[00:00:01]
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL, UH, CALL THE
[CALL TO ORDER]
MEETING TO ORDER.WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE? COMMISSIONER EBNER PRESENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE PRESENT CHAIR NOEL.
[GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT]
WE WILL NOW HAVE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT DURING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT.THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT ARE WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AND THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE CURRENT AGENDA.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO UP TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON.
DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
TIME WILL BE ALLOCATED IN EQUAL SHARES TOTALING NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES.
AND IF YOU HAVEN'T BROUGHT A SPEAKER CARD FOR OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE DO SO.
HAVE HAS, HAS THE CLERK RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING FOR? WE DID NOT.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
UH, DAVE BALDIN WITH PETALUMA URBAN CHAT.
I WAS HERE TWO WEEKS AGO TO ALERT YOU TO AN UPCOMING VISIT BY AUTHOR CARL A LAFONTE WHO WILL SPEAK AT THE POLY CLASS THEATER ON THE EVENING OF MONDAY, OCTOBER 20TH.
UH, I HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKING AT THE LIST OF TICKET HOLDERS.
HOPEFULLY MANY OF YOU HAVE ALREADY ACQUIRED THEM.
REGARDLESS, I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON A COUPLE OF SORT OF NEW ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH HIS VISIT.
I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH A LAFONTE FOR FIVE YEARS ABOUT VISITING PETALUMA.
HE HAS GROWN QUITE CURIOUS ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY.
AS A RESULT, HE'S GONNA BE HERE FOR A FULL 24 HOURS.
THAT EXTRA TIME IS GONNA ALLOW US TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THREE, ACTUALLY, WE ARE GOING TO DO A WALKTHROUGH DOWNTOWN EARLY ON THE MONDAY AFTERNOON, UH, LOOKING AT, LOOKING AT THE TOWN, LOOKING AT PUBLIC PLACES, LOOKING AT VACANT STOREFRONTS, VACANT LOTS, GIVING HIM MORE CONTENT TO DISCUSS THAT EVENING.
THE FOLLOWING MORNING, WE'LL DO A SIMILAR WALK MORE ON, UH, UPGRADES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, WALKING DOWN TOWARD AQUAS CAFE, ANY TICKET HOLDER TO, UM, THE EVENT IS ENCOURAGED TO.
AND WELCOME TO JOIN US FOR ONE OR BOTH OF THE WALKS.
AND THEN ALSO WE WILL HOLD A URBAN CHAT MEMBERS ONLY RECEPTION FOR A LAFONTE MONDAY EVENING, MONDAY AFTERNOON BEFORE HIS PRESENTATION.
AND AGAIN, ANY OF YOU WHO ARE MEMBERS AT HALF TICKETS, VERY WELCOME TO BE THERE.
HOPE TO SEE ALL OF YOU, AND THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I'M MAKING A COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS FOUR THROUGH SEVEN.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE CLOSED IF I MAKE IT NOW OR LATER, BUT I'LL JUST GO AHEAD.
UM, WE'LL RESERVE YOUR COMMENT FOR WHEN THAT AGENDA ITEM COMES UP.
THIS IS THE GENERAL COMMENT OKAY.
FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA.
I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS CLOSED, IF IT WAS.
WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL ITEMS AND THERE ARE NO PRESENTATIONS, UH, FOR OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
TO THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES.DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED AND WE WILL CLOSE MEETING ITEM ONE.
[2. Continued Public Hearing from September 29, 2026 – Recommendation to the Planning Commission to receive a staff presentation and public comment and consider a resolution recommending to the City Council to adopt ordinances amending the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and SmartCode, including the Zoning Map and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Zoning Map, to carry the objective standards and technical mapping of the City of Petaluma General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map into regulation, implement zoning-related programs of the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element and the Blueprint for Climate Action, conform the City's zoning regulations to certain State laws, and address highest-priority regulatory needs in housing and economic development (Phase 1). The proposed amendments include amendments to the following provisions: IZO Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 24, 26, and 28, including new Sections 1.060, 4.060, 24.045, and 24.120 (Reasonable Accommodations); Repeal and replacement of IZO Chapter 6 (Floodway and Flood Plain Districts); Repeal and replacement of IZO Chapter 27 (Residential Density Bonus); Addition of new IZO Chapter 29 (Maker/Microbusiness); SmartCode Section 2, including Section 2.10; and The Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Map and Central Petaluma Specific Plan Zoning Map, to implement adopted General Plan land use designations. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Phase 1 Zoning Amendments are a subsequent activity within the scope of the General Plan 2050 Program Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15168, and 15183, and Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, and no additional environmental document is required. THIS MEETING ITEM WAS PUBLISHED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2026.]
WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO MEETING ITEM TWO, WHICH IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2026, RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECEIVE A STAFF PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT ORDINANCES AMENDING THE PETALUMA IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE IZO AND SMART CODE, INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP AND THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING MAP TO[00:05:01]
CARRY THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND TECHNICAL MAPPING OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA GENERAL PLAN AND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP INTO REGULATION, IMPLEMENTING ZONING RELATED PROGRAMS OF THE CERTIFIED SIX CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE BLUEPRINT FOR CLIMATE ACTION CONFORM THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS TO CERTAIN STATE LAWS AND ADDRESSED HIGHEST PRIORITY REGULATORY NEEDS IN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCLUDE AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, IEO CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 24, 26, AND 28, INCLUDING NEW SECTIONS, 1.060 4.060 24.045, AND 24.120 REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF IZO CHAPTER SIX, THE FLOOD WAY AND FLOOD PLAN DISTRICTS REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF IEO, CHAPTER 27, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS, AND ADDITION OF NEW IEO CHAPTER 29, MAKER MICROBUSINESS SMART CODE SECTION TWO, INCLUDING SECTION 2.10 AND THE PETALUMA ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AND CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING MAP TO IMPLEMENT ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
THE PHASE ONE ZONING AMENDMENTS ARE A SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE GENERAL PLAN 2050 PROGRAM.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO SQL GUIDELINES, SECTION 1 5 1 6 8, SUBSECTION C TWO, AND NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED.
MS. HINES, WILL YOU PRESENT PLEASE? THANK YOU.
CHAIR NOELL AND COMMISSIONERS.
UM, AS YOU WILL RECALL, WE DISCUSSED THIS LARGER, UM, ITEM AS PART OF THE SEPTEMBER 29TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
UM, AND YOU MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS THROUGH MANY OF THE SECTIONS THAT WERE BEFORE YOU, UH, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, AND THERE WERE A FEW THINGS AT THE END OF THE EVENING THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO GET TO.
AND SO THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO A DATE CERTAIN OF OCTOBER 13TH.
AND WE'RE HERE TO CONTINUE THE ITEM AND DISCUSS THOSE OUTSTANDING SECTIONS, WHICH ARE CHAPTER 24, 26, 28, 29, AND SMART CODE SECTION TWO.
THOSE ARE THE REMAINING ITEMS THAT WERE NOT DISCUSSED.
WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED THE ITEM TO A DATE CERTAIN, THEY SPECIFIED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT, UM, ANOTHER PRESENTATION OF THOSE ITEMS, BUT JUST TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION WHERE IT WAS LEFT OFF.
SO I DO NOT HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, ALTHOUGH STAFF WILL BE PREPARED TO BRING UP THOSE SLIDES THAT WALK THROUGH THOSE DECISION POINTS AS WE GET TO EACH OF THOSE, UM, SECTIONS TO ASSIST THE COMMISSION WITH THEIR DELIBERATIONS.
UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, AT THAT HEARING, AND IT IS THEIR DISCRETION, YOUR DISCRETION, UM, TO RECEIVE PUBLIC CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT AT TONIGHT'S HEARING.
UM, AND WERE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION AS THE COMMISSION DESIRES.
UM, I'M GONNA CHECK IN WITH THE, THE REST OF THE COMMISSION.
UH, DURING THE LAST TWO MEETINGS, WE COMBINED OUR QUESTION AND OUR COMMENT PERIODS, UH, IN ONE PERIOD AFTER WE HEARD PUBLIC COMMENT, I FELT THAT WORKED PRETTY GOOD.
IS EVERYONE GOOD WITH PROCEEDING THAT WAY TONIGHT? ALRIGHT, SEE NO OBJECTIONS.
WE WILL CONTINUE THAT PROCEDURE.
UH, AND BEFORE WE, UM, UH, BEGIN THAT DELIBERATIONS, UH, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CHECK IN WITH, WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ABOUT, UM, HAVING ANOTHER, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, UH, BEFORE WE WE BEGIN OUR, OUR DELIBERATIONS.
SO WE WILL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON.
IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD AND BRING IT TO THE CLERK, THE CLERK.
HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING? WE RECEIVED 17, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS MEETING.
I AM PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND THEY'RE AVAILABLE ONLINE AND OUTSIDE IN THE BINDERS.
[00:10:35]
YEAH.THESE TWO ARE SEATING TO DARREN.
THERE'S DARREN AND THEN THOSE THREE ARE INDEPENDENT.
UM, IF SHE WANTS TO SPEAK, SHE ALSO WANTED TO SEE TIME, BUT, UM, THERE'S A MAX, SO WE HAVE A MAXIMUM SEATED TIME FOR NINE MINUTES.
WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SEATING THEIR TIME TO DARREN RACOON.
UH, IT'S THE POLICY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SEATED TIME AVAILABLE TO NINE MINUTES.
SO DARREN, UH, YOU'VE GOT NINE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
DON'T THINK I'LL NEED THE WHOLE NINE.
UM, CONTINUING MY COMMENTS SINCE AUGUST 25TH, UM, SEVERAL THINGS THAT I'VE RAISED OVER THE COURSE OF THESE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
JUST WANNA CALL THOSE OUT AS I APPRECIATE THOSE.
FIRSTLY, UH, THE OVERLAY DOWNTOWN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY WAS REPEALED OUTRIGHT.
UH, THE DESIGN REVIEW EXEMPTION FOR HOUSING OF ANY SIZE ON RECYCLED FIFTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES, UH, INCLUDING LANDMARK AND HILLSIDE SITES, IS NOW GONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF FUNCTIONALLY THOSE WOULD STILL BE EXEMPT ANY RECYCLE FIFTH, UH, FIFTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES WOULD STILL BE EXEMPT FROM THOSE REVIEWS.
BUT IF NOT, THEN THAT'S, OR IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE ANYMORE, THAT'S A GREAT CHANGE.
UH, SECTION 12.025, UH, IS REPEALED.
SO THAT 60 FOOT HEIGHT ALLOWANCE DOESN'T CARRY ONTO THAT WHOLE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY FOOTPRINT.
UM, AND EXHIBIT A NOW HAS A CAPACITY ANALYSIS.
TONIGHT'S RESOLUTION HAS THE CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR THAT GOVERNMENT CODE 6 6 3 0 0.
UH, THAT FINDING THREE DEPENDS ON, SO THAT'S GREAT.
UH, BUT ACTUALLY I'LL KIND OF TEE OFF OF THAT.
AND THEN A COUPLE OTHER ITEMS WE'LL SEE IF, IF YOU GUYS ARE ABLE TO CIRCLE BACK AND DISCUSS.
SO IN THE RESOLUTION, AS I POINTED OUT, UH, WE CONTI, UH, KEPT THE RECITAL OF SECTION 6 6 3 0 0, THAT CAPACITY ANALYSIS.
AND NOW THERE'S AN EXHIBIT THAT LITERALLY SHOWS THE CAPACITY ANALYSIS, THE TRADE OFF OF HOMES, UM, OR OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE.
BUT THE ORDINANCE BEING RECOMMENDED TO COUNSEL, I DO NOT, DID NOT APPEAR, HAD THAT RECITAL.
AND IT STILL SAYS IT POINTS TO AN ANALYSIS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD RATHER THAN HAVING THAT EXHIBIT A THAT SHOWS THAT DEFINITIVE CAPACITY ANALYSIS.
SO IT MAYBE, MAYBE I'VE GOT THAT WRONG, BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE THE RESOLUTION LANGUAGE CONTINUED INTO THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE PASSED ON TO COUNSEL, UH, TO HAVE THAT FULL 6 6 3 0 0 RECITAL AND THE APPENDIX SHOWING HOUSING CAPACITY.
THE SECOND THING IS KIND OF A MUCH BIGGER ITEM THAT, UH, WAS NOT RECOMMENDED AS A DECISION POINT IN ANY OF THE HEARINGS.
I DID NOT CATCH THIS AT FIRST.
UH, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT AND KIND OF ELEVATE IT FOR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC.
AND THIS IS SECTION 4.030 SUBSECTION E.
UH, THIS ALLOWS BY RIGHT FOUR OR FEWER UNITS ON ANY LOT OF 3000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY, UM, AND BASICALLY EVERY RESIDENTIAL EXCEPT FOR HIGH DES UH, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
THAT MEANS NO USE PERMIT, NO SITE PLAN REVIEW, NO DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FOR FOUR OR FEWER UNITS ON ANY LOT OF 3000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE.
AND IT STATES THAT MAXIMUM DENSITIES OF THE ZONE DO NOT APPLY.
SO WITH THE EXAMPLE OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THAT IS 2.1 TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, IF WE BUILT FOUR UNITS ON A 3000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 58 UNITS PER ACRE.
THAT IS MORE THAN THE 45 UNIT PER ACRE, UH, DENSITY THAT THIS SETS AS THE CEILING FOR HIGH
[00:15:01]
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.SO ON A STANDARD 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, THAT WOULD EQUATE TO ABOUT 29 UNITS PER ACRE.
HAVING THOSE FOUR UNITS ON THERE, UH, ROUGHLY THREE AND A HALF TIMES THE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
SO ONCE DENSITY IS SET ASIDE, THE ONLY CONTROLS LEFT ARE SETBACKS.
THE 25 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND PARKING ON A 50 BY ONE 20 LOT WITH FIVE FOOT SETBACKS BEING PROPOSED.
THAT IS ROUGHLY 4,800 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT.
OVER TWO STORIES, UM, BY THE CITY'S OWN PARCEL DATA, THESE FOUR ZONES CONTAIN ON THE ORDER OF 16,000 PARCELS.
SO RIGHT NOW, THIS EXEMPTION FOR A 3000 SQUARE FOOT LOT TO BUILD FOUR UNITS OR LESS WITHOUT ANY REVIEW OR DENSITY CONSIDERATIONS WOULD IMPACT 16,000 PARCELS.
UH, IT SAYS THIS IMPLEMENTS GENERAL PLAN ACTION LU 7.21, BUT THAT IT'S, THIS IS A LOCAL DECISION.
THIS IS NOT A STATE MANDATE OR IN LINE WITH STATE HOUSING LAW PER SE.
UH, SO THIS COMMISSION GETS TO DECIDE, HAS DISCRETION ON HOW THIS IS CALIBRATED.
AND I KIND OF WANNA RELATE THIS TO THE DESIGN, UH, SPAR EXEMPTION AT 10 UNITS RIGHT NOW, STAFF RECOMMENDED HOLDING THE SPAR EXEMPTION AT 10 UNITS RATHER THAN 15 BECAUSE TWO KEY PROTECTIONS AREN'T DRAFTED YET.
UH, THE EXCLUSION FOR WETLANDS CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND SENSITIVE HABITAT.
AND WE ARE AWAITING KIND OF A TEST OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AT LARGER SIZE PROJECTS.
THAT'S WHY WE'VE RECOMMENDED AGAINST DOING THIS 15 UNIT LIMIT ON SPAR EXEMPTIONS.
BUT SECTION 4.03, UM, 4.030 E RELIES ON KIND OF THESE SAME UNTESTED SECTIONS, RIGHT? IT STILL RELIES ON OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
NOW, I GUESS YOU COULD ARGUE FOUR UNITS OR LESS, MAYBE WE DON'T NEED AS MUCH TESTING OR FITTING OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT THEY REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED AT ALL.
SO I'D STILL BE RETICENT TO PASS THIS EXEMPTION THAT AFFECTS SO MANY PARCELS WITHOUT REALLY GOING THROUGH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FIRST.
UH, AND IT HAS NO WETLANDS OR HABITAT EXCLUSION EITHER.
SO I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR STAFF TO STATE ON THE RECORD HOW MANY UNITS AND HOW MUCH FLOOR AREA THAT SECTION 4.030 E PERMITS BY RIGHT ON A STANDARD 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOW DENSITY LOT TO MAKE SURE THE SCENARIO I LAID OUT MAKES SENSE, UH, AND WHICH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS LIMIT IT.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COMMISSION TREAT THAT IT IS CHAPTER FOUR, BUT AS A DECISION POINT AND CONSIDER GIVING IT THE SAME TIME, UH, AS WE ARE GIVING THIS 15 UNIT SPAR EXEMPTION IN THE SAME CONSIDERATION.
UH, IS THIS MY, IS THIS SIX MINUTES OR IS THIS MINE? I HAVE THREE MORE.
UH, THIRDLY SECTION IN CHAPTER 24, SECTION 24.050 SUBSECTION N UH, THREE.
ITEM THREE, UH, IS A DRAFTING ERROR.
UH, IT APPEARS TO BE A DRAFTING ERROR PARAGRAPH N SUBSECTION ONE.
SO 24.050 N POINT OR BULLET 0.1 REQUIRES EXEMPT PROJECTS UNDER SECTION, UH, REQUIRES EXEMPT PROJECTS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 7.120 VERIFIED BY THE DIRECTOR BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUES.
PARAGRAPH N THEN ITEM THREE CAPTIONED NOTICE SAYS THAT THIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH, OR IT SAYS PROVISION N OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PROJECT EXEMPT UNDER PROVISION A THREE.
BASICALLY, THIS IS A SERIES OF, UH, ITEMS RE RELATING TO SPAR.
AND BASICALLY IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, FOR ANY PROJECTS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM SPAR, UH, THEY STILL HAVE TO ADHERE TO OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
BUT THEN UNDER THIS SUBSECTION N IT LATER SAYS THE N DOESN'T APPLY.
SO IT APPEARS TO BE SELF-REFERENCING AND SAYING THAT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WOULDN'T APPLY, OR MAYBE IT'S DUPLICATIVE AND JUST SAYING NOTICE DOESN'T APPLY, WHICH IS SUBSECTION M UH, M UNDER THAT SECTION.
SO I THINK AT BEST IT'S DUPLICATIVE IN REMOVING A NOTICING REQUIREMENT FROM THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM SPAR.
AND AT WORSE, IT'S NEGATING THIS SECTION N THAT STILL HAS OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT STILL AFFECT PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING EXEMPTED FROM SPAR.
UH, THEN FINALLY, CHAPTER 24 REQUIRES NO REPORTING ON EXEMPT PROJECT, UH, EXEMPT PROJECTS.
SO THERE'S GONNA BE NO POSTED LISTS, NO LOGS, NO NO REPORTS OUT.
A PROJECT CAN BE APPROVED, VERIFIED, AND PERMITTED WITHOUT ANY POINT AT WHICH A NEIGHBOR, COMMISSIONER OR THE PUBLIC NECESSARILY IS NOTICED ABOUT IT.
UH, SO PUBLISHING AND APPROVAL IS NOT REVIEWING IT.
SO I DON'T THINK WE TOW THE OR CROSS A LINE WHEN IT COMES TO EXEMPT PROJECTS.
AND SINCE COMFORTABLY WITHIN STATE LAW CITY ALREADY MAILS NOTICE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET FOR A SINGLE SPAR APPLICATION, UH, I'D ASK YOU TO DO THREE THINGS.
UH, IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE A RUNNING LIST ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED UNDER 24.050 A THREE.
THAT'S THIS 10 UNIT OR LESS SPAR EXEMPTION
[00:20:01]
AND UNDER 4.030 E.THAT'S THE FOUR UNIT OR LESS EXEMPTION THAT I SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER.
IT WOULD BE GREAT JUST TO POST WHAT PROJECTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED UNDER THOSE CODES.
I'D ALSO ASK IF WE COULD SOMEHOW BUILD A, A PROCESS TO HAVE A COURTESY MAILED NOTICE TO A ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN ADMINISTERIAL PERMIT ISSUES, UH, AND SOME KIND OF REPORTING OUT TO THE COMMISSION.
THE REASON FOR THIS IS, EVEN THOUGH THESE PROJECTS ARE EXEMPT FROM SPAR, STILL WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE A FEEDBACK LOOP TO THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW THIS IS HAPPENING SO THEY CAN COMMENT, GIVE FEEDBACK, UM, AND JUST FOR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE TO KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE PROJECTS ARE BEING APPROVED WHEN THEY'RE BEING APPROVED.
UH, AND THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.
FORGIVE ME IF I DON'T SAY THIS CORRECTLY.
THE THE HANDWRITING IS, UM, TOM HEIMER.
YEAH, TOM HEIMER, UH, I WON'T GET INTO THE SAME DETAIL THAT DARREN HAS DONE, UM, BUT HE'S DONE SOME REALLY GREAT WORK, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I'M HERE IS TAKING UP A LEVEL AND LOOKING AT SOME OF THIS AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A FIVE YEAR PROCESS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AND NOW THERE'S DECISIONS BEING MADE AT COUNCIL AND IN PLANNING COMMISSION TO CHANGE SOME OF THOSE THINGS.
WHY DID WE SPEND FIVE YEARS DOING ALL THAT STUFF, COMING TO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENTS AND THOUGHTS AND THEN GOING AND REDOING THEM? UM, THE THING THAT REALLY CAUGHT ME LAST TIME WAS THE IDEA OF, UM, REMOVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHEN THAT WAS ONE OF THE RE MAIN THINGS THAT WAS IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
AND THEN IT WAS, OH, OH, LET'S TAKE IT OUT COMPLETELY BECAUSE I HEARD FROM SOMEBODY, OR SOME WRITEUP FROM UC, IRVINE SAID SOMETHING, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE NEED TO TAKE IT OUT.
AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN PEOPLE ARE FINALLY LIKE, OH, WAIT, LET'S NOT TAKE IT OUT COMPLETELY.
UM, AGAIN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
I MEAN, I GET THE IDEA THAT NOTHING'S GETTING BUILT, BUT NOTHING'S GETTING BUILT BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST RATES, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER THINGS.
THERE ARE FOUR STORY, UM, COMPLEXES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT OR IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
SO SOME OF THOSE THINGS DO PENCIL OUT AND WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP KOWTOWING TO DEVELOPERS TO GET STUFF DONE.
UM, SO I, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE THOUGHT PROCESS IN THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT WHAT'S TALKED ABOUT FOR SO MANY YEARS IN THE COMMUNITY IS BROUGHT INTO THIS PROCESS AND THOUGHT ABOUT AND NOT OVERRULED.
UM, ANOTHER ASPECT THAT I SEE OFTEN IN THE, I'M SEEING THIS ON VIDEO IS MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS LOOK TO BRIAN BARNACLE FOR DECISIONS.
AND HE'S JUST ONE COMMISSIONER OF ALL OF YOU.
SO HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY MORE POWER THAN ANYBODY ELSE DOES.
AND JUST BECAUSE HE PUTS FORWARD LIKE TAKING OUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT.
SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS TONIGHT.
I HOPE Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME VERY PROMPT.
UM, MY NAME IS CHRISTINE WHITE, THANK YOU COMMISSION COMMI PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
UM, AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT I WAS ABLE TO ATTEND WAS SEPTEMBER THE 14TH.
AT THAT MEETING SHOP WELL'S AUTO BODY WAS HERE BECAUSE THERE WERE CHANGES TO THE ZONING THAT WAS IMPACTING THEIR BUSINESS.
AND I DIDN'T HEAR THAT IT WAS CLEARLY DEFINED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE CHANGES MADE BECAUSE IT HAD TO DO WITH THE ZONING THAT THEY HAVE NOW WOULD WORK.
THE NEW ZONING THAT YOU WERE PROPOSING WOULD WORK FOR THEIR BUSINESS AS IT STANDS TODAY.
BUT SHOULD THEY WANT TO EXPAND OR SHOULD THEY WANT TO SELL THEIR BUSINESS IN THE FUTURE, THE NEW ZONING THAT IS BEING PUT FORTH ON THAT PROPERTY WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO CHANGE, TO LIKE INCREASE THEIR BUSINESS IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT.
AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ADDRESSED BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT WAS AT THAT LAST MEETING.
AND MAYBE YOU DID ADDRESS IT AND YOU TALKED TO THEM AGAIN.
BUT AT THAT MEETING, IT WASN'T ABOUT TODAY, IT WAS FOR THEM.
WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE? AND SO I I, I'VE KIND OF SAID THAT IN ALL OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, ARE WE REALLY LOOKING FOR THE FUTURE OR ARE WE JUST LOOKING AT WHERE WE ARE TODAY? THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.
AND THE SECOND WAS, CAN I RECEIVE SOME CLARIFICATION SPECIFIC TO
[00:25:01]
THE LOT WHERE THE HOTEL WAS GOING TO BE? WHERE WE AS A CITY, UM, CITIZENS OF PETALUMA REQUESTED HAD A REFERENDUM AT, AT NOT SIX STORIES, BUT FOUR AND A HALF STORIES BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF OUR HISTORIC DOWNTOWN FOR THE REFERENDUM.WE HAD THREE WEEKS TO COLLECT THOSE SIGNATURES.
WE COLLECTED OVER 10% OF THE POPULATION REPRESENTING EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE, NOT JUST WEST SIDE.
AND DON'T INSULT ME BY SAYING I'M A NIMBY.
UM, BUT WHERE IS THAT LOT NOW? 'CAUSE THE LAST THING I THINK I SAW WAS THAT IT'S NOW APPROVED TO GO UP TO SIX STORIES, AND I JUST WANNA CONFIRM, CAN I HAVE CLARIFICATION? IS THAT LOT SIZE STILL STAYING AT FOUR AND A HALF STORIES? THOSE ARE MY TWO QUESTIONS.
I APPRECIATE YOUR CLARIFICATION.
THANK YOU TRACY WILSON, I'M ACTUALLY NOT SPEAKING
THANK YOU TINA WALLS, UH, GOOD EVENING AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MY PENMANSHIP.
IT'S TINA WALLACE, W-A-L-L-I-S.
UM, I AM LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 3,100 LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY.
I SUBMITTED A LETTER THROUGH MR. O WITH A REQUEST FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO YOUR PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW GENERAL RETAIL USES UNDER 25,000 SQUARE FEET, UM, IN THE CI DASH BP ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THE IMPETUS FOR THIS REQUEST IS CHANGED AND EVOLVING CONDITIONS.
UM, OFFICE SPACE ISN'T WHAT IT WAS BEFORE COVID.
AND WHAT THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS LEARNING IS THAT, UM, IN ADDITION TO SUPPORTING THE BUSINESS PARK MORE AND MORE, THE CLIENTELE ON THE CUSTOMER BASE IS COMING FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USES ACROSS THE STREET.
SO THIS CHANGE WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO CONTINUE REGULATING GENERAL COMMERCIAL USES, AGAIN, UNDER 25,000 SQUARE FEET, UM, TO ENSURE ADEQUATE PARKING AND INGRESS AND EGRESS, BUT WOULD STILL ALLOW ECONOMIC VITALITY FOR THE CENTER.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING ABLE TO, UM, READ ALL OF THIS STUFF AND, AND MAKE SENSE OF IT.
UM, THE LOOK, LOOKING AT IT, UH, FROM A, FROM AN AMATEUR'S POINT OF VIEW, IT'S, UM, LEMME SAY, FIRST OF ALL IN, IN PLANNING A CITY LIKE PETALUMA ON THE RIVER AND, UH, UH, WATER RISING, I, I SAID 30 YEARS AGO THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE BUILDING ANYTHING WITHIN 10 FEET OF WATER.
AND THEN I SEE YOU HAVE A FIRE UP IN, IN, UH, UH, PARADISE, AND THE PEOPLE WANT US ALL TO PAY US TO PAY FOR THEIR, THEIR FIRE.
AND, UH, THE QUESTION IS, WHO WILL BE ASKED TO PAY FOR THE WATER THAT GETS FLOODED IN THE, UH, IN THE NEXT 30 YEARS? THE HOUSING.
BUT SKIPPING ASIDE THAT PERSONAL LITTLE, LITTLE QUIRK ON NOT BUILDING ANYWHERE NEAR THE WATER LEVEL, UM, AND WHO SHOULD PAY FOR IT? UM, LOOKING AT THE PLANS HERE, LOOKING AT THE MATERIALS, I, I FIND IT HARD TO COMPREHEND WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, WHAT THE, UM, WHAT I WOULD PORTRAY AS THE CRAZY, UH, BRIBED PEOPLE IN SACRAMENTO PUT ON, UM, HAVE BASICALLY RUN FOR OFFICE WITH MONEY CONTRIBUTED BY DEVELOPERS.
AND THEY DON'T REALLY LOOK AT WHAT KIND OF A CITY THEY'RE GONNA HAVE LATER, JUST WHETHER THEY CAN MAKE MONEY AND WHETHER THE POLITICIANS CAN MAKE MONEY.
AND I, I COMPLAIN ABOUT SACRAMENTO.
I DON'T THINK SACRAMENTO'S HALF AS BAD AS WASHINGTON.
BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, WE'RE WE'RE BEING TOLD HOW TO DO THINGS BY PEOPLE WHO PROBABLY LIVE IN GATED COMMUNITIES SOMEWHERE.
AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE PICTURES OF THOSE PLACES WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO BUILD PLACES TO LOOK LIKE, UH, FOUR BUILDINGS ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT FOUR HOUSES.
UM, THERE'D BE COMMUNITIES WHERE YOU HAVE THEM SEVERAL STORIES HIGH AND YOU HAVE GREEN AROUND THEM AND HAVE SPACES BETWEEN THEM.
OR YOU COULD HAVE THEM LIKE, UH, PLACES DOWN IN SANTA MONICA THAT BURNT.
UM, THEY'RE CLOSE TOGETHER AND, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO PROTECT, UH, FIRE FROM SPREADING FROM ONE TO THE NEXT.
UM, YOU WANT TALL, UH, WITH, WITH SPACE, OR DO YOU WANT JUST WALL TO WALL HOUSING? WE CAN GO DOWN TO PLACES I'VE BEEN WHERE THERE'S WALL TO WALL HOUSING.
[00:30:01]
THAN THAT HOUSE WALL.UH, YOU GO TO ALKI PKI OR TONAH IN MEXICO AND IT'S A PERFECTLY FINE WAY OF LIVING, BUT PEOPLE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE A PICTURE OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
AND I WOULD ASK FOR EACH OF THESE STYLES THAT WE PUT A PICTURE OF WHAT COMMUNITY IN CALIFORNIA LOOKS LIKE, WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE BUILDING ANYWAY, SO THAT PEOPLE LIKE ME CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE YOU GUYS PUT IN SO MANY HOURS AND THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
BUT THIS, THE PAPERWORK MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
DID YOU GET THE ONE WHO DEFERRED FROM GENERAL? OH, I DIDN'T HAVE HER CARD STILL.
UH, I'VE GOT YOU IN A DIFFERENT PILE.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE ASSIST.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
MY COMMENT IS RELATED TO THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, WHICH SITS IN CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE CPSP, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY SMART CODE.
ONE OF THE STATED GOALS OF THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND THIS REZONING EFFORT IS TO BETTER HARMONIZE SMART CODE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED TWO BLOCKS OF HERITAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE SITUATED IN THE T FOUR CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE T FOUR HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF NCMU NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIXED USE.
THE WAY IT IS NOW, IT APPEARS ALL T FOUR NCMU IS ZONED FOR ZERO SETBACK FOR THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT HERITAGE HOMES.
WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU GRANT THE SAME MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK THAT YOU HAVE GRANTED TO SIMILAR HOMES IN OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
THIS MINIMUM SETBACK WILL HELP WAREHOUSE DISTRICT HOMEOWNERS AVOID DISPUTES, HELP PREVENT LAWSUITS AGAINST THE CITY, WHICH HAVE OCCURRED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS AS A RESULT OF ZERO SETBACK CONSTRUCTION.
IN SOME CASES, DUE TO HISTORIC IDIOSYNCRASIES, THESE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT LOTS HAVE NARROW OR ZERO LOT LINES.
SO A ZERO SETBACK COULD EFFECTIVELY MAKE IT ILLEGAL OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR OWNERS TO DO BASIC MAINTENANCE LIKE PAINTING AND SIDING REPAIRS.
FIRE RESILIENCE ALSO RECOMMENDS A FIVE SETBACK.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT LOTS WITH HERITAGE HOMES IN THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT BE GRANTED THE SAME ZONING CONSIDERATION AS OTHER SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
THESE TWO BLOCKS OF BUNGALOWS DATE BACK MORE THAN 100 YEARS BECAUSE OF THEIR SMALL FOOTPRINT AND SMALL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THEY ARE, IN ESSENCE, PART OF THE MISSING MIDDLE THAT CITY PLANNERS SAY IS DESPERATELY NEEDED AND THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED.
SO WE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION IN GRANTING A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS THAT BORDER HERITAGE HOMES IN THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT.
UH, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, AND WE WILL BRING THIS, UH, BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION AS WE PROCEED THROUGH THE CHAPTERS THAT WE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING.
UM, AND BEFORE WE ACTUALLY START THAT, WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY, UH, OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, UH, DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD? YES, THANK YOU.
UM, I THINK THERE ARE A FEW THAT ARE CLARIFICATIONS THAT WE, WE CAN MAKE.
UM, SO WE WILL, UM, TO, UM, DARREN'S COMMENT ABOUT THE ORDINANCE FOR CITY COUNCIL.
WE WILL, WE WILL LOOK AT THAT BEFORE IT GOES UP TO CITY COUNCIL.
IF THERE'S ANY, ANYTHING WE NEED TO CLARIFY IN THAT BEFORE IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL, WE WILL, WE WILL DO THAT.
UM, I WANTED TO, UH, CHRISTINE WHITE'S COMMENTS.
SO WE HAVE WORKED, UM, AND DONE FOLLOW UP WITH, UM, SHOT WELLS ABOUT THEIR EXISTING USE.
UM, IT IS THE MAKER MICRO IS NOT, UM, CREATING A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING, WHICH IS A SITUATION WHERE OFTEN, UH, USE CAN CONTINUE IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION, BUT THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON HOW IT CAN MODIFY OVER TIME.
SO, UM, DIRECTOR O HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THAT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AND THERE'S NOT, UM, A CREATION OF A NON-CONFORMITY WITH THAT PARCEL AS PART OF THE MAKER.
UM, ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE DESIGNATION OF THE, WHAT WAS A PROPOSED HOTEL SITE, UM, AT WHAT ARE THE BOULEVARD SOUTH AND B STREET? UM, SO THAT PARCEL FROM THE GENERAL PLAN IS DESIGNATED, UM, DOWNTOWN MIXED USE THAT
[00:35:01]
DOES HAVE A FOUR STORY, 45 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT, UM, IN THE GENERAL PLAN, UH, THE NEW GENERAL PLAN.AND THEN THAT IS BEING, UM, APPLIED FORWARD IN THE ZONING.
UH, LET'S SEE, UM, THE PROPERTY AT 3,100 LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY, UM, THERE IS IN THE AR ERATA, UM, UH, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUEST TO REZONE THAT TO THE STANDARD BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT, UM, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE, UM, BUSINESS PARK LAND USE DESIGNATION.
UM, HOWEVER, AND BRIAN CRE, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG WHERE THIS LANDED, BUT IN BUSINESS PARK RETAIL IS A, UM, ACCESSORY USE, UM, AND NOT A STANDALONE USE.
SO THAT IS THE WAY IT CURRENTLY IS IN, IN THE LAND USE TABLES.
AND THAT IS HOW IT'S BEEN, UM, IN THE EXISTING BUSINESS PARK DESIGNATION, UH, THAT LIMITED RETAIL, BUT NOT STANDALONE RETAIL, UM, HAS BEEN ALLOWED WITH THE BUSINESS PARK TYPICALLY BEING FOR USES, UM, THAT ARE MORE AKIN TO OFFICE, UM, AND SOME ACCESSORIES TO SUPPORT THE OFFICE.
UH, THE PD IN THAT SITUATION, ACTUALLY THAT SHOPPING CENTER AT 3,100 LAKEVILLE IS, UH, LIKE A COMMERCIAL NODE WITHIN A LARGER BUSINESS PARK, PCD, UM, TO SUPPORT THE OFFICE USES IN THAT AREA.
SO THAT'S HOW THAT WAS ENVISIONED.
UM, AND THEN FINALLY, UM, ROSEMARY'S, UM, COMMENTS ABOUT, UH, THE T FOUR AND THE SETBACKS.
SO IN THE SMART CODE, AND YOU'LL SEE THIS IN THE, IN THE DRAFT OF MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER, CHAPTER TWO IN THE SMART CODE.
SO IT'S IDENTIFIED THE ZONE WOULD THEN BE IDENTIFIED AS T FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, UM, DESIGNATE OR UM, ZONING DISTRICT.
SO IT'S NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE EXISTING SMART CODE REQUIREMENTS IN THOSE AT THIS TIME AS JUST BRINGING THOSE, THOSE ZONE NAMES IN COMPLIANCE.
SO WHAT WE SEE FOR THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER ELSEWHERE VERSUS THE FORM BASE CODE AND THE SMART CODE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS DEPENDING ON WHERE IT'S LOCATED.
HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THAT CURRENTLY IN T FOUR, A FRONT SETBACK OF ZERO IS ALLOWED.
THAT'S NOT CHANGING, BUT THAT'S HOW IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE SMART CODE.
ARE THERE SIDE SETBACKS CURRENTLY? UH, LEMME SEE.
I I, THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD THE COMMENT WAS THE REQUEST FOR SIDE SETBACKS AND WHETHER THAT'S PART OF THE EXISTING ZONING IN, IN THE T FOUR, THE SIDE SETBACKS ARE FIVE FOOT MINIMUM, 30 FOOT MAXIMUM.
OKAY, SO THAT'S, THAT'S EXISTING AND THERE'S NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO THAT JUST TO THAT IN THE SMART CODE.
NO, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING IN PHASE TWO.
UM, BUT RIGHT NOW, AS, AS YOU KNOW, MUCH OF THAT IS A LATERAL, WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE UPDATES THAT ARE NEEDED TO CONFORM WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
SO THOSE ARE LATERAL CHANGES, UM, AND NO CHANGES TO THE SMART CODE IN TERMS OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PHASE ONE.
ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, HEARING NONE.
UM, SO I'M GONNA PULL UP SLIDES TO JUST KIND OF WALK THROUGH AND ACTUALLY, ASHER, IF YOU COULD PULL UP THE, THE SLIDES FOR ME, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
UM, AND, UM, WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE, JUST THE CONTEXT SETTING OF THE DISCUSSION, UM, THAT WE WERE HAVING.
SO OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HERE FOR THE PETALUMA ZONING REFORM AND JUST, UM, REMEMBERING THAT THIS IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, THIS OUTLINES WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID DISCUSS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR.
UM, SO THAT'S CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, AND CHAPTER FOUR, EXCEPT FOR SOME, UM, PERMIT ALLOWANCES FOR THE TOWN CENTER, WHICH WE DO HAVE AS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
SO WHAT THE COMMISSION IS LOOKING AT ARE CHAPTERS 24, 26, 28, 29, AND THEN THE SMART CODE SECTION TWO ALONG WITH THOSE, UM, TOWN CENTER ALLOWANCES IN CHAPTER FOUR.
UH, SO CHAPTER 24, UM, THIS IS OUR ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, PROCEDURES.
[00:40:01]
DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, UM, AS PART OF THE EARLIER STUDY SESSION.UM, AND, UM, KIND OF AS IT RELATES TO OTHER ASPECTS, BUT THE DECISION POINTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE IN THE ADA.
UM, THE FIRST BEING THAT EXEMPTION FOR 10 OR FEWER UNITS FROM THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
UM, SO CURRENTLY IT'S UM, 4, 5, 5 OR MORE REQUIRES.
SO FOUR OR LESS IS EXEMPT FROM, UH, SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
UH, THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING WE'VE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE FACILITATING, UM, SMALL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND SO THIS WOULD EXEMPT ANYTHING 10 UNITS OR OR FEWER, UM, OPTION TO LOOK AT OTHER, OTHER NUMBERS AS PART OF PHASE TWO.
UM, BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT'S RECOMMENDED IN THE PACKET.
BEFORE YOU, DO YOU WANT ME TO STOP AFTER EACH ONE OF THESE DECISION POINTS OR RUN THROUGH ALL THREE AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK? MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE JUST TO STOP.
AND WE WILL CONSIDER EACH DECISION POINT IN TURN.
DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? ALRIGHT.
HEARING NO OBJECTIONS, UH, THAT'S HOW WE'LL DO IT.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY BEFORE WE NOPE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? I SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
YEAH, I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE PREVIOUS ONES AROUND 10 VERSUS 15 IN THE SORT OF RATIONALE TO KEEP IT TO 10 AND PHASE ONE.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE DECISION AT THIS POINT.
I, I RECALL, UH, SOME INFORMATION FROM EITHER THE LAST MEETING OR THE MEETING BEFORE WHERE WE DISCUSSED WHAT THE STATUS OF FURTHER REFINEMENTS TO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS COULD, COULD YOU PLEASE UPDATE US ON THAT? SO WE ARE LOOKING, UM, I WANNA RESET A LITTLE BIT.
SO WE, WE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, ONE A WHAT WE'VE COMMITTED TO DOING IS A HOUSING FOCUS PACKAGE NO LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM NOW TO COME BACK AS A ONE B.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD ADDRESS INCLUSIONARY, UM, ADUS, WHICH ARE, HAVE ALREADY BEEN WORKING ON AS WELL AS ANY OTHER STATE LEGISLATION THAT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THAT ADDRESSES SOME OF THE COUNCIL OBJECTIVES AROUND HOUSING BUILDING, SMALLER, FASTER, ET CETERA.
UM, AND SO AS IT STANDS, WE DON'T HAVE THE, UM, REVISITING THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AS PART OF THE ONE B.
UM, I THINK ONCE WE GET THROUGH ONE A AND ONE B, I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR COUNCIL TO, UM, REVISIT AT THAT INITIAL STUDY SESSION WE LAID OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT CHAPTERS THAT WE STILL NEED TO ADDRESS HISTORIC PRESERVATION, PUBLIC ART, ET CETERA.
UM, AND IF THE DESIRE IS FOR US TO PRIORITIZE, UM, LOOKING AT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, WE HAVE LOOKED AT IT PRELIMINARILY, WE FEEL LIKE THEY APPLY TO THIS, UM, SUBSECTION OF 10 UNITS OR FEWER.
UM, BUT WE ALSO HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TEST THIS.
WE DON'T HAVE A PROJECT THAT HAS COME IN THAT HAS APPLIED UNDER THAT.
AND SO WE WOULD NEED TO SPEND, AND WE'RE WORKING ON A BUDGET NOW OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO, TO DO A TEST FIT TO DO SOME SORT OF MOCKUP OF WHAT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE.
I WOULD RECOMMEND WE START THERE BEFORE WE PROPOSE ANY CHANGES, UH, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF TIME THAT WAS SPENT FROM PRIOR COMMISSION TO ADOPTING THE EXISTING OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO FOR US TO THEN GO DOWN A PATH OF REVISING, AMENDING, ET CETERA, UM, WITHOUT HAVING A PROJECT OR, OR SOMETHING THAT WE COULD, UM, USE AS AN EXAMPLE, UM, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR US TO CONSIDER.
AND SO I WOULD SAY SOMEWHERE IN THAT PHASE TWO, UM, UH, SOMETIME NEXT YEAR WOULD BE THE PLAN.
[00:45:01]
SO STAFF HAVE RECOMMENDED A 10 UNIT THRESHOLD, UH, 10 OR FEWER, UH, UNDER WHICH, UM, THE, UH, SPAR WOULD BE EXEMPT.UM, CAN WE DO A STRAW POLL ON THAT? THANK YOU.
SO IT'S, UH, IT'S FIVE TO ONE YEAH.
THE NEXT ITEM, UH, DECISION POINT THAT IS BEFORE YOU IS, UM, WE HAVE, UM, PUT THE CITY MANAGER RATHER THAN THE COMMISSION AS, UM, FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPEALS FOR, UM, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.
USUALLY ANY, UM, DECISION BY THE DIRECTOR IS APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, GIVEN THE POTENTIAL SENSITIVE, UM, NATURE OF REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROPOSAL IS TO, UM, HAVE THAT APPEALABLE THAT DECISION BY THE DIRECTOR APPEALABLE TO THE CITY MANAGER INSTEAD OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONER MOSES QUESTION, IS THERE A HANDFUL OF EXAMPLES YOU CAN PROVIDE OF APPEALS SITUATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN NAVIGATED IN THE RECENT YEARS THAT THAT WOULD SORT OF BE AFFECTED BY SUCH A CHANGE? I CAN'T THINK OF A SINGLE.
UH, THAT WOULD BE A DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL.
UH, BUT IT'S NICE TO HAVE THAT KIND OF SECOND LAYER OF DUE PROCESS BEFORE IMMEDIATELY GOING TO COURT TO JUST BUILD A RECORD AND PROVIDE MORE DUE PROCESS, ESPECIALLY IF THIS STAFF ARE WRONG.
SO THAT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION, LIKE HEATHER SAID, JUST TO NOT AIR OUT A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC EXPLAINING THEIR DISABILITY AND WHY THEY NEED THAT ACCOMMODATION AND HAVE THAT BE A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COM? COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ, JUST, JUST A REALLY QUICK QUESTION.
IS THERE ANY THEN APPEAL PROCESS IF THIS FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S DECISION, THEN THAT WOULD BE GO TO THE SUPERIOR COURT? YEAH.
IS, IS THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE CITY MANAGER? NO, THAT WOULDN'T BE PRETTY INFORMAL.
HOW WOULD A RECORD BE MAINTAINED FOR SUCH A HEARING TO BE APPEALED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT? YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
IT WOULD BE PRETTY ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUST THE RECORD WOULD BE, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE A CQA NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WHERE STAFF HANDLE IT AND JUST WHAT THE RECORD IS, UH, OUR SECTION.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, IT DOES REQUIRE IT TO BE PRETTY CONFIDENTIAL BASED ON THE SENSITIVE INFORMATION OF THE DISABILITY.
UM, SO IT WOULD BE THE PLANNING MANAGER'S DECISION OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DECISION, UH, WHATEVER PAPER THEY PROVIDE.
I DOUBT THERE WOULD BE ANY COURT REPORTERS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO IT WOULD BE PRETTY ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUST I THINK DOCUMENTS AND PAPER.
BUT IF, IF THE PERSON ASKING FOR THE ACCOMMODATION NEEDS TO ESTABLISH AN ERROR BASED ON THE RECORD AND, AND THERE'S AN INFORMAL PROCEDURE FOR PREPARING THE RECORD AND IT'S, IT SEEMS, THAT SEEMS, UH, ONE SIDED TO ME.
YEAH, I'M, I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT.
YEAH, I, I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO WITHOUT JUST GOING STRAIGHT TO THE SUPERIOR COURT CHAIR, BUT WE'RE OBVIOUSLY OPEN FOR ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS.
AND JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF, I I, I LIKE THIS IDEA, THE REASON BEING BECAUSE IF ANY ONE OF US WERE TO MAKE A DECISION THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY LEGALLY BINDING AND NONE OF US, I DON'T THINK PRACTICE DISABILITY LAW, WE WOULD HAVE A VERY HIGH CHANCE OF GETTING THAT WRONG.
I'D RATHER PUT THAT ONUS ON SOMEONE WHO PROBABLY HAS A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT RULES ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED RATHER THAN THE INFORMAL OR THE FORMAL OPINION OF SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ACTUALLY WELL VERSED IN THAT SORT OF NEED.
ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? I MEAN, MY OTHER QUESTION IS WHAT WOULD BE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS, I GUESS? YEAH, I THINK THE
[00:50:01]
ALTERNATIVE PROCESS WOULD BE EITHER JUST STRAIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, UH, WITHOUT THAT SECOND LAYER OF SORT OF AN APPEAL OR THAT SECOND LAYER OF THE APPEAL WOULD GO TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER, CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.IF WE DON'T HAVE THEM VERY OFTEN, WHY IS IT SOMETHING WE ARE LOOKING TO AVOID THE, WELL, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN FRONT? WELL, A I THINK THIS WOULD WOULD BE A NEW PROCESS FOR THE CITY.
SO I THINK THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY WE'VE NEVER HAD THEM BEFORE.
UH, AND I, I DO THINK IT WOULD BE PRETTY RARE THAT WE WOULD EVER DENY AN ACCOMMODATION.
SO I THINK THIS WOULD JUST BE KIND OF A REALLY, YOU KNOW, A VERY RARE, RARE OCCASION THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN.
UH, LOOKS LIKE YOU GETTING READY TO SAY SOMETHING NOW.
ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UH, COMMISSIONER ABNER, WHY NOT GO TO THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR? LIKE WHY GO STRAIGHT TO THE, SO THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST LAYER AND THEN IF THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DENIES IT OR, UH, IMPOSES SOME SORT OF CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT MAY THEN APPEAL THAT TO THE CITY MANAGER.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THERE? OKAY.
SO STAFF HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION, UM, FOR APPEALS FROM A DECISION BY THE, UH, PLANNING DIRECTOR TO GO TO THE CITY MANAGER RATHER THAN THE COMMISSION.
WE'LL DO A STRAW POLL ON THAT.
SO THOSE REALLY WERE THE TWO DECISION POINTS.
UM, IN THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS CHAPTER HAS ANY, HAS OTHER SECTIONS? UM, IT DOES, UM, IT DOES CORRECT.
UM, AS DARREN POINTED OUT, THE SECTION 24 0 5 OH UM, IS REFERENCING THAT WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXEMPT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, UH, THAT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS DO APPLY IS SPEC SPECIFICALLY, UM, STATED.
AND THEN IT IS REFERRING TO NOTICE THAT THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY BECAUSE IT IS EXEMPT AND THEREFORE NO NOTICING IS REQUIRED.
UM, SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF EVERYTHING TRACKS.
UM, THAT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THAT IT SHOULD BE SUBSECTION M UM, AND IT'S, SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT'S CORRECT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS REFERRING TO SPECIFICALLY IS THE NOTICING PROVISION.
UM, SO OPEN AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS ON ANYTHING ELSE THAT, UM, MIGHT HAVE CAUGHT YOUR, CAUGHT YOUR ATTENTION OR QUESTIONS IN CHAPTER 24, BUT THOSE ARE REALLY THE TWO DECISION POINTS THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.
UM, CONFIRMATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? OKAY, MOVING ON NEXT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO, UM, CHAPTERS 26, THIS IS NOT REALLY A DECISION POINT, BUT JUST, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS CLEAR.
UM, AND THIS IS AROUND ENFORCEMENT.
UM, DYLAN, DO YOU WANNA CONFIRM THIS IS A REQUEST FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? YEAH.
UM, AND WASN'T REALLY A DECISION POINT, BUT WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE IT WAS ON EVERYBODY'S RADAR.
THIS PROVISION WOULD JUST ADD THAT ONE SENTENCE TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE CITY MAY ENFORCE USE, ITS LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS, UH, ABATEMENT PROCEDURES, CIVIL NUISANCE LAWSUITS FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF THE ZONING CODE.
IT, WE DO HAVE THAT ABILITY RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR.
WE HAVE A MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION THAT SAYS THE ZONING CODE IS NOT PART OF OUR MUNICIPAL CODE.
UH, SO WE HAVE HAD SOME PREVIOUS DISAGREEMENTS AND THIS WOULD JUST BETTER CLARIFY THAT THE CITY IS ABLE TO ENFORCE ITS MUNICIPAL CODE OR ZONING CODE THROUGH ALL OF ITS AVAILABLE REMEDIES.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY, NEXT SLIDE.
I WAS JUST GONNA COMMENT, I I THINK THAT OUR RULES OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO BE ENFORCED.
SO MOVING TO CHAPTER 28, THIS IS DEFINITIONS.
UM, AND OUR KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED, UM, DECISION POINT ON THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE DEFINITION OF DATA CENTER.
UM, SO THIS CHAPTER DEFINES USES AS ACTIVITIES, UM, THAT THEN CORRESPONDS TO THE PERMISSIONS
[00:55:01]
IN, UM, CHAPTER FOUR, UH, DEFINES THE HOUSING TYPES.UM, AND IT ALSO DEFINES STATE REGULATED USES.
UM, SO DATA CENTER IS, UM, DEFINED BY WHAT THE SITE IS USED FOR, NOT THE SIZE.
SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHANGES.
I THINK THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION IN DIFFERENT VERSIONS, UM, KIND OF CONSIDERED OVER TIME WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A, A SIZE ASSOCIATED WITH DATA CENTERS OR NOT.
UM, IT DOES, THE DEFINITION NOW INCLUDES CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING AND IT ALSO, UM, CORRESPONDS TO A CITYWIDE PROHIBITION, WHICH IS REALLY THE DIRECTION THAT, UM, CAME FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO REALLY JUST THE DECISION IS, UM, OUR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO CARRY THAT CITYWIDE PROHIBITION FORWARD.
UM, AND WITH A, UH, A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF DATA CENTER AND NOT THE, THE SIZE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS SPECIFIED IN THE DEFINITION THAT YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S NOT TRYING TO SAY A USE CAN'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, A, A COMPUTER ROOM THAT'S NEEDED TO, UM, TO SUPPORT THE, THE OTHER LAND USE.
IT'S TALKING ABOUT A DATA CENTER AS, AS A USE.
UM, SO THAT'S THE ONE DECISION POINT HERE.
UM, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A LOT OF DEFINITIONS IN THIS REFINED DEFINITIONS, MY REMINDER TO YOU WITH THIS CHAPTER IS WE ARE WORKING WITH A CODE THAT IS SO OLD AND OUT OF DATE THAT THE WAY IT EVEN TALKS ABOUT MANY OF THE USES JUST DON'T MAKE SENSE ANYMORE.
SO THERE ARE SOME CHANGES TO THE, UM, AUTO REPAIR, UM, USES ARE, ARE TWO THAT WE DID MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO, AND SOME OF THAT IS JUST KIND OF CATCHING UP WITH, UM, HOW THINGS ARE DONE NOW VERSUS HOW THEY WERE DONE WHEN OUR EXISTING CODE, UM, WAS ADOPTED.
UM, SO HAPPY TO RUN THROUGH ANY OTHER ONE THAT MAYBE CAUGHT YOUR EYE, BUT THE DECISION POINT HERE IS REALLY ON THAT, UM, DATA CENTER DEFINITION.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THE DATA CENTER DEFINITION OR OTHERS? BRIAN? YEAH, I'M GOING TO.
UM, THE, I I WE ALL KNOW THAT DATA CENTERS ARE A GIANT POINT OF TOPIC RIGHT NOW.
THE WAY IN WHICH COMPUTE IS BEING FORCED UPON SOCIETY IS, UH, VERY MUCH MAKES IT ON TOP OF EVERYONE'S MINDS.
UM, MY ONLY CONCERN HERE IS THAT AS PER THE COMMENT MADE EARLIER TODAY, THAT WE ARE THINKING WITH THIS SORT OF VERY STRICT DEFINITION ON A TYPE OF INDUSTRY THAT WE'RE DISALLOWING REGARDLESS OF ITS INPUT, IT'S IMPRINT, IT'S ENERGY USAGE, IT'S WATER USAGE, IT'S EFFECT ON SOCIETY.
WE ARE JUST DOWNRIGHT SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT DO A PARTICULAR TYPE OF BUSINESS IN PETALUMA.
UM, I AM, MY, MY HESITANCY ARISES FROM THE WHAT IS MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
I DON'T WANT TO BE SO PROHIBITIVE THAT WE LIMIT PETALUMA'S POTENTIAL FUTURE GOING FORWARD IN SCENARIOS THAT WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST YET.
UM, BY OUTRIGHT BANNING DATA CENTERS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE, THEIR USE, OR THEIR PURPOSE, WE HAVE TAKEN A WHOLE ENTIRE SECTOR OUT OF OUR AREA.
I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED.
UM, I MYSELF AM VERY CONCERNED.
I I JUST REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PREVENTING SOMETHING FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED THAT COULD BE BENEFICIAL IF DONE DIFFERENTLY THAN IT'S DONE IN ITS CURRENT MANNER.
I DON'T THINK THAT IN MY AREA OF EXPERTISE IS ENERGY.
SO I HAVE DONE A LOT OF THINKING BOTH ON THE LOCAL LEVEL AND MORE BROADLY ACROSS CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES ABOUT THE ENERGY IMPACTS OF THESE SORTS OF CURRENT, UM, TYPES OF THESE CENTERS.
[01:00:01]
OF WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THIS, THERE IS NOT ANY PLANNED DATA CENTER IN ITS CURRENT ITERATIONS.WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LARGE SIZE OR THE EXTREMELY LARGE ONES LIKE THEY'RE BUILDING OUT IN UTAH RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S NOT A GOOD FOOTPRINT USE CASE WATER AVAILABILITY OR ENERGY CAPACITY TO CURRENTLY BUILD THOSE IN THIS LOCATION.
IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR COMPANIES TO BUILD HERE.
UM, THEY'RE PETALUMA IS NOT CLOSE TO AREAS THAT WOULD BENEFIT, LIKE IN SAN JOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THEY ARE BUILDING SOME OF THESE CENTERS, UM, DUE TO THE LATENCY ISSUES WITH HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR INFORMATION TO PASS BETWEEN THE CENTER AND ITS END, UH, USER.
AND I, I, I JUST DON'T SEE THE IMMEDIACY FOR NEEDING TO ABSOLUTELY BAN THEM, BUT I'M ABSOLUTELY OKAY IF THAT'S WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING.
I JUST WANT TO BE ON RECORD SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, I I REALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT ALL POTENTIAL FUTURES AND BY SAYING THAT SOMETHING IS VEBO, YOU'VE LIMITED IT COMPLETELY IN ANY FORM THAT IT'S IN IN THE FUTURE.
COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN, UH, OTHERS.
YEAH, I CAN APPRECIATE, UM, COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN'S COMMENT AND, AND YOU KNOW, HAVE HAD SIMILAR THOUGHTS AROUND THE FUTURE OF THIS INDUSTRY.
UM, AND THE IMPROBABILITY OF A A, YOU KNOW, REALLY BIG DATA CENTER COMING TO PETALUMA.
I THINK WHAT I AM MOST INTERESTED HERE AS WE CONSIDER DECISION 28.1, IS TO ACTUALLY PULL UP THE DEFINITION.
WE HAVE SORT OF KICKED CHAPTER 28 A COUPLE TIMES, SO I'M NOT SURE WE'VE ACTUALLY GOTTEN INTO THAT WORDSMITHING.
UM, SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE COULD BRING UP THE DATA CENTER DEFINITION, UM, AND AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, HAVE IT WITHIN THE PRESENTATION HERE DESPITE IT OBVIOUSLY BEING IN THE, UH, DOCUMENTS FOR THE MEETING.
BUT, UM, IF STAFF COULD BRING THAT UP, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP US TO AT LEAST PUT IT IN THE RECORD AND TALK THROUGH IT.
UM, I HAVE SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, BUT IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR UH, COMMENTS, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL WAIT.
UM, UH, SO I, I JUST WANNA ASK A, A COUPLE OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS HERE TO BE, TO BE CLEAR THAT THE CURRENT STATUS IN, IN OUR, UM, IN OUR CODE IS THAT THIS USE IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE.
IT'S NOT A, UM, IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY A PERMITTED USE.
WE HAVE A PERMISSIVE CODE MM-HMM
AND SO IF IT'S NOT LISTED, UM, IT'S ESSENTIALLY PROHIBITED AND ONE OF THE, SO SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY AS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO NOW, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY BANNING SOMETHING, WE'RE AFFIRMING THAT IT IS ALREADY NOT PERMITTED.
AND THEN WE'RE ALSO INCLUDING A DEFINITION THAT SAYS IT'S NOT ALLOWED.
I THINK WE'RE DEFINING IT IN ORDER TO BAN IT.
'CAUSE IT WASN'T SPOKEN ABOUT IN THE PREVIOUS CODE.
SO NOW IT'S LIKE MORE CLEARLY DEFINED AND NOT ALLOWED ANYWHERE.
AND THEN WE'RE, WE'RE CRAFTING A DEFINITION THAT IS SORT OF LIKE BELT AND SUSPENDERS.
SO FORGIVE THE, THE LAWYER TERM THERE, BUT WE'RE WE'RE ALSO SAYING THIS USE AS DEFINED IS NOT PERMITTED EITHER.
WE'RE EXPLICITLY PROHIBITING DATA CENTERS, WHEREAS CURRENTLY, AND AGAIN, WE'RE WORKING WITH A VERY OLD CODE MM-HMM
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE DATA CENTERS.
UM, SO THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED CURRENTLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY OUR CODE IS STRUCTURED.
IF IT DOESN'T IDENTIFY SOMETHING, IT'S NOT ALLOWED GOOD.
SO IT'S NOT PERMITTED NOW WE'RE STILL NOT PERMITTING IT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT, IT WAS NOT PERMITTED BECAUSE THE CODE DIDN'T SPEAK OF IT AND IF THE CODE DOESN'T SPEAK OF IT, THEN IT'S CAN'T BE PERMITTED.
AND NOW WE'RE SAYING, LET'S BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THIS IS AND SAY THAT IT'S NOT ALLOWED.
I I THINK COMMISSIONER HILTON SUSPENDERS
[01:05:01]
UM, AND I JUST WANT TO COMPARE THIS TO A, A SIMILAR ISSUE THAT CAME BEFORE THE COUNCIL SEVERAL YEARS AGO WITH GAS STATIONS.
GAS STATIONS WERE AN AUTHORIZED USE AND YOU HAD TO GET A PERMIT, CORRECT? YEAH.
YOU HAD TO GET SPAR OR YOU IN BUILDING PERMITS.
AND I WOULD GET, I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT I'M GUESSING PROBABLY IN SOME AREAS THEY MAY HAVE BEEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND OTHERS ARE PERMITTED USE.
SO YES, THEY WERE ALLOWED, UM, WITH THE APPROPRIATE PERMITS AND, AND WHAT THE CITY DID IN THAT INSTANCE, WHEN IT WANTED TO BAN GAS STATIONS, IT ACTUALLY HAD TO DO A AFFIRMATIVE BAN.
SO THAT DIFFERENT, THAT DISTINCTION IS WHY WE'RE PROCEEDING IN THIS WAY.
IS THAT FAIR TO SAY THAT, THAT IT'S NOT A PERMITTED USE NOW, BUT WE'RE MAKING IT A PRO PROHIBITED USE YES.
AS PROPOSED DEVELOP AND SUSPENDERS? YES.
I'M JUST TRYING TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
'CAUSE THERE'S SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH DATA CENTERS AND, AND FORGIVE ME FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, REINFORCING THE POINT SEVERAL TIMES OVER.
I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE BECAUSE THE, THE, AS COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN ALLUDED TO, SORT OF PUBLIC TENOR AROUND DATA CENTERS IS VERY HEATED, UNDERSTANDABLY SO.
UM, AND I THINK THE, THE SORT OF BLANKET REACTION OF JUST BAN THEM IS SORT OF LIKE, WELL THAT DOESN'T QUITE WORK WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A POLICY DOCUMENT AND THOSE HAS DEF DEFINITIONS.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE NEED TO CREATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT ACTUALLY DOES THE THING WE WANT, WHICH IS PREVENT DATA CENTERS FROM COMING TO PETALUMA.
LIKE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BUILDING HERE.
ALRIGHT, SO NOW WE'RE, WE'VE GOT THE DEFINITION UP IN FRONT OF US, UM, AND THERE WERE SOME WRITTEN COMMENTS ABOUT THE DEFINITION THAT CAME IN.
UH, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR WORDSMITHING SUGGESTIONS OR ANY, ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFINITION? MS. HE, MS. HEINZ, IS THERE A WAY YOU CAN MOVE THE DEFINITION UP A LITTLE BIT ON YOUR SCREEN? THE, UM, YEP.
CLOSE CAPTION, THE CLOSE CAPTION DATA IS, HAS AN IT SPECIALIST OR ANYONE WHO'S KIND OF MORE SAVVY ON THE VOCABULARY RELATED TO DATA CENTERS REVIEWED THIS TO JUST SEE IF IT'S DOING ITS JOB? YES.
UH, WE HAVE A FEW, UM, BUSINESSES IN TOWN THAT HAVE AN ACCESSORY USE DATA CENTER.
UM, AND SO THEY'RE, UM, WE WORKED ON DRAFTING A DEFINITION, UH, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US, WHETHER IT'S, UM, OTHER JURISDICTIONS OR BEST PRACTICES THAT ARE OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF CITIES THINKING ABOUT THIS.
UM, AND SO THAT DEFINITION WAS CLOSELY, UH, VETTED, UM, AND, UM, WORKED ON WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THAT INDUSTRY.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A FEW, POTENTIALLY A FEW IN AT LEAST ONE LOCAL BUSINESSES THAT, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL UNDER THIS DEFINITION, MIGHT COUNT AS A DATA CENTER IN TERMS OF WHAT AT LEAST PART OF ITS BUSINESS DOES.
UM, I'M WONDERING, AND WAS, IS THIS THE SORT OF CONVERSATION THAT YOU'VE HAD TO ENSURE THAT AN EXISTING BUSINESS IN PETALUMA THAT CURRENTLY DOES SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS DATA CENTER IS EXEMPT OR MEETS THIS DEFINITION TO CONTINUE BEING ABLE TO DO ITS BUSINESS AND WE'RE NOT ACCIDENTALLY MAKING A CURRENTLY EXISTING BUSINESS ILLEGAL? CORRECT.
SO PART OF THE RESEARCH WAS WORKING WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
THAT CREATION OF THIS DEFINITION ALL OF A SUDDEN CREATES A NON-CONFORMING IS, UM, USE ISSUE, UM, OR WOULD RESTRICT EXISTING BUSINESSES IN A WAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE? YEAH, I MEAN MY, THE THING THAT JUMPS OUT TO ME IS IT SAYS USE PRIMARILY TO HOUSE COMPUTERS, RIGHT? SO WE'RE STILL INVITING
[01:10:01]
LIKE HIGH TECH BUSINESSES TO COME HERE AND DO THESE THINGS, BUT THEY NEED TO EMPLOY PEOPLE, RIGHT? THEY, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS NOT JUST TO PUT IN A BUNCH OF, UH, COOLING, YOU KNOW, COOLING EQUIPMENT AND SERVERS.IT'S TO ACTUALLY EMPLOY PEOPLE DOING, YOU KNOW, HIGH SKILLED JOBS.
I APPRECIATE THE, THE DEFINITION HAS GOTTEN STEADILY LONGER.
UM, IT'S GOTTEN MORE ENCOMPASSING.
UM, AND I THINK THAT IT MEETS THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, PROTECTION FROM LARGE STANDALONE DATA CENTERS COMING IN HERE.
UM, AND IT ALSO STILL INVITES HIGH, YOU KNOW, HIGHLY SKILLED JOBS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UH, COMMISSIONER HILT, JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THAT.
WHAT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE JUST SAID USED PRIMARILY TO HOUSE, HOW DO WE DEFINE THAT? SO YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE FIRST SENTENCE? YEAH.
IS THERE A PERCENTAGE THRESHOLD THAT HAS TO OCCUR? THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT.
YEAH, I CAN, IT'S, SO I'LL SORT OF EXPLAIN HOW, UM, UH, SO WE HAVE A BUSINESS, UH, PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO COME TO TOWN, OR WE HEAR FROM A BROKER CURRENTLY.
UM, WHAT WE ASK OF EACH OF THE BUSINESSES IS TO ESSENTIALLY PUT A PROPOSAL TOGETHER.
WHAT'S THE BUSINESS MADE UP OF? X NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES X SQUARE FOOTAGE.
UM, WHAT'S YOUR PRIMARY USE? UM, AND SO TO COUNCILMAN BARNACLES EXAMPLE, IF A BUSINESS IS COMING IN THAT HAS, UM, YOU KNOW, PRIMARILY EMPLOYEES, UM, AND IT'S, UM, THERE'S AN ANCILLARY DATA CENTER, UM, AS PART OF THE LARGER BUSINESS OPERATION, UM, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A, A PERMITTED USE.
AND SO IT REALLY JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT THAT PROPOSAL LOOKS LIKE.
IF SOMEONE CAME IN AND, YOU KNOW, 80% OF THE BUSINESS IS JUST ROWS OF SERVERS, UM, THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
AND SO WE WOULD MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT AS THOSE PROPOSALS COME IN.
COMMISSIONER MOSES, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE WORDSMITHING, WHICH I THINK I'M GONNA DIRECT TOWARDS THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY AND PERHAPS TO THE OTHER, TO THE, UM, LAWYERS ON THE DEUS.
BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF, AND IN THIS DEFINITION, AND I'M CURIOUS FROM A LIKE SEVERABILITY STANDPOINT, IF WE GET TO A POINT AND THE TECHNOLOGY MATURES AND SAY THEY DON'T NEED AS MUCH COOLING ANYMORE, OR, YOU KNOW, THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT IS PERHAPS NO LONGER FITTING INTO THIS DEFINITION, HOW, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT IT STILL MAINTAINS THE BAN, EVEN IF THE SORT OF CURRENT MAKEUP OF A DATA CENTER SHIFTS SLIGHTLY ON SOME OF THESE AND POINTS? SO AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY CONSIDERS, UM, SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS, I, UM, I THINK WHAT I WOULD START WITH IS WE DO OUR BEST, UH, DEFINITIONS, UM, YOU KNOW, MAY MAKE SENSE AT ONE POINT IN TIME, AND WE WANT TO WORK WITH ALL THE INFORMATION ON HAND TO GET IT RIGHT.
UM, IT'S JUST, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO COVER EVERY SINGLE BASE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, AS THINGS GET IMPLEMENTED, AS DEFINITIONS ARE DEFINED AND ADOPTED, UM, PART OF OUR JOB IS, UM, FROM THE PERMIT COUNTER, YOU KNOW, UP TO THE EXECUTIVE TEAM, IS WE KEEP OUR FINGER ON THE PULSE WHEN BUSINESSES COME, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, BROKERS, ET CETERA WRESTLE WITH THESE DEFINITIONS ON HOW TO FIT CERTAIN BUSINESSES IN, THERE'S ALWAYS OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO MAKE TEXT AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND SO RIGHT NOW WHAT'S BEFORE US IS OUR BEST ATTEMPT AT, UM, ENSURING THAT WE ARE PROTECTING, UM, AND RECOGNIZING THAT A COMPONENT OF MANY SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES INCLUDE A FORM OF DATA CENTER.
UM, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, TOW THE LINE AND BE REALLY CLEAR AND, UM, UH, BASED ON THE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL THAT A PRIMARY USE THAT IS JUST FOCUS ON DATA MINING, DATA CENTER PROCESSING, UM, IS PROHIBITED.
AND WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT A DEFINITION, UM, IF IT'S STARTING TO TO GET STALE, UM, ET CETERA.
YEAH, AND I'LL JUST ADD, AND I WAS THINKING TO COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN'S POINT IS, IN THE FUTURE, IF THE TECHNOLOGY
[01:15:01]
HAS CHANGED AND THE RESOURCES TO EMPLOY OR TO FURTHEST USE GOES WAY DOWN AND NORMAL ZONING CODE, AN APPLICANT WOULD COME IN, THEN THEY WOULD DO THE ZONING CODE PROCESS, IT WOULD GO TO YOU AND CITY COUNCIL.SO THERE IS DISCRETION IN THE FUTURE FOR THAT TO CHANGE.
THIS IS THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, IT'S, OR THERE'S A PROCESS TO ADDRESS THAT.
UH, SO I THINK THAT GOES TO GO COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN AND BRIAN, TO YOUR POINT TOO, AND JUST LOOKING AT THE ANDS THERE, REALLY, I THINK THE MAIN, AT LEAST IN THE FIRST COUPLE LINES IS IT'S THE PRIMARY USE TO HOUSE COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING, AND THEN YOU GET THAT LONG LIST OF COMPUTER STUFF.
SO, UH, I THINK IT'S A NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST.
IF SERVERS, IT COULD BE DATA STORAGE DEVICES, SO DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT WOULD CHANGE AND FLUCTUATE DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ACTUAL USE LOOKS LIKE, THE PROPOSED USE.
SO I THINK THAT IS A NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST.
IT PROVIDES ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY FOR US IN THE FUTURE TO PROHIBIT THESE DATA CENTERS WHEN THEY COME IN THE PROPOSALS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? NO, I, I, I JUST WANNA THANK EVERYONE FOR THAT, UH, CONVERSATION.
I THINK THAT A LOT OF THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL AND I THINK THAT THE MORE INFORMED EVERYBODY IS ABOUT WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON, THE BETTER THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DEVELOP THE RULES NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE ALL GETTING WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT PROTECTS WHAT WE HAVE.
ALRIGHT, SO LET'S, UH, DO A STRAW POLL ON, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEFINITION, SO LET'S DO A STRAW POLL ON APPROVING THE DEFINITION.
I SEE SIX ZERO ON THE STRAW POLL APPROVING THE DEFINITION.
I GUESS I HAVE ONE QUESTION ON CHAPTER 28 THAT IS NOT DATA CENTER AND IT, THIS MAY BE MORE OF A CHAPTER FOUR QUESTION, BUT GOING BACK TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR 3,100 LAKEVILLE AND THE BUSINESS PARK DEFINITION, IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN BOUNCE BACK TO NOW OR SHOULD WE SAVE THAT FOR THE END? I THINK IT IS PROBABLY A CHAPTER FOUR.
DO YOU MEAN ABOUT THE ALLOWING RETAIL YEAH.
JUST AS AN ACCESSORY VERSUS NOT, AND KIND OF AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS PARTICULAR LOT AND MAYBE OTHERS.
COMMISSIONER EBNER, WOULD IT BE OKAY IF WE TACKED ON THAT CHAPTER FOUR? YEP.
TOWARDS THE END, SO WE GET THROUGH OUR, THE FIRST COURSE OF OUR MEALS TONIGHT.
UM, ALRIGHT, UH, SO WE WILL PROCEED NOW TO CHAPTER, WE JUST WENT 28, 29.
IT'S PROBABLY WHAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WEEDING FOR, UM, TO TALK ABOUT CHAPTER 29 MAKER AND MICRO BUSINESS.
I FEEL LIKE THIS IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE, THE, I DON'T KNOW, THE DIVA OF THE EVENING
UM, SO, UM, JUST KIND OF LOOKING BACK AT OUR, WHAT OUR GENERAL PLAN, UM, ASKED FOR WHEN IT, UM, IT ESTABLISHED THE MAKER MICRO, UM, THE MAKER MICRO LAND USE DESIGNATION.
IT WAS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FLEXIBLE SPACE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, UM, INCLUDING SMALL VENTURES, UH, YOU KNOW, PRODUCING CRAFT QUALITY GOODS.
IT WAS REALLY THOUGHT OF KIND OF THAT ANYTHING GOES OR AS MUCH GOES AS CAN.
UM, THE GREATEST FLEXIBILITY, UM, ALTHOUGH NO RESIDENTIAL, NO ADULT CARE, NO CHILDCARE AND NO HOTELS.
AND REALLY THIS, THIS USE STARTED, UM, IN SOME OF THE AREAS WHERE WE ARE ANTICIPATING SEEING, UM, GREATER FLOODING IMPACTS.
UM, SO THERE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THE PLACES, UM, IN THE NEW GENERAL PLAN WHERE THE MAKER MICRO IS DESIGNATED ARE THOSE AREAS THAT, UM, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE THOSE SENSITIVE USES LIKE RESIDENTIAL OR DAYCARE, UM, OR EVEN HOTELS BECAUSE OF THE FLOODING IMPACTS.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT CHAPTER 29, IT IS REALLY LOOKING AT LAND USES DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OF OUR OTHER CHAPTERS.
UM, AND IT DEFINES SOME PROHIBITED USES.
AND THEN THE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS REALLY BASED ON A, A, A TRIGGER.
UM, SO IF THERE'S NOTHING THAT IS TRIGGERING ADDITIONAL REVIEW, THEN IT WOULD BE A ZONING CLEARANCE, UM, WHICH IS ADMINISTRATIVE OVER, OVER THE COUNTER OR RELATIVELY OVER THE COUNTER AND WOULD INCLUDE, UM, A, A CHECKLIST, A FIRE DEPARTMENT
[01:20:01]
PRE-CLEARANCE CHECKLIST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT OVERLOOKING ANY HEALTH SAFETY ISSUES, UM, BY GOING TO THIS KIND OF MORE FLEXIBLE APPROACH.UM, AND THEN IF, IF A ONE OF THE TRIGGERS WAS TRIGGERED, UM, IT WOULD BE A MINOR USE PERMIT.
AND THIS IS A CHANGE FROM, UM, SINCE THE LAST TIME THIS WAS IN YOUR PACKET, WE REALLY, UM, WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THIS CHA CHAPTER, UH, A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS.
AND INSTEAD OF HAVING THE THREE TIER OF A ZONING CLEARANCE, A MINOR USE PERMIT, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WE, UM, MODIFIED TO HAVE A MINOR USE PERMIT, UM, AS, AS THE KIND OF ELEVATED, UM, REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR THE DIFFERENT USES.
SO THIS IS A, A SNAPSHOT, SO OF THE TRIGGERS ALONG THE LEFT SIDE, SO TRIGGERS BEING OCCUPANCY LOAD, UM, WHETHER IT'S LOCATED IN SENSITIVE HABITAT OR IN THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY, DOES IT HAVE, UM, AN ANTICIPATED NOISE IMPACT THAT WOULD EXCEED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS? UH, IS THERE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT IT'S GONNA GENERATE AN ODOR, UM, THAT WOULD BE REOCCURRING AND, UM, AN OFFENSIVE AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR ONTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LINES? UM, DOES IT HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE, UM, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS, OR DOES IT HAVE OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES? UM, THINKING OF THOSE AS THE TRIGGERS.
UM, SO IF A USE WAS NOT IN THE PROHIBITED LIST BUT HAD ONE OF THESE TRIGGERS, THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE, UM, A, A MINOR USE PERMIT TO MOVE IT FORWARD.
SO PROHIBITED USES MAKING SURE WE'RE COVERING THINGS IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
LIKE NO RESIDENTIAL USES, NO HOTELS, NO ADULT OR CHILD DAYCARE, NO SCHOOLS.
UM, AND THEN THAT OCCUPANCY, WHEN YOU HAVE AN OCCUPANCY OVER 300, UM, GENERALLY YOU HAVE DIFFERENT IMPACTS.
UM, SO THOSE, IT'S, IT'S LIMITING, UM, THAT AS A PROHIBITED USE.
UM, DATA CENTERS, WHICH WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, GAS STATIONS, WHICH WE JUST REFERENCED.
SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED CITYWIDE.
UM, ADDITIONALLY HEAVY MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE CITY.
SO CLARIFYING THAT, THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THESE AREAS.
AND, AND SOME OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS MANY OF THESE AREAS ARE ONE ALREADY BUILT OUT.
SO YOU'VE GOT EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT MAYBE HAVE, UM, MULTIPLE TENANT SPACES WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING AND WE'RE LOOKING AT RETENANTING THOSE OR YOU'VE GOT SMALLER PARCELS, UM, AND REALLY LOOKING FOR THAT KIND OF, UM, THAT STARTUP, THAT SMALLER BUSINESS.
SO, UM, LIMITING THAT, UM, PROHIBITING CANNABIS RETAIL, UM, AUTO VEHICLE SALES AND RENTALS, WHICH ARE PROHIBITED CITYWIDE OTHER THAN OUR AUTO, UM, AUTO CENTER, UM, RETAIL OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT SELLING CANNABIS OR TOBACCO AND THE MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTION OR SALE OF FIREARMS, WEAPONS OR FIREWORKS.
SO THOSE ARE WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY AS THE PROHIBITED USES, UM, IN, IN THE DECISION MAKING SLIDE.
WE DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THESE USES THAT WE'D LIKE, UM, TO KIND OF GET, GET FEEDBACK ON.
UM, SO ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE ADDED TO THIS SECTION WAS ADDED SECTION 29 0 2 OH F, WHICH IS A PROVISION THAT SAYS ALL LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AND CURRENTLY OPERATING BUSINESSES ARE CONSIDERED LEGAL AND CONFORMING.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ZONING DISTRICT DOESN'T CAUSE ANY NONCONFORMITIES, UM, WE WANTED TO HAVE KIND OF A CATCH JUST, JUST IN CASE, UM, SOMETHING WAS MISSED.
SO IF AN EXISTING USE IN ANY OF THE AREAS, UM, THAT WILL BE, THAT IS DESIGNATED AND WILL NOW HAVE THE ZONING OF MAKER MICRO, UM, IF THERE LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AND CURRENTLY OPERATING, THERE IS THAT KIND OF, UM, SAFETY NET THERE TOO, JUST, JUST IN CASE.
BUT THIS IS GIVING, UM, SOME SENSE OF, OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN SOME OF OUR, UM, AREAS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS MAKER MICRO BUSINESS.
SO PET GROOMING, UH, FOOD PRODUCTION, MINI STORAGE,
[01:25:01]
A YOGA STUDIO, UH, A TIRE SHOP.UM, SO THESE ARE KIND OF SOME OF THE AN, AN OVERLOOK AT SOME OF THE AREAS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
JUST YES, WHILE YOU'RE GOING THERE THAT, THAT LAST SLIDE WHERE YOU MENTIONED THE, THE NEW PROVISION, UHHUH
SO THAT ADDRESSES THE, THE SHOTWELL SITUATION.
WE ALREADY BELIEVE THAT SHOTWELL IS COVERED OKAY.
BY THE, THE DEFINITION OF, UM, AUTO REPAIR BUSINESSES AND THAT BEING A, SO THE DEFINITION WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, YOU'RE RIGHT.
AND THAT BEING A PERMITTED USE, OKAY.
YOU KNOW, THAT BEING A USE THAT'S NOT PROHIBITED IN THIS, IN THIS ZONING.
SO WE THINK WE ALREADY HAVE IT COVERED ANYWAY.
UM, AND THAT'S BEEN OUR EFFORT IS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING AND THINKING AND COVERING ANY OF THOSE.
BUT, AND THIS PROVISION HAS A MORE BROADER BENEFIT FOR OTHER BUSINESSES THAT MAY HAVE THE SAME OR SIMILAR CONCERN AS PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THIS FOR, FOR THE PUBLIC.
UM, I I JUST WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LEGALLY ESTABLISHED.
SO, UM, THAT, THAT IS AN IMPORTANT NUANCE OF THIS.
SO IF SOMEBODY IS CURRENTLY AN LEGAL BUSINESS MM-HMM
IN THE ZONE THEY'RE IN, AND THEN THEY BECOME MAKER MICRO AND THEY CAN'T DEMONSTRATE AND THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED UNDER MAKER MICRO, WHICH IS THE MOST FLEXIBLE NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WE OFFER AND HAVE, I BELIEVE EVER OFFERED.
UM, SO I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MANY OF THEM ARE GONNA BE ALLOWED IF THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED CURRENTLY WHERE THEY ARE.
BUT I JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT THAT IT IS SAYING WE WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IF IT'S GONNA USE THAT PROVISION.
UH, IF THERE'S A BUSINESS THAT WERE TO MOVE IN AND REPLACE AN EXISTING CONFORMING BUSINESS THAT DOESN'T SUIT MAKER MICRO, WOULD THAT BE GRANDFATHERED IN AS WELL? OR DOES KIND OF THE BUCK STOP AT THE CURRENT TENANT OR THE CURRENT OWNER? DO YOU MEAN? SO LET'S USE SHOT WELLS AS AN EXAMPLE.
SO SHOT WELLS DECIDES, UM, OR BUSINESS A DECIDES TO, UM, CEASE TO EXIST AND A VERY BASICALLY A LIKE FOR LIKE COMES IN.
ARE YOU ASKING IF THAT WOULD CONTINUE? THE ANSWER IS YES.
AND IT SIMILARLY IF, UH, SHOT WELLS CHANGED HANDS AND A NEW PERSON OWNED THAT BUSINESS AND WAS CONTINUING THAT BUSINESS, THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE.
BUT AGAIN, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CREATING CONFUSION ABOUT SHOT WELLS.
'CAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT SHOT WELLS IS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE MAKER MICRO AS IT IS, BUT UNDER, UNDER THE DEFINITION.
AND I'LL JUST ADD THAT AND THAT MEANS THAT IT CAN EXPAND ITS BUSINESS AS WELL.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
YEAH, MY QUESTION IS REALLY ABOUT, UM, SOME OF THE USES THAT ARE PROHIBITED, WOULD THEY BE ACCEPTABLE AS ACCESSORY USES THINKING LIKE DAY CAMPS, RIGHT? LIKE IF, IF THERE'S RECREATION AND YOU HAVE A, I DON'T KNOW, A PICKLEBALL THING AND THEN YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A, A DAY CAMP THERE, OR YOU KNOW, SUMMER CAMPS OR SOMETHING FOR KIDS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, LIKE IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE USE? UM, YEAH, UH, IT, THAT IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, RECREATIONAL USES AREN'T PROHIBITED AND SO COULD BE ALLOWED.
I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE A THOUGHT.
SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE FUN GRAY AREAS.
THE, THE INTENTION IS THAT, AGAIN, THIS WAS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE MANY OF THESE SITES ARE FLOOD ZONES AND NOT SUITABLE FOR SENSITIVE, UM, POPULATIONS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, SO IF YOU'RE, OH, WE HAVE A PICKLEBALL COURT AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE A WEEK LONG, YOU KNOW, KIDS ARE COMING, I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY QUALIFY THAT AS AN ACTUAL DAY CAMP.
WHEREAS LIKE IF YOU HAVE A FACILITY WHOSE SOLE INTENTION IS A DAY CAMP OR 90% OF IT IS PICKLEBALL AND 10% OF IT IS A DAY CAMP THAT'S REGULARLY HOUSING CHILDREN ON THE SITE, I THINK THERE'S A BIG DISTINCTION.
SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SPECIAL EVENTS THAT MAYBE RUN FOR A WEEK OR WHATEVER, THAT'S, I WOULDN'T CALL THAT A DAY CAMP AS SO NO, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A NUANCE.
I DON'T THINK WE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, BUT WE DEFINITELY, ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS WITH MANY OF THESE AREAS IS TO AVOID THOSE SENSITIVE USERS, ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY WITH SOME
[01:30:01]
OF THE IMPACTS THAT YOU MIGHT BE SEEING IN THIS AREA, DEPENDING ON WHAT USES ARE COMING IN, IT IS POTENTIALLY QUASI INDUSTRIAL, UM, AREAS TOO.I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE A PERFECT ANSWER.
YEAH, I GUESS I'M, I'M THINKING OF LIKE, WE USE THE EXAMPLE OF LIKE HAVING AN ART GALLERY AND NOT BEING ABLE TO OFFER ART CLASSES.
WE'VE, WE'VE USED THAT ONE A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE PROCESS OF TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING CODE, RIGHT? AND LIKE THAT KIND OF FALLS INTO LIKE CLASSES OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, I'M LIKE, UM, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY.
UM, I WOULD SAY LIKE MAYBE IF WE JUST MAKE CLEAR THAT LIKE, WE'RE ALSO ENCOURAGING CREATIVITY BECAUSE SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE A WOOD SHOP AND THEY TEACH WOOD SHOP CLASSES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THEY BRING PEOPLE IN AND DO THAT.
LIKE, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT TYPE OF CREATIVITY, I THINK TO, UM, HELP PEOPLE HAVE A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS.
AND, AND ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE MAKER MICRO, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IS THAT WE ALSO WANT TO LIKE, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MORE OF AN ACCESSIBLE, LIKE WHEN I THINK OF MICRO BUSINESSES AND MAKER BUSINESSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU LIKE WANT TO BRING PEOPLE INTO 'EM TOO AND SHOW OFF YOUR WARES AND THINGS LIKE THAT TOO.
SO THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF THAT, RIGHT? AND THERE'S NOTHING, LIKE IF YOU HAD A, A, A WOOD SHOP AND YOU OFFERED, YOU KNOW, CLASSES ON TUESDAY NIGHT TO ADULTS, THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THAT FROM BEING ALLOWED.
BUT IT'S THAT, I MEAN, OTHER THAN ADULT DAY PROGRAM.
UM, SO WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT SOME OF THAT NUANCE, UH, ON THAT FRONT.
YEAH, I THINK WE'VE GONE A FEW DIFFERENT TIMES TO SAY THAT.
LIKE WE WANT THE EDUCATIONAL SORT OF CLASSES MODEL.
I THINK THE LINE BETWEEN DAY CAMP AND CLASS, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A, IF IT'S A WEEKEND LONG IMMERSIVE YEAH.
WOODWORKING WORKSHOP OR WHATEVER, AT WHAT POINT DO YOU CROSS THAT LINE? I, I'M INCLINED TO SAY LIKE, LET'S JUST ALLOW DAY CAMPS
AND IF THERE'S A FLOOD COMING, YOU CANCEL CAMP.
I GUESS I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW.
IT, IT FEELS LIKE, UH, EPHEMERAL ENOUGH USE THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM QUITE AS SENSITIVE TO ME AS HOUSING.
AND THAT'S WHERE I WAS LEADING TO ACTUALLY, JUST TO, JUST TO ECHO THAT.
I THINK YOU, UM, WAS JUST LIKE CLASSES AND DAY CAMPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT I THINK ARE GOOD.
LIKE EXPERIENTIAL THINGS THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE AT LEAST AS ANCILLARY USES.
IF NOT, UM, IF NOT AS PRIMARY USES.
THE, I THINK THE KIND OF JUVENILE SIDE OF LIKE JUST HAVING CHILDREN IN THE FLOOD ZONE, I THINK, CAN WE THINK ABOUT A TIMESTAMP ON IT OR HOW LONG DAY CAMPS CAN EXTEND FOR, IS IT A WEEK? IS IT LIKE HOW DO WE DEFINE TEMPORARY OR, YOU KNOW, SEASONAL CAMPS? UH, I THINK I GET NERVOUS WHEN IT'S A FLOOD ZONE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST KIND OF STARTING TO ALLOW CHILDREN'S CHILDREN'S USES THERE WITHOUT SOME SORT OF GUARDRAIL BEYOND JUST THE DEFINITION OF A DAY CAMP.
UM, IF, IF THAT WAS THE, UM, FEEDBACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS PART OF A MOTION, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, THEN I HESITATE TO LIKE START WORDSMITHING AT FIGURING OUT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO KIND OF ADDRESS THE, THE D DESIRED FLEXIBILITY AND ALSO AVOID THE UNDESIRABLE IMPACTS.
UM, SO I WOULD SAY MAYBE IF, IF THAT IS A PIECE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN THERE TO LOOK AT WAYS TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR ACCESSORY, UM, DAY CAMPS, UM, THAT THAT WOULD BE A, A GOOD FEEDBACK AND THEN WE COULD DO OUR BEST TO FIGURE OUT, UM, SOMETHING TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL IN RESPONSE.
YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE ACCESSORY USE AS WELL AS SEASONAL, RIGHT? UM, SHOULD I CONTINUE? PLEASE CONTINUE.
OKAY, SO WE WANTED TO ALSO POINT, UM, THIS SLIDE OUT.
THIS IS SHOWING, UM, THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY, UM, AND THE PURPLE OUTLINE IS SOME OF OUR MAKER MICRO.
SO YOU WILL, UM, REMEMBER THAT ONE
[01:35:01]
OF THE TRIGGERS FOR A MINOR USE PERMIT WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION, UM, IN THE MAKER MICRO WHEN IT IS IN AN AREA, A FLOOD PRONE AREA.THIS IS ALSO, UM, WOULD REQUIRE CONSISTENCY, UM, WITH THE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER SIX, WHICH IS THAT FLOODWAY FLOOD FLOODPLAIN, FLOOD PRONE, UM, CHAPTER.
UM, SO THAT TIES IN NICELY WITH THAT AND WOULD REQUIRE, UM, CONSISTENT WITH THAT CHAPTER ANY, UM, ANY REQUIRED, UM, REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN IN THOSE AREAS.
UM, ONE, WE HAVE DEFINED A MINOR USE PERMIT FOR AN OCCUPANT LOAD, UM, OF 150 TO 299.
SO JUST KIND OF TOUCHING BASE, UM, ON THAT.
UM, AND ALSO ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WILL SEE IS THAT, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS REMOVED WAS THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT, A TRIGGER TO GO TO A, UM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
IF A, UM, HAZARD SUBSTANCE PLAN IS THAT THE HAZARD MATERIALS BUSINESS PLAN, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLAN WAS REQUIRED, UM, AND THAT THAT TRIGGER WAS REMOVED, THAT THERE WILL STILL BE A REQUIREMENT THROUGH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST WITH A ZONING CLEARANCE.
SO WE FELT LIKE WE WERE GETTING THE REVIEW AND THE TOUCHPOINT WE NEEDED THROUGH THE ZONING CLEARANCE PROCESS AND THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT NECESSARILY AS A TRIGGER TO A MINOR USE PERMIT, WHEN REALLY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS THE ONE THAT IS THE ONE THAT'S GONNA LOOK AT THAT.
SO WE FELT LIKE WE HAD COVERED IT THROUGH THAT ZONING CLEARANCE.
UM, SO THAT IS, THAT'S THE FIRST KIND OF DECISION POINT THAT WE'RE REQUESTING INPUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON DECISION 29 DASH ONE? I HAVE A COMMISSIONER NER QUESTION ON, UH, BUILDING DEPARTMENT CLEARANCE.
IS THERE A BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST IN PARALLEL OR IS IT INCORPORATED AT ALL INTO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST? IT WAS, I BELIEVE WORKED ON TOGETHER BETWEEN, IN COORDINATION BETWEEN BUILDING AND FIRE.
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE THRESHOLD? I SUPPORT A LOWER OCCUPANT LOAD LIKE CLOSER TO ONE 50, BUT I'D BE OPEN TO JUST UNDERSTANDING GENERAL SQUARE FOOTAGES IF THERE IS ARE, YOU KNOW, LARGER UNITS WHERE A HIGHER OCCUPANT LOAD WOULD BE, UM, MORE APPROPRIATE AND STAFF IS AWARE OF THAT, I'M OPEN TO JUST UNDERSTANDING WHERE THAT MAY BE MORE APPLICABLE.
SO UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HAVE OUR FIRE MARSHAL HERE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAD THE THRESHOLDS THAT ARE, UM, BEFORE YOU, THE ONE 50 TO 2 99, UM, ARE TIED TO BOTH THE FIRE AND BUILDING CODE.
AND SO, UM, WE WANTED TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
THAT SAID, IF THERE'S A DESIRE FOR US TO LOOK CLOSE, UH, MORE CLOSER AT, UM, RE WHAT I'M HEARING IS LIKE REDUCE REDUCING THE CEILING, UM, AND HAVING SOME JUSTIFICATION TIED TO THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO IT.
IS THE OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATED AS PART OF THE FIRE AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST? THE STANDARD WAY AND OCCUPANT LOAD WOULD BE CALCULATED BASED ON KIND OF USE AND PER SQUARE FOOT? YES, EXACTLY.
SO I FEEL LIKE IF IT MEETS CODE THEN YOU CAN TAKE A CEILING OF 2 99 AND THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
THAT WAS THE INTENT OF, UM, MATCHING THAT.
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS CAN PUT 'EM, COMMISSIONER MOSES, UM, ON THAT SEPARATE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, UM, DETERMINATION TO JUST LET ZONING HANDLE IT.
WOULD THE MINOR USE PERMIT PROCESS YIELD DIFFERENT SORTS OF VISIBILITY? COMMUNITY INPUT, UM, THAT WE'RE REMOVING BY ROUTING IT TO ZONING? WHAT, WHAT WE FELT LIKE WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, ONE OF THE REASONS WE WERE LOOKING AT A MINOR USE PERMIT WAS TO CAPTURE THAT POINT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THEIR REVIEW, UM, WAS HAPPENING AND THEY WERE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO TOUCH IT, ASK FOR IT IF NEEDED, REVIEW IT.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY LOOKING AT THE ZONING CLEARANCE PROCESS AND ADDING
[01:40:01]
IT TO THAT AS PART OF THE FIRES, WE FELT LIKE WE WERE GETTING WHAT WE WERE PUSHING TOWARDS THE CONDITIONAL OR THE, UM, MINOR USE PERMIT FOR.UM, I THINK THAT GENERALLY, UM, THE HAZARD MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN HAZARDS MATERIALS, BUSINESS PLAN, BUSINESS PLAN, SORRY,
SO WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE WE WERE TAKING AWAY KIND OF A, A TYPICAL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CON, UH, CONCERN OR ISSUE.
UM, THEY GENERALLY WOULD DEFER TO THE EXPERTISE OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THAT KIND OF TECHNICAL DETAIL.
SO I THINK I'M HEARING COMMISSIONER EBNER SUGGESTION TO HAVE A OCCUPANT LOAD OF ONE 50.
I'LL REVISE THAT IF IT SUITS THE BUILDING CODE CALCULATIONS FOR OCCUPANCY COUNT, I'D SUPPORT IT AS IT'S, UH, RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ARE WE READY TO DO A STRAW POLL? OKAY, WE HAVE A SIX ZERO STRAW POLL TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE THRESHOLDS FOR 29 DASH ONE.
UM, SO THE NEXT, UM, DECISION POINT IS ABOUT OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES.
WE HAD, UM, A TRIGGER TO A MINOR USE PERMIT WHEN THERE WAS OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES MM-HMM
SO, UM, OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO MAKE THAT THE TRIGGER.
IF THERE WAS OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES, THEN DO A MINOR USE PERMIT.
IT'S GONNA NOTIFY, INCLUDE THEN NOTIFICATION TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AS PART OF THAT PROCESS.
SO JUST LOOKING FOR CONFIRMATION THAT PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTS THAT RECOMMENDATION.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THAT POINT? NO.
ARE WE READY? DO STRAW POLL HOLE SIX ZERO STR HOLE APPROVING THAT OUTDOOR ACTIVITY REQUIRES MINOR USE PERMIT.
ALRIGHT, DECISION 29 DASH THREE.
UM, 29 DASH THREE DEALS WITH FOUR USE GROUPS, CANNABIS, UM, ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND CARD ROOMS. SO AS RECOMMENDED, UM, CANNABIS MANUFACTURING WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH A MINOR USE PERMIT, UM, AND CANNABIS RETAIL WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
SO THAT'S THE WAY, UM, CURRENTLY, UM, CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED, UH, WOULD LOOK FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INPUT ON WHETHER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDING TASTING ROOMS SHOULD BE ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED OR PROHIBITED, WHETHER CARD ROOMS SHOULD BE ALLOWED OR PROHIBITED AND WHETHER ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED OR PROHIBITED.
I SHOULD PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT TO IT.
SO THESE ARE, UM, THESE FOUR, UH, WHERE DO WE USE THEM? USE GROUPS, UM, ARE REGULATED IN DIFFERENT WAYS CURRENTLY IN THE CURRENT ZONING CODE IN DIFFERENT CHAPTERS.
SO THERE'S LITERALLY A CHAPTER AROUND ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT.
AND SO THERE'S A WHOLE SET OF RULES THERE.
UM, THERE'S A WHOLE SET OF RULES WITH RESPECT TO ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES, UM, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
UM, SO THE REASON WHY THIS IS A DECISION POINT FOR US IS, UM, THE MAKER MICRO.
SO THE, UM, WHAT WILL BE A MAKER MICRO LAND USE DESIGNATION, UM, SOME OF THOSE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IS CURRENTLY A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION ON ONE PARCEL IS BEING PROPOSED TO BECOME A, UM, MAKER MICRO DESIGNATION WITHIN EACH OF THOSE CHAPTERS FOR THOSE DIFFERENT USES, UM, THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO, UM, UH, FOR THE ADULT, UM, ORIENTED
[01:45:01]
BUSINESSES, THERE'S I THINK THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS THAT IT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN.AND SO WE HAVE A GAP NOW AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE GENERAL PLAN, UM, AND THE ZONING CODE.
UM, AND SO IT'S NOT AN EASY CARRYOVER.
WE CAN'T JUST SAY, HEY, THESE USES ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL, DO WE WANNA ALLOW THEM NOW IN EVERY SINGLE MAKER MICRO DESIGNATION? AND SO THERE'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF NUANCE WE CAN WALK THROUGH EACH OF THEM IF NEEDED.
UM, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE WE RETAIN THE EXISTING, UM, ZONING DESIGNATIONS AS THEY'RE CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN EACH OF THOSE CHAPTERS.
UM, AND DON'T OPEN IT UP TO, UM, INCLUDING MAKER MICRO.
SO IF WE SAY, HEY, FOR, UM, ADULT RIGHT NOW IN THE CHAPTER FOR ADULTS OR UM, ORIENTED BUSINESSES, THERE'S NO MENTION OF A PERMITTED ZONE MAKER MICRO.
AND SO IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO RECOMMEND THAT WE OPEN IT UP FOR MAKER MICRO, THEN WE'D WANT TO GO OVER THERE AND LITERALLY WRITE IN IT'S ALLOWED IN C ONE, C TWO AND UM, MAKER MICRO.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT PROVIDES A LITTLE BACKGROUND AS YOU DELIBERATE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? YEAH, UM, REGARD MR. GOLDMAN, REGARDING THE, BECAUSE MAKER MICRO EFFECTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE DESIGNATED AS MAKE MAKER MICRO, GENERALLY, TO MY RECOLLECTION, THE AREAS THAT THEY ACTUALLY AFFECT ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR CURRENT MAKEUP AND WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS THERE.
UM, IS, WOULD THERE BE, NOT SAYING THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN, BUT IS THERE A POTENTIAL TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN OF THOSE SECTIONS AS NOT ABLE TO HAVE CERTAIN, UM, POTENTIAL BUSINESSES DUE TO WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HOUSE? OR IS IT JUST A SINGULAR, THIS CAN EXIST IN OUR DESIGNATED MAKER MICRO, REGARDLESS OF ITS LOCATION WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE? BASED ON MY QUESTION.
SO UNLESS IT'S ALREADY WRITTEN INTO STATE LAW, SO LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S SOME STATE LAW OR CITY CODE RESTRICTIONS REGARDING LIKE WHAT CANNABIS CAN BE PROXIMATE TO, UNLESS THAT EXISTS, THEN IF THE ZONE, IF IT'S THESE ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THAT DISTRICT, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE CODE THAT SPECIFIES YOU MUST MAINTAIN X DISTANCE FROM X, Y, Z, THEN IT'S ALL OR NOTHING UNLESS THAT EXISTS.
SO THE ONLY WAY I'VE EVER SEEN, UM, SORT OF A, A TIERING WOULD BE USING, UM, ZONING TOOLS LIKE AN OVERLAY.
SO IF YOU WANTED JUST A FOCUSED, UH, SUBSECTION OF THE MAKER MICRO, UM, DESIGNATION ACROSS THE CITY AND YOU JUST WANTED TO CREATE A, UM, SORT OF AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF REGULATION OR PERMISSION, UM, LET'S SAY YOU THOUGHT, UM, THERE WAS A CERTAIN USE THAT WERE, UM, RUNNING THROUGH HERE, CARD ROOMS, UM, WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE IN ONE PLACE OR ANOTHER.
UM, THERE ARE TOOLS LIKE AN OVERLAY IS PROBABLY THE MOST, UM, SIMPLE APPROACH TO HAVING THAT DISCUSSION.
AND TO BRIAN'S POINT, UM, FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE A CHAPTER NINE OF THE IZO UH, DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH CARD ROOMS. AND ONE OF THE FIRST SECTIONS SAYS THAT CARD ROOMS ARE PERMITTED ONLY IN C ONE C TWO, MU ONE A, MU ONE B MU TWO, AND BUSINESS PARK.
SO BASED ON THAT, IT IT'S NOT ALLOWED IN MAKER MICRO.
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIFIC EFFORT TO MODIFY CHAPTER NINE TO INCLUDE MAKER MICRO IF CARD ROOMS ARE DESIRED TO BE ALLOWED.
UM, FOR, THAT'S ONE KIND OF A, GETTING SPECIFIC TO BRIAN WHAT BRIAN WAS SAYING, UH, COMMISSIONER MOSES, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS A ADMINISTRATIVE HURDLE MORE THAN A MORAL JUDGMENT.
UM, I THINK ADDING MAKER MICRO TO THAT LIST OF ZONES THAT YOU JUST DETAILED CARD ROOMS ARE ALLOWED IN, FEELS LIKE
[01:50:01]
NOT THAT, UM, IMPOSSIBLE OF AN OF A, OF A DRAFTING LIFT.UM, AND I DON'T SEE A GREAT REASON FOR THEM TO BE DISALLOWED ASIDE FROM LIKE THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT SECTION CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
WELL, AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE BRINGING IT TO THE COMMISSION AS TO GET THAT FEEDBACK, WHETHER YOU WANT TO ALLOW IT IN THE MAKER MICRO, THOSE KIND OF SPECIFIC USE TYPES, BECAUSE THEN WE WILL, WHEN WE PREPARE THIS FOR COUNCIL, WE WILL DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO BRING THAT FORWARD.
I THINK OF THE FOUR, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CANNABIS HAVING A LOT OF ITS OWN REGULATIONS, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE RETAIL.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT A METHOD HERE WITH A MINOR USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CANNABIS MANUFACTURING.
SO THEN WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT ADULT-ORIENTED ALCOHOL AND CARD ROOMS. AND I FEEL LIKE ALCOHOL IS THE MAIN ONE FOR ME THAT FEELS LIKE AN EXPANDING, UM, INDUSTRY FOR PETALUMA AND A VERY RELEVANT CATEGORY FOR MAKER MICRO, UM, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TYPE OF CREATIVITY AND FLEXIBILITY THAT WE WISH TO INFUSE INTO THESE ZONES.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE MY ATTENTION GOES.
AND THEN I ALSO THINK, WELL, IF WE'RE GONNA DO THE WORK TO LET ALCOHOL BE ALLOWED, THEN LET'S JUST, YOU KNOW, DO THE SAME FOR ADULT ORIENTED IN CARD ROOM AND THEN ANYTHING GOES, UM, OR MOST AS MUCH CAN GO GOES.
UM, SINCE THE, AS I'VE STATED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, SORT OF, UH, PURITANICAL
AND IT MIGHT BE THAT, UH, A STRAW POLL ON EACH ONE OF 'EM.
COMMISSIONER EBNER ALCOHOL, ARE WE TALKING JUST NO RESTRICTION BARS, WHATEVER, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ALCOHOL AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A DISTILLERY, SAY, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WELL, THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
UH, SO THE WAY OUR CUR CODE CURRENTLY, UM, AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT IS WHEN ALCOHOL IS SERVED FOR ONSITE CONSUMPTION, NOT AS PART OF A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT.
UM, SO, UM, A TASTING ROOM IS ALSO SEPARATELY DEFINED IN OUR CODE AS AN ANCILLARY USE TO A MANUFACTURING.
SO A DISTILLERY, FOR INSTANCE.
UM, AND HAVING A TASTING ROOM.
UM, THE IDEA WAS THAT, UH, A TASTING ROOM WAS DIFFERENT THAN A BAR.
UM, AND THE CITY'S CODE EVEN GOES SO FAR AS THIS ISN'T A FREE STANDING BAR, IT IS A TASTING ROOM THAT IS SUPPORTING AND ACCESSORY TO THE, THE PRODUCTION ON SITE.
UM, SO THERE'S ALREADY SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE IN CHAPTER EIGHT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, THERE IS ALSO, UM, CHAPTER EIGHT DOES HAVE, UM, PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ALREADY OUTLINED.
UM, AND THERE IS A, A USE PERMIT REQUIRED, UM, FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS.
SO LIKE A BAR, UM, THAT THERE IS A USE PERMIT AND O OFTEN, UM, THERE HAS BEEN TIMES ALSO WHEN, UH, THERE IS A, I FORGET PCNI FORGET WHAT THE, WHAT THE PUBLIC PUBLIC CONVENIENCE.
AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A PERMIT THAT COMES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THERE WAS A WHILE THAT WOULD HAPPEN WHEN, UM, THERE WAS, UM, FOR INSTANCE, SOMEBODY PROPOSED SALE OF ALCOHOL FOR OFFSITE CONSUMPTION, UH, AS PART OF, UM, A GAS STATION FOR INSTANCE.
AND THERE'S A DIFFERENT, SO THERE'S A LOT OF THOSE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS THAT COME FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE.
I'M LIKE, WHAT'S THE C FOR? UM, SO, YOU KNOW, MELDING THOSE TOGETHER.
UM, BUT JUST WANNA BRING IT FORWARD AS, UM, THE, THE COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK ON THOSE USES.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WOULD IT BE HELPFUL IF WE PULLED UP A MAP OF ALL THE PROPOSED MAKER MICRO? YES.
YEAH, I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM, FOR CANNABIS MANUFACTURING, IS THAT AN AUTHORIZED USE IN ANY OTHER ZONES IN THE CITY? IT IS, YEAH.
[01:55:01]
ALSO DO AS WE GO THROUGH EACH ONE, UM, WE CAN WALK THROUGH THE, I I BELIEVE IT'S ALLOWED IN BOTH BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL.UM, ALL WE'RE DOING IS PROPOSING TO CARRY IT OVER FROM, UM, WHAT'S PERMISSIBLE NOW.
SO WE CAN, IF WE WANT TO FIRST TACKLE CANNABIS MANUFACTURING, THEN WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT THE CHAPTER FOUR TABLE.
GIMME A SECOND TO SEE IF I CAN PULL UP THE LOCATIONS.
WHY ISN'T THAT WORKING? OKAY, THERE WE GO.
UH, QUESTION ON HOW MAKER MICRO OVERLAPS, IF AT ALL, WITH THE SMART CODE AREAS.
UM, BUT LIKE, I'M THINKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, WHICH SOUNDS OR FEELS LIKE A NATURAL HOME FOR MAKER MICRO, AND THIS COULD BE TABLED FOR AFTER OR FOR USE GROUPS CONVERSATION THAT THAT IS A, SO IT DOES NOT.
UM, SO THAT IS THE CITY LIMITS.
YOU SEE THAT KIND OF, UM, THE DARK LINE ON THE OUTSIDE.
SO YOU HAVE THE AREA, UM, AT LAKEVILLE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE HAD THAT PICTURE OF, UM MM-HMM
AND THEN HOPEFULLY I DON'T MAKE YOU SEASICK.
SO THE OUTLETS, FOR INSTANCE, ARE DESIGNATED, UM, MAKER MICRO, BUT THEY DO HAVE, UM, A PCD THAT OVERLAYS THE THREE, UM, OUTLET PROPERTIES.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE UP HERE AS WELL, UM, ON THE BOULEVARD.
SO IT'S A PRETTY THANK SMALL, UM, AMOUNT OF PROPERTY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT CITYWIDE IT'S 21 PARCELS.
SO WE WILL TAKE UP THE CANNABIS USE FIRST.
SO CURRENTLY IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT CANNABIS MANUFACTURING BE ALLOWED BY A MINOR USE PERMIT AND CANNABIS RETAIL, UH, WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
AND, UH, CANNABIS MANUFACTURING CURRENTLY IS, UM, PERMITTED IN BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL.
DOES IT REQUIRE A MINOR USE PERMIT IN THOSE, UH, WHAT ARE THE 16 AND 17 FOOTNOTES? OH, UM, THERE ARE SOME BUFFERS AROUND, UM, IT SHOULD, IT CAN'T BE CLOSE TO A CITY LIBRARY RESIDENTIAL, UM, 200 FEET FROM A PARK.
SO THERE'S SOME KIND OF LIKE SITUATIONAL REQUIREMENTS THERE.
UM, BUT IT IS PERMITTED NO USE PERMIT REQUIRED IN BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL OTHER THAN THOSE KIND OF BUILT IN, UM, BUFFERS.
AND WE DON'T CURRENTLY, THEY DON'T REQUIRE A USE PERMIT.
THEY DO REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL CANNABIS PERMIT.
SO THAT'S OUR THREE RETAILERS HAVE ONE.
UM, AND THEN ONE OF THE RETAILERS ALSO DOES OUR DELIVERY.
AND TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO LEGALLY ESTABLISHED MANUFACTURING OF CANNABIS IN TOWN.
AND DOES THAT DIFFER FROM COUNTY CANNABIS MANUFACTURING REQUIREMENTS? DOES THE COUNTY HAS ITS OWN CANNABIS PERMITTING SYSTEM? UH, LET'S, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE STATE AND NOT THE COUNTY.
SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S STATE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.
SO ANY CANNABIS BUSINESS WOULD HAVE TO GET THEIR STATE PERMIT OR THEIR STATE LICENSE FROM CAL CANNABIS, BUT THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE COUNTY 'CAUSE IT'S, IT WOULD JUST BE THE CITY'S JURISDICTION.
OH, WELL, WHAT WE WOULD DO, BUT MY QUESTION'S GOING MORE TOWARDS, ARE WE HAVING A LOWER STANDARD FOR A CANNABIS MANUFACTURING BUSINESS IN MAKER MICRO COMPARED TO DOWN THE ROAD ON LAKEVILLE OUT IN THE COUNTY JURISDICTION?
[02:00:01]
OKAY.I I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTIES.
THAT I'M NOT CERTAIN, UM, AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
UH, COMMISSIONER MOSES? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO THINK MORE ABOUT THE CURRENTLY PERMITTED CANNABIS MANUFACTURING ZONES AND THEN THE SORT OF HOOPS WE ARE, UH, POTENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE FOR THE MAKER MICRO.
WHY A MINOR USE PERMIT IN MAKER MICRO, IF NOT IN THE OTHER ZONES THAT IT'S ELIGIBLE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
SO IT GOES BACK TO ONE OF MY EARLIER COMMENTS.
SOME OF THE ONES THAT ARE BEING RE-DESIGNATED TO MAKER MICRO ARE COMING FROM A NON-BUSINESS PARK OR NON-INDUSTRIAL ZONING DESIGNATION.
SO SOME OF THOSE PARCELS DON'T CURRENTLY THEY'RE PROHIBITED.
UM, THEY'RE, THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO CANNABIS MANUFACTURING.
AND SO THIS GOES BACK TO COMMISSIONER GOLDEN'S QUESTION ABOUT IS THERE A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY APPLY FOR DIFFERENT ZONES.
UM, WE JUST ESTABLISHED THAT WE DON'T HAVE MANY THAT ARE BEING PULLED INTO THE MAKER MICRO.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE STAFF WAS.
OUR, OUR TEAM IS GOING WITH THE USE PERMIT, UM, BECAUSE WE'RE ESSENTIALLY INCREASING THE ABILITY FOR CANNABIS MANU MANUFACTURING TO HAPPEN, UM, IN THE CITY BY CREATING THE MAKER MICRO AND THEN TRYING TO CONTRACT THAT WITH A MINOR USE PERMIT.
UM, UH, YEAH, IT, IT WOULD BE, UH, DIRECTOR APPROVAL.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMISSIONER EBNER? I THINK I REMEMBER FROM OUR LAST HEARING THAT WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF FOUR.
IS IT, UH, AVAILABLE CANNABIS RETAILERS? IS IT THREE? THREE RETAIL.
UH, BRIAN, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP.
I, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A, UH, A CAP ON TESTING LABORATORIES OR MANUFACTURER.
THERE'S A CAP ON DELIVERY, SO JUST DELIVERY AND RETAIL.
AND ALL THE OTHER ONES YOU CAN HAVE AS MANY AS THE CITY CAN SATURATE.
AND THE, THE CAP IS THREE AND, AND WE ARE WITH THREE PERMITTED RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS FOR RETAIL.
BUT THERE'S STILL THREE OR TWO OTHER PERMITS OUT THERE.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'M GONNA TEE, OH, COUNCIL MEMBER VAR.
UM, JUST I THINK MANUFACTURING MAKES SENSE.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TOUCH WITH, UH, CANNABIS RETAIL AND THEN THE OTHER THREE USES I FEEL OKAY WITH.
THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL PO POSITION.
ARE YOU SAYING MANUFACTURING WITH MINOR USE PERMIT OR DO AWAY WITH A MINOR USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT? YES.
WITH A MINOR USE PERMIT IN THIS, IN THE, UH, SPIRIT OF DISCUSSION, CAN YOU GIVE YOUR RATIONALE? 'CAUSE I'M NOT SEEING IT.
UH, I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULDN'T ALLOW CANNABIS MANUFACTURING IN AN AREA WHERE WE'RE ALLOWING MANUFACTURING.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, ALLOW IT.
WITHOUT, WHY, WHY FORCE A MINOR USE PERMIT WHEN NONE OF THE OTHER MANUFACTURING UNLESS IT HITS THOSE TRIGGERS WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.
I'M, I CAN GET WITH THAT TOO, BUT IT, BUT IT, FOR, IN THE OTHER ZONING DESIGNATIONS, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'S REQUIRED? NO, NO, NO.
FOR, SO IF, SO THE CARRYOVER IS IF YOU HAVE A BUSINESS PARK OR AN INDUSTRIAL ZONED PARCEL, IT'S A PERMITTED USE SO LONG AS YOU GET THE CANNABIS, UM, COMMERCIAL CANNABIS PERMIT.
AND THEN YOU ABIDE BY ALL THE THINGS.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE WERE STAFF IS FLAGGING IS SOME OF THE NEWLY MINTED MAKER MICRO IS COMING FROM NON-BUSINESS PARK NON-INDUSTRIAL ZONES.
SO THOSE ARE PROHIBITED IN NON-BUSINESS PARK, NON-INDUSTRIAL AT THE MOMENT.
SO LET'S, UH, WE'LL WE WILL TEE THIS UP FOR A QUESTION.
SHOULD CANNABIS MANUFACTURING BE ALLOWED ONLY BY MINOR USE PERMIT? STRAW POLL FOR THAT.
[02:05:05]
COULD YOU BRING UP THE MAP PLEASE? THE MINOR USE PERMIT PROCESS IS PRETTY MUCH JUST MINISTERIAL, RIGHT? THERE'S VERY LITTLE SUBJECTIVITY THAT GOES INTO IT.IT'S MORE LIKE AN ELABORATED CLEARANCE OR IT'S DISCRETIONARY.
IT'S THE SAME USE PERMIT FINDINGS, BUT THERE'S NO HEARING.
UM, IT'S A, A, A LETTER APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR, UM, AND THERE IS PUBLIC NOTICING, BUT IT'S A SMALLER RADIUS.
I BELIEVE IT'S 500 FEET RADIUS INSTEAD OF A THOUSAND.
SO IT'S MORE KIND OF IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
COULD COULD YOU PLEASE PUT THE YEAH, I'M MAP UP.
JOHN, DO YOU, NANCY? WE HAVEN'T, UM, ISSUED A NANCY SANDS, UM, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST FOR, FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVEN'T ISSUED, UM, OR DON'T HAVE ACTIVE MANUFACTURING OR TESTING, UM, CANNABIS BUSINESSES RIGHT NOW.
BUT I BELIEVE, AND I'M TRYING TO READ THIS QUICKLY, THEY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO GO GET A CANNABIS PERMIT MM-HMM
WHICH IS A REVIEW PROCESS AND PAY A, UM, A FEE FOR THAT.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UM, IN THE PAST THOSE PERMITS WERE ISSUED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
NOW THEY'RE BEING ISSUED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BUT IN ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS WOULD BE REVIEWING THAT PERMIT.
SO IN ESSENCE, THE CANNABIS PERMITTING PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING, TESTING, DELIVERY, RETAIL, OR IN-PERSON RETAIL ALL REQUIRE THIS CANNABIS PERMIT, WHICH IS A, WHICH IS IN ITSELF A REVIEW PROCESS.
SO, SO IF THE DESIRE IS TO, IF THERE'S SOME, THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING REVIEW PROCESS FOR ANY CANNABIS BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO OPERATE IN PETALUMA, WHETHER IT'S MANUFACTURING OR TESTING.
AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE MANUFACTURING TOO, THERE'S, AGAIN, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE READ THOSE REGULATIONS, BUT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR A WHILE THERE WAS INTEREST IN HAVING CANNABIS INFUSED SPARKLING BEVERAGES OR CANNABIS INFUSED CHOCOLATES AND SO FORTH.
SO THAT'S POTENTIALLY A TYPE OF MANUFACTURING BUSINESS THAT COULD GO INTO THIS SPACE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, FOOD MANUFACTURING IN A MAKER MICRO IS VERY SYNERGISTIC.
SO JUST CONSIDERING MORE INFORMATION TO CONSIDER.
NANCY AND HEATHER AS BRIAN, LET ME KNOW IF I'M WRONG, BUT ANY OF THESE FOUR PROPOSED USES, LIKE BRIAN O SAID, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REGULATIONS AND THEIR OWN CHAPTER, THEY WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO THOSE EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE MICRO WELL, AT YOUR DISCRETION.
AND NANCY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA SAY THE BREAKING NEWS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TODAY WITH THE SECOND YEAH, I, I, I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT BEFORE I, BEFORE I, BUT WE, I, I, I HEARD TODAY THAT THE SECOND, UM, DELIVERY LICENSE WAS, WAS ISSUED.
SO I, I I WANTED TO FACT CHECK THAT, BUT JUST AGAIN, SHARING FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OF WORKING WITH CANNABIS BUSINESSES VERY CLOSELY OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WITH THE, UM, OPENING OF OUR IN-PERSON STOREFRONT RETAIL IS A HIGHLY REGULATED BUSINESS.
SO THEY DO HAVE TO GET A PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY.
IT'S NOT THE CANNABIS PERMIT, BUT IT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF THE HEALTH PERMIT.
UM, THEY NEED TO FOLLOW PRETTY STRICT, UM, CALIFORNIA RULES.
SO, UH, JUST AGAIN, AS THE, THAT LEVEL OF REGULATION, UM, BEFORE THEY, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY KIND OF REGULATION THEY WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH WITH US, AND, UH, AND AGAIN, THIS, THE CANNABIS PERMIT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S VERY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, THAT'S A VERY THOROUGH REVIEW OF WHAT, UH, WHAT IS, UH, WHAT GOES INTO THAT TYPE OF PERMIT.
JUST A QUICK QUESTION AND ON WHAT WE'RE THUMBING UP AND DOWN HERE, UM, IS THE QUESTION WE WOULD ALLOW, WE'D ONLY ALLOW WITH MANUFACTURING, UM, TESTING FOR, WITH A MINOR USE PERMIT? IS THAT THE QUESTION? OR WE'D ALLOW IT A THUMBS DOWN
[02:10:01]
MEANS WE, WE DON'T NEED IT.AND A THUMBS UP IS IT WOULD REQUIRE A MINOR USE PERMIT.
UH, STAFF HAS TEED UP THE QUESTION.
SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE DOING A STRAW POLL ON WHETHER CANNABIS MANUFACTURING AND TESTING OUGHT TO REQUIRE A MINOR USE PERMIT.
THUMBS DOWN MEANS IT SHOULD NOT NEED A MINOR USE PERMIT.
ARE WE
NO USE PERMIT, PERMIT FOR MANUFACTURER CANNABIS MANUFACTURING SIX ZERO AND TESTING, OR DOES THAT SORT OF ENCOMPASS? AND SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT'S PRESUMING THAT NO TRIGGER IS HIT, BUT IF SOMEBODY IS THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
YEAH, THAT'S THE, I KNOW WE KEEP GOING.
RIGHT? AND AROUND I THINK, I THINK WE HAVE A SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT CANNABIS.
WE'VE GOT THE BUFFERS, WE'VE GOT THE PERMITS.
AND LET THE ZONE NOT BE THE HURDLE.
SO THEN I THINK THE NEXT QUESTION, UH, CANNABIS RETAIL PROHIBITED.
ARE WE READY TO TEE THIS UP FOR A STRAW POLL? OKAY.
SHOULD IT BE PROHIBITED? THUMBS UP MEANS IT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED.
OKAY, SO I'M SEEING FOUR, IT'S FOUR TO TWO NOT PROHIBITED.
AND CHAIR, JUST FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED THAT MAYBE ARE LISTENING AT HOME, I GUESS MAYBE YOU COULD JUST SAY WHO THE, IF IT'S NOT UNANIMOUS, THE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHO VOTED.
UH, GOLDMAN AND, AND NEWELL WERE, IT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED AND, UH, MOSES EBNER, HILT AND BARNACLE WERE, IT SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED.
SO JUST TO CONFIRM WITH THAT, IS THAT, DOES THAT BYPASS THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF PERMITS THAT ARE NO.
IT JUST DOESN'T PRECLUDE IT OUTRIGHT FROM BEING LOCATED IN THE MAKER MICRO.
SO WHAT, SO, AND WHY DON'T WE GO THROUGH THE, THE REMAINING THREE AND THEN I'LL RECAP WHAT I HEARD.
DOES THAT WORK FROM THE STRAW POLL? OKAY.
SO NEXT ONE IS, UH, SHOULD ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDING TASTING ROOMS BE PROHIBITED AND MAKE OR MICRO NO.
I, I THINK MY ONLY QUESTION OR COMMENT AROUND THIS IS IF IT'S DEDICATED ALCOHOL SERVICE ONLY, LIKE A BAR, LIKE A CLUB, THAT WE SOMEHOW FIGURE OUT HOW TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF THESE TYPES OF UNITS WITHIN THE ZONE OR PUT SOME OTHER CEILING ON IT OR, WELL, I, I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT IF IT IS, UM, THAT WILL REQUIRE A USE PERMIT MM-HMM
BECAUSE OF CHAPTER EIGHT AS IT IS.
SO CHAPTER EIGHT IS OUR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS.
SO KIND OF TO UH, DYLAN'S POINT, ANY OF THESE USES THAT HAVE A REQUIREMENTS SEPARATE BASED ON THEIR USE TYPE IN DIFFERENT CHAPTERS OF OUR CODE WOULD CONTINUE TO NEED TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
UH, CARD ROOMS. SHOULD THEY BE A PROHIBITED USE IN THE MAKER MICRO? ALL RIGHT.
JUST CURIOUS, WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR THINKING THAT IT SHOULD BE? THESE ARE JUST THE WAY OUR CODE CURRENTLY IS.
THESE ARE SENSITIVE USES, IF YOU WILL.
UM, AND THEY HAVE EXTRA AND WE WILL NEED TO MODIFY CHAPTER NINE TO, YOU KNOW, ALLOW THIS.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A HU IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE, YOU KNOW, TASKED TO DO THAT.
NOT A HUGE HURDLE, BUT WE DIDN'T WANNA DO IT IF THERE WASN'T SUPPORT.
YEAH, I MEAN MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THESE ARE SET ASIDE AND NOT DEALT WITH IN THE CHART ON, IN CHAPTER FOUR BECAUSE THEY ARE DEEMED MORE SENSITIVE BY OUR ZONING CODE.
I WOULDN'T MIND FOLDING THEM BACK IN.
AND MAYBE THEY, THEY ARE ALSO, SO LIKE FOR INSTANT CARD ROOM IS A USE PERMIT IN CHAPTER ONE OR C ONE, C TWO AND BUSINESS PARK, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED INTO
[02:15:01]
INDUSTRIAL.UM, BUT THAT IT'S LIKE GOT SPECIAL YES.
ARE THERE CONTROLS ON THE CONCENTRATION OF THE NUMBER OF CARD ROOMS OR THEIR PROXIMITY TO ONE ANOTHER WITHIN CHAPTER NINE? LET ME GET BACK TO THAT SECTION.
UH, FOR CARD ROOMS, I DO BELIEVE IT USE REQUIRES A USE PERMIT.
'CAUSE THE ONE BY MONTERO, IT DOES REQUIRE A USE PERMIT.
UM, THERE'S, AND THERE IS A LIMIT ONE CARD ROOM FOR EACH 15,000.
IS IT BASED ON POPULATION? YEAH.
ONE CARD RAM FOR EACH 15,000 PERSONS IN THE CITY FOR FOUR IN TOTAL.
DO WE HAVE ANY CARD ROOMS? UH, I, THE ONE, WE HAD ONE THAT CLOSED, UM, ON THE, ON MONTERO, UM, DURING THE PANDEMIC AND THAT HAS IT REOPENED.
AND THEN FINALLY ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES.
SHOULD THEY, OH, I'M STILL SHARING SCREENS.
UM, SHOULD, UH, ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES BE PROHIBITED IN MAKER MICRO? COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE WHAT, WHAT IT IS? THE REGULATORY PARAMETERS? YES.
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A BACKDROP FOR EACH OF THESE QUESTIONS THAT ARE, ARE VERY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND.
SO, UM, OH MY, IT'S BEEN, I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M GONNA HAVE TO READ THIS INTO THE RECORD
UH, SO IT'S, IT'S UM, IT'S VARIETY.
IT'S SPECIFIED, UM, USES, UH, THERE ARE SPECIFICATIONS AROUND ANATOMICAL AREAS, UM, SEXUAL ACTIVITIES, UH, ADULT, I THINK IT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS LIKE AN ADULT BOOKSTORE.
UM, THOSE, THOSE ARE DEFINED, THOSE SPECIFIC TYPES OF USES ARE DEFINED.
ADULT DRIVE-IN THEATERS, UH, ADULT MOTION PICTURE ESTABLISHMENTS, ADULT CABARET.
UM, SO THEY'RE THERE WAS THERE A ALSO A RESTRICTION ON CONCENTRATION IN FOR THIS ONE? JUST CURIOUS.
SO THIS IS IN CHAPTER 10, UM, AND THERE ARE DISTANCES BETWEEN USES.
SO ANY TWO ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE MEASURED IN A STRAIGHT LINE.
UH, THAT DOESN'T REALLY SAY HOW FAR, UH, OH, I'M A OH FIVE FIVE.
UH, NO TWO SHALL BE WITHIN 250 FEET OF EACH OTHER.
UM, CAN'T BE WITHIN 500 FEET OF A SCHOOL, 500 FEET OF A PARK, 250 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL OR 500 FEET OF A CHURCH.
SO EARLIER, DID WE SAY THAT WE WERE GONNA ALLOW AS AN ACCESSORY USE SORT OF CHILDREN'S DAY CAMPS IN, IN, IN, IN THESE AREAS? AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADULT CABARET IN THAT SAME AREA.
AND, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY AND ALCOHOL AND CANNABIS MANUFACTURING TOO.
SO, UM, AND REALLY WE'RE LOOKING, ARE WE PROHIBITING THEM IN, UH, MAKER MICRO? THANK YOU.
I'M LOSING MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.
SO, UH, ARE WE PROHIBITING THEM IS THE STRAW POLL QUESTION? YEAH.
SO WHAT WE'LL DO WITH THAT IS WE'LL JUST, UM, INDICATE TO COUNSEL THAT ON A STREP POLE THAT IT WAS TIED AND THEREFORE IS, WAS NOT RECOMMENDED.
AND, AND THOSE WHO SAID NO, WERE GOLDMAN NEWELL AND HILT OR NO, NO,
[02:20:01]
YOU SAID YES.THE OPPOSING PROHIBITION MEANING WANT IT ALLOWED YES.
IF I CAN JUST THANK IN, UH, COMMENT TO THAT, ENCOURAGE STAFF TO UNDERSCORE THAT THESE FOUR USES ARE VERY WELL COVERED IN THEIR OWN CHAPTERS.
AND BY INCLUDING THOSE USES WITHIN MAKER MICRO DOES NOT REMOVE ANY OF THE OTHER BARRIERS TO ENTRY THAT ARE ESTABLISHED IN THOSE SPECIFIC CHAPTERS.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE GOT CAUGHT UP A LOT OF, LIKE, IF WE'RE SAYING IT'S A, IF CANNABIS IS ALLOWED, DOES THAT MEAN THAT LIKE NONE OF THE OTHER RULES APPLY AND IT'S LIKE, NO, ALL THE RULES APPLY, WE'RE JUST ALSO SAYING THAT MAKER MICRO IS ONE OF THE ZONES IT CAN BE IN.
SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THAT THAT BE VERY CLEAR WHEN PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.
I GUESS I'M ALSO CURIOUS ABOUT LIKE WHAT MAKER MICRO USE MAY TRUMP ANOTHER, LIKE IF THERE IS A DAY CAMP ESTABLISHED AND IT'S WITHIN SAY, 50 FEET OF AN ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESS APPLICANT, IS THAT JUST AN AUTOMATIC NO.
OR LIKE, I GUESS WELL, I MEAN IT'S WHATEVER USE IS THERE, RIGHT? MM-HMM
SO THERE ARE, SO FOR ADULT ENTERTAINMENT, YOU KNOW, IF, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE USES ARE ACTUALLY ALLOWED, UM, LIKE SCHOOLS AREN'T ALLOWED AND MAKER MICRO PUBLIC WELL PARK COULD BE, UM, UH, RESIDENTIAL ISN'T ALLOWED.
AND I GUESS A CHURCH WOULD BE, SO IF THOSE ARE ESTABLISHED USES AND IT CAME IN, THEN THAT WOULD PRECLUDE IT ANYWAY, BUT RIGHT.
IF, IF WE'VE GOT 21 PARCELS IN QUESTION HERE, IF, YOU KNOW, ESTABLISHMENT ONE OF 21 IS A CHURCH
SO YEAH, I THINK THAT, OR IF IT'S NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE IS ABUTTING IT, UM, IT WOULD PRECLUDE IT.
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME, UM, TO ADD SO THAT, UM, I'M CLEAR IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO ADD IT WHEN WE GET TO EMOTION, UH, TO EXPLORE, UM, SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR DAY CAMPS, UM, AS ACCESSORY, SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR DAY CAMPS AS A ACCESSORY IN THE MAKER MICRO, UM, TO COMPLIMENT SOME OF THE OTHER ALLOWABLE USES AND TO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, CREATIVITY AND, AND OPPORTUNITY.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THERE, THAT A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO INCLUDE? WHEN WE GET TO A MOTION, JUST SINCE WE'RE WRAPPING UP MAKER MICRO, JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO MAKE IT AN ACCESSORY AND A SEASONAL OKAY.
IS THAT, DID WE, I WE DIDN'T TAKE A STRAW POLL, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, DID YOU TAKE A STRAW POLL? OKAY.
THAT I, UM, IF THAT'S, YOU CAN TAKE A STRAW POLL RIGHT NOW.
JUST SO WE ADDED TO CONFIRM WITHIN THAT SAME MICRO MAKER, MICRO STRAW POLL, STRAW POLL TO ALLOW DAYCARES ON A ACCESSORY AND SEASONAL LEVEL, NOT DAYCARE, SORRY, DAY CAMP.
ON AN ACCESSORY AND SEASONAL LEVEL, THAT'S SIX ZERO.
AND I WOULD IMAGINE THE SEASONAL WE ADDED FOR CONDITIONAL USES TO THE FLOODWAY, SOME OF THEM FROM NOVEMBER ONE TO MAY ONE, IS THAT RIGHT? AND WE WOULD CARRY THAT OVER.
WE CAN, I THINK I, WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT.
WE'D WANNA MAINTAIN A LITTLE BIT OF ABILITY TO, TO DEVELOP IT.
WHAT SEEMS LIKE THE BEST WAY TO DEVELOP IT AND IMPLEMENT AND REC FORWARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WE THINK THAT LIKE ADULT CLASSES, MAYBE A WEEKEND IMMERSIVE DOES NOT TIP YOU INTO DAY CAMP IF IT'S ADULTS.
SO WE ARE DONE WITH CHAPTER 29.
UM, I WANNA SUGGEST ONE THING.
I SEE THAT WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WHO'S WAITING FOR THE CHAPTER FOUR DEFINITION.
HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK THE SMART CODE MIGHT TAKE? NONE.
UM, SO UNLESS THERE'S QUESTIONS, IT'S REALLY JUST A, A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT OF WHAT IS ADOPTED.
THERE'S NO DECISION POINT PER SE.
WE'VE ALSO BEEN GOING FOR TWO AND A HALF HOURS WITHOUT A RECESS BREAK.
UM, ARE EVER, WE'RE READY TO KEEP POWERING THROUGH.
UM, SO LET'S TAKE UP THE SMART CODE AND, OKAY.
UM, ASHER, CAN YOU MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE? UH, SO THE SMART CODE SECTION
[02:25:01]
TWO, UM, REALLY WHAT THIS IS DOING IS IT'S ESTABLISHING, UM, THE ZONES IN THE TEXT.IT IS ESTABLISHING THE NEW T SIX STATION MIXED USE ZONE THAT IMPLEMENTS, UM, THE, THE STATION MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
IT'S, UM, CLARIFYING THE CIVIC SPACE ZONES, WHICH ARE REFERENCED BUT NOT CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE SMART CODE CURRENTLY.
AND THEN IT IS ALSO, UM, LOOKING AT BRINGING OUR CITYWIDE ZONING MAP.
UM, ACTUALLY DOESN'T INCLUDE THE ZONING IN THE SMART CODE AREA.
SO, UM, INCORPORATING THOSE INTO THE SAME CITYWIDE ZONING MAP.
SO REALLY THE DECISION POINT HERE, I, I THINK DECISION IS A STRONG WORD FOR THIS.
IT'S REALLY, UM, CLARIFYING AND CARRYING OVER THOSE, UM, THOSE STANDARDS THAT THE GENERAL PLAN ESTABLISHED LIKE DENSITY FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THOSE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS INTO THE SMART CODE IN THE CORRESPONDING ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WITH THAT, WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
OH, THERE, THIS IS THE TOWN CENTER ALLOWANCES.
THIS IS A PART OF CHAPTER FOUR.
UM, THE GENERAL PLAN CARRIED FORWARD SOME OF THE FLEXIBILITY IN THE T SIX, UM, EXISTING T SIX ZONING DESIGNATION OR, UM, ZONING DISTRICT THAT SAID YOU COULD HAVE AN INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA AND YOU COULD HAVE AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT WITH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS FROM FOUR STORIES TO SIX STORIES.
UM, AND THE GENERAL PLAN CARRIED THAT FORWARD AS WELL, UM, AS A KIND OF LATERAL IN THOSE AREAS THAT HAD THAT ALREADY, UM, ALREADY IN THE SMART CODE.
UM, AND IT SAYS, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL.
IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY NAME THE PERMIT.
IT JUST SAID PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL.
UM, SO THERE'S TWO WAYS THAT WE CAN DO THIS.
WE CAN EITHER INCORPORATE IT AS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS INTO THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OR WE CAN REQUIRE A SEPARATE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THOSE SITUATIONS.
CURRENTLY, WE HAVE DONE IT THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WHEN SOMETHING HAS COME THROUGH IN THE T SIX AND WANTS TO GO UP TO THAT T, THAT SIX STORY.
UM, THE WAY IT IS INCLUDED CURRENTLY IS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS THAT YOU WOULD ADD TO WHATEVER PERMIT WAS GOING FORWARD FOR THE PROJECT.
SO THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO CARRY THAT FORWARD AS NOTATIONS, UM, IN CHAPTER FOUR FOR TOWN CENTER, UM, TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE, UM, TO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS, UM, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ANY CONCERN WITH THAT? ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR DROP FALL ON THIS? YES.
UM, THIS ALSO, NOT NECESSARILY A DECISION POINT, BUT AT YOUR LAST MEETING, UH, YOU REVIEWED CHAPTER SIX, WHICH IS THE FLOODWAY AND FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY, UM, SECTION.
UM, SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE, UM, RECEIVED SOME REQUESTS FOR SOME NUANCE CLARIFICATION FROM OUR FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR.
UM, THESE ARE NOT MODIFICATIONS THAT CHANGE THE, THE CHAPTER SUBSTANTIVELY OR ANY OF THE POINTS THAT THE, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, YOU KNOW, REALLY DELIBERATED ABOUT.
IT'S SOME CLARIFICATION OF LANGUAGE DEFINITIONS, UH, THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR, MINOR CLARIFICATIONS THERE, APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
UH, SO, UM, UNLESS THERE IS ANY, UM, SPECIFIC QUESTION OR OBJECTION, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THESE, UM, ITEMS AS WE FORWARD CHAPTER SIX ON, UM, ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LAST HEARING.
ANY SPECIFIC QUESTION OR OBJECTION TO THIS? SEEING NONE.
UM, AND NOW I THINK WE CAN, UM, TURN TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT, I BELIEVE THE REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER EBNER IS TO REVISIT, UM, THE BUSINESS PARK ALLOWANCES FOR RETAIL, UM, WHICH I DON'T HAVE A
[02:30:01]
SPECIFIC SLIDE FOR.UM, BUT, UM, WE CAN, I, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATION OR LEAD ON WHAT, WHAT ASPECT, UM, THE COMMISSION WANTS TO LOOK AT.
COMMISSIONER ABNER, COULD WE MAYBE START WITH A CHAPTER FOUR, LIKE ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN BUSINESS PARK OR ACCESSORY OR PRIMARY? SURE.
SO AS THAT'S GETTING, UM, QUEUED UP, I THINK JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST.
SO THE PCD, UH, WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED AND DEVELOPED IN THE EIGHTIES, 1981.
UM, IT HAS, IT'S VERY LIMITING.
UH, RETAIL IS RESTAURANT CAFE, COFFEE SHOP, BUT IT CAN'T BE FAST FOOD WHEN WE DON'T DEFINE FAST FOOD, WHICH WE'VE NEVER HAD TO CONTEND WITH THIS.
SO, UM, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER CLEANING UP AT SOME POINT.
AND THEN THE OTHER RETAIL IS CATALOG SALES AND MAIL ORDER ESTABLISHMENTS.
AND SO THERE WAS REFERENCE EARLIER BY HEATHER THAT THIS LOCATION, SO THIS IS WHERE STARBUCKS IS, THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS, UM, PERSONAL SERVICES.
THERE'S A NAIL SALON THERE AS WELL.
WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, IT WAS MEANT TO SERVICE THE LARGER LAKEVILLE BUSINESS PARK.
BUT I THINK, UM, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, I THINK IT'S THE WHOLE COMMUNITY'S USING IT, RIGHT? IT'S A REGIONAL DRAW.
IT'S, IT'S REALLY POSITIONED AS A, WITH, YOU KNOW, HIGH VISIBILITY ON LAKEVILLE.
IT SHOULD IN MANY WAYS JUST BE A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER.
THAT'S SORT OF HOW IT OPERATES.
AND SO, UM, WE HAVE A LIMITATION.
THE CHALLENGE IS THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN BUSINESS PARK.
AND SO IF WE WERE TO GO AND CONSIDER A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, UM, AND SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THE APPLICANT MAY WANT TO EXPLORE AT SOME POINT, UM, ON A FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
BUT AT THIS POINT, THE REQUEST IS IF WE WERE TO OPEN IT UP FROM BUSINESS, UM, FROM THE PCD AND JUST PUSH IT INTO THIS BUSINESS PARK DESIGNATION, IT DOES OPEN UP MORE OPPORTUNITY, MORE USES.
I, I DO THINK IT'S AN APPROPRIATE, UM, AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, UH, TO CONSIDER, UH, GENERAL RETAIL 20 5K OR LESS TO GO FROM AN ACCESSORY USE TO MINOR USE PERMIT.
SO, UM, WHAT'S UP IS UNDER THE RETAIL SECTION FOR BUSINESS PARK.
SO YOU'LL SEE THAT GENERAL RETAIL 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS IS CONSIDERED ACCESSORY IN BOTH BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL.
AND THAT'S REALLY LATERAL FROM WHAT IS CURRENTLY, UM, WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN OUR ZONING CODE.
UM, THAT, THAT WE DON'T ALLOW, UH, STANDALONE RETAIL AS A USE IN THOSE TWO.
SO THAT WAS CARRIED A, UH, ACROSS LATERALLY.
UM, YOU WILL SEE THAT GENERAL RETAIL 25% OR LESS IS A PERMITTED USE IN OUR, UH, C ONE, C TWO, UM, ZONING DISTRICTS CURRENTLY AND AS PROPOSED.
SO ANOTHER JUST NUANCE HERE, A CHANGE TO THE BUSINESS PARK, UM, USE ALLOWANCES ISN'T SPECIFIC TO THIS PARCEL.
IT WOULD BE TO ANY, ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE DESIGNATED AND ZONED BUSINESS PARK.
I MEAN, I, I FEEL LIKE THE WAY WE'VE TYPICALLY DEALT WITH THIS IS A ZONING MAP AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WHEN A SPECIFIC PARCEL SEEKS TO DO SORT OF OFF BOOK, UM, USES.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO GET OUR LAWYER IN THE AUDIENCE TO COMMENT HERE ON SORT OF LIKE, WHAT IS THE RATIONALE HERE? IS IT JUST ABOUT RETENANTING OR, UM, WHY NOT JUST LEAVE IT AS IS? AND THEN IF AND WHEN GET THE, THE REZONING AS WE'VE DONE, YOU KNOW, AT A NUMBER OF CITY COUNCIL OR, UH, A NUMBER OF, WE RECOMMEND IT AND THEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVES IT.
I'LL REFER TO DYLAN, UM, OUR CITY ATTORNEY ON THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
BUT I THINK FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, UM, THERE'S A NUMBER OF, SO BUSINESS PARK WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT, WE REGULARLY TALK WITH, UH, BROKERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, THIS IDEA THAT WE HAVE, UM, JUST TOO MUCH OFFICE SPACE.
UM, AND SO MOST OF THE TIME WHEN PEOPLE COME TO THE COUNTER OR
[02:35:01]
THEY'RE SENDING US, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT ZONING, UM, THEY'RE WANTING TO INCREASE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERMITTED USES IN OUR BUSINESS PARKS.UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE, THAT WAS I THINK OUR FIRST HEARING, UM, BACK IN SEPTEMBER.
WE DID GO THROUGH A NUMBER OF THESE, UM, TO LOOK AT, WE WORKED WITH THE CHAMBER, WE WORKED WITH OUR LOCAL BROKERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, TO SEE WHICH ONES COME UP THE MOST.
UM, AND WE MADE THOSE CHANGES, UM, THAT SAID, WE'RE NOT GONNA CAPTURE ALL OF THEM.
AND SO YES, THIS DOES HAVE A RIPPLE EFFECT ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY, BUT THAT'S ALSO WHERE THE USE PERMIT COMES IN TO PLAY, UM, TO HAVE A LEVEL OF CONTROL.
UM, SHOULD THE COMMISSION DESIRE, AND I'LL JUST ADD OUR NOTICING FOR THE AGENDAS IS BROAD ENOUGH WHERE IT INCLUDES MAP AMENDMENTS, SO THIS WOULD FALL UNDER THAT.
AND I FORGET IT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A GENERAL PLAN GOAL ACTIVITY, BUT WE DEFINITELY HAD A DISCUSSION WHERE IT WAS, HOW DO WE GET ALL THESE PCDS AND THE PS INTO OUR ZONING CODES? SO THIS WOULD BE ONE EXAMPLE OF US DOING THAT.
YEAH, I MEAN, I, I, I LIKE UNDERSTAND, I THINK THE MOTIVATION HERE, GIVEN THAT WE ARE PROBABLY OVERINDEXED ON OFFICE SPACE, GIVEN THE CURRENT CLIMATE, WHAT I DON'T WANNA DO IS UNDERMINE THE DEFINITION OF BUSINESS PARK AND MAKE IT SORT OF NOT MEAN ANYTHING
SO I DON'T WANNA USE TOO BLUNT OF AN INSTRUMENT TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE OR SHOULD POTENTIALLY BE DONE, AND ESPECIALLY AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ONGOING.
AND SO IF WE HAVEN'T MADE THOSE DISTINCTIONS AT SOME POINT IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS, THEN DOING THIS NOW ALSO FEELS A LITTLE INTERESTING.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DECISIONS TONIGHT IS ONE IS TO ALLOW THE PARCEL 3 3100 INTO BUSINESS PARK.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE RIGHT NOW THAT COMMISSIONER ABNER SAID IS AMENDING THE RETAIL BUSINESS PARK.
WELL, SO A NUANCE THERE, AND IT MIGHT BE AN ASK TO THE APPLICANT ALSO, IS WHETHER IF THERE IS NOT A CHANGE TO ALLOW GENERAL RETAIL, IS THERE STILL A DESIRE TO ZONE OUT OF THE PCD? BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PCD DOES ALLOW RETAIL ON THIS SITE CURRENTLY.
UM, SO IF IF THERE'S NOT A CORRESPONDING CHANGE, UH, TO THE ALLOWANCE FOR GENERAL RETAIL IN THE BUSINESS PARK, IS THERE STILL A DESIRE? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OR DOES, IF, IF ONE HAPPENS WITHOUT THE OTHER, DOES IT ACTUALLY CREATE, UM, A, A FURTHER LIMITATION? UM, AND DYLAN, IF THE, UH, COMMISSION HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE SPECIFIC APPLICANT REQUESTING, OR THIS MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC REQUESTING THIS, CAN THEY ASK QUESTIONS? SURE.
IF THE CHAIR QUOTE THAT? YEAH.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO HEAR SOME CLARIFICATION.
I MEAN, MY SENSE IS WE'VE EMBARKED ON THE, THE OVERHAUL OF THE BUSINESS REGULATIONS TO INCREASE FLEXIBILITY AND MAKE IT EASIER TO OPEN A BUSINESS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO IF WE HEAR THAT WE HAVE VACANCIES IN OUR BUSINESS PARKS, RIGHT, LIKE CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALLOWABLE USES THERE, LIKE, JUST HELPS US TO BUILD THOSE VACANCIES, RIGHT? AND SO I THINK IN A SIMILAR WAY THAT WE LIKE, UM, AT LEAST MY, WHERE MY HEAD'S AT RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE SORT OF WENT DOWN THE PATH OF TRYING TO MOVE AWAY FROM CU YOU KNOW, EXCESSIVE CS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
'CAUSE WE HEARD FROM OUR BROKERS THAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, A BARRIER IN A SIMILAR WAY.
LIKE IF WE'RE LIKE ADDING ADDITIONAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT, FEELS LIKE IT'S ONLY GONNA HELP FILL THOSE, THOSE BUILDINGS.
AND I DON'T, UM, I'M NOT SEEING WHAT THE DOWNSIDE IS.
I SUPPOSE, UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'RE ALLOWING LOWER VALUE USES INTO AN AREA WHERE WE ENVISIONED HAVING HIGHER VALUE USES.
BUT I THINK, UM, CREATING FLEXIBILITY IN THE NAME OF FLEXIBILITY, THAT'S, I, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT.
BUT YEAH, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO BUSINESS HALL.
[02:40:01]
THANK YOU.UM, GOOD EVENING, TINA WALLACE AGAIN.
UH, TO ADDRESS FIRST THE QUESTION OF TIMING.
WE CAME INTO THIS PROCESS LATE.
WE SPOKE WITH STAFF AND, UM, WORKED AS COLLABORATIVELY AS IS LEGALLY POSSIBLE WITH STAFF.
AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS WE TUCK INTO THIS AND BECOME PART OF THIS PROCESS, UM, UM, RATHER THAN DOING A STANDALONE, UH, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE.
SO THAT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION OF TIMING AND THERE CERTAINLY WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS.
AND THAT WAS A DECISION, UM, AN APPROACH WE TOOK, UH, WITH INPUT, UM, FROM STAFF.
UM, SO I DO APOLOGIZE THAT WE'RE A LITTLE LATE TO THIS WONDERFUL, UM, ADVENTURE YOU'RE HAVING.
UM, SECONDLY, UM, THIS IS DRIVEN BY, UM, CHANGING ECONOMICS AND CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS.
UM, AND I'VE WORKED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS BROKER, SARAH JUAN.
UM, AND THE IDEA HERE IS TO CREATE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY.
MANY OF THE INQUIRIES THAT SHE GETS ARE FOR STANDALONE RETAIL USES.
UM, UH, THE BROKERS WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS PERMITTED AS A MATTER OF, RIGHT.
UM, HOWEVER, AGAIN, AFTER CONFERRING WITH STAFF AND TRYING TO TAKE A REASONABLE APPROACH, WE SETTLED ON REQUESTING A MINOR USE PERMIT AS A WAY WHERE STAFF COULD STILL ENSURE AGAIN, UH, BASIC PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES, PARKING, INGRESS, EGRESS, AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
UM, SO IT REALLY IS TO KEEP, UM, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, UH, ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND VITAL.
AND THESE ARE THE TYPES OF REQUESTS THE BROKERS ARE CURRENTLY GETTING, UM, IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS TO KEEP THIS A FUNCTIONING COMMUNITY OR A FUNCTIONING SHOPPING CENTER, EXCUSE ME.
AND THE OTHER DRIVER IS THERE ARE MORE AND MORE RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANTS COMING FROM ACROSS LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY TO THE ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE SHOPPING CENTER.
SO WHEREAS ORIGINALLY, UM, IT WAS INTENDED TO SUPPORT A BUSINESS PARK, I AGREE WITH HEATHER.
UM, BUT THE USES THAT WERE ENVISIONED WERE MAIL HOUSES AND PRINTING COMPANIES, BOTH OF WHICH ARE FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE AFTER COVID.
UM, AND SO THOSE SUPPORT SERVICES AREN'T IN DEMAND AND OTHER THE, THE DEMAND IS NOW TO PROVIDE SERVICES THAT SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ACROSS THE STREET.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD? SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT, BUSINESS PARK WOULD SATISFY THE CURRENT USES WE'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMMODATE IN THE SHOPPING CENTER? YEAH.
AND IF I'M OPEN TO A STAFF OR APPLICANT, ANYONE WHO CAN JUST CONFIRM THAT, UM, I WOULD LOVE CLARIFICATION
UM, THE REQUEST WAS TO MAKE GENERAL RETAIL 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS ALLOWABLE IN BUSINESS PARK.
ALLOWABLE WITH A MINOR USE PERMIT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE REQUEST.
WHAT I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO IS IF THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED, DO YOU STILL WANT YOUR, THE PARCELS TO BE PULLED OUT OF THE PCDI NEED? WOULD NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT CONSULT, THINK ABOUT THAT.
AND THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS WITH THE UPDATE TO RETAIL IN THE BUSINESS PARK USE, IS THAT IT CONFLICTS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OR NO, IT DOESN'T.
I JUST PULLED UP THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE BUSINESS PARK DESIGNATION.
UM, EXAMPLES OF ALLOWABLE USES DO INCLUDE RETAIL AND SERVICES.
SO I DON'T THINK IT WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
IT'S JUST A CHANGE FROM WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED AND WHAT IS IN THE DRAFT CODE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
SO IT CURRENTLY SAYS ACCESSORY.
SO LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON HOW THEY WOULD LIKE US TO MOVE FORWARD.
CAN WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE MAP AND SEE WHAT OTHER PARCELS OF THAT DESIGNATION WOULD BE IN PLAY?
[02:45:02]
AND I THINK IN THE MEANTIME, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE, AS COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE MENTIONED, KIND OF GEARING THIS TOWARDS MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR OUR BUSINESS PARKS.I, I DON'T SEE A DOWNSIDE, BUT I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHERE THIS FALLS ON THE MAP.
SO WHAT I BELIEVE HEATHER IS GONNA PULL UP IS THE LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP, WHICH I DO WANNA POINT OUT THAT THESE ARE PARCELS THAT ARE DESIGNATED BUSINESS PARK.
THERE ARE MANY OF THOSE PARCELS THAT AREN'T ZONED BUSINESS PARK BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE PCDS LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO, UM, SO IT'S, IT'S KIND OF GOING TO BE PARTIAL.
UM, IT, IT MAY NOT BE ALL OF THOSE PARCELS 'CAUSE WE KNOW THAT A NUMBER OF OURS ARE.
UM, DOES THIS CREATE A PRECEDENT FOR MORE PCD LOTS TO COME FORWARD AND NO, WE REALLY HOPE NOT.
UM, BECAUSE THE, THE MANY OF THE BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL, THE NON-RESIDENTIAL PCDS, UM, ACTUALLY ARE OUTDATED.
UH, THEY TALK ABOUT, I THINK IN THE SHOPPING AREA THAT MS. WALLACE IS TALKING ABOUT, I THINK IT SAYS STUFF LIKE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SALE OF SUNDRIES AND YOU'RE LIKE, WELL WHAT'S A SUNDRY? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT JUST USES, THEY OFTEN USE WORDING THAT YOU'RE, THAT IT'S NOT, IT'S VERY DATED.
UM, UH, SO WE ACTUALLY IN, IN THE PAST HAVE TALKED ABOUT GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT ALL THE PCDS AND LOOKING AT WHETHER IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE BENEFICIAL TO TAKE THEM FROM PC TO THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT.
BUT THAT'S A BIG, IT'S A BIG LIFT, YOU KNOW, OUTREACH TO ALL THE PCDS TO FIGURE OUT IS IT STILL DESIRED, IS IT NOT? UM, SO WE'VE NEVER, UM, THAT'S NEVER BEEN THE PRIORITY TO LOOK AT THAT SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.
SO OUR CODE ACTUALLY DOESN'T ALLOW PC NEW, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW PCDS.
UM, BUT IT DOES ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OR THE MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PCDS PCD BEING THE TERM WE USE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PUDS.
AND JUST HEARKENING BACK TO OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE ZONING CODE UPDATE, THE PCD AND PUD INTEGRATION IS SLATED FOR PHASE TWO THREE.
WE HAVE IT, I BELIEVE AS PART OF PHASE THREE, UM, BUDGET PENDING.
UM, SO TO HEATHER'S POINT, I MEAN I THINK WE HAVE OVER 125 PLUS.
UM, AND SO WE TOOK A FIRST PASS TO SEE HOW WE COULD POTENTIALLY BUCKET IT.
UM, THERE'S NO WAY AROUND US, UM, DOING A DEEP DIVE.
EACH OF 'EM HAVE THEIR OWN, ESSENTIALLY THEIR OWN PERMITTED USE TABLE, THEIR OWN SETBACKS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN START TO MAKE SOME HEADWAY.
UH, BUT THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT, UM, BEFORE US AS PART OF PHASE ONE.
AND HEATHER, JUST FOR A LITTLE BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT, WE AMENDED THE ZONING CODE IN 2022, RIGHT? TO REQUIRE A MINOR USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL ABOUT 25,000 SQUARE FEET.
BUT WHAT WAS WEIRD ABOUT OUR CODE BACK THEN, AND MAYBE IT STILL IS, IT WAS LIKE GROCERIES OR LIKE LANDSCAPING AND BUILT BUILDING ALREADY, OR, UH, I BELIEVE GROCERY STORES ALREADY HAD THAT SIZE DIFFERENTIAL.
AND, UH, WE DID MODIFY FOR, UM, FOR GENERAL RETAIL 'CAUSE IT WAS ONE, ONE BUCKET, UM, OF GENERAL RETAIL AND RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE IMPACTS FROM, YOU KNOW, A A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT VERSUS A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT.
SO, UM, THAT CHANGE WAS MADE, THAT'S WHY, AND WE'RE CONTINUING THAT, UM, DELINEATION IN THIS REVISED CODE.
SO WHAT WOULD BE KIND OF WEIRD IS THOUGH THAT SOME OF THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS WOULD STILL REQUIRE MINOR CCPS FOR 25,000 OR GREATER FOR RETAIL, RIGHT? UH, YEAH, ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES, I THINK IT'S A CUP, BUT YES, WE WOULDN'T BE CHANGING THAT.
WE WOULD JUST BE, I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT'S IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION WANTS TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE TO THE PERMIT, THE PERMITTING ALLOWANCES FOR GENERAL RETAIL 25,000 AND BELOW IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT.
SO MAYBE THAT'S YOUR STRAW POLL.
[02:50:01]
LOST HERE.SO I, I THINK, I THINK, AND I CHAIR, I'M NOT TRYING, I DON'T WANNA OVERSTEP.
UM, BUT I THINK THE QUESTION IS, UM, A STRAW POLE ON ALLOWING 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS OF GENERAL RETAIL IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT.
MY QUESTION WOULD BE, DO WE WANNA SAY A MINOR USE PERMIT OR DO WE WANT IT JUST TO BE, UM, PERMITTED OR KEEP IT AS ACCESSORY? UM, FEEL LIKE, SO, SO STRAW POLL IS MINOR USE PERMIT FOR THIS USE.
SO RECOMMENDING, UM, A MODIFICATION TO THE ALLOWABLE USES IN BUSINESS PARK TO ALLOW GENERAL RETAIL 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS WITH A MINOR USE PERMIT.
DOES STAFF HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS OR JUST LIKE THE IMPLICATIONS ACROSS OTHER BUSINESS PARKS? WE DO.
I MEAN, WE WOULDN'T HAVE RECOMMENDED IT.
UM, AND SO YES, EVERYTHING WE'VE SAID, SOME OF WHAT MS. WALLACE IDENTIFIED, WHEN WE HEAR FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, WHEN WE HEAR FROM BROKERS, THEY WANT THAT FLEXIBILITY.
UM, AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS TO SUPPORT THIS.
I DO THINK, UH, TO KEEP IT AT THE USE PERMIT LEVEL IS APPROPRIATE, THE MINOR USE PERMIT LEVEL, 'CAUSE IT DOES PROVIDE SOME OF THE CONTROLS.
UM, AND LIKE WE MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT ZONING, TEXT AMENDMENTS AND THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES, UM, I DON'T THINK THIS IS OPENING A, YOU KNOW, FLOOD CHANNEL TO HAVE A BUNCH OF 20 4K RE GENERAL RETAIL SHOPS IN OUR BUSINESS PARKS.
BUT IF WE STARTED TO RECEIVE, UM, SOME OF THOSE, UM, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE AS STAFF WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT AND IF WE WANNA, UM, MAKE ANY CHANGES, RECOMMENDED CHANGES, THEN WE'D BE BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO, UM, I BELIEVE THAT BRINGS US TO THE END OF THE ITEM.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO WE ARE DONE WITH OUR COMMENTS AND, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE NEED A MOTION AND I CAN'T TYPE FAST ENOUGH, BUT, UM, I, SO PART, PART OF THE MOTION, YOU HAVE FINDINGS IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT IS HITTING ON ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY, PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, REFERENCING OUR NO NET LOSS OF HOUSING CAPACITY.
SO THOSE ARE ALREADY INCORPORATED INTO THE RESOLUTION.
UM, SO REALLY THE MOTION, UM, AS I BELIEVE WE'VE GOTTEN TO THIS EVENING WOULD BE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PHASE ONE ZONING AMENDMENTS TO THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE AND SMART CODE AND INCLUDING THE CITY OF PETALUMA ZONING MAP WITH THE CORRECTIONS IN, UM, PART A, THE REVISIONS IN PART B AND THE TEXT IN PART C OF THE AR ERATA AND STAFF RECOMMENDED REVISIONS THAT STATED SEPTEMBER 28TH AND REVISED OCTOBER 6TH, WHICH IS YOUR ATTACHMENT 23.
UM, THAT'S INCLUDING THE DIRECTION THAT THE COMMISSION GAVE IN SEPTEMBER.
UM, AND THE RECOMMENDED, UM, CHANGES, UH, THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS.
SO ONE WOULD BE TO, UM, IN MAKER MICRO BUSINESS THAT CANNABIS MANUFACTURING WOULD NOT BE A MINOR USE PERMIT, THAT CANNABIS RETAIL WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, INCLUDING TASTING ROOMS WOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED.
CARD ROOMS WOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED, BUT ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
SO THAT'S IN THE MAKER MICROBE RIGHT? SPLIT.
YEAH, I KNOW, BUT A SPLIT A SPLIT IS, YEAH.
SO WE'LL JUST MOVE IT FORWARD.
[02:55:01]
WELL, CURRENTLY THAT IS PROHIBITED IN CHAPTER NINE TIES NO CHANGE.SO BE PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
UM, ALSO, UM, INCLUDING TO ALLOW DAY CAMPS AS ACCESSORY AND SEASONAL IN MICRO MAKER MICRO BUSINESS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NUANCES AND CLARIFICATIONS FOR CHAPTER SIX AS SHOWN IN THE SLIDE THIS EVENING.
AND TO RECOMMEND, UM, THAT GENERAL RETAIL 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS BE A MINOR USE PERMIT IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE.
COULD I MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE ORDINANCE TO CITY COUNCIL AS DETAILED BY STAFF? IS THAT, DOES THAT CUT IT SECOND? THAT SEEMED FINE.
ME? YEAH, WE CAN LISTEN TO THE MINUTES FORM.
IT'S BASICALLY THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED, THE EROTA AS PRESENTED WITH THE CHANGES WE JUST OUTLINED WITH THE STRAW POLLS.
BASED ON THE, SO MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND THIS PHASE ONE ORDINANCE TO CITY COUNCIL ENCOMPASSING THE NOTES AND FEEDBACK AS PROVIDED ACROSS OUR PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL AS THE ADA AND OUTLINED IN THE ADA AND IN THE AR RADA.
AND JUST A QUICK, SORRY TO, I DON'T WANT TO BEAT THE, UM, MOMENTUM, BUT JUST IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A, UH, THERE'S SOME CONFUSION AROUND THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT.
SO CAN WE CLARIFY THAT BEFORE THEY VOTE? YEAH, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT.
UM, THAT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, INCLUDING TASTING ROOMS ARE NOT PROHIBITED IN THE MAKER MICRO NO.
SO, SO THAT THE FOUR USES CANNABIS MANUFACTURING AS WELL AS RETAIL, ADULT, UH, ALCOHOL AND CARD ROOMS ARE ALL INBOUNDS ALLOWED WITH SUBJECT TO THE TRIGGERS, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THEIR OTHER CHAPTERS.
AND ADULT ORIENTED WAS A DRAW.
SO THEREFORE NO CHANGE, BUT IT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE WAS CONVERSATION AMONG THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES AS WELL IN MAKER MICRO.
AND I, I THINK THERE WAS A MOTION BY MOSES.
COMMISSIONER MOSES SECOND BY, IS THERE SECOND? COUNCIL MEMBER BARNACLE.
WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? COMMISSIONER EBNER? YES.
ALL RIGHT, WE WILL CLOSE MEETING ITEM TWO.
THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND WE MOVE ON TO,
[COMMITTEE COMMENT]
UH, COMMISSION COMMENT.UH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? NO.
UM, I HAVE A COMMENT TO SHARE.
I DID A TOUR, UM, OF THE, UH, ROOFER PARK, UM, WITH, UH, MEMBERS OF THE, THE FOUNDATION THAT ARE MOVING THAT FORWARD.
UM, AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO REPORT.
[STAFF COMMENT]
THERE ANY STAFF COMMENTS? UH, NOPE.