1
00:00:15,630 --> 00:00:30,430
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.

2
00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:52,200
Now, we should open with the roll call.

3
00:00:56,170 --> 00:00:57,110
Commissioner Covell.

4
00:00:57,630 --> 00:00:57,730
Here.

5
00:00:58,230 --> 00:00:59,010
Commissioner Lopez.

6
00:00:59,630 --> 00:00:59,750
Here.

7
00:01:00,250 --> 00:01:01,070
Vice chair Ferdick.

8
00:01:01,550 --> 00:01:01,570
Here.

9
00:01:02,010 --> 00:01:02,470
Chair Warner.

10
00:01:02,910 --> 00:01:03,110
Here.

11
00:01:03,670 --> 00:01:04,230
Thank you.

12
00:01:04,350 --> 00:01:05,790
Next item is minutes approval.

13
00:01:06,710 --> 00:01:10,870
We have one set of minutes to approve from June 2nd.

14
00:01:11,110 --> 00:01:14,150
We're as I understand that the second set is not yet available.

15
00:01:14,510 --> 00:01:15,930
So we'll defer that to the next meeting.

16
00:01:16,470 --> 00:01:17,850
Do I have any.

17
00:01:17,850 --> 00:01:26,370
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.

18
00:01:27,270 --> 00:01:36,210
Otherwise I can entertain a motion for approval the minutes for June 2nd, 2026 as a consent item.

19
00:01:37,990 --> 00:01:41,810
I move the we approve the minutes. Do I have a second?

20
00:01:42,150 --> 00:01:42,630
I second.

21
00:01:43,190 --> 00:01:46,270
Okay, call the roll please. Thank you.

22
00:01:46,270 --> 00:01:50,310
Commissioner Covell? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes.

23
00:01:50,750 --> 00:01:51,530
Vice chair for a Dick?

24
00:01:51,790 --> 00:01:54,150
abstain. Chair Warner? Yes.

25
00:01:54,350 --> 00:01:55,210
The motion passes.

26
00:01:57,430 --> 00:01:59,630
Now is the time for the public forum.

27
00:01:59,790 --> 00:02:03,570
It's an opportunity for the public to address the commission on items of interest to the

28
00:02:03,570 --> 00:02:05,570
public that are not listed on the agenda.

29
00:02:05,930 --> 00:02:09,870
Because of restrictions imposed by the Brown Act, the commission may not engage in discussion.

30
00:02:10,330 --> 00:02:12,710
Or take action on a matter. It's not described on the agenda.

31
00:02:13,510 --> 00:02:17,030
The time limit for such public form comments is four minutes.

32
00:02:17,610 --> 00:02:22,090
I'm going to ask if there's anyone who would like to address the commission in the public form.

33
00:02:22,710 --> 00:02:31,410
Seeing none in the audience, I think we can close this item and move on to our two public hearings items for today.

34
00:02:32,010 --> 00:02:41,810
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.

35
00:02:41,810 --> 00:02:47,070
and they certainly would allow like to have us finish up today if we can in due time.

36
00:02:47,650 --> 00:02:52,830
So first item is a public hearing agenda item 5.1, may I have a short presentation?

37
00:02:53,590 --> 00:02:54,130
Thank you, Chair.

38
00:02:54,150 --> 00:02:59,930
I'll go ahead and turn this over to Assistant Planner, Natalie Breezey, to give a very brief

39
00:02:59,930 --> 00:03:01,870
overview of this continued item.

40
00:03:03,910 --> 00:03:04,830
Thank you, Director McIll.

41
00:03:04,830 --> 00:03:14,230
So, due to the moving of the meeting to 4 p.m. today instead of 6 p.m., the legal noticing that went out,

42
00:03:14,370 --> 00:03:16,570
stated that the meeting would start at 6.

43
00:03:17,130 --> 00:03:23,650
So, due to it being earlier and later than legally noticed, we have to continue the item to the 21st,

44
00:03:23,650 --> 00:03:26,650
so that it has the correct noticing a lot of it.

45
00:03:27,650 --> 00:03:30,470
And through the chair, we did notify the applicant, never aware.

46
00:03:30,470 --> 00:03:34,990
Okay, I'd like to open it up for public hearing on this matter.

47
00:03:35,010 --> 00:03:46,530
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.

48
00:03:48,460 --> 00:03:49,340
Any further discussion?

49
00:03:50,040 --> 00:03:52,220
If not, I'll accept a motion for approval.

50
00:03:52,220 --> 00:03:53,120
I

51
00:03:56,520 --> 00:04:05,640
motion for a continuing this item to the date of July 21st, 2026.

52
00:04:06,420 --> 00:04:07,140
Do I have a second?

53
00:04:07,260 --> 00:04:08,140
I'll second.

54
00:04:08,900 --> 00:04:11,260
Could we call the roll please?

55
00:04:12,260 --> 00:04:12,840
Commissioner Cabel?

56
00:04:14,060 --> 00:04:14,720
Commissioner Lopez?

57
00:04:15,140 --> 00:04:15,480
Yes.

58
00:04:15,780 --> 00:04:16,580
Vice chair Ferdick?

59
00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:17,780
Chair Warner?

60
00:04:18,300 --> 00:04:18,500
Yes.

61
00:04:18,680 --> 00:04:19,880
The motion passes unanimously.

62
00:04:20,660 --> 00:04:21,020
Thank you.

63
00:04:21,020 --> 00:04:28,440
Now we come to our most prominent item for the hearing today, and again, I want to compliment

64
00:04:28,440 --> 00:04:33,120
staff and the director for bringing it to us after some great deliberation.

65
00:04:33,380 --> 00:04:35,600
This item 5.2, do we have a presentation on it?

66
00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:36,000
Yes.

67
00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:36,960
Thank you, Chair Warner.

68
00:04:37,280 --> 00:04:39,160
Lisa McIill Community Development Director.

69
00:04:39,820 --> 00:04:47,640
This item originally came before the planning commission at its June 16th meeting for a study

70
00:04:47,640 --> 00:04:48,080
session.

71
00:04:48,080 --> 00:04:49,920
We received some great feedback.

72
00:04:50,360 --> 00:04:52,920
Staff has diligently been working on the ordinance.

73
00:04:53,620 --> 00:04:57,640
There have been a couple shifts that staff will go through in our presentation.

74
00:04:58,520 --> 00:05:05,200
With that being said, I will go ahead and introduce Senior Planner Jackie O'Neill and she'll

75
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:06,340
provide you a presentation.

76
00:05:07,200 --> 00:05:07,720
Thank you.

77
00:05:08,980 --> 00:05:09,420
Thank you.

78
00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:10,100
Thank you, Director Mackayle.

79
00:05:10,520 --> 00:05:11,960
And thank you, commissioners.

80
00:05:12,300 --> 00:05:15,700
So the item before you this evening is the zoning ordinance amendment to seeing healing

81
00:05:15,700 --> 00:05:21,700
municipal code section 172203O, which regulates ADUs and JADUs.

82
00:05:21,900 --> 00:05:26,040
The file number is owning ordinance amendment 26001.

83
00:05:27,380 --> 00:05:30,500
The purpose of tonight's hearing are to review the revisions to the ordinance and

84
00:05:30,500 --> 00:05:36,040
corporations in April 21st, study session, receive public comment, consider the planning

85
00:05:36,040 --> 00:05:41,680
commission resolution and recommend the ordinance to city council, which is currently scheduled

86
00:05:41,680 --> 00:05:43,720
for July 28th, 2026.

87
00:05:45,940 --> 00:05:52,620
So at the April 21st study session, we received some great feedback from both the Planning Commission and the community.

88
00:05:53,180 --> 00:06:00,100
Primarily, we heard from all of the involve that they were interested in seeing a reduction of barriers to ADU development.

89
00:06:00,640 --> 00:06:08,100
Examples of implementation in the ordinance before this evening include increasing the maximum ADU size to 1200 square feet,

90
00:06:08,340 --> 00:06:12,660
removing material and roof matching requirements, removing mandatory rent reporting.

91
00:06:12,660 --> 00:06:18,960
We also heard that there was an interest in simplifying the ordinance so as more user-friendly.

92
00:06:19,240 --> 00:06:21,400
So this ordinance has been reorganized for clarity.

93
00:06:21,540 --> 00:06:27,640
We've added additional definitions and language to some of the existing definitions to clarify and

94
00:06:27,640 --> 00:06:32,580
consolidating the proposing to consolidate the utility regulations to title 13.

95
00:06:33,780 --> 00:06:38,040
We've also retained objective standards through simplifying privacy and windows standards,

96
00:06:38,040 --> 00:06:42,380
It's clarifying height measurements to match the measurements in the terms of measurement

97
00:06:42,380 --> 00:06:45,660
section and retaining objective historic protections.

98
00:06:46,620 --> 00:06:51,260
And then again those utility requirements would be, which will go into a little bit more

99
00:06:51,260 --> 00:06:55,820
later, but they'll be companion title 13 amendments, which will come to the city council

100
00:06:55,820 --> 00:07:02,320
alongside this zoning ordinance amendment, which will be primarily capacity-based reviews to

101
00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:03,900
reduce unnecessary barriers.

102
00:07:06,100 --> 00:07:11,100
So, just a high level of the overview of proposed changes, some of the changes before

103
00:07:11,100 --> 00:07:15,940
you this evening are state law required, some of these are clarification and some of

104
00:07:15,940 --> 00:07:17,620
these are local policy options.

105
00:07:18,140 --> 00:07:23,660
The red line that's been attached to your staff report goes line by line, so you know exactly

106
00:07:23,660 --> 00:07:32,120
what is state law required, what staff has amended for clarity and where we really will focus

107
00:07:32,120 --> 00:07:34,720
or conversation on tonight or local policy choices.

108
00:07:36,060 --> 00:07:39,680
And I have a slide where we'll go into those in more depths.

109
00:07:41,940 --> 00:07:44,700
This is not encompassing all of the state law requirements,

110
00:07:45,100 --> 00:07:48,120
but at a high level, the state law updates require

111
00:07:48,120 --> 00:07:49,140
ministerial approval.

112
00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:50,860
This is something that we were already doing

113
00:07:50,860 --> 00:07:53,040
because ADUs come in as building permits.

114
00:07:53,540 --> 00:07:56,360
There's a 15-day business, a 15-business day

115
00:07:56,360 --> 00:07:59,640
completeness timeline, and a 60-day action timeline,

116
00:07:59,640 --> 00:08:03,080
as well as new recent middle procedures and appeal procedures.

117
00:08:04,140 --> 00:08:06,660
Administration include odor occupancy requirements,

118
00:08:07,200 --> 00:08:10,080
impact fee requirements, non-conforming conditions,

119
00:08:10,480 --> 00:08:12,600
owner occupancy and limitations on denial,

120
00:08:13,080 --> 00:08:15,100
and the implementation is the same as it's been

121
00:08:15,100 --> 00:08:18,260
in the last few cycles where the city is required

122
00:08:18,260 --> 00:08:21,180
to submit our adopted ordinance to HDD for review,

123
00:08:21,680 --> 00:08:24,980
and they will review that for required consistency with state law.

124
00:08:25,760 --> 00:08:28,380
There is a note on the bottom of the slide that

125
00:08:28,380 --> 00:08:35,840
I want to point out any non-compliant provisions may be deemed null-infoied by HCD, so if there

126
00:08:35,840 --> 00:08:42,340
or anything like that that comes up after we submit it will be communicating that to City Council

127
00:08:42,340 --> 00:08:44,160
so everyone's on the same page.

128
00:08:46,500 --> 00:08:52,960
So again, this is where the conversation for the purpose of the discussion will mostly be today

129
00:08:52,960 --> 00:08:55,020
are these local policy options.

130
00:08:55,020 --> 00:09:09,940
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,

131
00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:24,580
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.

132
00:09:25,860 --> 00:09:46,520
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.

133
00:09:46,520 --> 00:09:49,820
So currently, we have material and roof matching requirements.

134
00:09:50,540 --> 00:09:53,120
We've reduced those to be objective standards only,

135
00:09:53,960 --> 00:09:57,080
where we're looking at exterior entrance requirements,

136
00:09:57,360 --> 00:10:01,400
lighting standards, and taking away the material

137
00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:02,860
and roof matching requirements.

138
00:10:05,240 --> 00:10:09,840
For public transit, currently the ordinance only

139
00:10:09,840 --> 00:10:11,820
looks at fixed route transit.

140
00:10:12,020 --> 00:10:15,920
This is a definition that's provided in the government code.

141
00:10:15,920 --> 00:10:23,680
it's very narrow. It requires that the transit be, on a fixed route, and certain intervals,

142
00:10:24,940 --> 00:10:31,320
we don't have transit that qualifies, but we do have the vine shuttle. And what we heard

143
00:10:31,320 --> 00:10:38,180
in public feedback was that if we could expand our definition to include micro transit, people

144
00:10:38,180 --> 00:10:43,720
would benefit because they would be allowed to have reduced parking requirements and would

145
00:10:43,720 --> 00:10:47,000
able to take advantage of the increased high opportunities.

146
00:10:48,980 --> 00:10:52,160
For historic resources, we had a visibility-based

147
00:10:52,160 --> 00:10:54,360
standard. There was concerns that that standard was

148
00:10:54,360 --> 00:10:58,140
subjective. Staff has now incorporated an objective

149
00:10:58,140 --> 00:11:01,800
sighting standard, which would require an ADU that's

150
00:11:01,800 --> 00:11:06,000
on a site with a historic resource to be located behind

151
00:11:06,000 --> 00:11:13,160
the existing residents, rather than outside of the view

152
00:11:13,160 --> 00:11:17,460
from the public right of way, which is subjective and kind of hard to measure.

153
00:11:19,300 --> 00:11:24,360
Utility regulations, the utility standards were previously codified within the

154
00:11:24,360 --> 00:11:30,060
ADO ordinance, staff has recommended that those regulations be taken out of the

155
00:11:30,060 --> 00:11:35,540
ADO ordinance and put into title 13 and be cross-referenced, and then the

156
00:11:35,540 --> 00:11:39,940
rent reporting requirement currently the ADO ordinance requires an annual

157
00:11:39,940 --> 00:11:45,300
reporting. That has been removed. It is now an option. There's a link we have a survey.

158
00:11:45,400 --> 00:11:51,080
People tend to participate in it, but pursuant to the state law we can't require them to.

159
00:11:54,680 --> 00:12:03,040
One recommended revision that came up after the City Attorney had reviewed this was for section 17.22

160
00:12:04,240 --> 00:12:10,740
030G4. This is related to ADU conversions and non-conforming provisions.

161
00:12:12,840 --> 00:12:22,020
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,

162
00:12:22,020 --> 00:12:31,280
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.

163
00:12:32,880 --> 00:12:37,080
So the recommendation would be to strike the word non-conforming and enclosed.

164
00:12:37,620 --> 00:12:45,520
And the feedback that we got from the city attorney is that those terms are not defined and converting a structure.

165
00:12:46,000 --> 00:12:49,080
It's not limited to non-conforming or enclosed structures.

166
00:12:49,080 --> 00:12:54,840
you can convert any existing structure, whether it's, yeah, so this is just for clarity and we'll

167
00:12:56,180 --> 00:13:01,700
be in alignment with state law. And I've included that in the recommended action so you can read that

168
00:13:03,180 --> 00:13:10,120
into the record here this evening. And just want to touch on a couple of things. So I'll go back here

169
00:13:10,120 --> 00:13:14,940
because I think this is going to be important for the conversation. Something else that came up during

170
00:13:14,940 --> 00:13:25,520
in the study session, there was a strong desire to see the 800 square foot exemption for

171
00:13:25,520 --> 00:13:32,680
80 use and how that applies to gross flora area and lot coverage. Currently, the code only

172
00:13:32,680 --> 00:13:40,820
allows for up to 800 square foot floor area exemption at the time of construction. I think

173
00:13:40,820 --> 00:13:44,660
you might all remember discussing this and it's something that we heard from the public

174
00:13:44,660 --> 00:13:46,820
quite a bit.

175
00:13:48,260 --> 00:13:49,320
Staff supportive of that.

176
00:13:49,540 --> 00:13:54,420
It's not something that's included in the ADU ordinance itself, rather that's in our terms

177
00:13:54,420 --> 00:13:59,540
of measurement and how we measure grass-floor area and lot coverage.

178
00:14:00,240 --> 00:14:06,140
So Staff has recommended that we'll bring that forward with her miscellaneous code update.

179
00:14:06,880 --> 00:14:10,820
So I just want to let you know that we heard you, we heard the public, we're in agreement,

180
00:14:10,820 --> 00:14:15,220
and we'll be bringing that back with our miscellaneous code update in a couple of months.

181
00:14:15,820 --> 00:14:22,020
And as far as the utility regulations, I do want to just be really clear that the title 13 amendments

182
00:14:22,020 --> 00:14:28,780
are not before you this evening. Mr. Traverso is here to speak to the process and what the intention

183
00:14:28,780 --> 00:14:34,960
of public works is, but because we don't have those included in the staff report or an attachment,

184
00:14:35,800 --> 00:14:40,140
we can't deliberate them. They're not part of the agendized item, but we can't discuss

185
00:14:40,140 --> 00:14:46,160
intention and process to bring them forward to the city council alongside the 80 ordinance update.

186
00:14:48,180 --> 00:14:56,460
So with that, staffs recommended action this evening would be to find the proposed amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act

187
00:14:56,460 --> 00:14:59,740
and to adopt the ordinance amending section 1722.

188
00:15:10,080 --> 00:15:11,380
Hello, thank you.

189
00:15:17,060 --> 00:15:28,360
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.

190
00:15:28,360 --> 00:15:40,960
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.

191
00:15:41,300 --> 00:15:48,360
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.

192
00:15:49,200 --> 00:15:54,160
And I appreciate I want to just ask clarifying question on that and then deferred to my fellow commissioners for other comments.

193
00:15:54,160 --> 00:15:59,800
But I understand the jurisdiction on that, but I also believe because of its integration

194
00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:06,840
with our overall aid you policy that this commission has an ability to basically recommend

195
00:16:06,840 --> 00:16:12,020
consideration of changes by the city council, even though we don't have jurisdiction.

196
00:16:14,340 --> 00:16:16,500
Is that appropriate for us?

197
00:16:16,620 --> 00:16:16,880
Yes.

198
00:16:16,880 --> 00:16:19,080
Can we get as far as formal recommendation?

199
00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:30,360
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

200
00:16:30,360 --> 00:16:38,040
Providing your recommendation support of the policy decision for utilities.

201
00:16:38,260 --> 00:16:45,940
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?

202
00:16:45,940 --> 00:16:58,120
clarifications? I have a few. Okay. Under F2 height B, which says that a detached

203
00:16:58,120 --> 00:17:03,700
80 you may be up to 18 feet in height if it's created on a lot with an existing or

204
00:17:03,700 --> 00:17:09,720
proposed single family or multi-family dwelling that's located within one mile of

205
00:17:11,820 --> 00:17:20,680
is that a, and first of all, let me just say, thank you so much in your red line for

206
00:17:21,520 --> 00:17:26,860
within each change for putting the reason of the change or multiple reasons for the change.

207
00:17:27,020 --> 00:17:29,300
So thank you so much that made it really helpful.

208
00:17:29,300 --> 00:17:40,300
So, going back to F2B and the 18 feet, what's unclear to me is if that's our discretion

209
00:17:40,300 --> 00:17:48,760
or if that state law, is the two feet in additional height from the 16 feet, where is

210
00:17:48,760 --> 00:17:49,640
that coming from?

211
00:17:50,060 --> 00:17:57,540
So, state law has a definition of polytrand that's the fixed route, so the state law requirement

212
00:17:57,540 --> 00:18:07,380
would be that we are required to allow the 18 feet in height if it's in one-half mile walking distance

213
00:18:07,380 --> 00:18:16,720
from the state to find public transit. Staff is recommending to expand the definition of public transit

214
00:18:16,720 --> 00:18:25,160
to capture the vinyl shuttle. So this would mean that our amended definition of transit, which would

215
00:18:25,160 --> 00:18:34,120
include micro-transit, a vine shuttle, would allow for additional high allowances. It would not

216
00:18:34,120 --> 00:18:40,000
be discretionary if someone submitted an application and they wanted to take advantage of

217
00:18:40,000 --> 00:18:48,320
that they would be able to. But the vine trail picks up at private homes, correct? It doesn't

218
00:18:48,320 --> 00:18:53,800
have a route. So that basically includes every single home in the entire. The vine trail doesn't

219
00:18:53,800 --> 00:19:01,020
have a route, it does have a kind of an area that it goes to, and I have that available

220
00:19:01,020 --> 00:19:06,260
actually, if you'd like to see a slide of the map, but it is most of our developed area.

221
00:19:06,940 --> 00:19:13,820
It kind of excludes some of the A20 sites outside of the urban limit line, but it's a majority

222
00:19:15,100 --> 00:19:17,440
of the area of the city.

223
00:19:18,180 --> 00:19:21,440
Through the chair, I'll expand a little bit more.

224
00:19:21,440 --> 00:19:27,520
this is to answer your question. It is a policy decision. The policy decision comes from feedback

225
00:19:27,520 --> 00:19:32,020
that we received at the previous planning commission meeting. As a majority of the commission,

226
00:19:32,280 --> 00:19:38,460
as well as members of the public, where they'd like us to consider a local serving transit

227
00:19:38,460 --> 00:19:46,880
condition. And so that is how staff has addressed this. If we're aligning our ordinance

228
00:19:46,880 --> 00:19:54,620
to mirror what the state ordinance does for that transit condition, that means it's 18 feet.

229
00:19:56,280 --> 00:19:56,280
Okay.

230
00:19:59,760 --> 00:20:08,020
Thank you. So, and then in that same paragraph, it says there's yet another two additional

231
00:20:08,020 --> 00:20:17,060
feet in height up to 20 feet to accommodate a roof pitch. That, that's aligned with the roof

232
00:20:17,060 --> 00:20:26,510
the primary dwelling. That is a policy decision also. That's state law. So state law allows

233
00:20:27,270 --> 00:20:34,690
up to a maximum of 20 feet just to match any homes roof pitch before we didn't even have.

234
00:20:36,610 --> 00:20:43,170
Yeah, are you sure? I can I can research it right now and tell you with certainty.

235
00:20:44,150 --> 00:20:51,250
That would be good, but if you notice that's not a new language that's been added, that's part of

236
00:20:51,250 --> 00:20:57,230
our code, that was there previously, that this is part of the state law requirement. The only thing

237
00:20:57,230 --> 00:21:03,110
that we've changed about this is our definition of public transit to include micro transit.

238
00:21:03,110 --> 00:21:11,370
Everything else here is from the state law and is using the state definition of public transit.

239
00:21:12,150 --> 00:21:16,570
which is defined in section 21155 of the public resources kept.

240
00:21:17,590 --> 00:21:21,230
Okay, so we're just changing the definition of what transit is.

241
00:21:21,370 --> 00:21:22,190
As a policy.

242
00:21:22,410 --> 00:21:23,150
That's a precision.

243
00:21:24,050 --> 00:21:24,890
Okay, got it.

244
00:21:24,910 --> 00:21:25,650
Thank you so much.

245
00:21:25,810 --> 00:21:28,790
And then I just have, I think, one other clarifying question.

246
00:21:30,750 --> 00:21:34,410
Can you define sanitation facilities?

247
00:21:34,790 --> 00:21:35,490
Maybe more.

248
00:21:36,210 --> 00:21:37,130
You can do this.

249
00:21:37,130 --> 00:21:44,230
So under owner occupancy under JADUs, this is just, again,

250
00:21:44,370 --> 00:21:45,230
for my clarification,

251
00:21:47,350 --> 00:21:49,030
the JAD, the,

252
00:21:52,210 --> 00:21:52,210
the,

253
00:21:52,210 --> 00:21:56,850
I mean, I can guess, but I, I'd love to know exactly that.

254
00:21:56,910 --> 00:21:59,770
Can you assist us with a location that you're looking at?

255
00:22:00,090 --> 00:22:02,110
Yes. That was is very helpful for us.

256
00:22:02,270 --> 00:22:06,450
Yes. This is in, it's still in section F.

257
00:22:08,090 --> 00:22:11,010
7, B,

258
00:22:13,720 --> 00:22:15,140
2, A.

259
00:22:19,580 --> 00:22:22,660
This doesn't have page number, so I can't help you with page numbers.

260
00:22:22,780 --> 00:22:25,840
I think it just means the JD has a separate toilet.

261
00:22:26,920 --> 00:22:40,300
Yeah, so if you'll see under definitions, so this is section C5, J80s means the residential

262
00:22:40,300 --> 00:22:45,540
dwelling unit that satisfies all of the following includes separate sanitation facilities or

263
00:22:45,540 --> 00:22:49,920
share sanitation facilities with an existing or purpose single family structure. This is

264
00:22:49,920 --> 00:22:56,080
verbatim from the state law. Okay, they don't define sanitation facilities, but it's a bathroom.

265
00:22:56,940 --> 00:22:56,940
Okay.

266
00:22:59,320 --> 00:23:05,760
That's it for me. Thank you. Other comments or questions from commissioners?

267
00:23:05,760 --> 00:23:16,020
Yeah, I still have, I'm trying to kind of process how our town sometimes needs, I mean,

268
00:23:16,240 --> 00:23:24,280
where, and I get it loosening restrictions for non-matching exterior and all that, roof

269
00:23:24,280 --> 00:23:32,420
pitches. You know, sometimes even containers and stuff, we're requiring them to get coated and,

270
00:23:32,420 --> 00:23:35,960
And it just seems like we're getting away a little bit.

271
00:23:36,140 --> 00:23:38,720
I mean, to be able to go extra to foot height

272
00:23:39,260 --> 00:23:41,340
for a roof pitch to match it,

273
00:23:41,360 --> 00:23:43,340
when there's a micro-transit, and then all of a sudden,

274
00:23:43,440 --> 00:23:45,620
we don't care about pitches and exterior to cover,

275
00:23:45,840 --> 00:23:47,960
because that's kind of what we do.

276
00:23:48,120 --> 00:23:51,840
I just start to process, but I'm willing to do anything

277
00:23:51,840 --> 00:23:52,720
to loosen restrictions.

278
00:23:52,800 --> 00:23:56,500
I just think that sometimes we're double-talking

279
00:23:56,500 --> 00:23:59,500
within one thing and another in this town.

280
00:23:59,500 --> 00:24:06,980
And it does concern me that the height might get close to almost in some places even super

281
00:24:06,980 --> 00:24:13,160
cheating some of the primary homes, you know, but that's just my opinion as I think about

282
00:24:13,160 --> 00:24:19,860
it as a builder and about not only that aesthetics is just fitting in and this town is already

283
00:24:20,400 --> 00:24:29,480
from the community kind of strict on what they want in this town when it comes to something

284
00:24:29,480 --> 00:24:35,600
see how it all fits in but just one of my concerns that I guess I just had to deal with.

285
00:24:36,020 --> 00:24:39,160
Can I respond to that and I appreciate your comment.

286
00:24:40,280 --> 00:24:47,580
So I do want to just clarify the architectural requirements that are in section G, only would

287
00:24:47,580 --> 00:24:50,880
apply to 80 use over 800 square feet.

288
00:24:51,000 --> 00:24:54,940
So we're talking about any 80, between 800 and 1200 square feet.

289
00:24:54,940 --> 00:25:02,940
The state has allowed us to apply some architectural requirements if we choose to do so.

290
00:25:03,860 --> 00:25:05,780
Anything that's 800 square feet in under.

291
00:25:06,780 --> 00:25:11,920
We have, we can't regulate the roof pitch, the materials.

292
00:25:12,980 --> 00:25:20,940
So what we heard in the study session was, it seems a little, I guess,

293
00:25:20,940 --> 00:25:26,840
necessary to have these additional requirements for this very slim

294
00:25:26,840 --> 00:25:32,100
subsection of ADUs which are the ADUs between 800 square feet and 1200

295
00:25:32,100 --> 00:25:37,260
square feet. I'd also like to point out that the design standards for a

296
00:25:37,260 --> 00:25:43,120
single-family residents don't regulate roof pitch or so that we're not even

297
00:25:43,120 --> 00:25:45,920
looking at that for a new single-family home.

298
00:25:49,190 --> 00:26:02,270
other questions, clarifications? I do have a couple of questions. Thank you again for that presentation and all of the attachments were really helpful.

299
00:26:04,690 --> 00:26:14,030
I'm also really happy to hear about the time of construction 800 square foot exemption that will come later.

300
00:26:14,030 --> 00:26:35,890
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.

301
00:26:36,470 --> 00:26:40,710
Sorry, I had it up, I don't know if you need the low key.

302
00:26:41,190 --> 00:26:49,710
Let's see, it's number four under FF4 says rental term,

303
00:26:50,110 --> 00:26:54,090
no ADU or JDU may be rented for a term that is shorter than 30 days,

304
00:26:54,650 --> 00:26:58,970
which basically kind of helps with, I think, what people are saying

305
00:26:58,970 --> 00:26:59,890
on the SDRs.

306
00:27:00,510 --> 00:27:03,190
I think a lot of people are saying, like, you know.

307
00:27:03,190 --> 00:27:13,190
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

308
00:27:14,650 --> 00:27:16,770
Square footage and I wrote it down. G

309
00:27:17,650 --> 00:27:18,210
B.

310
00:27:21,090 --> 00:27:24,310
I'm sorry. I feel like this is really loud.

311
00:27:25,390 --> 00:27:25,390
Um,

312
00:27:28,060 --> 00:27:29,240
let me find it.

313
00:27:30,280 --> 00:27:37,830
GB and attached ADU that is created, so okay and attached

314
00:27:38,850 --> 00:27:45,590
ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is further limited to 50%

315
00:27:46,330 --> 00:27:56,260
of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling. So if it's attached and

316
00:27:57,280 --> 00:28:03,740
I'm trying to get this clear on my head, so if it's detached, you can do up to 1200 square feet.

317
00:28:03,920 --> 00:28:12,440
There's no like 50% restriction, but if it is attached to your main primary home,

318
00:28:13,700 --> 00:28:20,260
then you're only really allowed to go up to 50% of the floor area of the existing primary home.

319
00:28:20,980 --> 00:28:30,180
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.

320
00:28:30,560 --> 00:28:37,680
Through the chair, that's correct. That state law. It's been that way for a few revisions of state law at this time.

321
00:28:37,680 --> 00:28:48,900
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.

322
00:28:48,900 --> 00:28:56,340
I think for purposes of consistency of state law, though, it's remaining the same when we're not proposing to change it.

323
00:28:56,620 --> 00:28:59,020
Wouldn't it attached ADU be a JADU?

324
00:29:00,340 --> 00:29:01,060
Not necessarily.

325
00:29:01,580 --> 00:29:08,060
No, those are separate under state law and the provisions, they vary.

326
00:29:09,020 --> 00:29:10,700
So I just want to make sure I understand this.

327
00:29:10,700 --> 00:29:16,300
If it's detached and say you're existing primary home is only 1500 square feet.

328
00:29:16,300 --> 00:29:19,340
You can still do a 1,200 square foot at you.

329
00:29:19,900 --> 00:29:21,480
It's only when it's attached.

330
00:29:21,740 --> 00:29:23,780
Does it have to be 50% of the primary?

331
00:29:27,480 --> 00:29:27,960
That's correct.

332
00:29:28,220 --> 00:29:31,700
And keeping in mind to that floor area,

333
00:29:31,700 --> 00:29:33,660
growth floor area and lock coverage for the site

334
00:29:33,660 --> 00:29:38,180
would apply beyond 800 square foot exemptions.

335
00:29:38,680 --> 00:29:41,260
But to be clear, if I hear you correctly,

336
00:29:41,740 --> 00:29:45,100
is that the state law does not prohibit

337
00:29:45,720 --> 00:29:47,480
revising that 50%.

338
00:29:47,480 --> 00:29:52,780
It's just that you all have proposed this to be consistent with what the state law says. Is that correct?

339
00:29:53,040 --> 00:29:59,440
That's correct. I would say that if the commission as a majority were interested, you could build that into your recommendation.

340
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:10,280
Between now and going to the city council, we could amend that language with if the legal review agrees.

341
00:30:11,620 --> 00:30:20,600
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.

342
00:30:21,140 --> 00:30:31,000
correct if it was part of your motion, yes, to allow to allow 1200 square feet if you are attached.

343
00:30:32,320 --> 00:30:33,600
Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.

344
00:30:33,640 --> 00:30:37,840
I'm not saying I support that, but I wanted to clarify because that was, I think a question

345
00:30:37,840 --> 00:30:39,540
that Mr. Kavelle was getting at.

346
00:30:39,860 --> 00:30:40,100
Yes.

347
00:30:40,640 --> 00:30:45,540
Then I have another question that I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

348
00:30:45,540 --> 00:30:57,700
So, the 800 square foot 80 use, the for the setbacks, it's really a four foot setback from any setback.

349
00:30:58,300 --> 00:31:07,920
It's just when you go up above 800 square feet, does the front yard setback of that zoning district apply.

350
00:31:08,560 --> 00:31:14,760
So, most medium density residential properties here are 20 in the front, right? Something like that.

351
00:31:14,760 --> 00:31:38,860
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.

352
00:31:38,860 --> 00:31:45,060
My understanding is that sea law doesn't regulate the front setback whatsoever for those

353
00:31:45,060 --> 00:31:46,300
class-1, ADUs.

354
00:31:46,520 --> 00:31:52,020
So any ADU up to 800 square feet, the only regulation is a four-foot side and a four-foot

355
00:31:52,020 --> 00:31:53,280
rear setback.

356
00:31:54,400 --> 00:31:59,400
We don't have any ability to apply a front setback to the class-1, ADUs.

357
00:31:59,620 --> 00:32:06,020
I want to supplement that professionally across the planning world.

358
00:32:06,020 --> 00:32:14,460
was a bit shocking and likely not considering, you know, the majority of the state of California.

359
00:32:15,300 --> 00:32:21,380
So it's shocking. We've all had to deal with it and sort of swallow our pride and accept it,

360
00:32:21,440 --> 00:32:25,860
but there's nothing that we can do. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding it too,

361
00:32:25,880 --> 00:32:30,540
because I am also, I think, you know, I want people to be able to do what they, you know,

362
00:32:30,540 --> 00:32:37,160
people have interesting lot shapes and stuff. So I get, I get some people might not have a backyard

363
00:32:37,160 --> 00:32:47,920
and it might be in the front yard. So it is kind of allowing an interesting, you know, look,

364
00:32:49,000 --> 00:32:54,860
I know, arg, it just, I want to make sure I understand it in that this is not something we have

365
00:32:54,860 --> 00:33:00,580
control over because it is a state requirement. But as far as anything above 800 square feet,

366
00:33:01,520 --> 00:33:07,800
we are allowed, we're saying that it would have to conform to the zoning districts front

367
00:33:07,800 --> 00:33:14,300
setback. So, that seemed like that was an added clarification in this one because I don't remember

368
00:33:14,300 --> 00:33:17,540
that in the last one but maybe I just missed it last time.

369
00:33:19,990 --> 00:33:23,430
That's all of my questions right now.

370
00:33:23,430 --> 00:33:28,450
I mean, I guess I would love to hear a little bit more about the title 13, but I am glad to

371
00:33:28,450 --> 00:33:35,690
I read it, and I understand, you know, separating it, and I'm, I also appreciate the direction

372
00:33:35,690 --> 00:33:43,910
in which it's going, so being that I don't have a preview, but I can say that I am happy to hear

373
00:33:44,510 --> 00:33:50,980
that. Thank you. I got a couple of clarification questions as well, kind of building off of

374
00:33:50,980 --> 00:33:56,740
fellow commissioners. On the definition of public transit, I read that as including right-sharing

375
00:33:56,740 --> 00:34:00,880
services. Am I correct? Good right-sharing services are publicly regulated services.

376
00:34:02,420 --> 00:34:06,320
And you have demand responsive there, which right-sharing is. I want to be sure that that's

377
00:34:06,320 --> 00:34:10,800
your intent that right-sharing services are included in the definition of public transit.

378
00:34:11,180 --> 00:34:17,000
Well, right-sharing services are paid by the individual. So, would do they qualify as public?

379
00:34:17,000 --> 00:34:22,320
Well, buses are paid for, you pay for a ticket for a bus, you pay for a ticket for micro-transit.

380
00:34:23,280 --> 00:34:26,540
I just want to get clarification of whether the intent is to include right-sharing,

381
00:34:26,780 --> 00:34:29,900
and then I can discuss whether I would recommend that we add right-sharing.

382
00:34:30,060 --> 00:34:35,260
When you say right-sharing, do you mean things like Uber or unless I would say that this definition is not,

383
00:34:35,560 --> 00:34:42,880
because this has dorted or flexible route services operated by or on the behalf of a public agency?

384
00:34:42,880 --> 00:35:10,900
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.

385
00:35:10,900 --> 00:35:12,980
But what is the staff's recommendation?

386
00:35:16,930 --> 00:35:19,970
My recommendation would be that that's kind of going outside of the purview,

387
00:35:20,250 --> 00:35:24,730
transit, it's really something that's like encompassing greenhouse gas reduction,

388
00:35:25,730 --> 00:35:28,870
also, overs and lifts, pick up one person.

389
00:35:29,010 --> 00:35:32,470
My understanding is that vine trail can pick up multiple people along the way.

390
00:35:33,330 --> 00:35:34,590
That would be my, my.

391
00:35:34,750 --> 00:35:39,990
Well, I just want to be sure, is it legally precluded from us expanding this to include?

392
00:35:39,990 --> 00:35:43,930
We are able to include whatever we want in this definition.

393
00:35:44,290 --> 00:35:47,790
We've already gone out, we're going above and beyond the state of definition.

394
00:35:48,070 --> 00:35:49,930
So if that is the recommendation you'd like to make.

395
00:35:50,070 --> 00:35:57,070
And by the way, I wanted to clarify that the Uber and Lyft are under fairly strict requirements

396
00:35:57,070 --> 00:36:01,030
that they move to emissions-free transportation being available.

397
00:36:01,330 --> 00:36:06,650
So you're point about greenhouse gas emissions and ridership also, of course, Uber and Lyft

398
00:36:06,650 --> 00:36:11,770
provide multiple passenger services as well in terms of the options.

399
00:36:12,370 --> 00:36:17,470
I just want to be sure that if we're expanding here, we're not limiting what people are

400
00:36:17,470 --> 00:36:23,070
most familiar with and may be using for their transit purposes, particularly those that are

401
00:36:23,070 --> 00:36:26,710
on fixed incomes or need that kind of flexibility.

402
00:36:27,550 --> 00:36:32,530
So I would basically, again, subject to my fellow commissioners, if it's not intended to include

403
00:36:32,530 --> 00:36:37,090
right-sharing I would would be recommending that we amend this to include right-sharing services.

404
00:36:39,130 --> 00:36:42,870
Through the chair, if the majority of the commission, like you mentioned, are in agreement,

405
00:36:43,830 --> 00:36:49,270
you may want to, you know, at the disc when, well, we're not voting it. And we're at the discussion

406
00:36:49,270 --> 00:36:56,310
part of this process. We could, we could speak to that and you may want to separate that out in your voting.

407
00:36:56,310 --> 00:36:59,930
Yeah, I can. I just want to, when getting the clarification, I want to know whether it's included or not,

408
00:36:59,930 --> 00:37:05,010
because it looked to me like when you talk about micro transit other than it being provided

409
00:37:05,010 --> 00:37:08,650
by a government agency, certainly I consider rideshuring to be micro transit.

410
00:37:08,870 --> 00:37:10,590
Okay, that's one question I had.

411
00:37:12,070 --> 00:37:20,430
The other point I wanted to make was that the, I also like Commissioner Covelle, if I've

412
00:37:20,430 --> 00:37:26,130
read the memo, Public Works memo, and I also think that it's, it's a good, I'm going

413
00:37:26,130 --> 00:37:31,870
be a good approach. And at the right time, I would recommend that as a matter of policy, the

414
00:37:31,870 --> 00:37:39,630
commission, this commission support that that memorandum. Third question I have, it's really

415
00:37:39,630 --> 00:37:48,050
more of a clarification. Nothing in this proposal in any way seeks to amend or exempt

416
00:37:49,310 --> 00:37:57,210
ADUs from what, as Bill Henry are building, inspectors point out, is fairly expensive and

417
00:37:57,210 --> 00:38:02,030
not inflexible energy code requirements in the latest building code.

418
00:38:02,590 --> 00:38:07,910
And in fact, when I asked him about this, when we were doing our open discussion, even if

419
00:38:07,910 --> 00:38:15,370
we expand from 800 to 1200, the actual California building code requirements do add tens of thousands

420
00:38:15,370 --> 00:38:21,910
dollars to the building code requirements for new ADUs, even for the ones that are just considered

421
00:38:21,910 --> 00:38:24,810
alterations rather than new, free standing ADUs.

422
00:38:24,910 --> 00:38:30,350
So I just want to point that out because it's not something that we can address arguably

423
00:38:30,350 --> 00:38:36,430
the City Council could request an exemption for ADUs from the California Building Commission.

424
00:38:36,850 --> 00:38:40,790
That would be something that would be just up to the City Council, but I want to point

425
00:38:40,790 --> 00:38:50,090
that ADUs are likely to be significantly restricted in terms of cost, because of those new energy code requirements.

426
00:38:50,830 --> 00:38:58,930
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.

427
00:38:58,930 --> 00:39:24,070
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.

428
00:39:24,330 --> 00:39:26,430
Those are my only clarification questions I have.

429
00:39:27,890 --> 00:39:38,990
If one more question is kind of sparked as people were talking, sorry, so this will be a

430
00:39:38,990 --> 00:39:45,070
multiple questions, so I'll just start with one. The last 80 ordinance that was adopted.

431
00:39:45,070 --> 00:39:54,450
What? That was like 20501, right? Or 20401? We adopted an 80 or an ends up date in the spring of

432
00:39:54,450 --> 00:40:07,630
2025. 25. So just a year ago. Yes. And I've read that one pretty thoroughly and compared to this one.

433
00:40:07,630 --> 00:40:10,910
The state laws

434
00:40:14,210 --> 00:40:20,370
haven't, I mean let's see, new things have come out, but I'm just kind

435
00:40:20,370 --> 00:40:35,910
of curious how that one was so limiting versus this one and how that, I mean I guess how

436
00:40:35,910 --> 00:40:43,450
got pushed through. So I don't know. I think I know you're asking Commissioner Kavelle. And I brought

437
00:40:43,450 --> 00:40:53,170
forward the previous ADU update and as I recall we basically took the city attorneys model ordinance

438
00:40:53,170 --> 00:40:59,210
and brought it to you verbatim and there wasn't much discussion. Since then, in some of the other

439
00:40:59,210 --> 00:41:03,730
conversations that have come up and I think this really first came up when we had our study session

440
00:41:03,730 --> 00:41:05,170
in December of 2025.

441
00:41:05,730 --> 00:41:08,990
There's a lot of conversation about the local policy options.

442
00:41:09,590 --> 00:41:11,650
And why are our architectural requirements

443
00:41:11,650 --> 00:41:12,770
the way that they are?

444
00:41:13,010 --> 00:41:14,550
And quite frankly, it's because that

445
00:41:14,550 --> 00:41:16,490
was recommended to us in the model ordinance.

446
00:41:16,890 --> 00:41:17,910
Staff brought it forward.

447
00:41:18,770 --> 00:41:20,210
You all read it.

448
00:41:20,210 --> 00:41:21,610
We adopted it as is.

449
00:41:21,990 --> 00:41:24,390
And then, I think everyone started looking at it a little bit

450
00:41:24,390 --> 00:41:26,650
more closely wondering, where can we dig into this?

451
00:41:26,670 --> 00:41:29,050
Where can we refine this with our local policy options?

452
00:41:29,730 --> 00:41:32,630
So staff in response to your concerns

453
00:41:32,630 --> 00:41:38,770
of the 2025 December study session about our zoning code as a whole, wanted to look into this

454
00:41:38,770 --> 00:41:42,490
and dive into this in more detail and make sure that we brought forward not just a model

455
00:41:42,490 --> 00:41:48,090
ordinance that's prepared by an attorney, they do great work, but looking at it in the context

456
00:41:48,090 --> 00:41:49,530
of our community as a whole.

457
00:41:50,110 --> 00:41:52,170
And having been there at that time, that's exactly right.

458
00:41:52,310 --> 00:41:58,050
We were simply updating the ordinance for existing state law requirements at that time.

459
00:41:58,050 --> 00:42:03,050
it was not a policy discussion, and since then we've had the policy discussion of our local

460
00:42:03,050 --> 00:42:05,550
policy options. And here is what we have today.

461
00:42:07,730 --> 00:42:12,550
Thank you for that. I was just trying to figure out, I mean that, yeah, I didn't know

462
00:42:12,550 --> 00:42:13,570
it was a model or anything.

463
00:42:17,190 --> 00:42:24,040
Also, I just want to bring up on the draft ordinance. I think

464
00:42:24,040 --> 00:42:33,180
was towards the end. It was talking about, let's see, maybe find the original. It was about existing

465
00:42:33,180 --> 00:42:40,580
buildings that were done before like a certain day of 2020 and like getting them approved via

466
00:42:41,700 --> 00:42:43,820
as long as it didn't

467
00:42:45,960 --> 00:42:56,120
breach public health and safety. I think that's a new state law of like

468
00:42:56,120 --> 00:43:01,760
exact number of the assembly bill is, this is something that was in, at least the previous update.

469
00:43:02,800 --> 00:43:08,900
So state law has mandated the unpermitted structures that were constructed before 2020.

470
00:43:10,480 --> 00:43:17,340
Can be legalized into an ADU and that the city is very limited and the corrections that we can

471
00:43:17,340 --> 00:43:20,700
require and then it cites a certain part of the health and safety code.

472
00:43:20,700 --> 00:43:23,840
So the building official would be very limited

473
00:43:23,840 --> 00:43:26,880
in what kind of corrections they could require

474
00:43:26,880 --> 00:43:30,320
whenever an applicant is legalizing something existing.

475
00:43:31,180 --> 00:43:34,100
So I'm actually going through one of these projects

476
00:43:34,100 --> 00:43:35,420
through an app accounting,

477
00:43:36,960 --> 00:43:38,980
but I think it's 25, every three, you don't call me.

478
00:43:39,380 --> 00:43:42,240
To me numbers, I'm curious to know

479
00:43:42,240 --> 00:43:46,780
if people were to come forth permitting and legalizing

480
00:43:46,780 --> 00:43:57,760
their ADUs would that be in a way counted to help housing units or no? I don't know how that works.

481
00:43:58,220 --> 00:43:59,940
They would be counted towards Rina.

482
00:44:03,170 --> 00:44:08,870
Just a question. Thank you. For the chair, any new unit is just that.

483
00:44:09,090 --> 00:44:15,810
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.

484
00:44:15,810 --> 00:44:21,810
So if you had a barn, and you turned it in, and it was unpromoted and you created an

485
00:44:21,810 --> 00:44:24,010
ADU out of it, that would count as a new unit.

486
00:44:24,530 --> 00:44:33,850
If you had an existing non-habitable structure or a non-housing unit, the same thing.

487
00:44:35,150 --> 00:44:41,570
Just to clarify, if you have what amounts to a guest house or a separate unit or a garage

488
00:44:41,570 --> 00:44:47,170
whatever what you're saying is if you basically wanted to turn that into an ADU you would

489
00:44:47,170 --> 00:44:54,010
would need to come in with a new ADU application. No, this was saying that if it was already

490
00:44:54,010 --> 00:44:59,890
constructed and built before 2020. This state has a new A.B. I think it's 25.

491
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:14,060
I have 33, that allows people to apply and legalize there on OEGLE, on permitted, ADU or JDU, and then officially

492
00:45:14,060 --> 00:45:24,120
have that for their property to be used legally. And so it's already built. And as long as it

493
00:45:24,120 --> 00:45:26,500
It doesn't break public health and safety.

494
00:45:26,960 --> 00:45:26,980
Right.

495
00:45:26,980 --> 00:45:27,400
Got it.

496
00:45:27,560 --> 00:45:27,700
Okay.

497
00:45:27,860 --> 00:45:28,720
Thank you.

498
00:45:29,180 --> 00:45:30,980
Any other comments or questions?

499
00:45:31,320 --> 00:45:31,780
If not, we could.

500
00:45:31,780 --> 00:45:32,920
I just have one more close.

501
00:45:32,920 --> 00:45:34,320
I'm sorry.

502
00:45:35,340 --> 00:45:36,240
Under rent reporting.

503
00:45:36,540 --> 00:45:39,220
I don't remember us talking that much about that.

504
00:45:39,340 --> 00:45:42,620
So I'm wondering, where who is that coming from?

505
00:45:43,020 --> 00:45:50,800
Who's objecting or finding that it's a barrier to developing an ADU, the rent reporting

506
00:45:50,800 --> 00:45:51,420
requirements?

507
00:45:51,860 --> 00:45:53,940
It's just not a part of the state.

508
00:45:53,940 --> 00:46:13,000
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.

509
00:46:13,000 --> 00:46:16,100
So staff is still wants this information.

510
00:46:16,860 --> 00:46:20,240
And like I said, people tend to still provide it.

511
00:46:20,380 --> 00:46:23,400
We've got a great survey that's on the building permit

512
00:46:23,400 --> 00:46:25,780
checklist, but it's noted as optional.

513
00:46:27,960 --> 00:46:33,920
And so the state, so it's not a policy decision

514
00:46:33,920 --> 00:46:37,420
on our part to require, it was a policy decision.

515
00:46:37,420 --> 00:46:43,640
And are you saying that state law now eliminates that option for it?

516
00:46:44,020 --> 00:46:45,220
It's more like it's a barrier.

517
00:46:46,440 --> 00:46:54,020
So, so, Lisa McIll Director, that the state and HCD do not want barriers to the construction

518
00:46:54,020 --> 00:46:55,820
of housing units.

519
00:46:56,800 --> 00:47:02,340
And if you require a reporting or even deed restrictions, those are barriers.

520
00:47:02,340 --> 00:47:14,920
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.

521
00:47:15,740 --> 00:47:29,300
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.

522
00:47:29,300 --> 00:47:37,440
I think one, someone supporting building an ADU, particularly if you also are a renter who wants

523
00:47:37,440 --> 00:47:39,800
to have your rent situation, get private.

524
00:47:40,380 --> 00:47:45,480
There are California State Privacy Laws that I think would probably foreclose us from requiring

525
00:47:45,480 --> 00:47:48,780
the renter and the landlord to disclose the renter.

526
00:47:51,460 --> 00:47:57,240
Even if the owner's name is kept, you can report rent without naming the renter.

527
00:47:57,240 --> 00:48:01,440
Well, again, it's a private transaction that doesn't relate to public health and safety.

528
00:48:02,660 --> 00:48:07,680
So it has that, and again, I'm not going to opine that we couldn't do it, because we obviously

529
00:48:07,680 --> 00:48:14,720
did it in the past, but the state that I agree with Dr. Point that this is not something

530
00:48:14,720 --> 00:48:20,580
that is reducing restrictions on ADUs and actually increases restrictions. If it otherwise

531
00:48:20,580 --> 00:48:23,880
would disincent someone from building an ADU.

532
00:48:24,960 --> 00:48:29,540
And we have other means, as we said, of basically gathering this information voluntarily.

533
00:48:30,040 --> 00:48:37,800
The state's quite sensitive to anything that can be perceived as any type form of barrier.

534
00:48:39,260 --> 00:48:46,100
So this would certainly be a red flag for HCD when they were viewing this if it wasn't retained.

535
00:48:47,540 --> 00:48:53,500
I tend to think that it was something that, like, was a good idea at one point to kind

536
00:48:53,500 --> 00:48:57,520
of say, hey, we're going to try to make these guys run it by requiring them to do it.

537
00:48:57,700 --> 00:49:03,200
But now that we're trying to lose in stuff with a way, we might ask too much because now

538
00:49:03,200 --> 00:49:08,840
the state saying, hey, no barriers if there's a bunch of housing, it'll eventually get

539
00:49:08,840 --> 00:49:12,000
filled, or at least it's availability, right, the most applying demand.

540
00:49:12,000 --> 00:49:22,460
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.

541
00:49:23,220 --> 00:49:24,720
Other questions, discussion?

542
00:49:25,580 --> 00:49:30,640
At this point, are we turning to actually discussing the proposed ordinance?

543
00:49:30,880 --> 00:49:32,540
You do need to open the public here.

544
00:49:32,540 --> 00:49:33,440
That's right.

545
00:49:34,080 --> 00:49:36,100
I open the public comment.

546
00:49:36,740 --> 00:49:40,660
Seeing no members of the public wishing to comment, I'll bring it back to the commission.

547
00:49:40,660 --> 00:49:42,580
There was a public discussion.

548
00:49:42,580 --> 00:49:44,160
Comments submitted, just I don't know.

549
00:49:44,180 --> 00:49:45,820
Yeah, let's talk about that.

550
00:49:46,360 --> 00:49:49,140
I read through Mr. Hales' comments very quickly,

551
00:49:49,200 --> 00:49:51,520
because they were just late and being available.

552
00:49:52,600 --> 00:49:56,300
I'm sympathetic to anything that tries to make

553
00:49:56,300 --> 00:49:59,180
this more flexible and consistent with policy.

554
00:49:59,880 --> 00:50:02,500
I would suggest because I haven't had enough time

555
00:50:02,500 --> 00:50:06,740
to digest his comments that maybe what the staff does with him

556
00:50:06,740 --> 00:50:12,740
say, okay, you'll evaluate the comments and maybe you can make recommendations when this goes

557
00:50:12,740 --> 00:50:18,020
to City Council on whether the staff would recommend consideration of any of his comments.

558
00:50:18,660 --> 00:50:24,540
That way we don't have to actually necessarily review his comments because it can be something

559
00:50:24,540 --> 00:50:29,460
that we've actually said, please staff provide recommendations to the council once you've got

560
00:50:29,460 --> 00:50:33,000
a chance to digest them. Unless you've got some recommendations today.

561
00:50:33,000 --> 00:50:43,740
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.

562
00:50:44,700 --> 00:50:51,240
That being said, staff has reviewed in detail Mr. Hales information before coming today.

563
00:50:51,240 --> 00:51:02,140
Generally he was supportive of the amendments. Jackie did actually speak to one of the items that he was noting,

564
00:51:02,760 --> 00:51:07,880
which are going to be part of a miscellaneous code amendment. They're not part of the ADU ordinance.

565
00:51:08,700 --> 00:51:18,060
So she did address that with respect to the attachment that was provided. It was a rewritten ordinance.

566
00:51:18,060 --> 00:51:23,580
However, there would be some concerns with that rewritten ordinance.

567
00:51:24,440 --> 00:51:27,360
It's not in a typical format of an ordinance code.

568
00:51:27,740 --> 00:51:30,320
And I'm most concerned about the rewritten ordinance.

569
00:51:30,440 --> 00:51:36,300
I didn't have a chance even in my skin through to kind of put it down right next to the draft.

570
00:51:36,620 --> 00:51:39,240
I'm always in favor, more simplicity and drafting.

571
00:51:40,240 --> 00:51:44,660
But at this point, I'm personally, I'm more interested in moving this forward to approval,

572
00:51:45,060 --> 00:51:46,780
based on all the good work the staff's done.

573
00:51:46,780 --> 00:51:49,760
so I would not recommend stopping his rewritten ordinance

574
00:51:49,760 --> 00:51:52,480
and I appreciate that some of his substantive comments

575
00:51:52,480 --> 00:51:53,480
have already been addressed.

576
00:51:54,000 --> 00:51:56,800
Yeah, I will say I did do a side by side.

577
00:51:57,420 --> 00:52:01,800
What I will say is that it was a really nice effort

578
00:52:01,800 --> 00:52:05,880
for what a strategy could be around how we,

579
00:52:06,140 --> 00:52:09,140
as a community, want to look at ADUs.

580
00:52:09,400 --> 00:52:12,080
So it was more of a strategy-based document

581
00:52:12,080 --> 00:52:16,780
with some kind of codifications built into it.

582
00:52:17,580 --> 00:52:21,700
What we can do to staff level is certainly look at some of the ideas that came

583
00:52:21,700 --> 00:52:25,640
through that when we're looking at housing strategies for the community.

584
00:52:26,100 --> 00:52:26,740
That's helpful.

585
00:52:27,100 --> 00:52:28,100
Thank you.

586
00:52:28,840 --> 00:52:32,380
I only have one proposed change, which I suspect,

587
00:52:33,320 --> 00:52:35,740
listening to my fellow commissioners may not be adopted.

588
00:52:36,060 --> 00:52:40,040
But I do think it's important to note that as I would propose that the

589
00:52:40,040 --> 00:52:45,320
definition of public transit include right-sharing agencies regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.

590
00:52:45,320 --> 00:52:47,320
But just one clarification?

591
00:52:47,860 --> 00:52:48,940
Are you closing the public hearing?

592
00:52:49,080 --> 00:52:49,440
Yes.

593
00:52:49,600 --> 00:52:50,620
I think I thought I did.

594
00:52:50,880 --> 00:52:51,220
But yes.

595
00:52:51,600 --> 00:52:52,420
Public hearing is closed.

596
00:52:52,440 --> 00:52:53,540
Bring it back to the commission.

597
00:52:54,480 --> 00:52:55,780
And that's my one change.

598
00:52:55,980 --> 00:52:58,260
I know we've talked about the height issue.

599
00:52:58,960 --> 00:53:00,760
And if there's any changes on that.

600
00:53:00,800 --> 00:53:07,800
But I open it up to my fellow commissioners for discussion and potentially about if there are any changes.

601
00:53:07,800 --> 00:53:11,520
So, I'll piggyback on that if that's okay.

602
00:53:13,400 --> 00:53:17,040
I am not in favor of making that change as a matter of fact,

603
00:53:17,140 --> 00:53:22,980
I'm not in favor of making the changes to include

604
00:53:23,820 --> 00:53:26,160
like the vine service in the transit.

605
00:53:26,400 --> 00:53:30,280
Only because, as far as I can see,

606
00:53:31,040 --> 00:53:35,280
the changes in the definition of transit affect

607
00:53:35,280 --> 00:53:44,260
mostly, if not only the height, so it gives greater latitude for higher heights.

608
00:53:45,080 --> 00:53:50,380
I don't see how higher heights, you know, not having.

609
00:53:50,920 --> 00:53:58,280
And so I'm thinking of the balance between the need to be as flexible and remove barriers to

610
00:53:58,280 --> 00:54:06,240
the U development and neighbors, because they're affected greatly by an additional structure

611
00:54:06,240 --> 00:54:11,820
on a property, especially with some of the small lots that we have here in town.

612
00:54:12,760 --> 00:54:23,880
So for that reason, I am not in favor of changing the description of transit from the state

613
00:54:23,880 --> 00:54:27,680
definition, which is the most specific to major public

614
00:54:27,680 --> 00:54:28,620
trance.

615
00:54:28,800 --> 00:54:33,440
Let me ask a question of staff because I understand exactly what

616
00:54:33,440 --> 00:54:33,860
you're saying.

617
00:54:34,020 --> 00:54:36,620
There's kind of a back and forth.

618
00:54:37,080 --> 00:54:43,600
I'll ask staff, could we not restrict the application of the

619
00:54:43,600 --> 00:54:47,600
additional definition of public transit such that the application

620
00:54:48,120 --> 00:54:53,360
in terms of ADUs does not apply to the state permission

621
00:54:53,360 --> 00:55:00,160
for higher height. In other words, we ourselves would adopt the additional public transit

622
00:55:00,160 --> 00:55:05,860
definitions, but they would not be applicable the way the state statute is to the height

623
00:55:05,860 --> 00:55:11,020
limitation. Only the state requirement of public transit would allow the higher to fit

624
00:55:11,020 --> 00:55:15,300
in height. And I'm asking staff for the clarification if we could do that.

625
00:55:15,300 --> 00:55:31,640
Sorry. Through the chair, I believe that the purpose of identifying a transit, a local transit area is to accommodate additional provisions for ADUs.

626
00:55:31,860 --> 00:55:40,380
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.

627
00:55:40,380 --> 00:55:47,940
So, what I was going to continue to say was what would be prudent is going through what are

628
00:55:47,940 --> 00:55:59,280
those provisions that are being offered under this local identified public transit system.

629
00:55:59,900 --> 00:56:06,120
So that the commission was fully informed when it was making this decision to exclude height

630
00:56:06,120 --> 00:56:07,940
or include height.

631
00:56:07,940 --> 00:56:12,320
And again, I'm trying to kind of work on a compromise here.

632
00:56:12,720 --> 00:56:20,260
I would only be asking that the staff approve changes to the ordinance such that the public

633
00:56:20,260 --> 00:56:24,780
transit expansion that we're providing, that's in a matter of our policy discussion, the

634
00:56:24,780 --> 00:56:32,840
only provision in the state ADU standards that it would not apply to would be the state standards

635
00:56:32,840 --> 00:56:34,620
allowing the two feet extra height.

636
00:56:36,180 --> 00:56:40,800
So just to clarify, then by expanding the definition of public

637
00:56:40,800 --> 00:56:45,400
transit to include micro transit, the benefits are two

638
00:56:45,400 --> 00:56:47,400
fold, potential benefits.

639
00:56:47,760 --> 00:56:49,860
One would be a reduction of parking.

640
00:56:49,860 --> 00:57:05,720
So if you look at section G, six, B, I, the ADU located within one half mile walking distance

641
00:57:05,720 --> 00:57:11,140
of public transit as defined in C11 would be exempt from parking requirements.

642
00:57:11,800 --> 00:57:17,640
So this means no parking requirements if you're within the vine shuttle service area.

643
00:57:18,880 --> 00:57:21,340
And then also the additional height.

644
00:57:22,920 --> 00:57:36,460
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.

645
00:57:36,460 --> 00:57:51,040
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.

646
00:57:51,260 --> 00:57:51,800
Parking.

647
00:57:52,080 --> 00:57:52,620
Parking.

648
00:57:53,220 --> 00:57:54,760
But that would be the only change.

649
00:57:55,040 --> 00:57:57,220
If I understand what commissioner for it, I'm trying to do here.

650
00:57:57,220 --> 00:58:06,880
Yes, but Planner and Neil brings up a good topic, which is, do we really want to eliminate

651
00:58:06,880 --> 00:58:12,920
all parking requirements, because that's theoretically what we would do, and Jack, do you

652
00:58:12,920 --> 00:58:18,600
have that map of the, let's take a look, because what we would be saying is that for most

653
00:58:18,600 --> 00:58:23,680
of the city, most of the residential parts of the city, we would not require, and we would

654
00:58:23,680 --> 00:58:29,200
need to require any parking at all. I don't know if that's what we want. I don't

655
00:58:29,200 --> 00:58:33,880
I do want to clarify that the parking requirement is only for those ADUs over 800

656
00:58:33,880 --> 00:58:38,380
square feet. Okay. So any ADU and 800 square feet already does not require any parking.

657
00:58:38,860 --> 00:58:43,220
Right. And I also just want to point out that this expanded definition was very widely supported

658
00:58:43,220 --> 00:58:47,680
by the public at the study session. I understand. I'm just trying to kind of

659
00:58:47,680 --> 00:58:55,960
There's a compromise in which the height flexibility that this would imply could be not applied

660
00:58:55,960 --> 00:59:01,500
in those circumstances under the expanded definition, but everything else, including the parking

661
00:59:01,500 --> 00:59:04,540
flexibility would be incorporated.

662
00:59:04,760 --> 00:59:09,720
I don't know that the community when we have those discussions was fully aware of all the

663
00:59:09,720 --> 00:59:19,440
consequences that a change in the definition of transit would result in these additional

664
00:59:19,440 --> 00:59:20,960
height opportunities.

665
00:59:22,540 --> 00:59:28,560
Through the chair, we have had several staff has had several conversations with individuals

666
00:59:28,560 --> 00:59:36,440
that are supportive of this, including our local housing assembly and members of that public.

667
00:59:36,440 --> 00:59:37,740
they did come and speak.

668
00:59:38,140 --> 00:59:40,800
That being said, if the Commission is a majority,

669
00:59:41,040 --> 00:59:43,500
desires as part of their recommendation

670
00:59:43,500 --> 00:59:45,920
to present to the City Council,

671
00:59:46,580 --> 00:59:50,480
that they do not want to include a local transit.

672
00:59:51,440 --> 00:59:53,380
Consideration, I'm not called micro-transit.

673
00:59:53,660 --> 00:59:54,980
You can go ahead and do that.

674
00:59:55,020 --> 00:59:58,420
I'm not sure I see a benefit of including it

675
00:59:58,420 --> 00:59:59,960
if you're not going to give.

676
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:07,800
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.

677
01:00:08,200 --> 01:00:14,140
I would like to just state that I like the draft as it is written.

678
01:00:16,360 --> 01:00:23,500
Okay, that's helpful. We're counting votes here. How about the commissioner Lopez, you have any comments on this compromise approach that commissioner.

679
01:00:23,500 --> 01:00:32,900
I'm a little torn, I also think that the height issue is going to, I already see people sometimes.

680
01:00:33,540 --> 01:00:35,420
They say one thing and then later they're other.

681
01:00:35,840 --> 01:00:41,420
But with that said, I also see here point that we're going to do micro.

682
01:00:41,580 --> 01:00:43,540
We want to do Uber and Lyft.

683
01:00:43,840 --> 01:00:44,220
You know what I'm saying?

684
01:00:44,460 --> 01:00:52,440
You might as well include it all because if we are open the floodgates to liberate the restrictions,

685
01:00:52,440 --> 01:00:59,240
or we keep it tight to what the good is.

686
01:00:59,380 --> 01:01:01,440
So I'm all for one way or the other.

687
01:01:01,700 --> 01:01:04,400
Let me ask a commissioner for the next opinion of that.

688
01:01:04,520 --> 01:01:07,520
Again, it may be mixing and matching here a bit,

689
01:01:07,900 --> 01:01:13,360
but if we adopted a exclusion of the height flexibility

690
01:01:13,360 --> 01:01:16,760
from the expanded definition of micro-transit,

691
01:01:16,920 --> 01:01:20,320
but then define micro-transit to include Uber and Lyft,

692
01:01:20,320 --> 01:01:22,920
would you change your view on including Uber and Lyft?

693
01:01:24,800 --> 01:01:28,100
Perhaps, yes. I'm wondering what the point is though.

694
01:01:28,260 --> 01:01:30,340
Like, how does Uber and Lyft expand?

695
01:01:30,920 --> 01:01:33,020
Like, what is that accomplishing?

696
01:01:33,480 --> 01:01:34,520
I'm just trying to understand.

697
01:01:35,080 --> 01:01:40,140
Remember, micro-transit is still a fixed transit that goes around

698
01:01:40,140 --> 01:01:44,820
and it's demand responsive and it's often vans and it's often not as available

699
01:01:44,820 --> 01:01:47,640
because it's a public transit then Uber and Lyft.

700
01:01:47,640 --> 01:01:53,640
My only point is the practical issue of expanding the flexibility for everyone who needs flexible

701
01:01:53,640 --> 01:01:54,280
transportation.

702
01:01:54,780 --> 01:02:00,120
That said, if the commission's will is not the support expanded transportation flexibility,

703
01:02:00,480 --> 01:02:03,720
but to go with the staff, all abide by that decision.

704
01:02:04,240 --> 01:02:08,320
But I did want to mention, you had said you were against expansion to Uber and Lyft because

705
01:02:08,320 --> 01:02:15,880
of the height restriction, and what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners is maybe if

706
01:02:15,880 --> 01:02:21,660
height restriction is added here where the expanded transportation doesn't include the

707
01:02:21,660 --> 01:02:25,700
height flexibility, then there might be support for that. I also hear Commissioner

708
01:02:25,700 --> 01:02:29,640
Kovale saying in very legitimate that she likes it, just the way it is, just the way

709
01:02:29,640 --> 01:02:35,480
it is written. But we have four commissioners here and I don't want to waste our time if

710
01:02:35,480 --> 01:02:36,600
they're not votes to change.

711
01:02:37,380 --> 01:02:37,760
Yes.

712
01:02:37,880 --> 01:02:45,440
If I may, I just want to back up a little bit and remind the commission that what was

713
01:02:45,440 --> 01:02:50,700
included in the ordinance that's before you all this evening is inclusive of all of the

714
01:02:50,700 --> 01:02:55,240
comments received from the majority of the commission at the study session as well as the

715
01:02:55,240 --> 01:03:04,230
public is what has been it has been posted for the public and as we remember during the study

716
01:03:04,230 --> 01:03:08,890
session there were quite a lot of people in attendance we're not seeing a lot of people in attendance

717
01:03:08,890 --> 01:03:14,790
today that being said again it's it's at the pleasure of the commission but we're we're looking

718
01:03:14,790 --> 01:03:17,010
at this from the community's perspective.

719
01:03:17,490 --> 01:03:22,630
I understand, but per commissioner, for at X point, I don't think the community has been presented

720
01:03:22,630 --> 01:03:30,430
with a the issue on height or be the issue on expanding shared transportation as it might

721
01:03:30,430 --> 01:03:32,750
relate to the definition of public transit.

722
01:03:33,050 --> 01:03:37,810
So I'm going to basically say I understand that we've had community input, but I also understand

723
01:03:37,810 --> 01:03:41,710
that I don't believe that community input is considered at this level detail, but I'll just

724
01:03:41,710 --> 01:03:42,690
defer to my fellow commissioner.

725
01:03:42,690 --> 01:03:49,130
I also believe that most of the people that we heard from in the work study session were practitioners.

726
01:03:49,550 --> 01:03:55,890
They were people in architecture and building and again, not neighbors who were considering

727
01:03:57,190 --> 01:04:06,810
which, and their input was terrific. However, to Commissioner Warner's point, I don't think the

728
01:04:06,810 --> 01:04:12,290
public has been is clear on the implications and has waited on that.

729
01:04:12,570 --> 01:04:16,790
I would like to just add, I remember, um,

730
01:04:18,130 --> 01:04:22,990
um, chair, my scriptwriter, you brought up height in one of the study sessions

731
01:04:22,990 --> 01:04:33,670
last time and, um, Commissioner Autumn Anderson said that it's subjective.

732
01:04:33,670 --> 01:04:41,950
you're not guaranteed your view, you're not that something to that's something about

733
01:04:41,950 --> 01:04:49,830
she said direct a homeowner does not have a right to its view to view. I disagree

734
01:04:49,830 --> 01:04:55,550
but that's okay. I think when there's a compromise that can be made between

735
01:04:55,550 --> 01:05:01,130
encouraging 80-year development and neighborhood

736
01:05:03,210 --> 01:05:06,750
the impact on a neighbor's

737
01:05:06,750 --> 01:05:12,870
piece of property and their quality of life I think that we can do both. I mean

738
01:05:12,870 --> 01:05:21,010
if we were to say 18 is too much over 16 just think of all the people with 40

739
01:05:21,010 --> 01:05:27,050
foot buildings that are going up in their backyard so that's I mean I don't think

740
01:05:27,050 --> 01:05:36,590
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?

741
01:05:37,690 --> 01:05:44,150
Probably I'd say like 16 feet to the bottom of the beam probably about 20 going to the

742
01:05:44,150 --> 01:05:55,150
indentation. So I mean, I agree to, I mean, it's, I almost say, you know, we're going to lose the restrictions.

743
01:05:55,150 --> 01:06:03,030
We might as well just go and include, like I said, the whole town to benefit from being able

744
01:06:03,030 --> 01:06:08,430
to do ADUs with the parking and I'll live in a higher seat because then if we just use the

745
01:06:08,430 --> 01:06:13,250
micro we are excluding the little outskirts and hey if they're going to raise your head I agree

746
01:06:13,250 --> 01:06:18,990
that a lot of Uber and Lyft are starting to do electric cars and everything and might as well

747
01:06:18,990 --> 01:06:23,150
How can I say loosen up the restrictions and hope for the best?

748
01:06:23,770 --> 01:06:29,770
But I also think that I've heard enough throughout the year and a half about oh this is

749
01:06:29,770 --> 01:06:32,170
blocking my view and this and that and then I don't know.

750
01:06:32,170 --> 01:06:42,290
One more perspective, I wonder if the state initiated that law because in major transit stops

751
01:06:42,290 --> 01:06:48,590
in areas, there's often public parking, which is something that we just don't have in this town.

752
01:06:48,590 --> 01:06:51,630
So I'm also, you know, I'm weighing the intention

753
01:06:52,350 --> 01:06:55,810
overall that has to be applied to every single place in California.

754
01:06:56,570 --> 01:06:59,070
And again, most of those places, I think the intention,

755
01:06:59,190 --> 01:07:05,730
just like the new law, oh gosh, I can't remember what it is.

756
01:07:05,810 --> 01:07:09,930
But it's yet another step in encouraging development

757
01:07:10,470 --> 01:07:12,790
on housing near transit centers.

758
01:07:13,830 --> 01:07:17,310
And the theory behind that is that there's, well,

759
01:07:17,310 --> 01:07:20,570
It's easy to get around, and it's easy for someone to access transit.

760
01:07:20,870 --> 01:07:25,570
But there's also usually parking centers in those areas.

761
01:07:25,730 --> 01:07:27,850
And that's just something this community doesn't have.

762
01:07:28,370 --> 01:07:30,830
So I think we have what amounts to it,

763
01:07:30,830 --> 01:07:34,730
what I call virtual straw vote here, that we have had.

764
01:07:35,290 --> 01:07:37,350
And I can tell you, Commissioner Verdeck,

765
01:07:37,570 --> 01:07:40,430
I'm sympathetic to all the views of the commissioners on this one.

766
01:07:40,750 --> 01:07:44,210
And I think the two positions are keep the existing draft

767
01:07:44,210 --> 01:07:48,090
the way it is. I think Commissioner Covelle has made a very good point about that.

768
01:07:48,310 --> 01:07:54,370
And the other is to basically expand the definition of public transit, include right

769
01:07:54,370 --> 01:07:58,970
sharing, but make clear that the expansion of the definition of public transit does not allow

770
01:07:58,970 --> 01:08:05,850
the extra height. And that, I think, is are the two points of view. Commissioner Lopez,

771
01:08:06,030 --> 01:08:07,250
you look quizzical on that.

772
01:08:09,170 --> 01:08:15,230
I just think that if we add, you know,

773
01:08:17,400 --> 01:08:20,120
I think everybody should benefit, I mean, I'm trying

774
01:08:20,120 --> 01:08:25,260
to think about how she, how Commissioner Covell said, you know, if you build it with a front

775
01:08:25,260 --> 01:08:30,680
of the unit, imagine having a higher roof pitch, you know, a higher height, right?

776
01:08:31,080 --> 01:08:36,460
There's very odd shape places and stuff, but, you know, if we're talking about loose-in-reestations,

777
01:08:36,460 --> 01:08:40,940
maybe you had to trust the community, they'll do the right thing, but I would definitely,

778
01:08:41,340 --> 01:08:48,620
if we're going to add already like the vine trail, I think we should add Uber and Lyft to just

779
01:08:48,620 --> 01:08:51,420
free it up a little more. Why not have a little more free on the list?

780
01:08:52,020 --> 01:08:52,160
Yes, you know.

781
01:08:52,240 --> 01:08:57,160
Maybe just to put this again on the straw vote, so maybe there is a third option and

782
01:08:57,160 --> 01:09:00,580
Commissioner Perdeck, I appreciate your point of view on this, but I think Commissioner

783
01:09:00,580 --> 01:09:04,900
Coval, because I hear Commissioner Perdeck would not support Uber and Lyft.

784
01:09:04,900 --> 01:09:10,580
Mr. Coval, you become the deciding vote on whether we would expand the route to ride

785
01:09:10,580 --> 01:09:16,600
sharing without restricting the height. Do you have any point of view on that?

786
01:09:20,560 --> 01:09:26,700
So, you're saying you're looking at a third option which would be expanding the definition

787
01:09:26,700 --> 01:09:38,360
to include Uber and Lyft and other whatever ride sharing and keep the height as it is

788
01:09:38,360 --> 01:09:39,140
written in the draft.

789
01:09:39,300 --> 01:09:40,060
Yes, that's correct.

790
01:09:40,080 --> 01:09:41,460
That would be the third option.

791
01:09:43,040 --> 01:09:48,420
And it would be like, think about the your way is like it'll include all of it, most

792
01:09:48,420 --> 01:09:49,100
of the town, right?

793
01:09:49,140 --> 01:09:50,640
Because it all got access to the correct.

794
01:09:50,680 --> 01:09:56,680
So if I'm understanding this, like that slide where it does show the wine shuttle, bus,

795
01:09:56,680 --> 01:10:04,500
it's pretty much all of town like a set for the urban limit line I don't know like I don't

796
01:10:04,500 --> 01:10:14,730
really know there's like areas that so basically by saying ride share I mean I don't even I mean

797
01:10:16,000 --> 01:10:23,180
there's just there I mean if you were to show the delta between that pink purple colored area

798
01:10:23,180 --> 01:10:25,300
versus what includes it?

799
01:10:26,020 --> 01:10:34,360
I mean, let me clarify, I totally agree with you that the limited vine transit that makes

800
01:10:34,360 --> 01:10:38,680
the circular root and town covers everything in the urban limit line.

801
01:10:38,760 --> 01:10:42,820
I mean, arguably it doesn't stop at everybody's house, so you do have members of the

802
01:10:42,820 --> 01:10:53,160
community that don't have to walk to a stop or walk to where the bus goes, but I'm not

803
01:10:53,160 --> 01:10:59,780
and right-sharing and Uber would expand the coverage beyond what's already in buying transit.

804
01:10:59,940 --> 01:11:03,980
I'm just saying it's a more flexible form of a publicly available transit.

805
01:11:04,460 --> 01:11:13,620
I wanted to just also understand Miss Senior Planters of Neal's address on that earlier,

806
01:11:13,620 --> 01:11:25,300
because I think as she had interpreted it that public transportation was more defined as something

807
01:11:25,300 --> 01:11:34,520
like the line trail and your legal background, I'm guessing that Uber and Lyft are now

808
01:11:34,520 --> 01:11:38,320
considered public transportation, is that kind of thing?

809
01:11:38,320 --> 01:11:42,740
Yeah, no, they're not, they're privately owned, but they're publicly regulated strictly.

810
01:11:42,740 --> 01:11:47,100
And in fact the point about the missions free is something that's coming with Uber and

811
01:11:47,100 --> 01:11:53,760
Lyft as regulated by the California Public Affairs Commission, they're required to expand

812
01:11:53,760 --> 01:11:59,820
into missions free transportation that's available, but they are private not publicly owned.

813
01:12:00,060 --> 01:12:09,060
If I'm, if I may, if the, if the commission decided to consider option three as part of your

814
01:12:09,060 --> 01:12:17,640
motion, it could include provided that there are no conflicts under state law for including

815
01:12:17,640 --> 01:12:18,340
it.

816
01:12:18,700 --> 01:12:24,400
That is what I would recommend because I don't think we as staff are prepared to respond

817
01:12:24,400 --> 01:12:26,780
to that connectivity or not right now.

818
01:12:27,100 --> 01:12:32,740
I'm happy that obviously for the City Attorney's purpose for reviewing anything we recommend

819
01:12:32,740 --> 01:12:34,740
in the City Council, the City Attorney will review it.

820
01:12:34,760 --> 01:12:38,420
I don't think we have to encode it in the actual condition on the approval.

821
01:12:38,420 --> 01:12:52,880
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

822
01:12:55,250 --> 01:12:57,250
part of the CEO of Lyft.

823
01:13:00,860 --> 01:13:08,020
We could ask if that's a conflict, I think, to the extent that you're not voting to benefit

824
01:13:11,320 --> 01:13:17,040
the personal ownership of your client, but again, it's up to you to decide whether you

825
01:13:17,040 --> 01:13:18,300
would recuse yourself on that.

826
01:13:18,700 --> 01:13:26,120
I would just wanted to state that just in case, but since this is more your suggestion not

827
01:13:26,120 --> 01:13:34,580
in my suggestion. I would honestly, on this decision piece, I kind of want to defer to staff

828
01:13:34,580 --> 01:13:42,220
on their recommendation and their way of approaching this one, I don't really have a particular,

829
01:13:43,080 --> 01:13:50,460
I think the Vine Shuttle is a great, I think Vine Shuttle is a legit public transportation for

830
01:13:50,460 --> 01:13:59,680
town because we don't really have buses like the 38 gear or whatever. You know, it's

831
01:14:00,080 --> 01:14:06,280
divine shuttle and it's beautiful. You pick up with an app and drop

832
01:14:06,280 --> 01:14:11,700
off anywhere. So I think that is a legit public transportation. I don't know the

833
01:14:11,700 --> 01:14:17,140
definitions enough to know whether or not that should be expanded. That's all.

834
01:14:17,140 --> 01:14:28,740
Right. Through the chair. I think that it's certainly creative and puts the city at the

835
01:14:28,740 --> 01:14:35,060
forefront of being innovative in how it wants to look at transportation and inclusivity

836
01:14:35,060 --> 01:14:41,860
for the development of housing throughout our city here. Considering we don't necessarily meet

837
01:14:41,860 --> 01:14:45,140
what those minimum requirements are under a state law.

838
01:14:46,580 --> 01:14:52,020
I think that I don't think that there would be a conflict unless you're working on an ADU for the client,

839
01:14:52,560 --> 01:14:54,020
since this is an ADU ordinance.

840
01:14:54,180 --> 01:14:59,660
So that being said, I don't think there's an issue with that if you decided to go with option.

841
01:15:01,560 --> 01:15:16,200
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.

842
01:15:18,600 --> 01:15:25,900
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

843
01:15:25,900 --> 01:15:29,400
been going to be vacated out of here pretty soon.

844
01:15:31,220 --> 01:15:36,840
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

845
01:15:36,840 --> 01:15:39,200
call a straw vote before we actually vote.

846
01:15:39,860 --> 01:15:45,220
And the first would be a straw vote on whether we'd support option one, which I call commissioner

847
01:15:45,220 --> 01:15:51,000
and my option of basically expanding the definition of public transit include

848
01:15:51,000 --> 01:15:57,000
ridesharing, but exempting from the expanded flexibility that that entails the

849
01:15:57,000 --> 01:16:03,100
height flexibility. As a straw vote, I'd like to call upon my

850
01:16:03,100 --> 01:16:08,160
commissioners if they're willing to provide a informal vote on that.

851
01:16:14,420 --> 01:16:15,200
Commissioner

852
01:16:15,200 --> 01:16:20,420
You're saying there's two options. Option one, which was that one. Option three was

853
01:16:20,420 --> 01:16:24,200
merely expanding public transit to ride share, but without

854
01:16:25,320 --> 01:16:27,940
exempting that expansion from the height.

855
01:16:28,780 --> 01:16:31,360
And I just want to I'm going to interject here. Sorry.

856
01:16:31,980 --> 01:16:35,320
I want to be clear. There is an ordinance that's before

857
01:16:35,320 --> 01:16:40,160
the planning commission that is still a viable option.

858
01:16:41,340 --> 01:16:44,160
Nobody has taken any votes or measures.

859
01:16:44,160 --> 01:16:47,480
you're speaking through options for straw votes?

860
01:16:47,840 --> 01:16:48,240
That's correct.

861
01:16:48,420 --> 01:16:50,000
Yeah, so there's still three options.

862
01:16:50,000 --> 01:16:54,440
I want to make sure that every commissioner understands clearly what's

863
01:16:54,440 --> 01:16:55,620
obviously before you.

864
01:16:55,640 --> 01:17:01,060
Obviously the ordinance says thereafter, doesn't front of us and Mr. Cobell has spoken to that previously as well.

865
01:17:01,220 --> 01:17:05,940
I'm just looking for whether there's a straw vote to propose a change to the ordinance,

866
01:17:06,140 --> 01:17:09,800
either as commissioner verdict and I have discussed or the option three,

867
01:17:09,900 --> 01:17:13,940
which we've discussed was the only change would be to expand the public transit

868
01:17:13,940 --> 01:17:19,000
include ride-sharing, but no change to the other provisions, and that's maybe you want

869
01:17:19,000 --> 01:17:20,760
to consider that to be my option three.

870
01:17:21,160 --> 01:17:23,160
Chair Warner, I'm going to interject here.

871
01:17:23,280 --> 01:17:30,700
I do want to make sure that there's still an available option for the existing ordinance.

872
01:17:30,720 --> 01:17:37,320
And the reason I'm asking that be considered of the commission, the straw vote could include

873
01:17:37,320 --> 01:17:39,760
still a majority of the existing ordinance.

874
01:17:39,780 --> 01:17:40,340
I understand.

875
01:17:40,340 --> 01:17:44,060
And we're only discussing whether we would propose a change to the existing ordinance.

876
01:17:44,560 --> 01:17:48,160
The existing ordinance will still be in front of us as a result of the straw vote.

877
01:17:49,840 --> 01:17:53,260
And it would be a straw vote that then would mean either we're proposing to change the

878
01:17:53,260 --> 01:17:56,460
ordinance as proposed or we're not proposing to change the ordinance.

879
01:17:57,280 --> 01:17:58,160
That's what's in front of us.

880
01:17:58,220 --> 01:17:59,320
We need to move along here.

881
01:17:59,400 --> 01:18:00,720
This is how we do straw votes.

882
01:18:01,040 --> 01:18:01,920
So let's do that.

883
01:18:02,220 --> 01:18:07,640
I think I just heard Commissioner Perdex say on the option one that that would be one that she

884
01:18:07,640 --> 01:18:10,520
would support how about our other commissioners?

885
01:18:13,500 --> 01:18:16,120
I would support the original draft.

886
01:18:17,160 --> 01:18:21,420
And in that sense, I'd like my saying that

887
01:18:21,420 --> 01:18:25,360
is that it was a lot of work to get to here.

888
01:18:25,460 --> 01:18:32,380
And I think it's going in front of City Council July 28th.

889
01:18:32,640 --> 01:18:37,040
And I think if there are other things that want to be brought up,

890
01:18:37,040 --> 01:18:46,620
Those that could be amended later, or discuss later in a different format, but I'm not really wanting to change the fact.

891
01:18:46,620 --> 01:18:54,220
I'm hearing your boat is on options one and three is no on both, and on your low pass.

892
01:18:54,240 --> 01:19:02,140
I want to go with if it's doable, the height restriction type deal with the type option one.

893
01:19:02,140 --> 01:19:07,820
Okay, so I think what that means is that there's a two to two vote on both of these options.

894
01:19:08,340 --> 01:19:15,300
So neither of these options would be supported, and again, you're a quizzical on that.

895
01:19:15,480 --> 01:19:20,380
Option one again is would only have the vote. Again, my vote would be for option one and option three.

896
01:19:21,020 --> 01:19:28,600
But I'm hearing that that option three would be voted no on by Commissioner Ferdek and Commissioner Covelle.

897
01:19:28,600 --> 01:19:31,280
because again, Commissioner Govels made this very clear.

898
01:19:31,440 --> 01:19:34,440
She'd like to go more preferably with the existing draft.

899
01:19:35,060 --> 01:19:38,880
So I'm going to read the straw votes as meeting no changes.

900
01:19:39,560 --> 01:19:42,960
And if that's OK, unless Commissioner Verdeck,

901
01:19:43,040 --> 01:19:44,320
you would like a formal vote.

902
01:19:45,040 --> 01:19:46,620
I'm going to move this along.

903
01:19:46,760 --> 01:19:48,280
I'm going to suggest that our straw vote

904
01:19:48,280 --> 01:19:50,440
indicates there's no support for either option

905
01:19:50,440 --> 01:19:52,120
to change the ordinance.

906
01:19:52,720 --> 01:19:54,380
So I would suggest to move things along.

907
01:19:54,520 --> 01:19:57,640
We move to a discussion of voting on the ordinance

908
01:19:57,640 --> 01:19:58,260
as drafted.

909
01:20:00,180 --> 01:20:07,280
For clarification, Chair, you didn't weigh in, so we don't know if there is, sorry, I would

910
01:20:07,280 --> 01:20:09,720
vote for the alternative option.

911
01:20:10,080 --> 01:20:14,120
I would vote for both options if they were in front of me, but because I think Commissioner

912
01:20:14,120 --> 01:20:21,140
Covelle has basically indicated she would not vote for option 3, and I think you've indicated

913
01:20:21,140 --> 01:20:23,300
that you would not vote for option 3.

914
01:20:23,300 --> 01:20:27,760
That would mean that that option would fail to the two.

915
01:20:28,120 --> 01:20:28,280
Right.

916
01:20:28,460 --> 01:20:31,240
So I'd like to make a motion then.

917
01:20:31,360 --> 01:20:32,380
Okay, go ahead.

918
01:20:32,900 --> 01:20:46,020
So I'd like to make a motion to recommend the staff recommendation with their non-conforming exclusion

919
01:20:47,020 --> 01:20:55,700
and to amend the recommendation to include right-sharing as a definition of transit, and

920
01:20:55,700 --> 01:21:07,550
to exclude the height flexibility contingent on location to transit.

921
01:21:08,230 --> 01:21:09,730
Okay, is there a second?

922
01:21:09,910 --> 01:21:11,070
I second it.

923
01:21:11,590 --> 01:21:12,790
Is there any further discussion?

924
01:21:13,850 --> 01:21:15,050
If not, let's go forward.

925
01:21:15,050 --> 01:21:23,610
I would say then if this is what the motion, I would motion option 3.

926
01:21:24,090 --> 01:21:25,710
Wait, wait, we need to have a vote first.

927
01:21:25,750 --> 01:21:27,670
I've seconded option 1.

928
01:21:28,790 --> 01:21:32,090
Let's have a vote on that and then we can move to option 3.

929
01:21:32,230 --> 01:21:33,390
I thought we could have two motions.

930
01:21:34,850 --> 01:21:37,290
I mean, I'm going to try and assist here.

931
01:21:38,570 --> 01:21:41,090
There's one motion on the floor right now.

932
01:21:41,090 --> 01:21:59,030
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.

933
01:21:59,370 --> 01:22:07,830
It is not moving the current ordinance forward and it is not moving an ordinance with just the right share forward.

934
01:22:07,830 --> 01:22:18,390
It is moving our ordinance, removing height from the micro transit provision, and it is the 18-foot

935
01:22:18,390 --> 01:22:26,330
high limit, and it is including the ability to have ride sharing be included in that micro transit.

936
01:22:27,030 --> 01:22:30,550
I'm going to make sure I correct, because that's not what I heard from Mr. Pertek said.

937
01:22:30,550 --> 01:22:39,470
I think I heard her say that the, let me be sure I understand that you would, okay, maybe

938
01:22:39,470 --> 01:22:40,350
I think that's correct.

939
01:22:40,490 --> 01:22:45,310
Did you would remove, you would remove the flexibility on height from any of the expanded

940
01:22:45,310 --> 01:22:47,530
definition that's currently in the draft ordinance?

941
01:22:47,810 --> 01:22:48,050
Yes.

942
01:22:48,130 --> 01:22:52,930
In other words, we would stick to the, what I believe is the state law correct me if I'm wrong,

943
01:22:52,930 --> 01:23:06,570
which is the 18 feet height if it's created within located with one half mile of a major

944
01:23:06,570 --> 01:23:12,170
transit stop or high quality transit corridor. I just want to be sure because it may be

945
01:23:12,170 --> 01:23:20,430
director. Well, correct me on this too is that the state law does provide for the 20 foot expansion

946
01:23:20,430 --> 01:23:23,710
for the current definition of public transit, isn't that correct?

947
01:23:23,730 --> 01:23:24,570
That is correct.

948
01:23:24,810 --> 01:23:25,670
So would not amend that.

949
01:23:25,670 --> 01:23:32,510
The city does not have a micro transit area or as defined under that code section.

950
01:23:32,850 --> 01:23:38,930
So it would be pointless to be introducing a micro transit area to the city.

951
01:23:39,370 --> 01:23:44,930
But we, again, my question was, the state law currently allows 20 feet under the state

952
01:23:44,930 --> 01:23:46,450
law definition of public transit.

953
01:23:46,590 --> 01:23:47,210
Is that correct?

954
01:23:47,590 --> 01:23:48,210
That's correct.

955
01:23:48,310 --> 01:23:50,070
We could not amend that commissioner for it.

956
01:23:50,070 --> 01:23:58,430
So I understood your motion to be, you would only exclude the 20 feet from the expanded

957
01:23:58,430 --> 01:24:03,150
definition that's not required by state law plus rights rights sharing.

958
01:24:05,250 --> 01:24:08,690
So again, that's the motion I seconded it.

959
01:24:08,810 --> 01:24:09,770
We need to move ahead.

960
01:24:10,050 --> 01:24:11,570
I think, is there any further discussion?

961
01:24:11,750 --> 01:24:13,930
Can we go to a roll call boat on that?

962
01:24:14,870 --> 01:24:15,590
I'm

963
01:24:20,070 --> 01:24:24,850
a little lost in this motion, quite honestly, I need like blood diagram here.

964
01:24:27,900 --> 01:24:33,600
So the motion is to adopt the ordinance as recommended with the debt orange part.

965
01:24:36,740 --> 01:24:47,480
So you're saying that your motion is included, you would like to include ride sharing in the definition of public transportation

966
01:24:47,480 --> 01:25:02,000
on top of the micro-transit, on top of the micro-transit, and you're saying that with this

967
01:25:02,000 --> 01:25:15,280
new revised definition of public transit, what are you stating about the height, what

968
01:25:15,280 --> 01:25:21,980
that you're so I guess that we just stick to what the California State Law is, which provides

969
01:25:21,980 --> 01:25:30,140
the flexibility up to 20 feet only within a half a mile of a major public transit, stop or

970
01:25:30,140 --> 01:25:39,080
corridor, and not the micro transit. Not for the expanded definition. It's pretty simple. You're

971
01:25:39,080 --> 01:25:44,100
you're basically adopting the expanded definition for everything except height, including

972
01:25:44,100 --> 01:25:51,340
right-sharing, but you're not adopting the expanded definition for height, the state law already

973
01:25:51,340 --> 01:25:56,520
requires that the expanded height be available for what state law designates as public transit.

974
01:25:56,820 --> 01:25:58,380
Does that make sense to you, Chris?

975
01:25:58,520 --> 01:25:58,760
Go well.

976
01:25:59,240 --> 01:26:07,360
I mean, if we can, so those areas would be exempt, so the benefit to the community then,

977
01:26:07,940 --> 01:26:13,540
if flexibility is what we're measuring it by, would be the exemption for parking.

978
01:26:13,540 --> 01:26:16,460
they would still get the exemption for parking.

979
01:26:17,380 --> 01:26:22,580
So I want to understand this, that we're trying to make a recommendation to

980
01:26:22,580 --> 01:26:33,160
City Council, right? So there's this draft in front of us, as it is, then you're

981
01:26:33,160 --> 01:26:38,400
you know, are proposing some edits to it. These are recommendations

982
01:26:38,400 --> 01:26:47,840
that alter this current draft that's correct. Then whatever goes in front of city council

983
01:26:47,840 --> 01:26:58,330
can still get public comments and people can align on this as they wish and it's not a

984
01:26:59,540 --> 01:27:03,700
it's not a done deal this where our recommendation is advisory only.

985
01:27:05,900 --> 01:27:07,500
I don't know what you're

986
01:27:08,260 --> 01:27:19,480
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.

987
01:27:20,320 --> 01:27:29,180
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.

988
01:27:29,900 --> 01:27:31,340
I vote no.

989
01:27:31,420 --> 01:27:33,340
No, we're going to call the vote for second.

990
01:27:33,480 --> 01:27:35,020
This is just discussion still.

991
01:27:35,020 --> 01:27:35,880
So, okay.

992
01:27:36,460 --> 01:27:36,560
Let's go.

993
01:27:36,660 --> 01:27:36,820
The chair.

994
01:27:37,060 --> 01:27:37,840
This is not a discussion.

995
01:27:38,040 --> 01:27:38,720
This is a motion.

996
01:27:38,920 --> 01:27:41,620
It's a discussion of the motion.

997
01:27:41,640 --> 01:27:41,860
Yes.

998
01:27:42,120 --> 01:27:43,980
Which the commissioners can do before voting.

999
01:27:44,720 --> 01:27:48,160
And so, if the commissioner, and I've heard Commissioner Cova also heard intent is to vote

1000
01:27:48,160 --> 01:27:48,520
No.

1001
01:27:49,320 --> 01:27:52,040
So, it's really Commissioner Lopez.

1002
01:27:52,740 --> 01:27:53,320
Any discussion?

1003
01:27:53,500 --> 01:27:55,860
And then we can have a roll call vote where everybody can.

1004
01:27:55,880 --> 01:27:58,360
No, I'm good with it.

1005
01:27:58,720 --> 01:27:58,920
Okay.

1006
01:27:59,020 --> 01:28:00,100
Can you call the roll?

1007
01:28:01,520 --> 01:28:01,920
Commissioner.

1008
01:28:02,120 --> 01:28:02,200
Hello?

1009
01:28:03,540 --> 01:28:03,840
No.

1010
01:28:03,840 --> 01:28:10,500
Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Vice chair for a deck. Yes. Chair Warner. Yes. The motion passes.

1011
01:28:11,040 --> 01:28:23,500
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.

1012
01:28:24,200 --> 01:28:32,400
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.

1013
01:28:32,400 --> 01:28:38,440
That's correct and we'll defer to you to apply the language as Commissioner Ferdick and Emotion.

1014
01:28:38,940 --> 01:28:47,560
Yes, so staff will still review what planning commission has proposed and it will provide that analysis to our city council for consideration.

1015
01:28:48,120 --> 01:28:48,600
That's fine.

1016
01:28:49,340 --> 01:28:53,580
So I think that concludes our this agenda item.

1017
01:28:54,200 --> 01:28:59,440
We do have again city council coming in here. Can we move on to our next agenda item?

1018
01:29:00,200 --> 01:29:00,840
Yes.

1019
01:29:00,840 --> 01:29:25,720
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.

1020
01:29:25,720 --> 01:29:37,840
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.

1021
01:29:38,620 --> 01:29:42,920
So those would be private project developments that we think could be coming forward.

1022
01:29:43,540 --> 01:29:47,240
It includes other policy projects that we believe are coming forward.

1023
01:29:47,240 --> 01:29:59,940
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.

1024
01:30:00,000 --> 01:30:06,660
So that it's helpful for you when you're rendering decisions on other projects later.

1025
01:30:07,400 --> 01:30:15,720
And so that is what is before you, this, this evening, which is our recommended work plan for approval ultimately by the city council.

1026
01:30:16,280 --> 01:30:26,160
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,

1027
01:30:26,160 --> 01:30:32,440
which was actually requested by Commissioner Covell, which is for a mitigation application.

1028
01:30:32,600 --> 01:30:35,040
And I'd like to clarify first of all, I think this is great.

1029
01:30:35,960 --> 01:30:43,080
I do think that planning commission could go line by line through this and kind of provide

1030
01:30:43,080 --> 01:30:44,340
input to it.

1031
01:30:44,580 --> 01:30:48,200
But in a sense, this is staff planning for your workload.

1032
01:30:48,640 --> 01:30:54,360
For the year, I'm assuming the city manager is the approval on this in terms of presenting

1033
01:30:54,360 --> 01:31:00,720
it to the city council like any work plan for staff I just want to be sure our role here

1034
01:31:00,720 --> 01:31:05,800
is to make suggestions this is also a living document this is not something that basically

1035
01:31:05,800 --> 01:31:10,640
all of a sudden get set and stone things change as you go through the year on work that comes

1036
01:31:10,640 --> 01:31:18,380
in front of you so this isn't necessarily something that is bound by what we recommend in terms of

1037
01:31:18,380 --> 01:31:24,040
changes or edits this is something that is your document in terms of work plan it's I think it

1038
01:31:24,040 --> 01:31:29,180
seems to me to be more informational for us, but with a discretion that if we want to add things

1039
01:31:29,180 --> 01:31:33,440
that we know of work that we would recommend, we provide it, is that my understanding

1040
01:31:33,440 --> 01:31:34,280
with the scope of this?

1041
01:31:34,280 --> 01:31:35,740
This is a little bit more than that.

1042
01:31:35,740 --> 01:31:41,520
This is the planning commissions work plan, so this is the work plan that staff is putting together

1043
01:31:41,520 --> 01:31:47,440
for the commission to understand what its roles and responsibilities will be under its

1044
01:31:47,440 --> 01:31:55,040
review for the next 12 months. Within that we included and added informational sessions, that's

1045
01:31:55,040 --> 01:32:04,160
kind of an added benefit that wouldn't be necessarily required. How this work plan gets approved

1046
01:32:04,160 --> 01:32:10,640
is the direction from the city council to our city manager and our directors and each body,

1047
01:32:10,940 --> 01:32:16,380
so the planning commission as well, so the who directs us is the city manager and our city council.

1048
01:32:16,380 --> 01:32:22,460
So, if I'm fine with that, again, to make this easier and more expedited, again, subject

1049
01:32:22,460 --> 01:32:28,820
to my fellow commissioners, I don't have the ability in one session in 15 minutes to

1050
01:32:28,820 --> 01:32:35,180
basically share and collegially develop a planning commission work plan that has additional

1051
01:32:35,180 --> 01:32:36,080
details, right?

1052
01:32:36,080 --> 01:32:41,180
I know Commissioner Koval has had some things that she wouldn't think wants to make sure

1053
01:32:41,180 --> 01:32:47,920
be part of our work and our scope of work, I just want to be sure that this is made clear

1054
01:32:47,920 --> 01:32:53,480
that this is a living document, subject to changes as we go along for the year, apply the planning

1055
01:32:53,480 --> 01:32:57,660
commission. If you're asking planning commission. No, it is not. Okay, then I'm not. I'm not going

1056
01:32:57,660 --> 01:33:04,200
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

1057
01:33:04,200 --> 01:33:15,400
stone, it is subject to additional policy projects or private projects that the City Council

1058
01:33:15,400 --> 01:33:20,640
asks each body to do. So that is how we're set up as a form of government.

1059
01:33:21,560 --> 01:33:27,300
Right, okay. In that situation, I would basically say that I'm not willing as a planning commission

1060
01:33:27,300 --> 01:33:32,680
to endorse this as a limited work plan because it really is up to the City Council and to staff

1061
01:33:32,680 --> 01:33:39,800
to provide a work plan, and if it's not a living document, then I'm not ready to say that

1062
01:33:39,800 --> 01:33:44,260
this is a permanent 12-month plan, and then we have a door to serve.

1063
01:33:44,800 --> 01:33:45,280
Chair Warner,

1064
01:33:47,320 --> 01:33:52,680
it's a forecasting document of what's coming before the planning commission

1065
01:33:52,680 --> 01:34:00,940
within its purview. And so it's letting you know what you can keep your eye on moving forward

1066
01:34:00,940 --> 01:34:07,140
on line and through other study sessions, good examples, short-term rental, right?

1067
01:34:07,300 --> 01:34:08,840
So that was one of those.

1068
01:34:09,100 --> 01:34:13,660
This is a typical thing to have for a body like a commission or a committee.

1069
01:34:14,720 --> 01:34:23,160
And it's coming from the city council down to the bodies that are supporting the city council.

1070
01:34:23,800 --> 01:34:29,400
So again, I'm very comfortable with this as a document to go at the current time to city council,

1071
01:34:29,400 --> 01:34:34,400
but as far as endorsing the details of it as being a limitation on what the planning commission

1072
01:34:34,400 --> 01:34:40,140
wishes to come before us, I'm not ready to support it in that form.

1073
01:34:40,520 --> 01:34:44,380
If what we're supporting is a document that's subject to change and subject to as we go

1074
01:34:44,380 --> 01:34:52,560
long during the year to various opinions, and again, I've suggested that I would like to see

1075
01:34:52,560 --> 01:34:53,880
a comprehensive view.

1076
01:34:53,880 --> 01:34:59,120
It's really stems from commissioner covels, a suggestion for a zoning code update review,

1077
01:34:59,600 --> 01:35:02,780
but also the whole issue of objective versus subject of standards.

1078
01:35:03,120 --> 01:35:08,720
But I don't want to belabor that issue in this commission meeting, but if you're asking

1079
01:35:08,720 --> 01:35:13,000
me to endorse the plan with no change, I'm going to vote no.

1080
01:35:13,760 --> 01:35:17,820
But if it's a living document where we can come back and review and amend it, and as things

1081
01:35:17,820 --> 01:35:20,760
move along, as things come up, we can suggest changes to it.

1082
01:35:20,840 --> 01:35:21,360
I'm for it.

1083
01:35:21,360 --> 01:35:26,400
Yeah, it's not a document that is intended to be amended over time throughout the year.

1084
01:35:26,400 --> 01:35:28,040
It's a forecasting document.

1085
01:35:28,580 --> 01:35:34,480
If the city council at any time or our city manager directs us to do another item,

1086
01:35:34,860 --> 01:35:40,900
like study objective versus subjective, you don't need to amend this.

1087
01:35:41,020 --> 01:35:41,580
Does that help?

1088
01:35:41,960 --> 01:35:44,340
This is not our setting on in that.

1089
01:35:44,340 --> 01:35:50,340
I'm uncomfortable because I would like our commissioners to have more time to review

1090
01:35:50,340 --> 01:35:55,580
and add or subtract to it, and I've gone through it in detail, but we don't have a lot of time

1091
01:35:55,580 --> 01:36:02,060
at this meeting to have that broad discussion, and in fact, I would want to suggest to my

1092
01:36:02,060 --> 01:36:06,340
commissioners that there are additions to this, some of which, again, Commissioner Covell

1093
01:36:06,340 --> 01:36:09,600
is suggested in the past, and other members of the public.

1094
01:36:09,880 --> 01:36:14,980
I'd also, since no member of the public is here to actually opine and provide comments

1095
01:36:14,980 --> 01:36:19,660
on the work plan, I think that's a gap as well, that the City Council would like to be

1096
01:36:19,660 --> 01:36:25,020
field, that said I understand. But while I'm trying to give you the go ahead to present

1097
01:36:25,020 --> 01:36:30,020
the city council, as long as it is clear that the planning commission is not endorsing

1098
01:36:30,020 --> 01:36:34,460
it as a restricted document that is not going to be changed.

1099
01:36:35,220 --> 01:36:43,800
I think I would like more time with this too, and maybe some time to get questions and clarifications

1100
01:36:43,800 --> 01:36:53,820
asked, you know, among the staff, so that I, I thoroughly understand the document and, you

1101
01:36:53,820 --> 01:37:02,040
know, and if there's something I think we're overlooking or not, you know, be able to weigh in.

1102
01:37:03,540 --> 01:37:10,800
I, I think I just need some more time than we have with staff to really digest this and

1103
01:37:10,800 --> 01:37:16,120
understand it and understand how it would be used throughout the year.

1104
01:37:16,360 --> 01:37:19,940
Sure, I can assist in addressing some of that if it's helpful.

1105
01:37:20,880 --> 01:37:23,640
I do want to be mindful of time for our city council.

1106
01:37:24,540 --> 01:37:35,920
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.

1107
01:37:37,220 --> 01:37:50,140
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.

1108
01:37:50,480 --> 01:38:05,320
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.

1109
01:38:05,320 --> 01:38:13,800
of the city council. So this is reflective of those goals. They're also not overdoing it.

1110
01:38:14,040 --> 01:38:19,820
It's what can you achieve in a 12-month period? Sure. So staff is heavily involved in what's

1111
01:38:19,820 --> 01:38:27,540
put on this because we are very small team. So, you know, there might be items that are important

1112
01:38:27,540 --> 01:38:32,520
to the commission. And when we have discussion about that, we will say, well, we don't think we can

1113
01:38:32,520 --> 01:38:37,760
do that this year. We'll put it on for the next years. And that's part of our department's

1114
01:38:37,760 --> 01:38:43,620
work plan. This is different. This is what do we envision being your core in the next

1115
01:38:43,620 --> 01:38:45,200
12 months reviews?

1116
01:38:47,340 --> 01:38:47,940
That's great.

1117
01:38:49,200 --> 01:38:53,780
That's great. I mean, this is great. That we're putting all that documenting all this.

1118
01:38:53,780 --> 01:39:05,040
There obviously is some overlap between what you, what you as a department plan to accomplish and what is in the forecast.

1119
01:39:05,680 --> 01:39:14,020
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.

1120
01:39:14,340 --> 01:39:23,460
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.

1121
01:39:23,460 --> 01:39:28,780
And I get that you've put this together with input from the City Manager, from City Council,

1122
01:39:29,300 --> 01:39:36,120
from everything you've heard, from us, but I just want to make sure that it's capturing

1123
01:39:36,120 --> 01:39:46,000
all those real priorities or do we need to shift those, before this goes as basically the stamp

1124
01:39:46,000 --> 01:39:51,160
you know to counsel as what you're expected to accomplish or what works,

1125
01:39:51,560 --> 01:39:55,740
expected to participate in, you know, versus other things.

1126
01:39:56,460 --> 01:39:58,480
That's here from our other commissioners in terms of their

1127
01:39:58,480 --> 01:39:58,720
brothers.

1128
01:39:59,520 --> 01:40:03,000
Again, I think commissioner Ferdek and I would like to have a little bit more time for us

1129
01:40:03,000 --> 01:40:06,540
as a commission to review this, but what about other commissioners any comments that would

1130
01:40:06,540 --> 01:40:07,440
be helpful to staff?

1131
01:40:11,510 --> 01:40:15,730
Yes, I thank you for putting this together.

1132
01:40:15,730 --> 01:40:26,170
I appreciate having this kind of work plan, strategic plan,

1133
01:40:30,790 --> 01:40:37,370
I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I appreciate

1134
01:40:37,370 --> 01:40:48,970
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.

1135
01:40:48,970 --> 01:40:52,450
I can't believe it. This is a year for me.

1136
01:40:53,610 --> 01:40:58,410
I guess one of the things that I wanted to bring up was the...

1137
01:40:58,970 --> 01:41:01,770
The adopted PC bylaws. Thank you.

1138
01:41:01,870 --> 01:41:05,050
I think that was in my original binder that I had received.

1139
01:41:06,310 --> 01:41:10,510
The other part that I saw was the roles and responsibilities

1140
01:41:11,170 --> 01:41:14,790
and now I just click through something and I can't find it.

1141
01:41:15,450 --> 01:41:26,070
I received this planning commissioner handbook from director Durosa and the city attorney

1142
01:41:27,750 --> 01:41:33,330
before and so it has a lot of roles and responsibilities. I didn't see this reference.

1143
01:41:34,390 --> 01:41:39,590
I might have seen it, I want to say maybe I actually did see it reference.

1144
01:41:39,670 --> 01:41:43,390
Did I see it reference? It's the Institute for Local Government.

1145
01:41:43,870 --> 01:41:51,630
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

1146
01:41:51,630 --> 01:41:55,390
I thought I saw something about it, maybe I was just dreaming um

1147
01:41:57,210 --> 01:42:00,410
but as far as like the roles and responsibilities

1148
01:42:02,310 --> 01:42:03,870
that are on page

1149
01:42:04,530 --> 01:42:04,970
to

1150
01:42:05,590 --> 01:42:06,970
of the work plan

1151
01:42:06,970 --> 01:42:15,810
I just wanted to understand more clearly if that would also include reference to this manual

1152
01:42:15,810 --> 01:42:20,030
received by the city attorney.

1153
01:42:20,750 --> 01:42:24,150
I received from the city attorney and it was emailed to the whole planning commission.

1154
01:42:24,750 --> 01:42:25,270
Possibly, yeah.

1155
01:42:25,390 --> 01:42:30,690
What I can do is I think that's really great feedback for me to go look at and see if I

1156
01:42:30,690 --> 01:42:37,290
not seeing that. So it was printed by a lot of information for me to see that. And we

1157
01:42:37,290 --> 01:42:41,510
can certainly add that. But what I'm hearing, again, I want to be respectful of time

1158
01:42:41,510 --> 01:42:45,890
right now is that the commission would like more time. And so you can certainly continue this

1159
01:42:45,890 --> 01:42:50,430
to the next meeting. There is a desire we're in July, I wish I could have brought this a little

1160
01:42:50,430 --> 01:42:57,650
earlier. So we're trying to move all the departments that have committees and commissions

1161
01:42:57,650 --> 01:43:01,190
towards an adequate time to present to the City Council.

1162
01:43:01,690 --> 01:43:03,890
This would be new before the City Council as well.

1163
01:43:04,250 --> 01:43:05,830
But I think it's a move in the right direction.

1164
01:43:06,110 --> 01:43:08,510
It's also part of what we hear from the Blackbrook study

1165
01:43:08,510 --> 01:43:10,150
of a direction to move towards.

1166
01:43:10,910 --> 01:43:13,770
So it's really getting everybody on the same page.

1167
01:43:13,950 --> 01:43:16,110
And I think that'll be helpful and productive for everybody.

1168
01:43:16,530 --> 01:43:17,670
That's a great point.

1169
01:43:17,750 --> 01:43:20,290
And I think that also, when you talk about a work plan,

1170
01:43:20,450 --> 01:43:21,590
you're also talking about budgets.

1171
01:43:22,370 --> 01:43:25,910
And there's not yet a fiscal year of 2027 updated budget

1172
01:43:25,910 --> 01:43:28,210
that has been brought to the city council.

1173
01:43:28,850 --> 01:43:35,390
So this needs to be something that is also aligned with what is being considered for a budget

1174
01:43:35,390 --> 01:43:40,690
because I'm very, very sympathetic to the fact that a work plan has to have the necessary

1175
01:43:40,690 --> 01:43:43,250
budget and staff to be able to accomplish it.

1176
01:43:43,390 --> 01:43:46,770
And if we add things or subtract things, that changes the budget needs.

1177
01:43:47,510 --> 01:43:49,830
So does this mean we get paid more as planning commissioners?

1178
01:43:51,310 --> 01:43:52,450
I don't think so.

1179
01:43:53,590 --> 01:43:53,830
All right.

1180
01:43:53,830 --> 01:43:58,710
Well, I can commit to putting the time against this in preparation for the next meeting for

1181
01:43:58,710 --> 01:43:59,250
sure.

1182
01:43:59,530 --> 01:43:59,590
Great.

1183
01:43:59,590 --> 01:44:00,090
Thank you.

1184
01:44:00,430 --> 01:44:05,870
I would advise something that staff did when they were looking at this was a really great

1185
01:44:05,870 --> 01:44:13,090
exercise for staff as well on this process because you go to the City Council goals and

1186
01:44:13,090 --> 01:44:18,130
policies or goals that they have set for this year.

1187
01:44:18,530 --> 01:44:23,090
So I would recommend that the Planning Commission look at that as well as part of your

1188
01:44:24,930 --> 01:44:27,730
very good. Okay, thank you. It's been a good exchange.

1189
01:44:27,750 --> 01:44:29,310
Class Commissioner Lopez, you have any comments?

1190
01:44:29,530 --> 01:44:33,570
I just took a quick peek at it, but I like the layout.

1191
01:44:35,590 --> 01:44:41,270
A lot of business sometimes that we have to really do is what the city council

1192
01:44:41,270 --> 01:44:49,050
needs direction on. And I agree, we do got to revisit a lot of the other items that

1193
01:44:49,050 --> 01:44:55,270
to be kind of revisited and cleaned up, but I like the layout. I look forward to taking

1194
01:44:55,270 --> 01:44:59,890
a little more time to look at it, but he did a great job on project.

1195
01:45:00,000 --> 01:45:06,920
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.

1196
01:45:07,240 --> 01:45:10,080
We're running out of time. I pay credit to staff who put on a working day.

1197
01:45:10,120 --> 01:45:20,940
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.

1198
01:45:20,940 --> 01:45:29,260
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.

1199
01:45:29,260 --> 01:45:29,740
schedule.

1200
01:45:30,160 --> 01:45:35,540
We did schedule matters, but seven and eight reports by staff and a agenda forecast in

1201
01:45:35,540 --> 01:45:35,920
the future.

1202
01:45:36,020 --> 01:45:37,360
The time I have nothing to report.

1203
01:45:37,720 --> 01:45:40,720
Anything to report by fellow commissioners?

1204
01:45:41,340 --> 01:45:41,480
Okay.

1205
01:45:41,540 --> 01:45:45,520
That brings me to what used to be John Pots, favor part of the evening and that is adjourned.

1206
01:45:45,680 --> 01:45:46,580
We are adjourned.

1207
01:45:46,640 --> 01:45:47,000
Thank you.

1208
01:45:47,020 --> 01:45:47,480
Great work.