS WHERE WE MAY WANNA ENCOURAGE THEM IF THERE THERE IS RESIDENTIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR? UM, SO THE SMART CODE HAS SPECIFIC STANDARDS IN THAT SECTION THAT, UM, I JUST POINTED TO. 
          UM, AND SO WE WOULD, I THINK WE WOULD JUST INCLUDE THOSE STANDARDS IN THE, IN THE IZOI REMEMBER THERE'S A LOT ABOUT GLAZING AND THE, THE DOORWAYS NEED TO BE ACTIVATED , LIKE THERE WAS LIKE A 10. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THIS DID COME UP IN THE OVERLAY CONVERSATION AND SO, UM, IT'S THE SORT OF CORNER. 
          SO WHAT WE ENDED UP DOING WAS, UM, EVEN WITH A HUNDRED PERCENT OF, UH, A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, UM, THERE WOULD STILL, AND WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THE SPECIFICITY, BUT THERE'S UM, THERE'S SORT OF BUILDING TREATMENTS, UH, ALONG A MAJORITY OF THE GROUND FLOOR FACADE, UM, WITH RESPECT TO LIKE, UM, WINDOW OPENINGS, OPACITY, UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO THERE ARE DESIGN ELEMENTS, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING. 
          UM, SO IT'S NOT JUST THIS BIG BLOCK. 
          UM, SO WE CAN, WE CAN SHARE, IT'S PROBABLY A COMBINATION OF THE SMART CODE, UM, AS WELL AS UM, THE STUFF WE DREW UP WITH THE OVERLAY. 
          ARE WE CERTAIN THOSE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          UH, THEY, IF THEY'RE COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, I SUPPOSE THEY WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH, UH, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES. 
          UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND THAT SECTION OF THE CODE. 
          WELL I THOUGHT IT LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT HAVE A, A COMMENT ON THIS FROM OUR REPRESENTATIVE AND I THOUGHT WE, SORRY, MY, MY COMMENTS WERE JUST FOCUSED ON THAT. 
          POINT FIVE, UM, FOCUSED ON MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO IT MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR, UM, RESIDENTIAL CARE, UH, BASED ON THE LICENSING THROUGH THE STATE. 
          UM, THERE IS A LOT MORE IN TERMS OF SECURITY. 
          SO WHEN YOU HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE, UM, DIFFERENT STIPULATIONS THAT REQUIRE THAT THERE NOT BE ANY NON-AMBULATORY GUESTS ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR. 
          UM, HENCE WHY WE'RE DOING THE FOUR STORY STEEL BUILDING NOW. 
          UM, YOU, YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE THAT PRIVACY AND SECURITY THERE. 
          WHEN WE WERE IN FRONT OF YOU ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, I THINK WE LOOKED AT THE ACTIVATION WITH THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. 
          UM, AND AS SUCH WE WERE ABLE TO SET BACK, UM, THE, THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND THEN STEP BACK THE FRONT, UM, SORRY, THE TOP FLOOR AND THEN CREATE SOME ACTIVATION THROUGH LANDSCAPING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, UM, TO KIND OF GIVE THAT LOOK AND FEEL. 
          AND, UM, THERE CERTAINLY ARE, YOU KNOW, GRAND, THE GRAND LOBBY WHEN YOU WALK IN, THERE'S HIGHER, UM, CEILING HEIGHTS AND THERE WILL BE SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, ACCESSORY USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 
          THAT'S VERY COMMON IN OUR FACILITIES, BUT THERE ARE ALSO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SO THERE HAS TO BE THAT SECURITY. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          ARE YOU INTERESTED IN SEEING THE SMART CODE DESIGN OBJECTIVES? I CAN READ THOSE UP ON MY OWN TIME TOO, TOO IF EVERYONE'S BEEN THROUGH THAT OR THANK YOU THOUGH. 
          I THINK THAT CONCLUDES OKAY. 
          THIS ITEM. 
          ANY OTHER FINAL COMMENTS ON THIS RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY CONVERSATION? IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO COMMENT ON AS IT PERTAINS TO THE TWO ACTIVE PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE? OR HAVE WE SUFFICIENTLY HANDLED THEIR NEEDS? YEAH, I THINK THE, UH, THE ONE PROJECT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED SPAR APPROVAL. 
          UM, THAT'S THE SPIRIT LIVING PROJECT. 
          UM, AND THEN THE GALLAGHER PROJECT, UM, WITH THE CHANGE TO THE CODE AS THEY'VE PROPOSED THEIR FACILITY WOULD BE ALLOWED. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          YEP. 
          ALRIGHT, THEN WE WILL CLOSE ITEM TWO AND MOVE ON WITH OUR AGENDA, WHICH 
          [COMMITTEE COMMENT]
TAKES US TO COMMISSION COMMENT. 
          CAN WE START OVER WITH COMMISSIONER SHELTON WORK OUR WAY ACROSS FOR COMMISSIONER COMMENT? I HAVE NO COMMENTS, NOTHING FROM TREE COMMITTEE. 
          I STILL HAVE NO COMMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE HAD OUR, UM, CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEEK AND A HALF AGO NOW. 
          UM, WE 
          [04:05:01]
REVIEWED THE PARKING, DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN, UM, AND THERE'S A, A SERIES OF SORT OF NO NONSENSE LIKE THINGS THAT TO DO THERE WITH, FROM WAYFINDING TO LIGHTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO, TO HELP IMPROVE PARKING TURNOVER AND, UM, IN DOWNTOWN. 
          UM, THEN NEXT MONDAY WE WILL BE DOING THE, UH, THE FINAL LOOK AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY. 
          SO THANKS FOR EVERYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR THAT. 
          AND, UM, JUST NOTING ON THE SINGLE STAIR THING, CULVER CITY WAS THE FIRST CITY IN CALIFORNIA TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SINGLE STAIR SO EXCITING NEWS ON THAT FRONT. 
          AND UM, I'LL CLOSE WITH THAT. 
          I HAVE NOTHING. 
          UM, I THINK I HAVE NOTHING AS WELL. 
          NOTHING, NOTHING AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING 
          [STAFF COMMENT]
ON TO STAFF COMMENT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANYTHING JUST REAL QUICK, I APPRECIATE, UM, JUST BEING THE STAND IN FOR ANDREW. 
          HE'S BACK NEXT WEEK. 
          UM, THIS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, SOMEWHAT OF A, A STARTING POINT FOR US. 
          UM, THE NEXT PIECE OF THE ZONING CODE UPDATE THAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE IS, UM, AROUND OUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. 
          SO THAT'S THE SPECIFIC CHAPTER IN THE ZONING CODE. 
          UM, AND THEN, SO YEAH, WE'LL BE, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN LONG. 
          WE ASKED FOR ZONING CODE UPDATE, WE'RE GETTING THE ZONING CODE UPDATE. 
          UM, AND THEN SHORTLY TO FOLLOW THAT IS GONNA BE A MUCH BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CHANGES NECESSARY TO BUILD HOUSING FASTER, SMALLER. 
          UM, AND SO THAT ALSO RELATES TO THE PROCESS. 
          UM, SO HOW DO WE GET PROJECTS FASTER, UM, THROUGH THE ENTITLEMENT AND COMMUNITY, UM, INPUT PROCESS AND RIGHT BEHI RIGHT BEHIND THAT WILL ALSO BE, UM, A REALLY FOCUSED, UM, LOOK AT WHAT THE ZONING CODE, UM, CAN DO FOR OUR ECONOMIC VITALITY. 
          AND SO REALLY FOCUSED ON, UM, HOW TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. 
          YOU KNOW, IT IS, OUR ZONING CODE IS GETTING LONG IN THE TOOTH AND WE ARE SEEING IT, RIGHT? I THINK SOME OF OUR BUSINESSES ARE, UM, FEELING THAT. 
          AND SO MAKING SURE THAT, UM, WE PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY. 
          UM, OF COURSE WE'RE DOING ALL THE, YOU KNOW, FLEXIBILITY THAT WE CAN WITH THE EXISTING CODE. 
          UM, BUT IT DOES, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CHAMBER HAS BEEN REALLY, UM, WORKING WITH US ON IS HOW DO WE MAKE THIS MORE WORKABLE FOR OUR BUSINESSES. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING, UM, THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING TO YOU IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO YOU OR URIEL HAVE ANY SPECIFIC SORT OF ONCOMING ATTRACTIONS FOR OCTOBER 28TH AND BEYOND? ARE WE, ARE WE LOOKING LIKE, I I THINK TREE FALL MEETINGS WILL HAPPEN OR SCHEDULE CHANGES OR, I THINK WE'RE DOING TREE PROTECTION NEXT. 
          UM, UNLESS THAT'S CHANGED LIKE IN TWO WEEKS NEXT, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT WE WON'T, WE WON'T HOLD YOU TO IT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S READY TO GO . 
          OKAY. 
          WE'VE TALKED, YEAH, WE'VE TALKED THAT ONE THROUGH QUITE A BIT. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          ANY FINAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS SEEING THEN WE'LL ADJOURN HERE AT 10:14 PM THANKS EVERYBODY. 
          .
* 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.