* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] ARE WE READY? OKAY. [Call to Order] THE REGULAR MEETINGS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CALLED A ORDER. WE'RE GONNA HAVE A MOMENT OF SIGN OF PRAYER FOLLOWED BY PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE. AND PLEASE JOIN US FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE STAND HAND OVER YOUR HEART PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. JOANNE, COULD YOU PLEASE, UH, RULE CALL COMMISSIONER ER HERE, COMMISSIONER LEWIS HERE. AND WE HAVE A NEW COMMISSIONER TO, UM, TO JOINING US. COMMISSIONER CASTELLANA HERE AND CHAIR HING HERE. UM, WE HAVE NO MINUTES FOR APPROVAL, SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ORAL COMMUNICATION. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA? I GUESS SEEING NONE. UM, TONIGHT WE HAVE NO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT [1. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 25-01] CALENDAR, SO WE WILL PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. NO PUBLIC HEARING. OH, WE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS NON-HEARING ITEMS. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO NON-HEARING ITEM TONIGHT. WE WILL CONSIDER THE INITIAL, UH, DEION DE INITIATIONS OF CODE AMENDMENT NUMBER 25 DASH ZERO ONE TO BRING THE CITY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE SENATE BILL NUMBER NINE, WHICH TOOK EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST, 2022 OR 25 SB NINE, OR THE NEW ONE. OH, WELL, JOANNE, WHO WILL PRESENT THE, UM, STAFF REPORT. I'LL BE PRESENTING THE STAFF REPORT, UM, JUST TO, UM, A BIT OF BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ON ON SENATE. ON SENATE A BILL NINE. UM, THE CODE AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY A CONSIDERATION. UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY A CONSIDERATION OF, UM, OF A CODE AMENDMENT TO INITIATE, UM, THE CODE AMENDMENT SO THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH, UM, SB SENATE BILL FOUR 50, WHICH, UM, IT REVISED SENATE BILL NINE. SO A LITTLE BIT BACKGROUND ON SENATE BILL NINE. UM, SENATE BILL NINE WAS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR ON SEPTEMBER, 2021 AND TOOK EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST, 2022. UM, IT MANDATED, UM, TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY ULTIMATELY, UM, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. UM, AND IT ALLOWED US SMALL LOTS SUBDIVISIONS ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, WHICH ARE UNIT, UM, LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1,200 SQUARE FEET. AND IT ALSO MANDATES THAT THE, THAT MUNICIPALITIES APPROVE THE SAID DIVISION IN, IN HOUSING CONSTRUCTION MINISTER MINISTERIALLY WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS. SORRY, I JUST REALIZED THAT THE SLIDES SHOW IS NOT SHOWING . OKAY. ON, ON SEPTEMBER, 2024 TO, TO CLARIFY SOME LANGUAGE THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN SB NINE, THE, UM, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELEASED A FACT SHEET. AND IN THE FACT SHEET IT CLARIFIES THAT LOT SPLITS ARE NOT MANDATORY FOR SB NINE OR, UM, UDU, WHICH IS URBAN DWELLING UNIT CONSTRUCTION. UM, AND THE CITIES MUST ALLOW AT LEAST FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER R ONE LAW WITH OR WITHOUT THE LOT SPLIT. SO JUST TO PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE AND ALSO TO VISUALIZE, VISUALIZE THINGS, THIS IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED. UM, AND THE STATE SAYS IS ALLOWED THROUGH JUST TO SIMPLY SB NINE, WHICH IS, UM, IT ALLOWS UP [00:05:01] TO FOUR UNITS. THESE ARE THE EXAMPLES ON THE PROJECTOR ARE JUST, UM, DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES THAT, THAT CAN, THAT THE STATE IS SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO ALLOW. SO UP TO FOUR UNITS PER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, THAT CAN TAKE THE FORM OF, UM, TWO UDU EACH WITH ADUS ATTACHED. UM, AND THERE BEEN LOTS SPLIT WITH, UH, TWO UDU PER LOT. UM, STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH A JUNIOR, A DU AND, AND A DETACHED A DU IN THE BACK OR A DUPLEX, UM, UDU WITH TWO DETACHED ADUS. EACH ADUS WOULD BE, WOULD BELONG TO EACH OF THE, UM, PRIME PRIMARY UNIT, UM, UDS, AND THEN, UM, PRIMARY UNIT WITH AN A DU AND A UDU WITH A, ANOTHER A DU ATTACHED TO EACH ONE. SO THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF WHAT CAN NOW BE LOCATED IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT BY RIGHT PER HCD PER HD'S INTERPRETATION OF OF SB NINE. AND THEN SINCE SB NINE WAS SIGNED, UM, SB FOUR 50 WAS SIGNED SEPTEMBER, 2024, AND IT BECAME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR. UM, THEY REMOVED THE LANGUAGE, UH, THAT STATE THAT IS SHOWN ON THE PROJECTOR, WHICH, UM, WHICH IS A 20%, UM, DEMOLITION EXCEPTION CONDITIONS, 20. UM, IT ALSO, IT ALSO STATES THAT CITIES ARE NOT, ARE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, BUT THE STANDARDS ARE THAT ARE IMPOSED WOULD HAVE TO APPLY UNIFORMLY TO THE UNDERLYING ZONE, WHICH IS THE R ONE ZONE. UM, WE CAN'T ADOPT STANDARDS THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO NORMAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO A NORMAL HOUSE ADDITION OR CONSTRUCTION. UM, THE PREVIOUS LAW ALSO ALLOWED BUILDING OFFICIALS TO DENY PROJECTS. IF THEY ARE, THEY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY OR THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT. UM, THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WAS REMOVED FROM THAT LANGUAGE. SO BUILDING OFFICIALS CAN ONLY DENY IT IF IT HAS AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY. FOUR 50 ALSO ADDED TIMEFRAMES FOR ACTION. SO ONCE AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, STAFF HAS TO APPROVE IT BY RIGHT WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE APPLICATION, UM, OR, OR DENY THE APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS. AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO, UH, DENY AN APPLICATION, YOU HAVE TO LIST, UM, ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH THE APPLICATION AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE REVISED ON THE PLANS. IF, IF ACTION IS NOT TAKEN, UM, WITHIN 60 DAYS, THEN IT IS DEEMED APPROVED AND SB FOUR 50 ALSO CLARIFIED LANGUAGE EXEMPTIONS. UM, CITIES ARE ALLOWED TO DENY, TO DENY, UM, SB NINE APPLICATION IF THE LOCATION THAT THEY'RE APPLYING FOR IS WITHIN A HIGH, HIGH FIRE SEVERITY AREA, PRIME FARMLAND AND SO AND SO FORTH. UM, SO IT CLARIFIED WHERE, UM, THE LANGUAGE, THIS LANGUAGE IS TO BE LOCATED, UM, IN WITHIN THE S WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT CODE. AND ALSO IT CLARIFIED THE DATE THAT THIS STARTS ON THE DATE, THE TIMEFRAME THAT, THAT WHERE SB NINE WAS FIRST SIGNED, WHICH IS IN SEPTEMBER, 2022, JOAN OF 2021. JOHN, REAL QUICK BEFORE YOU GO ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WITH REGARD TO ALLOWING THE CITY TO IMPOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, WHEN YOU SAY THE CITY, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE, THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN A, UH, IN, IN A, UH, IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT, THE CODE, THE MUNICIPAL CODE, WE ALREADY HAVE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND WELL, NO, NO, NO, I'M, BUT I'M SAYING WHO, WHO, LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY THERE WAS A DENIAL BECAUSE IT, SOMETHING FAILED TO UPHOLD TO THE STANDARDS THAT ARE TO APPLY UNIFORMLY IN THE UNDERLYING ZONE. WHO IS MAKING THAT DECISION? IS THAT, IS THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OR IS THAT [00:10:01] A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION? UM, IT, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS ON WHAT'S BEING AND WHAT'S BEING REVIEWED AND WHAT'S BEING APPLICABLE. BUT THE, THE, I GUESS IF WE ARE GONNA HAVE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO JUST MAKE IT CLEAR. WE DO, THE CITY DOES ALREADY HAVE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT WE CAN, UM, I HAVE SLIDES THAT WE CAN DIS WE, WE CAN GO OVER, UM, AND IT WOULD BE DISCUSS DISCUSSING THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, SPECIFICALLY OF WHAT WE HAVE. AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DIRECTION ON WHAT WE CAN RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE. CAN I ADD TO THAT? SURE. UM, SO FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPLICATIONS AND PROJECTS, THERE ARE DIFFERENT, UM, DESIGNATIONS OR DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY. SO FOR THE PROJECTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ALL WILL BE APPROVING, IT WOULD BE THEY, THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE CITY. AND IF IT IS DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WOULD BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND IF IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, THEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE, WHOEVER IS MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, WOULD BE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. RIGHT. RIGHT. AND, AND WHAT I WAS GETTING AT IS SB NINE AND SB FOUR 50, I THINK IS, THIS IS MY RECOLLECTION IN TERMS OF MY READING OF IT. IT'S SPECIFICALLY ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL STANDARDS, RIGHT? YES, IT IS NOT, IT IS, IT'S UN, UNLESS FOR EXAMPLE, YOU GUYS ADMINISTRATIVELY DENIED SOMETHING AND THERE AND THERE WAS AN APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULDN'T BE HANDLING. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT LARGELY WOULD BE AN INTERNAL DECISION BY, BY ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT. OKAY. UM, AND WE ARE ALLOWED TO, UM, WE ARE, I, I BELIEVE THERE IS AN EXEMPTION ON, ON, ON, UM, THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IF IT'S LESS, UM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S DIFFERENT FROM FROM THE STANDARDS WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONE, IF IT'S CONSIDERED, IF IT'S CONSIDERED LESS STRICT, UM, THAN THAT, THAT UNDERLYING ZONE STANDARDS. SO, UM, CURRENTLY, UM, THIS IS A COMPARISON OF, UM, STATE LAW AND THE, UM, CITY SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT WE, THAT WE'VE ADOPTED, UM, TO ADDRESS OR IN RESPONSE TO, TO THE STATE LAW. SO STATE SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO ALLOW AT LEAST A 800 SQUARE FOOT UNIT, AND WE'RE SAYING THAT OUR MAXIMUM IS GONNA BE 800 SQUARE FEET. UM, AND THE MINIMUM IS, IS 500, UM, NO SET, UM, NO SET. SO SETBACK IS REQUIRED FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USUALLY FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES, UM, WE ALLOW IT TO REMAIN ANYWAY. SO, SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. AND THEN THE MAXIMUM SIDE SETBACK AND REAR SETBACK FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IS FOUR FEET. AND, UM, WE ARE, WE'VE ADOPTED THAT, AND THIS IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH A DU, UM, MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK, THE FOUR FEET, UM, THEY HAD ELIMINATED IF AN APPLICANT WAS OCCUPIED ONE OF THE HOUSING UNITS FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS. THIS IS ONLY A APPLICABLE FOR URBAN LOT SPLITS. IT'S NOT APPLICABLE IF SOMEBODY JUST WANTS TO CONSTRUCT AN URBAN DWELLING UNIT OR A SB NINE UNIT IF THEY ARE NOT SUBDIVIDING THE LOT. UM, NOR NO SHORT, SHORT-TERM RENTAL. UM, THE CITY DOES NOT ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS WITHIN, WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION. AND, AND WE, THE CITY CAN ONLY REQUIRE PARKING IF IT'S WITHIN A QUARTER MILE FROM A TRANSIT CORRIDOR OR, OR, UM, HIGH TRANSIT, HIGH TRANSIT ZONE. UM, THE, IN THE, UM, CITY, I GUESS IN THE CITY SPECIFIC STANDARDS, WE STATE THAT THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN HAVE IS ONE STORY, EXCEPT WITH EXCEPTION OF THEY'RE ALLOWED TWO STORY IF THEY CANNOT BUILD AT LEAST AN 800 SQUARE FEET, UM, UDU ON THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING TO GO ON THE SECOND FLOOR. AND FOR, IN, IN, I GUESS IN REGARDS TO OUR [00:15:01] INTERPRETATION, THIS IS LESS STRICT THAN WHAT WE HAVE BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY FOR, FOR THE UNDERLYING ZONE IS IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO TO, UM, TWO STORY, YOU NEED AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE AND, AND YOU, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN, UM, DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE. SO WE, WE ARE NOT REQUIRING DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE, UM, FOR, FOR YOU TO USE. AND THEN THE 50% FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING, THE CITY ALREADY HAS THAT FOR THE UNDERLYING ZONE. UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE CURRENTLY, IF SOMEBODY'S GONNA HAVE A U UM, UDU ON THE PROPERTY, UM, IF THERE'S NO GARAGE, WE CAN, WE CURRENTLY LIMIT IT TO 12 FEET MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH. BUT I, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD, THAT THE, THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO ELIMINATE THAT REQUIREMENT. WE'RE, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LIMIT IT TO 12 FEET WITHOUT A, WITHOUT A GARAGE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO WITH OUR STANDARD 20 FEET. UM, IF THERE IS NO GARAGE, RESIDENTS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR, UH, RESIDENTS OF THE, THE UDU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR STREET PARKING. I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S REALLY AN OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE RE THAT WE, WE STATE IN OUR CODE TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE BUILDING OR WANNA BUILD UDS THAT THEY HA UM, THE RESIDENTS ARE NOT GONNA BE ISSUED STREET PARKING IF, IF A PARKING PERMIT IS GONNA BE REQUIRED FOR THAT STREET AND STREET PARKING ISSUANCE IS, IS UP TO THE EACH JURISDICTION ANYWAY. SO THE STATE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT. UM, MUST HAVE, UM, MUST COMPLY WITH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE IS GONNA BE THE CITY'S CURRENT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. UM, FOR ADDITIONS, WE REQUIRE THAT IT UTILIZE, UTILIZE THE SAME COLOR AND MATERIALS ROOF PITCH AND ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF, OF AS EXISTING STRUCTURE. UM, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, WE ALLOW, WE REQUIRE THAT, UM, IT HAVE AT LEAST A SIX BY SIX FRONT PORCH, UM, AT LEAST TWO BUILDING MATERIALS ON EACH ELEVATION. UM, IN, IN THE CURRENT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S REQUIRED ON ALL ELEVATIONS. HOWEVER, IN IN OUR DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW, WE ONLY, WE ONLY REQUIRE, UM, SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, NORMAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TO HAVE, UM, ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS IN THE FRONT ELEVATION IN TWO FEET AND WRAPAROUND TWO FEET ON THE SIDE. WE DON'T REQUIRE IT IN ALL ELEVATIONS. SO I BELIEVE THIS, THIS PORTION WOULD HAVE TO BE MODIFIED, UM, WINDOW TREATMENT, UM, STUCCO POPUPS, UM, WOOD TRIM, POT SHELVES, ET CETERA, WHAT IS REQUIRED. UM, AND THEN SECOND, IF THEY'RE GONNA BE HAVING A SECOND FLOOR THAT ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST, UM, THERE CLEAR STORY WINDOWS ON THE SIDE. UM, AND NO BALCONIES, NO EXTERIOR STAIRS OR NO DECKS. UM, ROOF DESIGN, NO FLAT ROOFS OR SHED ROOFS. IT HAS TO BE PITCHED OR GA UM, GABLE, DUTCH OR HIP. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT COLOR PALETTES. SO, UM, MOST OF THESE ITEMS CAN, CAN REMAIN, UM, MOSTLY BECAUSE, BECAUSE, UM, FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, IF IT'S, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VISIBLE ON THE STREET, UM, OH, FROM THE STREET VIEW, THEN IT REQUIRES SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW. SO HAVING THESE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS LISTED AND SAYING THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW IT IS, CAN BE, CAN BE VIEWED AS LESS STRICT. UM, THE COMMISSION ALSO HAS THE OPTION OF RECOMMENDING THAT THESE STANDARDS BE REFLECTIVE OR BE ADOPTED FOR REGULAR SINGLE FAMILIES, INITIAL CONSTRUCTION AS WELL, AND USE THE SUBCOMMITTEE AS A MEANS TO, UM, HAVE THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECIDE IF, IF SOME OF THESE ITEMS [00:20:01] ARE NECESSARY OR NOT NECESSARY. UM, IN, IN THAT SENSE. SO STAFF IS LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON, UM, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WISHES TO ADD MORE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OR DELETE SOME OF THE CURRENT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR, FOR SB NINE OR URBAN DWELLING UNIT CONSTRUCTION. WITH THAT, UM, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER, UM, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION ON THE CONTENTS OF THE CODE AMENDMENT. UM, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTS THE RESOLUTION, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SCHEDULED AT A LATER TIME AND NO. AND NOTICE PER THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE AND STATE LAW, AND WE WILL COME BACK WITH THE DRAFT LANGUAGE AND, AND GO THROUGH THE NORMAL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. I HAVE A, JUST A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO, UM, HOW IT SAYS ADDITIONS, AND THEN THERE'S THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ROOF DESIGN. UM, THERE ARE SOME, THERE ARE SOME HOMES IN THE CITY THAT DO HAVE FLAT ROOFS. HOW, HOW, HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, WITH THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TO USE THE SAME, UH, ARCHITECTURE AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? OH, UM, IF, IF, IF IT'S AN EXISTING, UM, THE FLAT, UM, THE PITCH ROOF AND, UM, REQUIRE REQUIREMENT ONLY APPLIES TO, UM, ONLY APPLIES TO, I GUESS, PROPERTIES WITH, WITH, UM, WITH PITCH ROOFS. SO ULTIMATELY IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE, UH, ALL THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THIS, ON THAT PROPERTY. SO IF YOU CAN, IF YOU HAVE A PITCH ROUGH, UM, ON THE EXISTING HOUSE, YOU CAN'T BUILD A UDU THAT'S A FLAT ROOF. OKAY. UN UNDERSTOOD. SO, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE OPPOSITE OF THAT. SO LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A FLAT ROOF, UM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND YOU WANT TO BUILD A UDU OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MY QUESTION IS, UM, HOW, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BE ARCHITECTURALLY CONSISTENT WHEN THAT'S NOT PERMITTED? I GUESS, I GUESS MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING SOMETHING. SO IF, OKAY, SO IF A, UM, A HOUSE HAS A FLAT ROOF OR AN EXISTING HOUSE HAS A FLAT ROOF YEAH. THEN YOU WANNA BUILD A UDU RIGHT? AND YOU HAVE A FLAT ROOF. YEAH. UM, WE TYPICALLY, WE, WE TYPICALLY MAKE EXCEPTIONS AND DO ALLOW A FLAT ROOF, UM, JUST TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE EX WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. UM, AND WE, WE DO CURRENTLY ALLOW THAT EXCEPTION, THAT EXCEPTION. BUT IF THEY, BUT IF, UM, IF THEY WANTED TO HAVE A FLAT ROOF, UM, BUT THEIR EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY IS A PITCH ROOF, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE IT. YEAH, I'M, I'M NOT, AGAIN, I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT WITH THE STATE BEING VERY HARSH ABOUT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, IF THAT IS AN EXCEPTION, I, I, I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHATEVER WE DO AS FAR AS EXCEPTIONS, SO THAT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, ENDING UP, YOU KNOW, EMBROILING THE CITY IN LITIGATION OVER SOME, SOMETHING LIKE THAT DOWN THE LINE BECAUSE SOMEBODY SAYS, OH, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEIR OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AREN'T REALLY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. MM-HMM . THERE'S EXCEPTIONS BUILT IN AND YOU KNOW, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I'M JUST SAYING I, THAT THOSE ARE THINGS, AGAIN, I LIKE TO HAVE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. MM-HMM . I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT, THAT WE HAVE SURVEYED WHAT IS IN THE CITY CURRENTLY, AND AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE REQUIRING CONSISTENCY, UM, WITH, WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, IN A POSITION TO SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT MM-HMM . FROM A LITIGATION STANDPOINT, UM, ONE UNDERSTOOD. SO WE CAN, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR THAT, UM, FOR ADDITIONS, UM, AND NEW CONSTRUCTION, UM, NEW, I GUESS URBAN DWELLING UNITS ON, ON EX, UM, DEVELOPED, [00:25:01] LOTS HAVE TO MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND MATERIALS, UM, THAT ARE EXISTING IN THOSE DEVELOPED LOTS. SO THESE SUBDIVISIONS THERE CAN ONLY BE REQUESTED BY RESIDENTS, CORRECT? NOT BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR THE STATE BY RESIDENTS YES. OR PROPERTY OWNERS. SO TECHNICALLY THE SUBDIVISION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S REQUIRED TO SUBDIVIDE NO, NO, IT'S NOT REQUIRED. NO LONGER REQUIRED. IT'S NO LONGER REQUIRED TO SUBDIVIDE. IT'S OPPOSITE. OKAY. SO THEY, UM, INITIALLY WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT, UM, IT WAS NOT, IT, IT, IT ALLUDED THAT SUB THAT, UM, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO THE SUBDIVISION, BUT THEN THE STATE HAS A NEW INTERPRETATION, A NEWER INTERPRETATION THAT SAYS YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SUBDIVISION. SO IF YOU HAD A LARGE PARCEL AND YOU WANTED TO BUILD, DIVIDE IT INTO FOUR AND SELL IT OFF, WOULD, YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO SUBDIVIDE IT INTO DIFFERENT, UH, APNS? UH, NO. IF, IF YOU ARE GONNA SEPARATE IT AND SELL IT OFF AS SEPARATE LOTS, THEN YOU DO HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE IT. UM, BUT YOU, YOU ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT UP TO FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A SUBDIVISION AND YOU CAN SELL THE EPU, RIGHT? ONLY A SUBDIVIDED. NO, I DON'T, I I THINK THAT THAT CHANGED AS WELL. YEAH. I THINK YOU CAN SELL THE A DU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SELL THE, THE UNDERLYING LOT IS THAT, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THE MOST RECENT, THE MOST RECENT, UM, UPDATES TO THE A DU LAWS SO THAT THERE IS A SEPARATE CONVEYANCE ALLOWED ON AN A DU, JUST NOT ON A-J-A-D-U. SO, SO THAT WOULD MEAN ESSENTIALLY THAT YOU COULD SELL THE BUILDING, NOT THE LAND. SO IT'S KINDA LIKE A MOBILE HOME PARK, THE CONDO THAT THAT'S, I BELIEVE IT, IT ALSO CONDO, IT ALSO DEPENDS ON WHO THE DEVELOPER IS. HOW WOULD THAT WORK? BECAUSE IT, THEY HAVE TO, IT HAS TO BE DEVELOPED BY A HOUSING ORGANIZATION. YEAH. SO IT, IT ALSO, IT ALSO DEPENDS ON WHO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE DEVELOPER IS. SO IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE AN A D, UM, TO SELL OFF AN A DU, THE DEVELOPER AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO BE A HOUSING CORPORATION, LIKE A HABIT HABITAT, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OR, OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT. NOT SURE HOW THE BANK'S GONNA LEND YOU THE MONEY FOR A DU. THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING. YEAH. THAT'LL BE THEIR PROBLEM. MM-HMM . HOW, HOW WOULD THEY LEND ON IT IF THE, IF THE, YOU KNOW, IS, IF, IS IT LEASE LAND? IT'S NOT A FEE SIMPLE. IT'S, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD THEY, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T OWN THE LAND, SO HOW COULD YOU FINANCE JUST A HOME WITHOUT THE LAND THEN IT WOULD BE A MOBILE HOME PARK WITHOUT THE SUBDIVISION, IT WOULD BE UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP. SO IF YOU HAVE AN SB NINE PROPERTY LIKE THIS, UH, THE DIAGRAM IS ALREADY SKIPPED, BUT, UM, ON THE SLIDE WITH THE VARIOUS PERMUTATIONS OF THE, UM, PRIMARY UNITS AND THE ADUS, UNTIL YOU'RE SELLING, UNTIL THE, UM, PROPERTY IS SOLD, YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO SUBDIVIDE. SO ALL FOUR UNITS, SO THE TWO PRIMARY UNITS OR THE PRIMARY AND THE UDU AND THE TWO ADUS WOULD BE ALL UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. SO HOW WOULD THAT WORK FOR TAXES, TAX PURPOSES? PROPERTY TAXES, THAT'S THE ASSESSOR'S PROBLEM. THEY WON'T FIND A WAY TO GET THE MONEY. THE PRIMARY OWNER WOULD BE STUCK PAYING THE TAX WHILE THE A DU WOULDN'T BE RESPONSIBLE 'CAUSE IT WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. RIGHT? WELL, IT WOULDN'T BE BECAUSE THE A DU WOULD HAVE NEW OWNERSHIP. AND HOW, HOW WOULD THAT GRANT DEED WORK? I MEAN, THERE HAS TO BE AN, UH, A PARCEL NUMBER TO BE ABLE TO GRANT A DEED TO, TO AN ANOTHER OWNER AS PART OF THE PROPERTY. IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER PARCEL NUMBER, RIGHT. WITH THE, UM, THE A DU BEING SOLD SEPARATELY FROM THE UNDERLYING PRIMARY UNIT, IT WOULD BE HOUSING CORPORATIONS. AND I'M PRETTY SURE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IS GONNA HAVE THEIR TAX LAWYERS TO, TO LOOK INTO THAT. I AM NOT A TAX LAWYER, SO I CANNOT OPINE AS TO TAX ISSUES. IT WAS PRETTY EASY THOUGH. I MEAN, 'CAUSE IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST LIKE THE, THE CONCEPT OF OF OF CONDOS WHERE YOU DON'T OWN THE UNDERLYING LAND, YOU'RE GONNA GET ASSESSED FOR THE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE. SO YOU GET A SEPARATE, YOU'RE GONNA GET ASSESSED FOR THE A DU AS AS, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING YOU BUILD ON YOUR PROPERTY, YOU'RE GONNA GET REASSESSED FOR THE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE. SO AT THAT POINT, YOUR TAXES ARE GOING TO INCREASE FOR THE, UM, THE EXISTING PARCEL. SO WHEN YOU DO SELL IT, YOU'RE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA PAY THE TAX. YOU'RE STILL GONNA PAY IT WITH THE, UH, INCREASED TAX BECAUSE [00:30:01] THE, THE, THE VALUE OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS GOING TO INCREASE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME YOU PUT AN A DU THERE YOU GO, 500,000, THERE YOU GO. INCREASE YOUR, YOUR VALUE ON YOUR PROPERTY. SO THEY'LL BE GETTING, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE, THEY HAD TAXES AT A MILLION BEFORE, THEY'LL GET TAXES AT 1,000,005 AT THAT POINT. AND HOW DO THEY PASS THAT ON? I DON'T THINK THAT NECESSARILY THAT WOULD REALLY PER THE, THE, THE CHALLENGES THAT, OR MESSES THAT COULD BE CREATED BY ALLOWING THIS, I DON'T THINK THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO CONCERN OURSELVES WITH THAT'LL BE YES, THAT'S THE PROBLEM FOR LATER. YEAH. I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WOULD AFFECT ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, OUR INITIATION OF THIS CODE AMENDMENT. UM, I MEAN, GOOD POINTS. BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT'LL BE FOR ANYONE WHO CHOOSES TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES WITH SOMETHING NEW LIKE THIS, IT'S ASKING FOR A POTENTIAL MESS, BUT HEY, WHO CARES? RIGHT? I MEAN, GOING BACK TO THE SLIDESHOW WHERE THE OBJECTIVE, UH, LIST OR ITEMS, UM, THE PORCH AREA. DO YOU KNOW HOW LIKE IT HAS A SIX BY SIX AREA, SOME HOUSES DO NOT HAVE PORCH. HOW DO WE, UM, I GUESS INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE NEW, IF THEY'RE GONNA BE LIKE, SAY A VACANT LOT, IF THEY'RE GONNA BE BUILDING AN, UM, A URBAN DWELLING, TWO URBAN DWELLING UNITS AND AN AN AN A DU ON, ON THOSE LOTS, THEN THEY HAVE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PORCH. SO IF IT'S AN EXISTING HOUSE WITH NO PORCH, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE BUILDING A UDU, THEY DON'T BE, IT'S NOT NEEDED FOR THE PORCH AREA, THE SIX BY SIX, IT'S ONLY FOR THE UDU. SO IF AN, OKAY, SO IF SOMEONE HAS AN EXISTING HOUSE RIGHT NOW THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PORCH CURRENTLY, AND IF THEY'RE USING, THEY'RE BUILDING A U, UH, UDU MM-HMM . DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE NEW UDU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE PORCH EVEN THOUGH THE EXISTING HOUSE DO NOT? YES. MM-HMM . BUT HOW IS THAT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE MAIN HOUSE? WELL, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, RIGHT? IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE HOUSE. UM, AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE HOUSE, ROOF PITCH COLORS AND MATERIALS, THEN, THEN, UM, WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO IT. 'CAUSE WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT GO THROUGH SUBCOMMITTEE THAT THAT'S BASICALLY STATE, THAT BASICALLY STATES, UM, OR RECOMMENDS THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSES HAVE PORCHES OR SOMETHING THAT, THAT SHOWS WHERE THE FRONT EL MAKES, MAKES THE FRONT ELEVATION LOOK MORE APPEALING. SO I THINK IT'LL BE AN EASY THING TO COMPLY WITH THOUGH, SINCE IT'S ONLY SIX BY SIX ALSO, THAT'S PRETTY SMALL. I MEAN, SOMEONE COULD GO BIGGER IF THEY WANT A BIGGER BUT SIX BY SIX, THAT'S, THAT'LL BE PRETTY SMALL IF SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO GO TOO BIG. UM, AND I, UM, YOU MENTIONED THEY CAN GO BIGGER. UM, WE ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW ANYTHING BIGGER THAN A SIX BY SIX PORCH. OKAY. SO IT'LL BE LITTLE, MOSTLY BECAUSE IF WE ALLOW PORCHES OR EX OTHER STORAGE SHEDS ATTACHED TO IT OR ANYTHING ATTACHED TO IT, THEN THEY CAN CONVERT THOSE INTO, UM, FLOOR AREA. GOT IT. AND THEY CAN, THEY CAN MAKE IT BIGGER THAN A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, UM, AS A LOOPHOLE. GOT IT. SO IT'S, SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT REALLY A, SORRY. SO IT'S NOT REALLY A MINIMUM. IT'S A MAX. IT'S A MAX AND A MIN. IT'S A MAX. IT'S A MAXIMUM. OKAY. IT'S A MAXIMUM, BUT NOT A MINIMUM. NO, IT'S, NO, THEY CAN HAVE IT SMALLER. WAIT, SO, SO IT HAS TO BE EXACTLY SIX BY SIX BASICALLY. MM-HMM . OKAY. UM, WHEN, WHEN, WHEN I SAY THEY CAN HAVE IT SMALLER, UM, I MEAN THAT IF THEY WANT IT SMALLER THAN 800 SQUARE FEET, THEY CAN, UM, THE, THE, UM, I'M SORRY, I GOT CONFUSED. UM, THE, THE UNITS. OKAY. BUT THE PORCH, THE, THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN HAVE THE MINIMUM AND THE MAXIMUM IS SIX BY SIX. OKAY. MM-HMM . OKAY. JUST CURIOUS. UM, I, I KNOW, I KNOW THIS IS, I KNOW THIS PARTICULAR CONCEPT IS NEW, BUT IN TERMS OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, HAVE WE, HAVE WE SURVEYED SURROUNDING CITIES IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE AND WHETHER OR NOT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER? UM, UM, WHEN WE FIRST ADOPTED SOME OF OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, WE DID, UM, AND [00:35:01] THERE ARE CITIES THAT HAVE, THERE NO OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, AND THERE ARE CITIES THAT HAVE MORE STRICTER OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT THE STATE HAS DEEMED, UM, THAT IT, THAT IS NOT ALLOWED. UM, BECAUSE IT, IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR, FOR, UM, A DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER TO BUILD, UM, AN, AN ACCESS OR, UH, URBAN DWELLING UNIT OR AN SB NINE UNIT ON THE PROPERTY. SO THEY, THE LAST I SPOKE TO SOMEBODY FROM HCD WAS LAST, I BELIEVE, NOVEMBER, AROUND NOVEMBER OF LA OF LAST YEAR. AND I SH WE DISCUSSED OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AT LENGTH. UM, AND, AND THEY DIDN'T SAY, THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO, TO APPLY IT, OR, OR THAT WE DIDN'T COMPLY WITH STATE LAW BASED ON OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. AND THE REASON WHY I HAD TO SPEAK TO THEM WAS BECAUSE, UM, SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY WANTED TO BUILD, UM, A UDU AND A DU ON THE SAME, ON THE SAME PROPERTY MM-HMM . UM, AND HAVE, AND BASICALLY HAVE TH TWO PRIMARY UNITS AND ONE ACCESSORY, UM, DWELLING UNIT ON THE SAME PROPERTY. AND PRIOR TO THE SEPTEMBER, UM, 2024 FACT SHEET, UM, IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS NOT ALLOWED. AND THEN, SO THE PERSON THAT SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION TOLD THE STATE ON US. AND THEN, SO I HAD A MEETING WITH THE STATE AND THEY PROVIDED ME THAT FACT SHEET AND BASICALLY SAID THAT WE HAVE TO ALLOW IT. OKAY. SO, BUT IT, BUT IN TERMS OF, YES. AND SO, SO I GUESS, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED, UH, THAT MAY BE MEANINGFUL TO, TO OUR RESIDENTS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO? UM, OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T, I, I, I WOULD SAY IN TERMS OF DIRECTION, I WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND IS LOOKING INTO THAT. OBVIOUSLY I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO GO OVERBOARD ON IT, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, BEAUTIFY OUR CITY, I, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. YES. SO, UM, I, I THINK THAT WOULD KIND OF ENCOMPASS WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, BUT YEAH. UH, CERTAINLY OPEN IT UP. YES. WE, UM, AS PART OF THE, THE RESEARCH STAFF CAN GO, UM, LOOK INTO OTHER SURROUNDING CITIES AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE AND SEE HOW, HOW IT LINES UP WITH OURS. YEAH. OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GOING AND SURVEYING A CITY THAT IS, YOU KNOW, HAVING ONGOING PROBLEMS WITH HHCD. MM-HMM . UM, I, I WOULD, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE ILL-ADVISED MM-HMM . UH, NOTWITHSTANDING MY RATHER STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT HCD AND, UH, BUREAUCRATIC OVERREACH, BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. MM-HMM . BUT THIS LAW IS PRETTY NEW TO, I MEAN, SINCE SEPTEMBER, THAT'S ONLY THREE MONTHS AGO, AND IT HAS TAKEN TO EFFECT JANUARY, WHICH IS NOW, SO IT'S RELATIVELY NEW. I'M NOT SURE IF MOST CITY HAS ALREADY ADAPTED ALL THAT. OH, EVERY CITY, EVERY CITY ALREADY HAS OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DO. MM-HMM . WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WE WANT TO INCORPORATE INTO, INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT, THAT WE'RE, UH, LOOKING TO INITIATE HERE. BUT IT'S CONSTANTLY CHANGING TOO, BECAUSE THE LAW, THE NEW LAW, THE SB 4 5 0 JUST GOT PASSED SEPTEMBER. SO WHEN THAT CHANGES, WE ALSO, OR CITY ALSO HAS TO UPDATE THE CODES OR THE OBJECTIVE RIGHT. DESIGN STANDARDS AS WELL. BUT THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR, FOR UDS ARE, ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. THIS JUST MAKES IT MORE, MORE EXPANSIVE. MM-HMM . UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL IT DOES. THE DESIGN STANDARDS LIKE THESE, THESE ARE ALREADY OUR DESIGN STANDARDS AND OTHER CITIES ALREADY HAVE THESE STANDARDS. I THINK WHAT THEY'RE TRYING, I THINK WHAT STAFF IS TRYING TO, TO GET FROM US IS DIRECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA STICK WITH THESE STANDARDS. WE WANT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, WE WANT TO LESSEN THE STANDARDS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE TO DECIDE TONIGHT ON WHAT TO, TO DO. BUT IF YOU DO HAVE, UM, SOMETHING IN MIND, UM, RIGHT NOW, THEN, THEN, UM, WE WILL TAKE NOTE OF THAT. BUT IF NOT, THEN UM, THEN WE, WE [00:40:01] CAN DECIDE ON IT AT A, AT A LATER TIME. BUT WE, BUT PER COMMISSIONER LEWIS'S DIRECTION, UM, AND SUGGESTION STAFF WILL BE LOOKING INTO OTHER CITIES ON WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE AND SEE IF, UM, BASED ON WHAT WE FIND, IF WE CAN, UM, BEEF UP WHAT WE HAVE, UM, SO THAT IT'S BENEFICIAL FOR OUR CITY. AND IF NOT, UH, THE STATE WILL CERTAINLY LET US KNOW IN A MEETING. RIGHT. I'M SORRY. AND IF ANYTHING, UH, WELL, I GUESS THE POINT I'M GONNA MAKE IS IT, IT, IT'S LOOKS DECENT TO ME. I THINK THE DIRECTION TO LOOK AT OTHER CITIES IS GOOD. UM, BUT I THINK REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS, UM, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME, I THINK, INTERACTION WITH THE STATE IN THE FUTURE THAT I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE PUNITIVE OR REALLY PUT US IN HOT WATER. 'CAUSE I THINK THEY'LL JUST TELL US FURTHER CLARIFICATION. YES. SO I, I THINK WE'LL BE SAFE IN THAT SENSE THAT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT LIFE OR DEATH IF WE GET IT WRONG HERE OR IF CORRECT, WE GO A LITTLE, LITTLE TOO, UH, STRICT AND THEN THEY SAY, HEY, NOT SO MUCH. ALRIGHT, WE'LL BACK OFF A LITTLE BIT. NO HARM, NO FOUL. CORRECT. UM, SIMILAR TO THAT IS THE, UM, I GUESS THE 800 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM THAT, THAT THEY MAY HAVE AS A LIMIT. YOU CAN'T DO THAT AS A, AS A LIMITATION. UM, THEY HAVEN'T TOLD US THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT. UM, SO I AM, I'M HOPING, UM, AND MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO KEEP IT IN PLACE, UM, UNTIL, 'CAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN CHALLENGED AND THEY HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL IT'S CHA CHALLENGED IN ANOTHER CITY AND THEN WE FIND OUT, OR IF THEY TELL US WE HAVE TO CHANGE IT DIRECTLY, SO BE IT, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PROCESS A CODE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IT. YEAH. I THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD APPROACH IS WELL, EVERYONE'S KIND OF TAKING A, A WAIT AND SEE APPROACH AND I THINK WE'LL BE IN, IN A GOOD POSITION TO GO ABOUT IT THAT WAY. MM. USUALLY THE STATE, UM, STARTS FINING AND, UM, SUING CITIES WHEN CITIES REFUSE TO COMPLY. RIGHT. AND THEY TRY TO FIGHT THEM ON IT. BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DO THAT WE TYPICALLY DO HERE. AT LEAST NOT IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS. MM-HMM . YES. THANK YOU. AND DOES ANYONE ELSE, UM, THROUGH THE CHAIR, NO ADDITIONS, DELETIONS TO THE, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS? STANDARDS? I'VE GOTTEN NONE. I THINK IT LOOKS GOOD TO ME. AND LIKE WE SAID, IF, UH, IF, IF WE COULD BE FIT UP A BID BASED ON WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING, GREAT. IF NOT, WE'LL CONTINUE TO LEARN AS WE GO ALONG. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING? ANYONE? NOPE. NONE MY COMMENTS. I WAS GONNA SAY, DO WE NEED A, DO WE NEED A MOTION AT THIS POINT? YES. OKAY. SO I'LL, I'LL MOTION TO, UH, INITIATE CODE AMENDMENT NUMBER 25 DASH OH ONE, UH, WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO STAFF TO, UH, SURVEY, UH, OTHER SURROUNDING, UH, CITIES, UM, THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UH, WITH REGARD TO, UH, THE, UH, OBJECTIVE, UH, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS OR OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES THAT OTHER CITIES HAVE, UM, SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE. UM, AND ALSO WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO MODIFY OR, UH, REDUCE SOME OF OUR OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE. OKAY. WE HAVE A I'LL SECOND THAT ROLL CALL PLEASE. JOANNE. COMMISSIONER LEWIS. AYE. COMMISSIONER CASTANOS. AYE. VICE CHAIR? BERA AYE. CHAIR HANG. AYE. MOTION PASSES. FOUR ZERO. OKAY. MOVING ON TO COMMISSION REPORTS, COMMENTS TO MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS? YOU'LL HAVE NOTHING FROM ME. DOES ANYONE WELCOME GLORIA. STAFF HAVE ANYTHING ? THAT'S MY COMMENT. I'M BACK. [COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT] OKAY. UM, MOVING ON TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS REPORT. JOAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY ITEMS TO REPORT? UM, I, UM, I ONLY HAVE ANNOUNCEMENTS. UM, ON JANUARY 20TH, UM, THERE'S GONNA BE THE A 26TH ANNUAL MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR DAY CELEBRATION. IT'S GONNA BE HELD IN THE CIVIC CENTER BETWEEN 11:00 AM TO [00:45:01] 2:00 PM UM, AND ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 24TH, UM, THERE WILL BE AN OPEN HOUSE AT THE CORTES PARK COMMUNITY CENTER AND THE SENIOR CENTER. UM, THE, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CLEANUP THAT WAS RECOMMENDED, UM, THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, IT WAS INITIALLY SCHEDULED, UM, AND NOTICED FOR THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, UM, THAT THE, UM, THAT WILL BE, UM, RESCHEDULED. AND I SENT THE NEWSPAPER, I NOTICED, UM, FOR THE FEBRUARY 18TH, UM, CITY COUNCIL MEETING INSTEAD. UM, AND I'M GOING TO BE SENDING THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACADEMY. UM, IT WILL BE HELD IN, I BELIEVE, MARCH OF THIS YEAR, AND IT WILL BE HELD UP NORTH, UM, I BELIEVE NEAR PAA ROBLES, UM, OH, I'M SORRY, SANTA ROSA. NEAR, NEAR THAT AREA, . UM, SO I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE INFORMATION ON THAT THROUGH EMAIL AND ONCE I SEND THAT INFORMATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE ME TO REGISTER YOU TO THE CONFERENCE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. MAINLY BECAUSE THEY DO, THE REGISTRATIONS DO FILL UP, UM, AND THE CITY DOES HAVE BUDGET TO, TO, UM, HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION A, ATTEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACADEMY, UM, AND PAY FOR THE FLIGHTS AND, UM, HOTEL. HMM. THANK YOU. UM, ANY CITY COUNCIL ACTION TO REPORT? JOANNE? THERE'S NOTHING TO REPORT AT THIS TIME. OKAY. UM, HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THIS, UH, MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT EIGHT O'CLOCK. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.