Good afternoon. This is the time and place for the City of San Alina planning commission, special meeting for Tuesday, July 7th, 2026. I'm calling it to order. Vice chair Ferdek, would you like to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
Now, we should open with the roll call.
Commissioner Covell.
Here.
Commissioner Lopez.
Here.
Vice chair Ferdick.
Here.
Chair Warner.
Here.
Thank you.
Next item is minutes approval.
We have one set of minutes to approve from June 2nd.
We're as I understand that the second set is not yet available.
So we'll defer that to the next meeting.
Do I have any.
One among the questions who would like to review or have a hearing on the minutes, and again I'll ask the same I see no one in the public audience.
Otherwise I can entertain a motion for approval the minutes for June 2nd, 2026 as a consent item.
I move the we approve the minutes. Do I have a second?
I second.
Okay, call the roll please. Thank you.
Commissioner Covell? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes.
Vice chair for a Dick?
abstain. Chair Warner? Yes.
The motion passes.
Now is the time for the public forum.
It's an opportunity for the public to address the commission on items of interest to the
public that are not listed on the agenda.
Because of restrictions imposed by the Brown Act, the commission may not engage in discussion.
Or take action on a matter. It's not described on the agenda.
The time limit for such public form comments is four minutes.
I'm going to ask if there's anyone who would like to address the commission in the public form.
Seeing none in the audience, I think we can close this item and move on to our two public hearings items for today.
And I do mention referred to this is a special meeting and we are here because the city council is going to have its special meeting at six o'clock.
and they certainly would allow like to have us finish up today if we can in due time.
So first item is a public hearing agenda item 5.1, may I have a short presentation?
Thank you, Chair.
I'll go ahead and turn this over to Assistant Planner, Natalie Breezey, to give a very brief
overview of this continued item.
Thank you, Director McIll.
So, due to the moving of the meeting to 4 p.m. today instead of 6 p.m., the legal noticing that went out,
stated that the meeting would start at 6.
So, due to it being earlier and later than legally noticed, we have to continue the item to the 21st,
so that it has the correct noticing a lot of it.
And through the chair, we did notify the applicant, never aware.
Okay, I'd like to open it up for public hearing on this matter.
I see no one in the audience available for or interested in public hearing on this, so I'll bring it back to the full commission for any further discussion or for a motion on the item.
Any further discussion?
If not, I'll accept a motion for approval.
I
motion for a continuing this item to the date of July 21st, 2026.
Do I have a second?
I'll second.
Could we call the roll please?
Commissioner Cabel?
Commissioner Lopez?
Yes.
Vice chair Ferdick?
Chair Warner?
Yes.
The motion passes unanimously.
Thank you.
Now we come to our most prominent item for the hearing today, and again, I want to compliment
staff and the director for bringing it to us after some great deliberation.
This item 5.2, do we have a presentation on it?
Yes.
Thank you, Chair Warner.
Lisa McIill Community Development Director.
This item originally came before the planning commission at its June 16th meeting for a study
session.
We received some great feedback.
Staff has diligently been working on the ordinance.
There have been a couple shifts that staff will go through in our presentation.
With that being said, I will go ahead and introduce Senior Planner Jackie O'Neill and she'll
provide you a presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Director Mackayle.
And thank you, commissioners.
So the item before you this evening is the zoning ordinance amendment to seeing healing
municipal code section 172203O, which regulates ADUs and JADUs.
The file number is owning ordinance amendment 26001.
The purpose of tonight's hearing are to review the revisions to the ordinance and
corporations in April 21st, study session, receive public comment, consider the planning
commission resolution and recommend the ordinance to city council, which is currently scheduled
for July 28th, 2026.
So at the April 21st study session, we received some great feedback from both the Planning Commission and the community.
Primarily, we heard from all of the involve that they were interested in seeing a reduction of barriers to ADU development.
Examples of implementation in the ordinance before this evening include increasing the maximum ADU size to 1200 square feet,
removing material and roof matching requirements, removing mandatory rent reporting.
We also heard that there was an interest in simplifying the ordinance so as more user-friendly.
So this ordinance has been reorganized for clarity.
We've added additional definitions and language to some of the existing definitions to clarify and
consolidating the proposing to consolidate the utility regulations to title 13.
We've also retained objective standards through simplifying privacy and windows standards,
It's clarifying height measurements to match the measurements in the terms of measurement
section and retaining objective historic protections.
And then again those utility requirements would be, which will go into a little bit more
later, but they'll be companion title 13 amendments, which will come to the city council
alongside this zoning ordinance amendment, which will be primarily capacity-based reviews to
reduce unnecessary barriers.
So, just a high level of the overview of proposed changes, some of the changes before
you this evening are state law required, some of these are clarification and some of
these are local policy options.
The red line that's been attached to your staff report goes line by line, so you know exactly
what is state law required, what staff has amended for clarity and where we really will focus
or conversation on tonight or local policy choices.
And I have a slide where we'll go into those in more depths.
This is not encompassing all of the state law requirements,
but at a high level, the state law updates require
ministerial approval.
This is something that we were already doing
because ADUs come in as building permits.
There's a 15-day business, a 15-business day
completeness timeline, and a 60-day action timeline,
as well as new recent middle procedures and appeal procedures.
Administration include odor occupancy requirements,
impact fee requirements, non-conforming conditions,
owner occupancy and limitations on denial,
and the implementation is the same as it's been
in the last few cycles where the city is required
to submit our adopted ordinance to HDD for review,
and they will review that for required consistency with state law.
There is a note on the bottom of the slide that
I want to point out any non-compliant provisions may be deemed null-infoied by HCD, so if there
or anything like that that comes up after we submit it will be communicating that to City Council
so everyone's on the same page.
So again, this is where the conversation for the purpose of the discussion will mostly be today
are these local policy options.
So, policy area on the left, the curtain ordinance in the middle, and the proposal on the right, maximum ADU size, the current ordinance limits studio and one bedroom ADU's to 800 square feet,
and this is a type of 1,000 square feet for a 2 bedroom maximum, and the proposed ordinance, we've removed the bedroom qualifiers and increased up to the 1200 square foot maximum, which is allowed by state law.
For architecture requirements, currently are class two ADUs, so those are ADUs that are not considered statewide exempt, those are going to be the ADUs that are over 800 square feet, or don't meet the minimum side and rear step back requirements for the intense of this, it's really any ADUs that's over 800 square feet.
So currently, we have material and roof matching requirements.
We've reduced those to be objective standards only,
where we're looking at exterior entrance requirements,
lighting standards, and taking away the material
and roof matching requirements.
For public transit, currently the ordinance only
looks at fixed route transit.
This is a definition that's provided in the government code.
it's very narrow. It requires that the transit be, on a fixed route, and certain intervals,
we don't have transit that qualifies, but we do have the vine shuttle. And what we heard
in public feedback was that if we could expand our definition to include micro transit, people
would benefit because they would be allowed to have reduced parking requirements and would
able to take advantage of the increased high opportunities.
For historic resources, we had a visibility-based
standard. There was concerns that that standard was
subjective. Staff has now incorporated an objective
sighting standard, which would require an ADU that's
on a site with a historic resource to be located behind
the existing residents, rather than outside of the view
from the public right of way, which is subjective and kind of hard to measure.
Utility regulations, the utility standards were previously codified within the
ADO ordinance, staff has recommended that those regulations be taken out of the
ADO ordinance and put into title 13 and be cross-referenced, and then the
rent reporting requirement currently the ADO ordinance requires an annual
reporting. That has been removed. It is now an option. There's a link we have a survey.
People tend to participate in it, but pursuant to the state law we can't require them to.
One recommended revision that came up after the City Attorney had reviewed this was for section 17.22
030G4. This is related to ADU conversions and non-conforming provisions.
So, here I've, in the frame, on the bottom right, I've included the recommendation to strike non-conforming and enclosed structures. So currently,
Notice that back it was required for an ADU that is subject if an ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
So the recommendation would be to strike the word non-conforming and enclosed.
And the feedback that we got from the city attorney is that those terms are not defined and converting a structure.
It's not limited to non-conforming or enclosed structures.
you can convert any existing structure, whether it's, yeah, so this is just for clarity and we'll
be in alignment with state law. And I've included that in the recommended action so you can read that
into the record here this evening. And just want to touch on a couple of things. So I'll go back here
because I think this is going to be important for the conversation. Something else that came up during
in the study session, there was a strong desire to see the 800 square foot exemption for
80 use and how that applies to gross flora area and lot coverage. Currently, the code only
allows for up to 800 square foot floor area exemption at the time of construction. I think
you might all remember discussing this and it's something that we heard from the public
quite a bit.
Staff supportive of that.
It's not something that's included in the ADU ordinance itself, rather that's in our terms
of measurement and how we measure grass-floor area and lot coverage.
So Staff has recommended that we'll bring that forward with her miscellaneous code update.
So I just want to let you know that we heard you, we heard the public, we're in agreement,
and we'll be bringing that back with our miscellaneous code update in a couple of months.
And as far as the utility regulations, I do want to just be really clear that the title 13 amendments
are not before you this evening. Mr. Traverso is here to speak to the process and what the intention
of public works is, but because we don't have those included in the staff report or an attachment,
we can't deliberate them. They're not part of the agendized item, but we can't discuss
intention and process to bring them forward to the city council alongside the 80 ordinance update.
So with that, staffs recommended action this evening would be to find the proposed amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
and to adopt the ordinance amending section 1722.
Hello, thank you.
I'm sorry to be looking for the chair. I did fail to introduce Mario Treverso here from public works representing that department for the amendments that they're providing.
I just want to point out one clarification, the reason title 13 or chapter 13 is not here as part of this attachment for discussion is it's not under the purview of the planning commission.
It goes straight to the city council, and so that's why in case any members of the public or the commission are curious or wondering.
And I appreciate I want to just ask clarifying question on that and then deferred to my fellow commissioners for other comments.
But I understand the jurisdiction on that, but I also believe because of its integration
with our overall aid you policy that this commission has an ability to basically recommend
consideration of changes by the city council, even though we don't have jurisdiction.
Is that appropriate for us?
Yes.
Can we get as far as formal recommendation?
What we did do to address this was we provided an extra memo, so there's a memo in here describing the intention, the policy decision, and you can certainly
Providing your recommendation support of the policy decision for utilities.
Very good. Thank you. I'll defer to my fellow commissioners for clarifying questions. I do have a couple of my own, but first for to my fellow commissioners. Any questions?
clarifications? I have a few. Okay. Under F2 height B, which says that a detached
80 you may be up to 18 feet in height if it's created on a lot with an existing or
proposed single family or multi-family dwelling that's located within one mile of
is that a, and first of all, let me just say, thank you so much in your red line for
within each change for putting the reason of the change or multiple reasons for the change.
So thank you so much that made it really helpful.
So, going back to F2B and the 18 feet, what's unclear to me is if that's our discretion
or if that state law, is the two feet in additional height from the 16 feet, where is
that coming from?
So, state law has a definition of polytrand that's the fixed route, so the state law requirement
would be that we are required to allow the 18 feet in height if it's in one-half mile walking distance
from the state to find public transit. Staff is recommending to expand the definition of public transit
to capture the vinyl shuttle. So this would mean that our amended definition of transit, which would
include micro-transit, a vine shuttle, would allow for additional high allowances. It would not
be discretionary if someone submitted an application and they wanted to take advantage of
that they would be able to. But the vine trail picks up at private homes, correct? It doesn't
have a route. So that basically includes every single home in the entire. The vine trail doesn't
have a route, it does have a kind of an area that it goes to, and I have that available
actually, if you'd like to see a slide of the map, but it is most of our developed area.
It kind of excludes some of the A20 sites outside of the urban limit line, but it's a majority
of the area of the city.
Through the chair, I'll expand a little bit more.
this is to answer your question. It is a policy decision. The policy decision comes from feedback
that we received at the previous planning commission meeting. As a majority of the commission,
as well as members of the public, where they'd like us to consider a local serving transit
condition. And so that is how staff has addressed this. If we're aligning our ordinance
to mirror what the state ordinance does for that transit condition, that means it's 18 feet.
Okay.
Thank you. So, and then in that same paragraph, it says there's yet another two additional
feet in height up to 20 feet to accommodate a roof pitch. That, that's aligned with the roof
the primary dwelling. That is a policy decision also. That's state law. So state law allows
up to a maximum of 20 feet just to match any homes roof pitch before we didn't even have.
Yeah, are you sure? I can I can research it right now and tell you with certainty.
That would be good, but if you notice that's not a new language that's been added, that's part of
our code, that was there previously, that this is part of the state law requirement. The only thing
that we've changed about this is our definition of public transit to include micro transit.
Everything else here is from the state law and is using the state definition of public transit.
which is defined in section 21155 of the public resources kept.
Okay, so we're just changing the definition of what transit is.
As a policy.
That's a precision.
Okay, got it.
Thank you so much.
And then I just have, I think, one other clarifying question.
Can you define sanitation facilities?
Maybe more.
You can do this.
So under owner occupancy under JADUs, this is just, again,
for my clarification,
the JAD, the,
the,
I mean, I can guess, but I, I'd love to know exactly that.
Can you assist us with a location that you're looking at?
Yes. That was is very helpful for us.
Yes. This is in, it's still in section F.
7, B,
2, A.
This doesn't have page number, so I can't help you with page numbers.
I think it just means the JD has a separate toilet.
Yeah, so if you'll see under definitions, so this is section C5, J80s means the residential
dwelling unit that satisfies all of the following includes separate sanitation facilities or
share sanitation facilities with an existing or purpose single family structure. This is
verbatim from the state law. Okay, they don't define sanitation facilities, but it's a bathroom.
Okay.
That's it for me. Thank you. Other comments or questions from commissioners?
Yeah, I still have, I'm trying to kind of process how our town sometimes needs, I mean,
where, and I get it loosening restrictions for non-matching exterior and all that, roof
pitches. You know, sometimes even containers and stuff, we're requiring them to get coated and,
And it just seems like we're getting away a little bit.
I mean, to be able to go extra to foot height
for a roof pitch to match it,
when there's a micro-transit, and then all of a sudden,
we don't care about pitches and exterior to cover,
because that's kind of what we do.
I just start to process, but I'm willing to do anything
to loosen restrictions.
I just think that sometimes we're double-talking
within one thing and another in this town.
And it does concern me that the height might get close to almost in some places even super
cheating some of the primary homes, you know, but that's just my opinion as I think about
it as a builder and about not only that aesthetics is just fitting in and this town is already
from the community kind of strict on what they want in this town when it comes to something
see how it all fits in but just one of my concerns that I guess I just had to deal with.
Can I respond to that and I appreciate your comment.
So I do want to just clarify the architectural requirements that are in section G, only would
apply to 80 use over 800 square feet.
So we're talking about any 80, between 800 and 1200 square feet.
The state has allowed us to apply some architectural requirements if we choose to do so.
Anything that's 800 square feet in under.
We have, we can't regulate the roof pitch, the materials.
So what we heard in the study session was, it seems a little, I guess,
necessary to have these additional requirements for this very slim
subsection of ADUs which are the ADUs between 800 square feet and 1200
square feet. I'd also like to point out that the design standards for a
single-family residents don't regulate roof pitch or so that we're not even
looking at that for a new single-family home.
other questions, clarifications? I do have a couple of questions. Thank you again for that presentation and all of the attachments were really helpful.
I'm also really happy to hear about the time of construction 800 square foot exemption that will come later.
Um, also like seeing that as it deals with the short term rental, um, that it says in here for renting, because I think that was one of the questions about, you know, all these ADUs being then put it for short term rentals that you can't rent it for less than 30 days, which would be like the short term rental.
Sorry, I had it up, I don't know if you need the low key.
Let's see, it's number four under FF4 says rental term,
no ADU or JDU may be rented for a term that is shorter than 30 days,
which basically kind of helps with, I think, what people are saying
on the SDRs.
I think a lot of people are saying, like, you know.
Um, I just noticed that. I'm not sure if that was always there or not, but um, I guess my question is, and this relates to
Square footage and I wrote it down. G
B.
I'm sorry. I feel like this is really loud.
Um,
let me find it.
GB and attached ADU that is created, so okay and attached
ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is further limited to 50%
of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling. So if it's attached and
I'm trying to get this clear on my head, so if it's detached, you can do up to 1200 square feet.
There's no like 50% restriction, but if it is attached to your main primary home,
then you're only really allowed to go up to 50% of the floor area of the existing primary home.
And say you're existing primary homies on a 1,500 square feet or something, then you're only really allowed seven hundred and fifty square feet.
Through the chair, that's correct. That state law. It's been that way for a few revisions of state law at this time.
I think it's personally a little silly, but we would have to go to our council to ask if we could change that on our local ordinance.
I think for purposes of consistency of state law, though, it's remaining the same when we're not proposing to change it.
Wouldn't it attached ADU be a JADU?
Not necessarily.
No, those are separate under state law and the provisions, they vary.
So I just want to make sure I understand this.
If it's detached and say you're existing primary home is only 1500 square feet.
You can still do a 1,200 square foot at you.
It's only when it's attached.
Does it have to be 50% of the primary?
That's correct.
And keeping in mind to that floor area,
growth floor area and lock coverage for the site
would apply beyond 800 square foot exemptions.
But to be clear, if I hear you correctly,
is that the state law does not prohibit
revising that 50%.
It's just that you all have proposed this to be consistent with what the state law says. Is that correct?
That's correct. I would say that if the commission as a majority were interested, you could build that into your recommendation.
Between now and going to the city council, we could amend that language with if the legal review agrees.
And just clarify, we don't have to wait for city council if we were to propose tonight to adopt the ordinance for that revision that could go to city council subject to legal review.
correct if it was part of your motion, yes, to allow to allow 1200 square feet if you are attached.
Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.
I'm not saying I support that, but I wanted to clarify because that was, I think a question
that Mr. Kavelle was getting at.
Yes.
Then I have another question that I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.
So, the 800 square foot 80 use, the for the setbacks, it's really a four foot setback from any setback.
It's just when you go up above 800 square feet, does the front yard setback of that zoning district apply.
So, most medium density residential properties here are 20 in the front, right? Something like that.
So, an ADU that is larger than 800 would have to be set back, but if you wanted to, state law, is allowing you to do it, 800 square foot, set back in your, or 800 square foot, ADU in your front yard, up to four feet of the property line, as long as it's under 800 square feet.
My understanding is that sea law doesn't regulate the front setback whatsoever for those
class-1, ADUs.
So any ADU up to 800 square feet, the only regulation is a four-foot side and a four-foot
rear setback.
We don't have any ability to apply a front setback to the class-1, ADUs.
I want to supplement that professionally across the planning world.
was a bit shocking and likely not considering, you know, the majority of the state of California.
So it's shocking. We've all had to deal with it and sort of swallow our pride and accept it,
but there's nothing that we can do. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding it too,
because I am also, I think, you know, I want people to be able to do what they, you know,
people have interesting lot shapes and stuff. So I get, I get some people might not have a backyard
and it might be in the front yard. So it is kind of allowing an interesting, you know, look,
I know, arg, it just, I want to make sure I understand it in that this is not something we have
control over because it is a state requirement. But as far as anything above 800 square feet,
we are allowed, we're saying that it would have to conform to the zoning districts front
setback. So, that seemed like that was an added clarification in this one because I don't remember
that in the last one but maybe I just missed it last time.
That's all of my questions right now.
I mean, I guess I would love to hear a little bit more about the title 13, but I am glad to
I read it, and I understand, you know, separating it, and I'm, I also appreciate the direction
in which it's going, so being that I don't have a preview, but I can say that I am happy to hear
that. Thank you. I got a couple of clarification questions as well, kind of building off of
fellow commissioners. On the definition of public transit, I read that as including right-sharing
services. Am I correct? Good right-sharing services are publicly regulated services.
And you have demand responsive there, which right-sharing is. I want to be sure that that's
your intent that right-sharing services are included in the definition of public transit.
Well, right-sharing services are paid by the individual. So, would do they qualify as public?
Well, buses are paid for, you pay for a ticket for a bus, you pay for a ticket for micro-transit.
I just want to get clarification of whether the intent is to include right-sharing,
and then I can discuss whether I would recommend that we add right-sharing.
When you say right-sharing, do you mean things like Uber or unless I would say that this definition is not,
because this has dorted or flexible route services operated by or on the behalf of a public agency?
Do we have the authority to expand it to include right sharing because other than being a public transit agency right sharing is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission is publicly available and therefore it is a it's demand responsive form of transit that's widely used in particular areas where things such as vine transit and fixed transit and even the micro services are not as widely available particularly in rural areas.
But what is the staff's recommendation?
My recommendation would be that that's kind of going outside of the purview,
transit, it's really something that's like encompassing greenhouse gas reduction,
also, overs and lifts, pick up one person.
My understanding is that vine trail can pick up multiple people along the way.
That would be my, my.
Well, I just want to be sure, is it legally precluded from us expanding this to include?
We are able to include whatever we want in this definition.
We've already gone out, we're going above and beyond the state of definition.
So if that is the recommendation you'd like to make.
And by the way, I wanted to clarify that the Uber and Lyft are under fairly strict requirements
that they move to emissions-free transportation being available.
So you're point about greenhouse gas emissions and ridership also, of course, Uber and Lyft
provide multiple passenger services as well in terms of the options.
I just want to be sure that if we're expanding here, we're not limiting what people are
most familiar with and may be using for their transit purposes, particularly those that are
on fixed incomes or need that kind of flexibility.
So I would basically, again, subject to my fellow commissioners, if it's not intended to include
right-sharing I would would be recommending that we amend this to include right-sharing services.
Through the chair, if the majority of the commission, like you mentioned, are in agreement,
you may want to, you know, at the disc when, well, we're not voting it. And we're at the discussion
part of this process. We could, we could speak to that and you may want to separate that out in your voting.
Yeah, I can. I just want to, when getting the clarification, I want to know whether it's included or not,
because it looked to me like when you talk about micro transit other than it being provided
by a government agency, certainly I consider rideshuring to be micro transit.
Okay, that's one question I had.
The other point I wanted to make was that the, I also like Commissioner Covelle, if I've
read the memo, Public Works memo, and I also think that it's, it's a good, I'm going
be a good approach. And at the right time, I would recommend that as a matter of policy, the
commission, this commission support that that memorandum. Third question I have, it's really
more of a clarification. Nothing in this proposal in any way seeks to amend or exempt
ADUs from what, as Bill Henry are building, inspectors point out, is fairly expensive and
not inflexible energy code requirements in the latest building code.
And in fact, when I asked him about this, when we were doing our open discussion, even if
we expand from 800 to 1200, the actual California building code requirements do add tens of thousands
dollars to the building code requirements for new ADUs, even for the ones that are just considered
alterations rather than new, free standing ADUs.
So I just want to point that out because it's not something that we can address arguably
the City Council could request an exemption for ADUs from the California Building Commission.
That would be something that would be just up to the City Council, but I want to point
that ADUs are likely to be significantly restricted in terms of cost, because of those new energy code requirements.
So if we're thinking this is going to immediately unleash a huge number of new ADUs, at least for affordability, I think it's unlikely to do that.
That said, I'm very, my only comment, it's not a clarification, isn't really, again, to praise the work by the staff to revise these standards for ADUs into much more objective, easily understood flexible standards that allow ministerial review of ADUs, and I think we all as a commission, or interested in that as part of our study session.
Those are my only clarification questions I have.
If one more question is kind of sparked as people were talking, sorry, so this will be a
multiple questions, so I'll just start with one. The last 80 ordinance that was adopted.
What? That was like 20501, right? Or 20401? We adopted an 80 or an ends up date in the spring of
2025. 25. So just a year ago. Yes. And I've read that one pretty thoroughly and compared to this one.
The state laws
haven't, I mean let's see, new things have come out, but I'm just kind
of curious how that one was so limiting versus this one and how that, I mean I guess how
got pushed through. So I don't know. I think I know you're asking Commissioner Kavelle. And I brought
forward the previous ADU update and as I recall we basically took the city attorneys model ordinance
and brought it to you verbatim and there wasn't much discussion. Since then, in some of the other
conversations that have come up and I think this really first came up when we had our study session
in December of 2025.
There's a lot of conversation about the local policy options.
And why are our architectural requirements
the way that they are?
And quite frankly, it's because that
was recommended to us in the model ordinance.
Staff brought it forward.
You all read it.
We adopted it as is.
And then, I think everyone started looking at it a little bit
more closely wondering, where can we dig into this?
Where can we refine this with our local policy options?
So staff in response to your concerns
of the 2025 December study session about our zoning code as a whole, wanted to look into this
and dive into this in more detail and make sure that we brought forward not just a model
ordinance that's prepared by an attorney, they do great work, but looking at it in the context
of our community as a whole.
And having been there at that time, that's exactly right.
We were simply updating the ordinance for existing state law requirements at that time.
it was not a policy discussion, and since then we've had the policy discussion of our local
policy options. And here is what we have today.
Thank you for that. I was just trying to figure out, I mean that, yeah, I didn't know
it was a model or anything.
Also, I just want to bring up on the draft ordinance. I think
was towards the end. It was talking about, let's see, maybe find the original. It was about existing
buildings that were done before like a certain day of 2020 and like getting them approved via
as long as it didn't
breach public health and safety. I think that's a new state law of like
exact number of the assembly bill is, this is something that was in, at least the previous update.
So state law has mandated the unpermitted structures that were constructed before 2020.
Can be legalized into an ADU and that the city is very limited and the corrections that we can
require and then it cites a certain part of the health and safety code.
So the building official would be very limited
in what kind of corrections they could require
whenever an applicant is legalizing something existing.
So I'm actually going through one of these projects
through an app accounting,
but I think it's 25, every three, you don't call me.
To me numbers, I'm curious to know
if people were to come forth permitting and legalizing
their ADUs would that be in a way counted to help housing units or no? I don't know how that works.
They would be counted towards Rina.
Just a question. Thank you. For the chair, any new unit is just that.
It's a new unit and it's so it's added to our annual counts for units that you see in the annual reports.
So if you had a barn, and you turned it in, and it was unpromoted and you created an
ADU out of it, that would count as a new unit.
If you had an existing non-habitable structure or a non-housing unit, the same thing.
Just to clarify, if you have what amounts to a guest house or a separate unit or a garage
whatever what you're saying is if you basically wanted to turn that into an ADU you would
would need to come in with a new ADU application. No, this was saying that if it was already
constructed and built before 2020. This state has a new A.B. I think it's 25.
I have 33, that allows people to apply and legalize there on OEGLE, on permitted, ADU or JDU, and then officially
have that for their property to be used legally. And so it's already built. And as long as it
It doesn't break public health and safety.
Right.
Got it.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other comments or questions?
If not, we could.
I just have one more close.
I'm sorry.
Under rent reporting.
I don't remember us talking that much about that.
So I'm wondering, where who is that coming from?
Who's objecting or finding that it's a barrier to developing an ADU, the rent reporting
requirements?
It's just not a part of the state.
So, we were requiring this rent reporting as a mandatory requirement in order for the building permit to be issued, and that's outside of our purview of what we're really allowed to do.
So staff is still wants this information.
And like I said, people tend to still provide it.
We've got a great survey that's on the building permit
checklist, but it's noted as optional.
And so the state, so it's not a policy decision
on our part to require, it was a policy decision.
And are you saying that state law now eliminates that option for it?
It's more like it's a barrier.
So, so, Lisa McIll Director, that the state and HCD do not want barriers to the construction
of housing units.
And if you require a reporting or even deed restrictions, those are barriers.
So, you know, like even requiring it to be restricted to affordable housing, they don't even want that to occur because they just want units constructed.
And I might point out that even with what we had previously on rent reporting just as a matter of this being something that would have to be grounded in public health and safety jurisdiction for the planning commission for the zoning code.
I think one, someone supporting building an ADU, particularly if you also are a renter who wants
to have your rent situation, get private.
There are California State Privacy Laws that I think would probably foreclose us from requiring
the renter and the landlord to disclose the renter.
Even if the owner's name is kept, you can report rent without naming the renter.
Well, again, it's a private transaction that doesn't relate to public health and safety.
So it has that, and again, I'm not going to opine that we couldn't do it, because we obviously
did it in the past, but the state that I agree with Dr. Point that this is not something
that is reducing restrictions on ADUs and actually increases restrictions. If it otherwise
would disincent someone from building an ADU.
And we have other means, as we said, of basically gathering this information voluntarily.
The state's quite sensitive to anything that can be perceived as any type form of barrier.
So this would certainly be a red flag for HCD when they were viewing this if it wasn't retained.
I tend to think that it was something that, like, was a good idea at one point to kind
of say, hey, we're going to try to make these guys run it by requiring them to do it.
But now that we're trying to lose in stuff with a way, we might ask too much because now
the state saying, hey, no barriers if there's a bunch of housing, it'll eventually get
filled, or at least it's availability, right, the most applying demand.
But yeah, I even thought, oh, that's pretty good that they get asking them to rent it, but it's not something that the state wants, so that's why it's a red flag now.
Other questions, discussion?
At this point, are we turning to actually discussing the proposed ordinance?
You do need to open the public here.
That's right.
I open the public comment.
Seeing no members of the public wishing to comment, I'll bring it back to the commission.
There was a public discussion.
Comments submitted, just I don't know.
Yeah, let's talk about that.
I read through Mr. Hales' comments very quickly,
because they were just late and being available.
I'm sympathetic to anything that tries to make
this more flexible and consistent with policy.
I would suggest because I haven't had enough time
to digest his comments that maybe what the staff does with him
say, okay, you'll evaluate the comments and maybe you can make recommendations when this goes
to City Council on whether the staff would recommend consideration of any of his comments.
That way we don't have to actually necessarily review his comments because it can be something
that we've actually said, please staff provide recommendations to the council once you've got
a chance to digest them. Unless you've got some recommendations today.
Through the chair, I would advise that any items submitted to the commission are part of the administrative record for you to consider when you're making your motion.
That being said, staff has reviewed in detail Mr. Hales information before coming today.
Generally he was supportive of the amendments. Jackie did actually speak to one of the items that he was noting,
which are going to be part of a miscellaneous code amendment. They're not part of the ADU ordinance.
So she did address that with respect to the attachment that was provided. It was a rewritten ordinance.
However, there would be some concerns with that rewritten ordinance.
It's not in a typical format of an ordinance code.
And I'm most concerned about the rewritten ordinance.
I didn't have a chance even in my skin through to kind of put it down right next to the draft.
I'm always in favor, more simplicity and drafting.
But at this point, I'm personally, I'm more interested in moving this forward to approval,
based on all the good work the staff's done.
so I would not recommend stopping his rewritten ordinance
and I appreciate that some of his substantive comments
have already been addressed.
Yeah, I will say I did do a side by side.
What I will say is that it was a really nice effort
for what a strategy could be around how we,
as a community, want to look at ADUs.
So it was more of a strategy-based document
with some kind of codifications built into it.
What we can do to staff level is certainly look at some of the ideas that came
through that when we're looking at housing strategies for the community.
That's helpful.
Thank you.
I only have one proposed change, which I suspect,
listening to my fellow commissioners may not be adopted.
But I do think it's important to note that as I would propose that the
definition of public transit include right-sharing agencies regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.
But just one clarification?
Are you closing the public hearing?
Yes.
I think I thought I did.
But yes.
Public hearing is closed.
Bring it back to the commission.
And that's my one change.
I know we've talked about the height issue.
And if there's any changes on that.
But I open it up to my fellow commissioners for discussion and potentially about if there are any changes.
So, I'll piggyback on that if that's okay.
I am not in favor of making that change as a matter of fact,
I'm not in favor of making the changes to include
like the vine service in the transit.
Only because, as far as I can see,
the changes in the definition of transit affect
mostly, if not only the height, so it gives greater latitude for higher heights.
I don't see how higher heights, you know, not having.
And so I'm thinking of the balance between the need to be as flexible and remove barriers to
the U development and neighbors, because they're affected greatly by an additional structure
on a property, especially with some of the small lots that we have here in town.
So for that reason, I am not in favor of changing the description of transit from the state
definition, which is the most specific to major public
trance.
Let me ask a question of staff because I understand exactly what
you're saying.
There's kind of a back and forth.
I'll ask staff, could we not restrict the application of the
additional definition of public transit such that the application
in terms of ADUs does not apply to the state permission
for higher height. In other words, we ourselves would adopt the additional public transit
definitions, but they would not be applicable the way the state statute is to the height
limitation. Only the state requirement of public transit would allow the higher to fit
in height. And I'm asking staff for the clarification if we could do that.
Sorry. Through the chair, I believe that the purpose of identifying a transit, a local transit area is to accommodate additional provisions for ADUs.
But I would still be doing that, right? We still would still be doing that for all of the ADUs except for the height flexibility.
So, what I was going to continue to say was what would be prudent is going through what are
those provisions that are being offered under this local identified public transit system.
So that the commission was fully informed when it was making this decision to exclude height
or include height.
And again, I'm trying to kind of work on a compromise here.
I would only be asking that the staff approve changes to the ordinance such that the public
transit expansion that we're providing, that's in a matter of our policy discussion, the
only provision in the state ADU standards that it would not apply to would be the state standards
allowing the two feet extra height.
So just to clarify, then by expanding the definition of public
transit to include micro transit, the benefits are two
fold, potential benefits.
One would be a reduction of parking.
So if you look at section G, six, B, I, the ADU located within one half mile walking distance
of public transit as defined in C11 would be exempt from parking requirements.
So this means no parking requirements if you're within the vine shuttle service area.
And then also the additional height.
So the only change would be to just make clear that that expansion of the definition of public transit would not apply to the provision allowing extra height for that expansion of public transit.
It would otherwise apply if it's just the basic public transit height flexibility, and it would also apply our expanded deficit of public transit would apply to the other flexibility that you just mentioned.
Parking.
But that would be the only change.
If I understand what commissioner for it, I'm trying to do here.
Yes, but Planner and Neil brings up a good topic, which is, do we really want to eliminate
all parking requirements, because that's theoretically what we would do, and Jack, do you
have that map of the, let's take a look, because what we would be saying is that for most
of the city, most of the residential parts of the city, we would not require, and we would
need to require any parking at all. I don't know if that's what we want. I don't
I do want to clarify that the parking requirement is only for those ADUs over 800
square feet. Okay. So any ADU and 800 square feet already does not require any parking.
Right. And I also just want to point out that this expanded definition was very widely supported
by the public at the study session. I understand. I'm just trying to kind of
There's a compromise in which the height flexibility that this would imply could be not applied
in those circumstances under the expanded definition, but everything else, including the parking
flexibility would be incorporated.
I don't know that the community when we have those discussions was fully aware of all the
consequences that a change in the definition of transit would result in these additional
height opportunities.
Through the chair, we have had several staff has had several conversations with individuals
that are supportive of this, including our local housing assembly and members of that public.
they did come and speak.
That being said, if the Commission is a majority,
desires as part of their recommendation
to present to the City Council,
that they do not want to include a local transit.
Consideration, I'm not called micro-transit.
You can go ahead and do that.
I'm not sure I see a benefit of including it
if you're not going to give.
And provide the benefit of note. I'm just going to finish my statement. No parking or the height provision. Can I say something? Sure.
I would like to just state that I like the draft as it is written.
Okay, that's helpful. We're counting votes here. How about the commissioner Lopez, you have any comments on this compromise approach that commissioner.
I'm a little torn, I also think that the height issue is going to, I already see people sometimes.
They say one thing and then later they're other.
But with that said, I also see here point that we're going to do micro.
We want to do Uber and Lyft.
You know what I'm saying?
You might as well include it all because if we are open the floodgates to liberate the restrictions,
or we keep it tight to what the good is.
So I'm all for one way or the other.
Let me ask a commissioner for the next opinion of that.
Again, it may be mixing and matching here a bit,
but if we adopted a exclusion of the height flexibility
from the expanded definition of micro-transit,
but then define micro-transit to include Uber and Lyft,
would you change your view on including Uber and Lyft?
Perhaps, yes. I'm wondering what the point is though.
Like, how does Uber and Lyft expand?
Like, what is that accomplishing?
I'm just trying to understand.
Remember, micro-transit is still a fixed transit that goes around
and it's demand responsive and it's often vans and it's often not as available
because it's a public transit then Uber and Lyft.
My only point is the practical issue of expanding the flexibility for everyone who needs flexible
transportation.
That said, if the commission's will is not the support expanded transportation flexibility,
but to go with the staff, all abide by that decision.
But I did want to mention, you had said you were against expansion to Uber and Lyft because
of the height restriction, and what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners is maybe if
height restriction is added here where the expanded transportation doesn't include the
height flexibility, then there might be support for that. I also hear Commissioner
Kovale saying in very legitimate that she likes it, just the way it is, just the way
it is written. But we have four commissioners here and I don't want to waste our time if
they're not votes to change.
Yes.
If I may, I just want to back up a little bit and remind the commission that what was
included in the ordinance that's before you all this evening is inclusive of all of the
comments received from the majority of the commission at the study session as well as the
public is what has been it has been posted for the public and as we remember during the study
session there were quite a lot of people in attendance we're not seeing a lot of people in attendance
today that being said again it's it's at the pleasure of the commission but we're we're looking
at this from the community's perspective.
I understand, but per commissioner, for at X point, I don't think the community has been presented
with a the issue on height or be the issue on expanding shared transportation as it might
relate to the definition of public transit.
So I'm going to basically say I understand that we've had community input, but I also understand
that I don't believe that community input is considered at this level detail, but I'll just
defer to my fellow commissioner.
I also believe that most of the people that we heard from in the work study session were practitioners.
They were people in architecture and building and again, not neighbors who were considering
which, and their input was terrific. However, to Commissioner Warner's point, I don't think the
public has been is clear on the implications and has waited on that.
I would like to just add, I remember, um,
um, chair, my scriptwriter, you brought up height in one of the study sessions
last time and, um, Commissioner Autumn Anderson said that it's subjective.
you're not guaranteed your view, you're not that something to that's something about
she said direct a homeowner does not have a right to its view to view. I disagree
but that's okay. I think when there's a compromise that can be made between
encouraging 80-year development and neighborhood
the impact on a neighbor's
piece of property and their quality of life I think that we can do both. I mean
if we were to say 18 is too much over 16 just think of all the people with 40
foot buildings that are going up in their backyard so that's I mean I don't think
that's before us. I'm really curious, Commissioner Lopez, how high is this ceiling? Do you think you're, you know what I was looking like?
Probably I'd say like 16 feet to the bottom of the beam probably about 20 going to the
indentation. So I mean, I agree to, I mean, it's, I almost say, you know, we're going to lose the restrictions.
We might as well just go and include, like I said, the whole town to benefit from being able
to do ADUs with the parking and I'll live in a higher seat because then if we just use the
micro we are excluding the little outskirts and hey if they're going to raise your head I agree
that a lot of Uber and Lyft are starting to do electric cars and everything and might as well
How can I say loosen up the restrictions and hope for the best?
But I also think that I've heard enough throughout the year and a half about oh this is
blocking my view and this and that and then I don't know.
One more perspective, I wonder if the state initiated that law because in major transit stops
in areas, there's often public parking, which is something that we just don't have in this town.
So I'm also, you know, I'm weighing the intention
overall that has to be applied to every single place in California.
And again, most of those places, I think the intention,
just like the new law, oh gosh, I can't remember what it is.
But it's yet another step in encouraging development
on housing near transit centers.
And the theory behind that is that there's, well,
It's easy to get around, and it's easy for someone to access transit.
But there's also usually parking centers in those areas.
And that's just something this community doesn't have.
So I think we have what amounts to it,
what I call virtual straw vote here, that we have had.
And I can tell you, Commissioner Verdeck,
I'm sympathetic to all the views of the commissioners on this one.
And I think the two positions are keep the existing draft
the way it is. I think Commissioner Covelle has made a very good point about that.
And the other is to basically expand the definition of public transit, include right
sharing, but make clear that the expansion of the definition of public transit does not allow
the extra height. And that, I think, is are the two points of view. Commissioner Lopez,
you look quizzical on that.
I just think that if we add, you know,
I think everybody should benefit, I mean, I'm trying
to think about how she, how Commissioner Covell said, you know, if you build it with a front
of the unit, imagine having a higher roof pitch, you know, a higher height, right?
There's very odd shape places and stuff, but, you know, if we're talking about loose-in-reestations,
maybe you had to trust the community, they'll do the right thing, but I would definitely,
if we're going to add already like the vine trail, I think we should add Uber and Lyft to just
free it up a little more. Why not have a little more free on the list?
Yes, you know.
Maybe just to put this again on the straw vote, so maybe there is a third option and
Commissioner Perdeck, I appreciate your point of view on this, but I think Commissioner
Coval, because I hear Commissioner Perdeck would not support Uber and Lyft.
Mr. Coval, you become the deciding vote on whether we would expand the route to ride
sharing without restricting the height. Do you have any point of view on that?
So, you're saying you're looking at a third option which would be expanding the definition
to include Uber and Lyft and other whatever ride sharing and keep the height as it is
written in the draft.
Yes, that's correct.
That would be the third option.
And it would be like, think about the your way is like it'll include all of it, most
of the town, right?
Because it all got access to the correct.
So if I'm understanding this, like that slide where it does show the wine shuttle, bus,
it's pretty much all of town like a set for the urban limit line I don't know like I don't
really know there's like areas that so basically by saying ride share I mean I don't even I mean
there's just there I mean if you were to show the delta between that pink purple colored area
versus what includes it?
I mean, let me clarify, I totally agree with you that the limited vine transit that makes
the circular root and town covers everything in the urban limit line.
I mean, arguably it doesn't stop at everybody's house, so you do have members of the
community that don't have to walk to a stop or walk to where the bus goes, but I'm not
and right-sharing and Uber would expand the coverage beyond what's already in buying transit.
I'm just saying it's a more flexible form of a publicly available transit.
I wanted to just also understand Miss Senior Planters of Neal's address on that earlier,
because I think as she had interpreted it that public transportation was more defined as something
like the line trail and your legal background, I'm guessing that Uber and Lyft are now
considered public transportation, is that kind of thing?
Yeah, no, they're not, they're privately owned, but they're publicly regulated strictly.
And in fact the point about the missions free is something that's coming with Uber and
Lyft as regulated by the California Public Affairs Commission, they're required to expand
into missions free transportation that's available, but they are private not publicly owned.
If I'm, if I may, if the, if the commission decided to consider option three as part of your
motion, it could include provided that there are no conflicts under state law for including
it.
That is what I would recommend because I don't think we as staff are prepared to respond
to that connectivity or not right now.
I'm happy that obviously for the City Attorney's purpose for reviewing anything we recommend
in the City Council, the City Attorney will review it.
I don't think we have to encode it in the actual condition on the approval.
I would like to state that I might have a conflict of interest with deciding anything to do with Uber and Lyft, because one of my clients is
part of the CEO of Lyft.
We could ask if that's a conflict, I think, to the extent that you're not voting to benefit
the personal ownership of your client, but again, it's up to you to decide whether you
would recuse yourself on that.
I would just wanted to state that just in case, but since this is more your suggestion not
in my suggestion. I would honestly, on this decision piece, I kind of want to defer to staff
on their recommendation and their way of approaching this one, I don't really have a particular,
I think the Vine Shuttle is a great, I think Vine Shuttle is a legit public transportation for
town because we don't really have buses like the 38 gear or whatever. You know, it's
divine shuttle and it's beautiful. You pick up with an app and drop
off anywhere. So I think that is a legit public transportation. I don't know the
definitions enough to know whether or not that should be expanded. That's all.
Right. Through the chair. I think that it's certainly creative and puts the city at the
forefront of being innovative in how it wants to look at transportation and inclusivity
for the development of housing throughout our city here. Considering we don't necessarily meet
what those minimum requirements are under a state law.
I think that I don't think that there would be a conflict unless you're working on an ADU for the client,
since this is an ADU ordinance.
So that being said, I don't think there's an issue with that if you decided to go with option.
So, I would be in favor of joining on adding right chairing to the definition of transit as long as we exempt that from the additional height.
So I think we are at two options, which is actually option one and option three, and I think we need to move along because we're
been going to be vacated out of here pretty soon.
I think it's, you know, I'll ask the director, I think it's a perfectly acceptable for us to do what I would
call a straw vote before we actually vote.
And the first would be a straw vote on whether we'd support option one, which I call commissioner
and my option of basically expanding the definition of public transit include
ridesharing, but exempting from the expanded flexibility that that entails the
height flexibility. As a straw vote, I'd like to call upon my
commissioners if they're willing to provide a informal vote on that.
Commissioner
You're saying there's two options. Option one, which was that one. Option three was
merely expanding public transit to ride share, but without
exempting that expansion from the height.
And I just want to I'm going to interject here. Sorry.
I want to be clear. There is an ordinance that's before
the planning commission that is still a viable option.
Nobody has taken any votes or measures.
you're speaking through options for straw votes?
That's correct.
Yeah, so there's still three options.
I want to make sure that every commissioner understands clearly what's
obviously before you.
Obviously the ordinance says thereafter, doesn't front of us and Mr. Cobell has spoken to that previously as well.
I'm just looking for whether there's a straw vote to propose a change to the ordinance,
either as commissioner verdict and I have discussed or the option three,
which we've discussed was the only change would be to expand the public transit
include ride-sharing, but no change to the other provisions, and that's maybe you want
to consider that to be my option three.
Chair Warner, I'm going to interject here.
I do want to make sure that there's still an available option for the existing ordinance.
And the reason I'm asking that be considered of the commission, the straw vote could include
still a majority of the existing ordinance.
I understand.
And we're only discussing whether we would propose a change to the existing ordinance.
The existing ordinance will still be in front of us as a result of the straw vote.
And it would be a straw vote that then would mean either we're proposing to change the
ordinance as proposed or we're not proposing to change the ordinance.
That's what's in front of us.
We need to move along here.
This is how we do straw votes.
So let's do that.
I think I just heard Commissioner Perdex say on the option one that that would be one that she
would support how about our other commissioners?
I would support the original draft.
And in that sense, I'd like my saying that
is that it was a lot of work to get to here.
And I think it's going in front of City Council July 28th.
And I think if there are other things that want to be brought up,
Those that could be amended later, or discuss later in a different format, but I'm not really wanting to change the fact.
I'm hearing your boat is on options one and three is no on both, and on your low pass.
I want to go with if it's doable, the height restriction type deal with the type option one.
Okay, so I think what that means is that there's a two to two vote on both of these options.
So neither of these options would be supported, and again, you're a quizzical on that.
Option one again is would only have the vote. Again, my vote would be for option one and option three.
But I'm hearing that that option three would be voted no on by Commissioner Ferdek and Commissioner Covelle.
because again, Commissioner Govels made this very clear.
She'd like to go more preferably with the existing draft.
So I'm going to read the straw votes as meeting no changes.
And if that's OK, unless Commissioner Verdeck,
you would like a formal vote.
I'm going to move this along.
I'm going to suggest that our straw vote
indicates there's no support for either option
to change the ordinance.
So I would suggest to move things along.
We move to a discussion of voting on the ordinance
as drafted.
For clarification, Chair, you didn't weigh in, so we don't know if there is, sorry, I would
vote for the alternative option.
I would vote for both options if they were in front of me, but because I think Commissioner
Covelle has basically indicated she would not vote for option 3, and I think you've indicated
that you would not vote for option 3.
That would mean that that option would fail to the two.
Right.
So I'd like to make a motion then.
Okay, go ahead.
So I'd like to make a motion to recommend the staff recommendation with their non-conforming exclusion
and to amend the recommendation to include right-sharing as a definition of transit, and
to exclude the height flexibility contingent on location to transit.
Okay, is there a second?
I second it.
Is there any further discussion?
If not, let's go forward.
I would say then if this is what the motion, I would motion option 3.
Wait, wait, we need to have a vote first.
I've seconded option 1.
Let's have a vote on that and then we can move to option 3.
I thought we could have two motions.
I mean, I'm going to try and assist here.
There's one motion on the floor right now.
It's a motion that was mentioned by Commissioner Ferdig and seconded by Chair Warner and that is an amended option one for lack of a better way to describe that.
It is not moving the current ordinance forward and it is not moving an ordinance with just the right share forward.
It is moving our ordinance, removing height from the micro transit provision, and it is the 18-foot
high limit, and it is including the ability to have ride sharing be included in that micro transit.
I'm going to make sure I correct, because that's not what I heard from Mr. Pertek said.
I think I heard her say that the, let me be sure I understand that you would, okay, maybe
I think that's correct.
Did you would remove, you would remove the flexibility on height from any of the expanded
definition that's currently in the draft ordinance?
Yes.
In other words, we would stick to the, what I believe is the state law correct me if I'm wrong,
which is the 18 feet height if it's created within located with one half mile of a major
transit stop or high quality transit corridor. I just want to be sure because it may be
director. Well, correct me on this too is that the state law does provide for the 20 foot expansion
for the current definition of public transit, isn't that correct?
That is correct.
So would not amend that.
The city does not have a micro transit area or as defined under that code section.
So it would be pointless to be introducing a micro transit area to the city.
But we, again, my question was, the state law currently allows 20 feet under the state
law definition of public transit.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
We could not amend that commissioner for it.
So I understood your motion to be, you would only exclude the 20 feet from the expanded
definition that's not required by state law plus rights rights sharing.
So again, that's the motion I seconded it.
We need to move ahead.
I think, is there any further discussion?
Can we go to a roll call boat on that?
I'm
a little lost in this motion, quite honestly, I need like blood diagram here.
So the motion is to adopt the ordinance as recommended with the debt orange part.
So you're saying that your motion is included, you would like to include ride sharing in the definition of public transportation
on top of the micro-transit, on top of the micro-transit, and you're saying that with this
new revised definition of public transit, what are you stating about the height, what
that you're so I guess that we just stick to what the California State Law is, which provides
the flexibility up to 20 feet only within a half a mile of a major public transit, stop or
corridor, and not the micro transit. Not for the expanded definition. It's pretty simple. You're
you're basically adopting the expanded definition for everything except height, including
right-sharing, but you're not adopting the expanded definition for height, the state law already
requires that the expanded height be available for what state law designates as public transit.
Does that make sense to you, Chris?
Go well.
I mean, if we can, so those areas would be exempt, so the benefit to the community then,
if flexibility is what we're measuring it by, would be the exemption for parking.
they would still get the exemption for parking.
So I want to understand this, that we're trying to make a recommendation to
City Council, right? So there's this draft in front of us, as it is, then you're
you know, are proposing some edits to it. These are recommendations
that alter this current draft that's correct. Then whatever goes in front of city council
can still get public comments and people can align on this as they wish and it's not a
it's not a done deal this where our recommendation is advisory only.
I don't know what you're
We have a motion that's been seconded, and the discussion is available for the motion, and then we need to move to a vote, and there is still another potential amendment if this motion fails.
But what I'm suggesting is we move to a vote so that we can move ahead here on adoption of the ordinance with whatever changes that commission wishes.
I vote no.
No, we're going to call the vote for second.
This is just discussion still.
So, okay.
Let's go.
The chair.
This is not a discussion.
This is a motion.
It's a discussion of the motion.
Yes.
Which the commissioners can do before voting.
And so, if the commissioner, and I've heard Commissioner Cova also heard intent is to vote
No.
So, it's really Commissioner Lopez.
Any discussion?
And then we can have a roll call vote where everybody can.
No, I'm good with it.
Okay.
Can you call the roll?
Commissioner.
Hello?
No.
Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Vice chair for a deck. Yes. Chair Warner. Yes. The motion passes.
Three to one. All right. That basically makes moot option three. So we now have adopted the ordinance as long as staff understands the change we've approved.
Yeah. Through the chair that what what the planning commission is done is recommended to the city council what you would like the ordinance to reflect.
That's correct and we'll defer to you to apply the language as Commissioner Ferdick and Emotion.
Yes, so staff will still review what planning commission has proposed and it will provide that analysis to our city council for consideration.
That's fine.
So I think that concludes our this agenda item.
We do have again city council coming in here. Can we move on to our next agenda item?
Yes.
Okay. Very good. This item is new to the planning commission and it is something that the city is moving towards for all of its bodies. It's commissions and committees and we're hopeful to present them together to the City Council. We're the first ones right now to have formally done this in this draft and format.
And so there's a work plan that we've put together, what that work plan does, is it forecasts what we believe will be on the planning commissions plate over the next fiscal year.
So those would be private project developments that we think could be coming forward.
It includes other policy projects that we believe are coming forward.
And then there's another section that I had spoken about where potentially we can bring informational sessions to the planning commission for you know further educating the commission.
So that it's helpful for you when you're rendering decisions on other projects later.
And so that is what is before you, this, this evening, which is our recommended work plan for approval ultimately by the city council.
I would also note that one of, one of those items that's being proposed as informational is actually coming to the planning commission at the next meeting,
which was actually requested by Commissioner Covell, which is for a mitigation application.
And I'd like to clarify first of all, I think this is great.
I do think that planning commission could go line by line through this and kind of provide
input to it.
But in a sense, this is staff planning for your workload.
For the year, I'm assuming the city manager is the approval on this in terms of presenting
it to the city council like any work plan for staff I just want to be sure our role here
is to make suggestions this is also a living document this is not something that basically
all of a sudden get set and stone things change as you go through the year on work that comes
in front of you so this isn't necessarily something that is bound by what we recommend in terms of
changes or edits this is something that is your document in terms of work plan it's I think it
seems to me to be more informational for us, but with a discretion that if we want to add things
that we know of work that we would recommend, we provide it, is that my understanding
with the scope of this?
This is a little bit more than that.
This is the planning commissions work plan, so this is the work plan that staff is putting together
for the commission to understand what its roles and responsibilities will be under its
review for the next 12 months. Within that we included and added informational sessions, that's
kind of an added benefit that wouldn't be necessarily required. How this work plan gets approved
is the direction from the city council to our city manager and our directors and each body,
so the planning commission as well, so the who directs us is the city manager and our city council.
So, if I'm fine with that, again, to make this easier and more expedited, again, subject
to my fellow commissioners, I don't have the ability in one session in 15 minutes to
basically share and collegially develop a planning commission work plan that has additional
details, right?
I know Commissioner Koval has had some things that she wouldn't think wants to make sure
be part of our work and our scope of work, I just want to be sure that this is made clear
that this is a living document, subject to changes as we go along for the year, apply the planning
commission. If you're asking planning commission. No, it is not. Okay, then I'm not. I'm not going
to. I'm going to, I'm going to let myself finish. Sure. It is not a dot. It is dynamic. It is not set
stone, it is subject to additional policy projects or private projects that the City Council
asks each body to do. So that is how we're set up as a form of government.
Right, okay. In that situation, I would basically say that I'm not willing as a planning commission
to endorse this as a limited work plan because it really is up to the City Council and to staff
to provide a work plan, and if it's not a living document, then I'm not ready to say that
this is a permanent 12-month plan, and then we have a door to serve.
Chair Warner,
it's a forecasting document of what's coming before the planning commission
within its purview. And so it's letting you know what you can keep your eye on moving forward
on line and through other study sessions, good examples, short-term rental, right?
So that was one of those.
This is a typical thing to have for a body like a commission or a committee.
And it's coming from the city council down to the bodies that are supporting the city council.
So again, I'm very comfortable with this as a document to go at the current time to city council,
but as far as endorsing the details of it as being a limitation on what the planning commission
wishes to come before us, I'm not ready to support it in that form.
If what we're supporting is a document that's subject to change and subject to as we go
long during the year to various opinions, and again, I've suggested that I would like to see
a comprehensive view.
It's really stems from commissioner covels, a suggestion for a zoning code update review,
but also the whole issue of objective versus subject of standards.
But I don't want to belabor that issue in this commission meeting, but if you're asking
me to endorse the plan with no change, I'm going to vote no.
But if it's a living document where we can come back and review and amend it, and as things
move along, as things come up, we can suggest changes to it.
I'm for it.
Yeah, it's not a document that is intended to be amended over time throughout the year.
It's a forecasting document.
If the city council at any time or our city manager directs us to do another item,
like study objective versus subjective, you don't need to amend this.
Does that help?
This is not our setting on in that.
I'm uncomfortable because I would like our commissioners to have more time to review
and add or subtract to it, and I've gone through it in detail, but we don't have a lot of time
at this meeting to have that broad discussion, and in fact, I would want to suggest to my
commissioners that there are additions to this, some of which, again, Commissioner Covell
is suggested in the past, and other members of the public.
I'd also, since no member of the public is here to actually opine and provide comments
on the work plan, I think that's a gap as well, that the City Council would like to be
field, that said I understand. But while I'm trying to give you the go ahead to present
the city council, as long as it is clear that the planning commission is not endorsing
it as a restricted document that is not going to be changed.
I think I would like more time with this too, and maybe some time to get questions and clarifications
asked, you know, among the staff, so that I, I thoroughly understand the document and, you
know, and if there's something I think we're overlooking or not, you know, be able to weigh in.
I, I think I just need some more time than we have with staff to really digest this and
understand it and understand how it would be used throughout the year.
Sure, I can assist in addressing some of that if it's helpful.
I do want to be mindful of time for our city council.
This type of document is, again, a forecasting document for what we know today and what we think will occur over the next 12 months.
What would be the vision is that everybody has this annually and it goes before the city council annually and it's aligned with the goals of the city council.
So the city council sets goals every year. So when they're appointing each body, the purview is part of what's codified and in resolution as well as consistent with whatever the goals are.
of the city council. So this is reflective of those goals. They're also not overdoing it.
It's what can you achieve in a 12-month period? Sure. So staff is heavily involved in what's
put on this because we are very small team. So, you know, there might be items that are important
to the commission. And when we have discussion about that, we will say, well, we don't think we can
do that this year. We'll put it on for the next years. And that's part of our department's
work plan. This is different. This is what do we envision being your core in the next
12 months reviews?
That's great.
That's great. I mean, this is great. That we're putting all that documenting all this.
There obviously is some overlap between what you, what you as a department plan to accomplish and what is in the forecast.
So it does. So we, we, we drive a little bit of maybe what your priorities are or as a recommendation for what your priorities are.
And I think that's where that given take is, which is why I would want to spend more time and have a discussion of the commissioners.
And I get that you've put this together with input from the City Manager, from City Council,
from everything you've heard, from us, but I just want to make sure that it's capturing
all those real priorities or do we need to shift those, before this goes as basically the stamp
you know to counsel as what you're expected to accomplish or what works,
expected to participate in, you know, versus other things.
That's here from our other commissioners in terms of their
brothers.
Again, I think commissioner Ferdek and I would like to have a little bit more time for us
as a commission to review this, but what about other commissioners any comments that would
be helpful to staff?
Yes, I thank you for putting this together.
I appreciate having this kind of work plan, strategic plan,
I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I appreciate
you putting this together and I think it is helpful to have this forecast and I really like seeing what we did in the past year.
I can't believe it. This is a year for me.
I guess one of the things that I wanted to bring up was the...
The adopted PC bylaws. Thank you.
I think that was in my original binder that I had received.
The other part that I saw was the roles and responsibilities
and now I just click through something and I can't find it.
I received this planning commissioner handbook from director Durosa and the city attorney
before and so it has a lot of roles and responsibilities. I didn't see this reference.
I might have seen it, I want to say maybe I actually did see it reference.
Did I see it reference? It's the Institute for Local Government.
I don't know that it was in the work plan, but it might be in your bylaws, I'm not, I don't think it's in the bylaws, but
I thought I saw something about it, maybe I was just dreaming um
but as far as like the roles and responsibilities
that are on page
to
of the work plan
I just wanted to understand more clearly if that would also include reference to this manual
received by the city attorney.
I received from the city attorney and it was emailed to the whole planning commission.
Possibly, yeah.
What I can do is I think that's really great feedback for me to go look at and see if I
not seeing that. So it was printed by a lot of information for me to see that. And we
can certainly add that. But what I'm hearing, again, I want to be respectful of time
right now is that the commission would like more time. And so you can certainly continue this
to the next meeting. There is a desire we're in July, I wish I could have brought this a little
earlier. So we're trying to move all the departments that have committees and commissions
towards an adequate time to present to the City Council.
This would be new before the City Council as well.
But I think it's a move in the right direction.
It's also part of what we hear from the Blackbrook study
of a direction to move towards.
So it's really getting everybody on the same page.
And I think that'll be helpful and productive for everybody.
That's a great point.
And I think that also, when you talk about a work plan,
you're also talking about budgets.
And there's not yet a fiscal year of 2027 updated budget
that has been brought to the city council.
So this needs to be something that is also aligned with what is being considered for a budget
because I'm very, very sympathetic to the fact that a work plan has to have the necessary
budget and staff to be able to accomplish it.
And if we add things or subtract things, that changes the budget needs.
So does this mean we get paid more as planning commissioners?
I don't think so.
All right.
Well, I can commit to putting the time against this in preparation for the next meeting for
sure.
Great.
Thank you.
I would advise something that staff did when they were looking at this was a really great
exercise for staff as well on this process because you go to the City Council goals and
policies or goals that they have set for this year.
So I would recommend that the Planning Commission look at that as well as part of your
very good. Okay, thank you. It's been a good exchange.
Class Commissioner Lopez, you have any comments?
I just took a quick peek at it, but I like the layout.
A lot of business sometimes that we have to really do is what the city council
needs direction on. And I agree, we do got to revisit a lot of the other items that
to be kind of revisited and cleaned up, but I like the layout. I look forward to taking
a little more time to look at it, but he did a great job on project.
It's coming up. Things come up. I mean, it's good to see that. Whatever doesn't get handled, we could move it over to the next one, but yeah, we're running out of time.
We're running out of time. I pay credit to staff who put on a working day.
Well, I also want to again, Reiko, what I said earlier about the tremendous amount of work already done on the the ADU, and it sets a big one, really complimentary for staff work on that.
Same thing, the public works being willing to kind of look at a shift on that in your memorandum. So that brings us to maybe the last two items where we can do these together.
schedule.
We did schedule matters, but seven and eight reports by staff and a agenda forecast in
the future.
The time I have nothing to report.
Anything to report by fellow commissioners?
Okay.
That brings me to what used to be John Pots, favor part of the evening and that is adjourned.
We are adjourned.
Thank you.
Great work.