Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I think you can't get on. Mine's also not I can share the password with you guys. It said accepted the password, but it's just it's just rolling. The guest would like to I have to Oh, was that the guest one? That was one. Um, actually I tried to load it up another turn. Okay. Okay. Meeting comes to order. Um so welcome to the uh planning commission uh uh camel planning commission Tuesday May 13 2025. Uh if we can start with um approval of the minutes. How about we start with a roll call first? Roll call. That's that's important. Yes. Thank you. Let's start with roll call, please. Commissioner Majuski present. Commissioner Sisu here. Commissioner Stroski present. Commissioner Buck

Bender present. Commissioner Kra here. Vice Field present. Chair Camar present. Thank you for that. Or here. Okay. Um uh minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes? Okay, looks good. Uh do I I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of April 8th, 2025. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Having a second. Thank you. Having a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Mr. Wki. I. Mr. Scissor. Hi. Mr. Ostroski. Hi. Mr. Buckwender. Hi. Mr. Kra. Hi. Pastor Fields. Hi. Chair. I. Okay, that motion passes. The the minister approved. Uh, communications agenda modifications. Cam car. Commissioners, none of the above. Okay. Okay, thank you. Uh, oral communications. Uh, this portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the planning commission matters of committee concern that are not uh listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, I may limit the speakers to five minutes. Um, please be aware that state law prohibits the commission from acting on non-aggendas items. However, the chair may refer the matters to the staff for followup. Do we have anybody online? No one online. I don't see anybody in the gallery. Okay. Next one is our study session staff. Okay. I'll say a few words to start us off and then Mr. Po here will be your guide for tonight. Uh so just a few things. Uh number one is a one item agenda. So as you can see by the the heft as we used to say, not heft digitally. places have digitally. It's

it's a large item. First off, I'll give uh kudos to senior planner Daniel FMA. He's been working on this for quite some time. Once we adopted the general plan and zoning arts updates immediately knew that we would need some cleanups, push things through very fast and Daniel's been working on a lot of those cleanups over the last year. Compounded it as a couple things. The state never ends on passing new laws. So, um, part of what you have today is both miscellaneous cleanups, new state laws, and then during that time, we've just caught a number of things which Daniel will walk through where we said, well, that'd be a great thing to put into this giant omnibus miscellaneous cleaner. Um, so again, Daniel's been uh hard at work this for some time. We're very proud to get to this point. Uh, couple things about this evening. You don't have an ordinance in front of you. Uh the intent today is given the heft of how much is in here. We just wanted to socialize with you some of the concepts, ideas, and what we're doing in this document. So you weren't surprised when the ordinance actually came to you. So there's no there's no rush today to to to make a hard decision or recommendation. It's just to pull your feedback on on these items. There are things we missed, things we should have thought of. Um number one. Number two, we haven't given the fullness to the city attorney's office. Want to make sure that was disclosed. Uh so there actually might be things a city attorney would say well you might want to think twice about that part. So there could be some modifications. And then finally after all this uh there are parts of this ordinance of course touch the council community. If you're a stakeholder and a community member you would want to know if things change. So we do intend to do public outreach. So after this um going back taking your feedback with the attorneys uh we are going to do outreach to the Campbell community at large and just trying to advertise what's in here getting any feedback with that I'll hand it over to D. Can I ask a question? Please do. So after that yes then the next step would be to consolidate put in all whatever changes or updates you would

then expect and then the next time it comes back to us is on a recommendation or is it another study session? I yeah I think our plan is to bring it back for recommendation. We have a lot of loose ends that we want in feedback from you. We pivot to that. We want to get your recommendation please. Right. Thank you. Um, thank you. Before we start, are there any other general questions for Daniel before we Yeah. So, what is the schedule going to be for the subsequent elements summer in terms of scheduling? We need to have obviously the city attorney's office review the draft. It still needs to be reviewed further internally by myself and other planners. So, there's still some work to be done. So, you're kind of being brought into that whoop. So, still work in progress. Well, thank you for bringing us in early. Um, book. Um, broader question. Um, I was under the impression that we're also going to be talking about um general streamlining. Is that part of this or is that going to happen separately? I realize this is probably eating up all of staff time. So, it was originally going to be early May. Is that going to be pushed later? Yeah, three parts of that. One would be there's parts in here Daniel will walk you through that definitely to streamline our permit processes efficiencies part one part two I do intend still to come back to you with ideas on how we can change housing element programs to promote housing production I'm actually planning that for your next meeting sure that was the focus of your question commissioner duckfinder third uh we did come to you a year ago with some economic development streamlining uh incentives and you'll remember you have subcommittee on this uh we do have an economic development manager that was just hired I'm hoping he can come next meeting but probably on the work plan over the next year in the world of commercial economic development streamlining support. Okay. Correct. D quick question came to

mind just uh since so much of this is our a response to all the state laws etc. Have you run this by HCD to make sure all these things jive with them or is that not part of the process? It's not generally part of the process unless we really need clarification. also laws are more or less clear what they're trying okay they're complicated but to try to put in I got one more question about chair question okay just about how we're going to do this so we do this kind of step by step and then the question is whether I I think you know if we go all the way through and then wait for questions I don't think that's going to work so we can jump in on questions on a regular basis here. Yeah, it's been broken down into chunks, but we'll get into that right now. Okay. And my question is, is there anything that's locked in? Is there anything that's No, no, we will definitely not change that. Yes. I mean, there are certainly areas that are being mandated by state law or by very specific general plan policies and actions that are basically just have to implement. You won't change. Okay. Yeah. And again, and the report does touch on this a little bit, but this presentation is really focused on those areas where the city does have some degree of local control. So where your input actually can inform the final draft and the goal is to increase production. That's the ultimate goal. Correct. It's a goal. I mean there are many goals here. I mean the state law is increasingly complicated. You have a lot of bills. it's very difficult for the general public and the development community to truly understand what they're trying to do. So, our attempt to codify those laws into our zoning code to make them easier to understand, hopefully facilitate housing production. Okay. Thank you. With with that, um

please Thank you. Great. Okay. So, just a bit of a background. So, as we've been talking about, city is in need of responding to pretty significant volume of state housing legislation that's been ongoing for several years now. We also have a new general plan and housing element that has policies and actions which need to be implemented and also a need to advance the city's economic uh development goals. So these uh functions have been rolled into this current fiscal year's work plan for the department as well as actually last year's fiscal year work plan. So here we have an excerpt of the FY25 work plan that speaks to implementing annual code updates to comply with state laws and institute streamlining measures as well as also coordinating with the planning commission with changes to how the sign architecture review committee reviews applications. So coming out of that, the scope of this update really has four corners. Uh the biggest one is really implementing state laws and general planning housing element policies. So that's a lot of what's happening here. And then just from the practitioners perspective, there are a lot of corrections and clarifications to standards make the code easier to understand and explain to the general public, our customers. And similarly, a lot of changes for internal consistency as we're making changes to implement state laws. One change in one chapter has ramifications on another chapter. So there's a lot of just making sure everything speaks to each other and don't have new conflicts being created as part of these changes. Then lastly, a need to uh just do process improvements, clarify, streamline, just simply modernize the city's permitting requirements uh to make it uh easier to understand and simply more speed. Just to give you a sense of the scope, uh this is just kind of a broad brush of

some of the state laws, not even all the state laws that we're trying to address and this isn't even covering really the general plan or housing element policies, which are also cited in the staff report. So a lot of these laws have been adopted over the last five years and many laws have actually been adopted and modified before we've ever had a chance to adopt them. So that's basically the volume of work that we're looking today. So for tonight's meeting really again wanted to focus on those areas where the city has some degree of local authority and we're not going to cover the entire briefing book. Uh that's the point of the written material. And so in terms of format broken this up into kind of the significant discussion areas and we'll go through them one at a time questions and feedback from the commission. Uh we are recording this of course and we're now using AI tools. So we won't be doing notes. We'll use the AI to capture the audio, transcribe it, and summarize it for our retention purposes and help inform the final draft. And just a couple of uh notes and reminders. Um the briefing book is also largely disclosure doc. There's a lot of things that we're just simply acknowledging that we're doing just so that you and city council and community are aware that we're doing. And then again, the draft remains preliminary. Has not been reviewed by the city attorney's office. No further review to be done. No formal action be taken tonight. Did you ask a question? Did you say you're not taking notes and you're using AI to summarize our feedback? Yes. Make sure your mics are off. And how how long has that process been in place? About uh two months or minutes. The technology's been around. We've been piloting it. Yeah. If you have meetings, there's an AI assistant that could summarize. Yeah, I know. I know it exists. I just like have had I've had and have heard mixed results. Yes. That's why I'm asking. Yes. No, I'll say this. Uh two things. We've been piloting

on a couple fronts. Ken actually uses to help uh assemble the PL commission minutes, but at the end of any finished products, we'll have human hands, quality control, and quality assistance. It's for an initial sum. Yeah. So, the presentation today will have basically nine sections. So most of this is housing focused. So you'll see one through six. We'll go through those. And then there are a couple of non-residential topics including commercial streamlining and the sign architect review thresholds which I suppose is also a form of streamlining. And then kind of a list of other discussion items that aren't on the agenda, but if there's any desire for the commission to discuss them or if you have questions about them, we'll do our best. But uh those are kind of optional items. Where's number seven on the list? Oh, what happened? Number seven. Apologies. The numbering came off. Okay. All right. Okay. So, we'll start with probably one of the most significant laws of late. So, I'll preface this that a lot of state housing legislation comes with a number of labor requirements which we hear from the development community really limit the ability for those laws to be fully exercised. SP9 is not one of those and SP 684 that have been adopted in 2023. And then the update SB123 also does not have any labor requirements. So, that makes the law much easier, more accessible for the development community to use it. So we're anticipating seeing a lot more activity at this smaller scale. You said it doesn't have any what? Labor requirements. Yeah. There's no requirement for union labor. Oh, I see. So that often is an impediment for a lot of development applications. I see. Why state laws have not been as effective as many of 684 does have does

not. So this law allows for 10 unit subdivision projects up to 10 units. So these can take the form of single family homes, small lot single family homes or condos or town homes. Uh for a city of our size, this is kind of the bread and butter of a lot of the smalltime developers. So again, we are anticipating a lot of activity in this area. SP 1123 made some significant changes to the law that likely will make it much more useful. It now opens its um provisions to vacant single family residential parcels. That's new. Uh previously it was only applicable to multif family residential sites. Uh there is some question of what truly constitutes vacant. Uh clearly if you go out there and there's not a house on the property, that's clearly vacant. But there's been some question in the planning community. If a homeowner just decides to demolish their house and render their site vacant, is it vacant? So the staff report actually is posing the question to the commission if the city should actually be a bit more progressive. If a project proposes to demolish that house and functionally makes it vacant, should the city simply treat it as vacant and thereby making the project eligible for development under the law? That's uh kind of the first commission input question. Then just in terms of how the law has been amended under SB123 under the previous iteration, you had to either provide the minimum number of units that are identified by the housing element if your property is an opportunity site which is several or you had to satisfy the maximum density of the city's general plan. Apparently, that's been a challenge for a lot of these properties because it's actually resulted in too many units needing to be built, undermining the building allowed to functionally work. So, with SB123, that's been brought down

to only 66% of the maximum, which means that it's likely a lot more projects will fall within the feasibility zone of under 10 and within construction economic feasibility. So, I have a question at this point. Um, so in our zoning there is usually a range. We don't say we can only build let's say 23 units per acre in the zoning. We say between that like 18 to 20. So this does that 66% apply to the to the maximum number? It does apply to the maximum number. Well, if it does then what if it falls inside that existing range? That means it's not really helping, right? The the law supersedes the city's density ranges. It benchmarks against the maximum density range. So you need to now under the new law at least hit 66% of the maximum or 66% of the mullen density. Uh the mullen density is basically the state's methodology for determining density. It's 30 units per acre. So 66% of that is just shy of 20, right? So either 20 or 66 of the general plan maximum whichever is greater. So your project with a number of units up to 10 needs to fall within that range. So um in terms of commission feedback, the first question really up is how expansive does the city and the commission want to be in using this law to have single family development occur. So we want to be have maximum approach really require allow developers to consider a property to be vacant if they're proposing to demolish the structure. Now, this has a benefit of preempting people from or discouraging people from preempt demolishing a house and then the project falls apart and now you have this vacant lot in the neighborhood. This way, that house only really gets demolished when there's an

actual project on the books that built. Now, the law doesn't require us to do that. That would be taken an extra step. And then in terms of development standards, this law also severely restrains the city's ability to impose development standards such that the mo most of our standards really don't apply. And the city is also limited to imposing a maximum setback of 4 feet to side and rear property lines. So now that's up to four feet. Uh historically the city has always just used four feet as a benchmark but the city could say that less than four feet is okay under certain circumstances. Uh the city could also consider reduction of the minimum lot sizes. Now the law has minimum lot sizes that apply separately to multif family properties 600 square feet and single family properties which is 1,200 square feet. So if you reduce the single family lot size below 1,200 square feet of course you could allow more units. Again we don't have to do that. And then additionally the law also allows the city to prohibit ADUs and J projects if we so choose to do so. We don't have to. We can allow ADUs and J. So the law does provide some decision points for the city to consider. So so so you said we cannot prohibit. We can prohibit ad use and jus if we wish currently the city we adopted an interim ordinance last year and we are currently prohibiting ads and j but we do not have to do that. So I guess the question for the commission on really all four questions is how permissive uh do you want the local implementation of this law to be that if you have any questions have your discussion. So, does does anybody want to start, you know? Uh,

yeah. Um, you want to start, Adam? Sure. So, I realize this is not our our big house housing streamlining discussion, but I think this is really relevant to that. Um, I am really in favor of treating sites as vacant. It seems like it's pretty much no downside to doing that. um as you point out like you can by the law demolish a house and then say hey it's vacant and then do this that just adds uncertainty and we can wind up with vacant lots and it doesn't really help anybody. It seems like a straightforwardly good idea to allow the site to be considered vacant for for that purpose. Um I think it's reasonable to reduce the minimum lot size. I don't know what the right numbers would be but if it makes things feasible good. Um definitely it I would be in favor of allowing ADUs and JUS on the lot. Um I think um like the one really successful housing policy the state has had in the last 10 years has been ADUs. And the reason why it's been so successful is that you can go to the counter, get an approval, and somebody will build one for you. It's very scalable like that. It doesn't go through some kind of discretionary process. it doesn't have labor requirements or this or that on top of it. And as if we want to get more production, we want to get production out of this, we have to make this, I think, as close to that kind of process as possible. If we have a process that works, we make this similar to that process, I think it'll work. Okay, thank you. Um, Mike, you want to go ahead? Uh, sure. Yeah, but I got a bunch of pester on this because I'm I'm really pretty confused on it and I know a lot of uh Okay, stiger homes up to 10 naturally affordable smaller homes and multif

family zones, but also in single family zones that are there a lot of are there a lot of lots in Campbell right now, vacant lots that would qualify on single family side? Yeah, single family. Not very many. Very few. But under the law of end, so anybody that wants to rebuild their the old house, they're going to tear it down. They're going to rebuild something there. So they can tear down their house on a single family lot. Let's say your your conventional 6,000 7,000 foot lot. You tear down the house and if you say that's now that's vacant. Now you can. So what are the practical uh so can anybody then build I guess I'm asking can anybody tear down a house on a regular on our typical size single family lot and then build 10 units on up to 10 up to 10. It depends on the minimum lot size. Well I mean if you have a 6,000 foot lot but with only 1,200 square foot minimum lot size. That's one. Yeah, that so that's a limiting factor of course and the legislature did clearly intend for single family to be less intensive than the multif family variant but the law is very clear that the city can adopt a lower amendment lot size if you choose to do so. Okay. So so uh let's say it's 12 let's say we keep it at 1200 and I don't know what our typical my lot's 6,000 square feet. Yeah. All my all my neighbors pretty much that. So what's 1,200? What's it that's? That's five units. So right now you can split the lot and we already put four units on there. Well, right. Yeah. So right now you can do an SP9. Split a lot and have two units on each lot. Yeah. This is a supercharged SP9 in some way, you know. Um uh realistically though, you got to have setback. You got to have access driveway. Oh yeah, that's why I'm asking the question. I'm just

trying to get an idea. And I will also point out it's not on the slide. um as compared to SB9, there's actually an upper limit to the average living area of these homes. The state legislator is also recognizing that for these homes to be affordable, they can't be McMansions. So these units can only be up to 1,750 square feet average of living area. Okay, excluding garage average living area across the unit. So that's a natural limit number of units. Okay. Which will largely mean most likely this would take the form of town homes all within that range. Okay. So I guess basically this law uh if we if we count every vacant lot once the house is known as vacant. So this law would allow town homes on on any single family lot. Yes. And that's is that what that's what the state wanted and that's what cities are doing and well I mean to find the you know the the wisdom of the state here but yeah their intent was vacant single family properties. There has been a lot of discussion internally again in the planning community if really what that meant. Is it undermining the intent of the law to allow people to preemptively demolish the house to make it viable? But the law is unclear at this point. Well it seems like it is undermining it. On the other hand, we don't have any vacant lots, so we're not going to get any housing. Yeah. Hence your discussion. Yeah. Yeah. Well, what do we want to get out of this? Right. We want to get more housing, but I I think if we're going to Campbell says tomorrow, okay, we just allowed this so anybody can tear down our house and put up five or six town homeowns. You know, you got to have an outcry as you can imagine because, you know, we haven't really prepped people for that kind of and this is an area that will certainly be in the public outreach. Yeah, density is our is our destin. I mean, there's no doubt about it. We need

higher density, but uh yeah, I think when you just look at this, you know, I think it's it's uh a little scary, I guess, for for I'm speaking from my con. I'm a single family homeowner. you know, I and I got there from that point of view was kind of where I'm where I'm where I'm coming from. Although I'm a huge certainly see a huge need for more housing. Campbell's got to do it and we got to get going on this stuff. Uh just want to throw out there that I lived in a town home the footprint of which is I believe under 1,200 square feet and the living rolling area is about 1750 square feet. I promise it's not that scary. smaller than that. That's not the question. Adam, I Adam, I didn't catch your comments. Oh, I'm just saying like I I understand that people are complain about any kind of change, but like I I literally live in a town home that is that would fit in that envelope. It's on a parcel that's less than,200 square feet and the dwelling area is less than 1750 square feet. And like it's I guess it's off of Union so it's in the dense part of town but it's not you know it's not 75 ft high or something. Yeah. It's not the square foot. I live in a single family home. It's smaller smaller than your town home. So uh I don't know what you're saying but uh I guess I'm just trying to to wrap my head around it. You know that just changes changes a lot of things. Uh so I don't know. Yeah. You know, I don't know if I would be uh I have to think about this one. Have to wrap my head around it. Uh so because we have so many items to go through. Yeah. Well, I don't want to take too much time and let me just go into question just real quick. So, you know, treat it as vacant. You know, I think in some lots it would

work and in some others it wouldn't. So, I don't know. I don't have an easy answer for that. In terms of the setbacks, you know, four feet and I know, you know, why do we have setbacks? you know, there's reasons for it. Uh I think you said in the report something about maybe in some cases if if there's a residential next to commercial, I think there are certain cases where we could do less than four feet, but I think in general I think four feet is you know it it you know it lessens it makes everything look nicer. There's a chance for landscaping. There's some privacy. There's uh you know fire issues, fire hazard issues. So, I think there's a lot of good reasons for uh keeping a setback and four feet is certainly the minimum minimum. So, I think that's fine. Uh reduce the square foot size below 1,200. I Yeah, I think that's a I think that's a way to get more units, more affordable units, reducing the square foot minimum below 1,200. Again, and this is applicable to single family. Yeah. And I think that I think we can do that. I don't know why not. And you know 80 years again I think in some cases I hate to say it some cases good some cases not you know you almost have to pin down a little bit more where we would allow. So that's my two cents for now. Thank you. Thank you so much. Um would you like to go? Yeah I I have a couple questions. Okay. Um clarifications. Um, so I just want to make sure I understand, um, whether it's a 6,000 square foot single family plot or it's an 8,000 or 12,000, whatever. We've got a neighborhood, it's all single family homes that are R1, R16's, R18s or whatever. Okay? And and say it's an 8,000 square foot. It's 60 by uh 120, 130. Okay? So, and it's right in the middle of a single family home residential area. So, the owner of that property or somebody could come in, I

assume, and buy it and put in an application, assuming we don't let the dem demolition go for an application, which I would think is the right thing to do. Um, and they can in the middle of that neighborhood put up four, six, or eight, whatever they can fit in there. Is that what we're saying can happen? Yes. That was one of the more significant changes of SP123. Okay. So, I just want to be clear that's what that is. You know, I have no to fight. I I I lived in an apartment. So, I used to have a house in a single family neighborhood, so I understand. So, I just think it it's important to clarify that this can happen in the middle of single family neighborhoods, okay? That it could be more than a lot split where you end up with two, you know, four four places. It could be six or eight places in the middle on each side with single family homes. So, uh I just wanted to be sure I understood that. Um I'm I'm opposed to the demolition of dwelling without it having an application. Okay. Uh that that seems we don't want empty lots. Um the uh the setbacks I'm I'm I I suppose there are circumstances where it's next to a commercial wall and that it would be okay. But I um I suppose that would be okay. But, you know, I kind of like the idea like Commissioner Craig says, it's like keep keep the setbacks. Um, the the question of lot size. So, I want to get an understanding of the,200 foot. So, I'm thinking specifically of the Union Avenue development down there by McGuny. I don't know if you're familiar with that. Eight units, seven, eight units,

something like that on a single on a single par. Yeah, that's actually a good example of what you'd see under this law. Okay. So, are those under 1,200? So, the question about is there's a driveway, right? So, are the are the lot sizes excluding the driveway? It's a good question. Um, and how do we know how big those lots are? They're pretty small. I think that one was about 8,000 square feet. I mean, I mean the individual difference units. I didn't look at that one. I actually did look at the recent Latimer Avenue project and those were in the 900 square foot range. Okay. So, it's not a unusual for it to be under 1,200 square feet. Yeah. At the town home scale, that's probably fair. Yeah. For the threetory town home. I mean, some of these really tight town homes are functionally the footprint of a tandem parking garage. That's basically the bottom. So, it can get pretty small. That's the extreme. That's the extreme, but that's I mean feasibly it can get that tiny. Yeah. And and a lot and a lot of these that we've done are it seems to me they're they're under 1,200 square feet that some of these we've done. I'm thinking of the one off of Winchester where we was two parcels but we got six units in uh it's right down the street from Campbell. I forget the name of the street. Sunny Sunnyside or Sunnyale, whatever the street is. Sunnyside. Sunnyside. So, so it seems to me that's not uncommon when they put up the threestory things that it could be under 1,200 square feet fairly commonly. Would that make sense? Yeah. Which is why reducing it from 1,200 square feet to something lower would make the law even more usable in single family neighborhoods. Well, it would it would make the law more usable in terms of putting more units in. Yes. Okay. So, if we constrain them to,200 square feet, then we're constraining the number of units. Yes.

Okay. Now, to your question about what is included in the lot size, that's a it's a good question. The law historically in our practice has been if you do a town home development, you have to create a homeowners association and you put the common driveway, common landscaping, and a common lot that's separate from the main lots. This law prohibits us from doing that because the um HOAs and the cost of CCNRs are seen by the state as an impediment to housing production. So it is actually conceivable for a development to be created in such a manner that there's actually no common area so that that common driveway is actually an easement across the lot and you have reciprocal agreements preempting the need for an HOA or CCNRs theoretically reducing their overall cost of the project to be built. So that number could or could not include common areas depending on how the developer proposes the subdivision. Okay. So so my only other comment then would be um um comment on the other ones is that I would tend to if we go under 12 I would still want to constrain it somewhat. I I I think if you constrain it, I I'd be happy with 1,200, but if other commissioners think, well, we could go to a thousand or whatever. Um I I you know, I I wouldn't jump. The the the problem I see is that if you reduce it, you end up stuffing more units in what could be a single family home neighborhood. And and um I'm assuming there's no limit to on a street doing this, but then the guy down the street can do it. Correct. Okay. Or across the street. Okay. Uh

just in terms of your question on the union, uh Lissa is telling me that the lots were 87 square feet. Thank you. Thank you so much. home. Um, yeah. I'm wondering, I guess what are the potential downsides of like why would we not want to allow ADUs or JADs? What would be the concerns with that? Well, I mean, you just have more development within the sites. Um, crowded. It's unclear if the 80 square footage is included in the average maximum loud of 1750. If we ask HCD, they'll probably say no. And so, one could argue that allowing a town home with this ADU, that's actually going to result in a more expensive product because now you have ADU. Of course, it's offset by the ability of the homeowner to rent the ADU, but there's not necessarily a clear tradeoff. So, so I'm sorry, I didn't me comment on the AD. So, the uh Excuse me. So, the Jedu would be attached, right? That's what a junior ADU is. It's part of the uh a Jedu is like um theoretically theoretically a Jedu can have a bathroom shared with the house. Okay. But it isn't part of the house. It is part of the house. Okay. So it is attached. Yes. Okay. But ADU can be attached as well. Well, it can be attached but but it also could be detached, right? So, so in theory, I guess I'm trying to envision the JDUs and ADUs in this kind of circumstance where it's like you got 1,700 square feet and then a portion of that is going to be a 600 J 600 square foot JDU. I mean, is that what we're talking about? Or is is

there a back portion of lot where they would put a couple ADUs in? Well, I think it's probably most likely in my opinion the ADU square footage would be additive to the 1750. Again, that's probably unclear still, but generally when the state when HD weighs in on those questions, they tend to be more permissive, but I suspect most likely you won't really have developers grading the ADUs. It would simply allow homeowners in the future to convert garages to ADUs, which they otherwise could not do. I'm sorry. Um, and then as far as like the setback, I guess I'm just picturing like places that are super crowded and there's no air flow or light coming through, but I think in certain circumstances, you know, it makes sense like parcels. But yeah, that was my main question. helps my Thank you. Um yes. So in terms of the questions um and our input so should we treat single family residence sites as vacant meaning that we would um allow them to be demolished when an application comes in. I think I support that because I think that if a house gets uh demolished preemptively then we might end up with a vacant lot for a long time and that's the opposite of what we want. We want to promote building housing. Um I think having a 4 foot setback is reasonable. having less than a 4 foot setback. In certain cases, I'm in favor of um in certain situations where it's adjacent to a commercial building um it's

adjacent to let's say a sidewalk on a corner lot um or some other non single family property line. Um in terms of reducing the square foot minimum lot size, I agree with you know what some of the other concerns said. Um, it does make sense to reduce the square footage. Um, I think based on what I've heard here from developers, the developers do a nice job of looking at the property, like looking at the need of the market and then designing the right product that's going to meet the kind of intersection of what the community can handle in that lot and what it what is marketable. Um, you know, and we've seen examples where developers have said, well, we we don't want to build to the maximum because that's just not going to be commercially viable for us. We think this is a better product at a lower density. But I think it's important to give them that option of what it is that's going to work in that in that market on that lot. Um, so having flexibility in terms of a uh a lower minimum lot size makes sense to me. As far as allowing ADUs and and NJUS, um I that also um I'm supportive of because it just provides more flexibility in terms of the housing stock and I know in some of some of our code basically um you know they've the developers are allowed to make kind of ADUJ ready units where it also just allows flexibility for for the new owners. owner to either um use the property as it is or rent out a part of it if they're actually not using that space for their own purposes. And that again allows just flexibility

for you know the community um and provides more and additional um housing opportunities and additional types of housing opportunities. And I think with our housing element, we did a great job of, you know, out outlining allocating where we want to have this much higher density, designated those sites, but they really were on the very high density side next to, you know, ma main corridors, main transportation corridors. And then this is looking at, you know, how do we evolve the rest of the Thank you for those comments. Question, uh, do staff for like the planning community think there's going to be a lot of housing generated through like this in the city of Candle. I mean, historically, we have had a lot of projects in this scale under the former planet zone. So when I first started 17 years ago, 18 years ago, uh there was a lot more of this, but currently too, I mean, we're seeing the economics of the current time are making it challenging for anything that's higher density. So this is likely to be expressed as town homes, which are still penciling, albeit at a smaller scale. So I'll add this. I attended the ULI housing debate conference. I go every year and with a bunch of real estate developers testing the market and there was as you know and I've reported out a lot of doom and gloom on the high density housing market uh even more now with tariffs wherever they are labor market uh but they did have at least two sessions that said developers are pivoting to echo Daniel's point into I'll just say broadly this missing mill category that could be anything from town homes to small stacked flats. So I heard a lot of chatter at that

conference recently about f people focusing in this area. That's what pencils at this point. What about height? I know we have several different height restrictions in the city. Interestingly the law requires us to grant deviations from development standards under certain circumstances. But SP1 1123 actually created a carveout. So we can actually still impose our height requirements. So that's something the city can impose and those are established by the MFTDS. So that can be in some areas two and a half stories, others it's three stories or more. But in the single family neighborhoods it would be two and a half stories. Um what about the the area like the Santa Moss area? Uh that would be two and a half stories as well. And what about Campbell Village? Two and a half. So is that is that something that can be changed? Uh yes. I mean you could grant more heights. Yeah. Okay. Um uh are you I would just I feel more strongly I would just leave the setbacks alone. Uh especially thinking of multiple houses next to each other. I think if staff wants to come back with a recommendation about like a specific case in which you want to do a carveout, great. But like otherwise I that one I wouldn't mess with. But I feel like we're kind of coalescing around our recommendations on the rest. Just highlighting that's something the law allows and it's up to four feet. Sure. I mean I think you're right. Practically speaking if you want to have windows you need to have a setback. So yeah, I live in a neighborhood that's all zero lot lines. So we don't have a setback on each side and it's incredibly annoying. It makes maintenance weird and painting and I I like it. As a as a question. So two things. one, I I'm pretty sure that you cannot have a detached JADU by definition. They have to be attached.

Um, and second, if you have a zero side setback, does that mean you can build town homes and like that? That's essentially Well, we're actually talking about the the law the law precludes setback requirements of the new property lines. So, what we're actually talking about are setbacks from the existing property lines, which is to say perimeter property. Oh, around the outside. Around the outside. Yeah. So this would be can you smush together a bunch of these to make a very long set of town homes for example. Yeah. I mean do you want that new building bumping right against shared property line the neighboring property or I suppose as commissioner Strausski alluded to against the public sidewalk. I can understand not wanting a zero setback with a public sidewalk but I can also understand wanting to allow a joining like a a longer set of problems. It might be awkward to have like alleys in between if you have a a series of these these properties being made to something like we have on Railway Avenue. I can see roadside, but like I think there are instances where we would not want to require this. I think I meant outside of the lot setbacks. I wasn't attempting to say interior setbacks, but more if somebody comes, they does do a new project, there will be a 4 foot setback from like the perimeter room. Yeah. Yeah, I I hear you. Yeah. Um and I think I think you mentioned that there's a project like this that wound up with an average lot size of something like 817 square feet. Was it? Uh yes, the 523 Union project that had lot size is about 800. True. Yeah. And that kind of fits into the it's not you know terribly scary. Ideally we would not take I think something like five years to um get that settled. um I think

as a benchmark that seems it's reasonable to set the minimum lot size lower than 1,200 square feet to make that work whether it's all the way to 600 which is what we would which is what we have for multif family lots or just something like 800 which is clearly something that made a feasible setup I'd be in favor of that Daniel do you know in Campbell has uh the imposition of 4 foot setbacks. Has that has that blocked any projects from going forward? That been a big hindrance? No, I mean that's the state has kind of settled that four feet being the appropriate setback for ADUs and SB9. It's just the law says up to four feet. So, it's just acknowledging that it's an area where the city does have some discretion. Just wonder. Thank you. Can I ask one more quick? No, actually we are uh we are going to be running out of time. Yes, I have questions and and and we're running out of time. There's like nine of these that you know I've been actually I don't I don't This is a really big one. Is it? It is a big one. Okay. Go ahead. So, um Thank you. So, um, uh, my, uh, my issues are, if you look at SB9 and how that got implemented when it first came out, everybody was still afraid like, "Oh my god, there goes my neighborhood. It's not going to happen." And if you look at in city of Campbell, how many of those actually happened? I think it's probably can counted on your two hands, right? Or very close to it. We'll get to that next, but there are reasons for that that will change. Right. Right. But but but what I'm trying to say is that, you know, it's not just like, oh, I have a lot that cut it in the middle. It's not that simple. Do you if you have a property you want to demolish, you might have a mortgage on it. The bank isn't okay with you demolishing it. You

know, there's where's my security. So, there's a whole bunch more into this that happens than just I don't want you to get rid of. There's so much more. And so, um, to give you my feedback, I, um, uh, for the SB684, you know, uh, I agree with Mackie and and some of my other commissioners that, yes, when they come in with an application, then it's okay to demolish, you know, and use the 684, not demolish first and then, you know, try to make it. So, provide options. I think that's my key word. If you said give me three word answer provide options to developers forward forward uh requires for the requirement for the minimum density. Yes, absolutely. You know, again, you provide options, they give you good products. You don't provide them options, they give you bad, you know, products. Um, treat single family sites as vacant. Okay. So, I already addressed that. Um, the four feeds, I think four feet is a good um is a good uh number, but in certain cases it may make sense to go slow, smaller, you know. So um again I would opt for giving the option um to the developer lots below 1,200 you know just like we've seen with the Union Avenue I would be in favor of lowering it you know um and uh I can't read the last one a lot JD for uh yes I would say let's let's provide that option as well and um I think when we have the freedom to innovate and we have freedom to come up with good designs then the community

will um will benefit you know and I think that's what happened to Silicon Valley provided the environment and it flourished you know so got to do this with with the you know you had one more item and yeah I just changed mine because I'll get to the other item later but on the on the Jesus ids would it be reasonable to restrict the number rather than one to one to say if it's an 8 unit thing that there could be two two ADUs or jadeds. Haven't we done that in the past where there was some kind of restriction on on how many of the units in in in this kind of configuration? I'm not sure. But would that be a reasonable thing to say, well, you got eight units and you're going to have every single one of them as a JA. to you seems like a lot. Could would it be reasonable to consider restricting a percentage of the units saying 25% or or or 40% of the units can can have a JDU or AD. I mean that's not something that's crazy. That's not crazy. It's just that the law the laws have a lot of gaps. There's a lots lots of questions that get asked of our staff and a lot of times we simply don't have good answers because no one's ever asked the question yet. And that's one of those it's unclear if we allow adus if we have to allow them to the fullest extent required by the law or there's some middle ground. Again ACD when ask questions tends to be more you know aggressive in the reading of state law. Ken I think a project came before us but that was involuntarily they were doing it. They had eight units and two of them had eight use but that wasn't the requirement. Okay, next slide. Thank you. Okay, moving on to uh urban lots splits

uh single family residential subdivision standards. So you're all aware of SB9. Uh the city's implementation of SP9 back in 2021. It reflected the the thinking at the time where it was necessary for it was necessary in staff's opinion to understand the relationship of a subdivision relative to the new homes that were going to be anticipated for those new lots. So we required that if you wanted to use SB9, you had to come in with both your proposal to subdivide the properties and build the new homes with at least two units per new lot. So we could see the full buildout of most two units. Not at least. No, we well at most I mean at least we we require people to show us two lot two units per new lot because the law allowed up to two units per lot. So we wanted to double check that the full buildout was completely feasible. Now that did create kind of high bar to entry because you couldn't simply subdivide the land. you had to actually hire the architect, hire the civil engineer, and plan out a whole project, which is why we only have 15 or so of these projects approved. SP450 is a pretty significant change to SB9. It require it does not allow us to impose any special standards on SB9 projects that we otherwise do not impose on performing subdivisions. So we don't do this with normal subdivisions, but normal subdivisions, you can just come in and subdivide the land and sell it off, which is now how we have to treat urban lot splits under the law. So now SP9 subdivisions are just simple land divisions. Literally just a piece of paper. I'm going to draw a line and then those lots can be sold out to whoever wants to build it. They don't have to go through an elaborate planning process if they don't want to. So that it does make it a lot easier to

simply subdivide because the law also requires us to impose uniform standards because again we can't treat SB9 projects special. We have to treat them in the same manner as we treat any other conforming subdivision. We need to now impose standards across both arenas. Both traditional subdivisions and SB9 subdivisions need to be subject to the same rules. Currently, our traditional subdivisions don't really have a lot of rules. You have minimum lot size, width, it's basically it. So, you can create all sorts of crazy geometric shapes. Uh that creates a lot of logistical challenges. Now, we have solved that under our current SB9 ordinance by creating this concept of regular lots. So, in order to subdivide a property, you had to create a traditionally shaped lot such as a pie shape, a corner lot, a flag lot, a key lot. It just couldn't be, you know, a starfish. You had to have something that actually made logical sense. And so, that's what we've been imposing on SP9 projects. And the draft takes that concept and expands it citywide to all single family subdivisions irrespective if they exercise SB450 or they want to go through just a normal discretionary subdivision process. It's now the same set of rules. So it's kind of deploying set of standards that we've already used now just uniformly applied. Now, u in terms of the procedural side, traditional single family subdivisions are subject to a two-step mapping process. You go for a tentative map and then a final map. And so that would now be applied to urban law splits under law, albeit the tenative map is ministerial, but then you'll have your final map following that. That also

makes it a bit easier because the tenative map doesn't have the same degree of detail as the final map. So you can come in and get your approval faster and be able to show your lender, I have city approval. You can take the next step to record your final amount. So the idea there is just make it faster for these projects to be approved on paper. Then um city as a law allows currently limits the new lots created from an urban lot split to a total of two units per lot. Now, that's inclusive of either two main homes or one main house and 180. We don't have to do that. So, we could simply treat the new lots under an urban lot split as we do any other lot. You can have your main house and however many ADUs that you are allowed under the law. So, we can kind of flatten the standards. So really most of this is um fairly baked into the ordinance. The big question here is the commission's um desire to allow ADUs on lots resulting from an urban lot which again currently not allowed but would allow more than two units per new lot. I have one suggestion because there's a lot of questions. What if we did a straw poll on approval and then we talk from there but just sort of start by seeing where the commissions at? That's a great idea. I I like that too. I I actually have a maybe want to take a step back on this and ask a question. Yeah. Um, so when we did that, when we had the discussion of imposing the regular lots, I guess I don't really see what the value of that is in terms of

creating more units because right now, like we said, hardly any lots are vacant. So, there's already a property there. And if the rest of the area that it hasn't been built out once, you know, if the if the owner wants to create another lot and build another unit to create that unit, that housing unit, then I imagine that in more cases than not, it's not going to be a regular lot. It's going to be like a flag lot or a triangle or wherever the house is not. So maybe there's a pool and that pool gets filled in and then that's the area that makes the most sense to do a split and build another unit. So I don't understand why we just talked in the last topic about being less restrictive. I don't understand why we're being more restrictive in this case. their observation. I mean the concept of subdivision and why cities regulate subdivision is to have kind of regular order of land so that you don't have kind of a chaotic relationship between lots and historically because the city was able to exercise a discretionary review process we could be more permissive dealing with kind of sight specific factors the type that you've highlighted and perhaps sometimes that's okay and sometimes it's not okay and in circumstances where it may have been on the margin, city could impose some sort of condition of approval to kind of alleviate any potential impact. The challenge with objective standards is that we can't exercise that degree of oversight. A project either complies or it doesn't. And in this arena, this has

really been the best way, as far as we can tell, to create an objective standard for subdivision. The alternative would functionally be no standards. Yeah. But but I mean we already have so many other standards like we have height, we have setbacks, we have floor area ratio which is a a percentage of the lot and we have uh the other one which is the lot coverage. And all of those things set a maximum on how big or how intrusive a property can really be. So if you have like the back third of your property and you want to subdivide it, it's a small lot size. So that unit is going to be correspondingly small. It's just how the ratios work based on the existing uh standards that we already have. And if I can chime in as a civil engineer who practices this for my clients, I help them draw the lines. The more lines you have, the more area you lose because the more setback you're subject to for that line. If the line is not straight, you end up losing more land due to setback. So, so ideally the developer or the homeowner, they don't want additional lines either. But sometimes to his point, you need to you and I will actually add that reminds me of setbacks. The the challenging thing is with regular locks, it's fairly straightforward to identify where the front is, where the side is, or the back is. Once you start getting with irregular locks, it becomes exceedingly difficult to actually say which line is actually the the rear or the side or if it's curved and multi-segmented. When

does a side become a rear and what setback? The setbacks are the same side and rear. So matter as you get to the street side and corners it does get more challenging. I mean again I'm not there are there are certainly tradeoffs but it's really either a decision between having some objective standards which I'll be will make it difficult for some properties to be subdivided or really having no standards governing the shape of a lot. Again, we can still govern the width, which we do, and SP9, SP450 somewhat govern the lot size. Minimum, it's 1,200 square feet, but you know, the relationship between the existing lot has to be at least 60 40%. So, you couldn't chop off just a quarter of the lot. Yeah, you could you you could limit how many lines they could use so that it doesn't become a starfish. You could say, you know, ideally you can do it with one line. Flag light is use two lines, but no more than, let's say, three or four lines, you know, just to make sure it doesn't really get cut up. But with that um I really like the suggestion vice chair gave and commander agreed to I agree to that too is to collectively we come up with a um with a response to his question as to do we want to is everybody okay with that or yeah but I do have a couple questions before I can even Okay, just real quick. So I'm just sorry I'm just trying to get trying to understand this stuff. It's so complex. If you're not a developer, this is stuff developers. It's complex any for developers. But I I so I can't remember you if SP9 SB450 450 you split a lot. Can you can you sell that lot separately? Separate owners. Yes. And then I don't what's our what's the typical size of our single family

housing lots in Campbell? Is it 6,000 7,000 7,000? But there are bigger 8,000 foot lots. There are 12,000 square foot. Yeah, I know. I'm just trying to get Yeah, I I know for the newer for the for the regular track developments, they're 60 by 100, right? But there's places because of Santaas where it was county, they either go to 120 or they go to country lots which were 200 feet, 200 feet deep. Okay. So, we have some big lots. Well, I know we do. Okay. So, I only think that that's p personally where the stuff is applicable is when people have big lots. Okay. Or people have half halfacre lots. But but I I guess I I'll put in my vote in terms of I think we could allow ADUs if there was a limit to an ADU saying one or two a J AU and an ADU or or one ADU on top of a of a single family home. It's like allow ADUs but restrict the number of ADUs. That would be my Do we do we think uh Daniel Rob because you were just mentioning how the the sweet spot for developers if you do a lot split on a on a on a regular lot here and instead of being able to put four units on there you can put six units on there. Would that make a would that make a project as far as you know pencil out better and result in more development? Can you make them general state? I mean, most of the SB9 projects we've seen have been a main house with a they basically stuck and to two units and even then some developers didn't really want to do two units in each lot. Um, we kind of compelled that they at least show that. But I mean, the benefit of this law over say the prior

one is that there are no size constraints. Here you can actually have a larger house 3 4,000t house that's at a different market. Wow. Okay. So, so how many ADUs would you say would would do we want to recommend maximum number of ADUs? J AUS research. If we allow ADUs, can we actually limit them? That's probably I think an open question a little bit. I mean, right now under the current zoning, if you have a house, you can have an ADU and you can have a J AU. I think you have three, right? Two ADUs. And honestly, it's a it's a little bit of an open question with the state. There's actually an upper limit on the number of ADUs you can have. Yeah. But but but ADUs, I think by right you can have two ADUs. One is called a state state something state. Yeah. the state exempt ADU that's clearly have one and then regular you know right now as the law stands you have that already well again but we've had some correspondence with with HCD it's a little unclear at the moment if there's actually an upper limit on the regular oh I see so so it may be more yes okay well I would say if we can limit him I would limit him to yeah we can certainly look into That's that's my personal take. I I would take the opposite position. It's the one one housing program which has been unqualified success. I would not put limits on it if we can avoid doing that. Well, we'll find out if we can and then we'll talk about Yeah, if we can. My words would be we should allow it. We should allow ADUs. We should allow agree with that. We should allow ADUs because it's housing stock all time. Yeah. Okay.

How many how many of you would support unlimited number of ADUs? Um if if it's allowed one, two, three, four, five. And I guess so the vote is 5 to two. I I still think we should take another look at this regular law question though. You mean as far as how to cut it up? Yeah. Like whether we really want to have these restrictions on how we have I mean I think the PD program worked quite well. And I don't really I think we're worried about something that's not going to happen. A starfish lot is not going to happen. To your point, it also would restrict the size of the unit. It would be much smaller. I think this is an area where we just need to like let the market determine what makes sense on the land that remains. I hear another straw poll. Okay. Sure. So, how many of you would support not having a a limit on how to cut up the land? How to cut up the land? Um, how many lats you can create? No, no, no. How to cut it up? Meaning that it doesn't have to be standard lots. It doesn't have to be standard. It could be, you know, basically allows the owner to like look at what's the buildable land and then make the best use of the land that's not the house. That makes sense to me. Uh so, um I I really don't understand where that comes into effect. I I don't understand where practically speaking making an odd lot. Sometimes you got tree in the way. Sometimes you can't go through the tree. Sometimes you have an existing garage that you don't want to demolish. You don't want to go through the garage. So for those reasons, you can meander, you know, um so that you both

get what if you have your house and you have an ADU on the back right side and you're like, "Okay, I could sell off the back left side of my property and you know, someone can build a little unit back there." But that's not meandering. That's just cutting Well, but that's not a regular If you can make 40, if you can make the 40%. You wouldn't be able to do it. Yeah. Some sometimes you can right now the rule is so restrictive, but you want them to like just to get to the 40%, you want them to meander down the side and everything so you can make the 40%. That's mean I think that we should not have the 40% either. So that's that's a state law. That's state law. We can't change. It has to be 40%. Yeah. So it makes it even harder. And I think that's probably even more reason to to not have a regular lot restriction. I will give an example of why it can be necessary to have this type of requirement. We actually had a proposal recently. Somebody was trying to set a corner lot at a major intersection and they were trying to create a flag lot from the corner lot such that the driveway the stem would be right at the intersection corner. which as if you're driving on the road and you're trying to take a right turn, you're basically right at someone's driveway and you know that you know that creates a legitimate safety issue and without having welldefined lock pipes there really wouldn't be anything we could do about that. So safety is should be a concern, you know, but if safety is not the problem, then I mean there's just kind of logistical, you know, the day-to-day practicality of being able to tell people what the rules are and be clear I need to have a fairly easy to understand playbook. The more lots get strange gets more difficult to one other thing we could do is we could limit how many lines like let's say no more than four. So if you need more than four then this

lot should not be subdivided or well four is a regular lot. No no no I mean four using four four lines to divide rather than either one line or just not counting the sides but everything. No yeah it would be how many that sounds so weird to me. I'm sorry weird. I I I like this I like to come down to there's like oh whatever number there were eight or 10 uh possible choices. It's like that seems reasonable to and I will add the the city council adopted a interimm ordinance that admittedly the language for the definitions of lot types were too restrictive. So this draft actually does pair that back. So it's still objective but it's not as specific. Currently, we're literally demanding people have 90 degree angles at the side and rear property lines, which is proven to be too challenging. So, this is a a draft that's not that specific. I'm actually working on a project that the street is skewed. You cannot have 90 degrees if you wanted to. So, correct. So, the language here does not is not that restrictive. Uh, okay. One quick question. Yeah, I forgot how we are in terms of ads. Can people sell those individually? They can if the city adopts a program to allow them to be sold individually. And we the city's not required to do and it's not really been slowed by the city council. It's not on the helmet. Okay. And how about in terms of any like deed restrictions on how much they can rent or sell? Those are not allowed. They're not allowed. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Should we should we then um come up with a advice? Those of you that uh that uh would allow um unlimited number of putts to separate two lots.

Okay. So, one, two, three, four. So, that this motion wins. Okay. So, the majority are okay with no restrictions requirements or the shape of new laws. Well, what does the minority one I mean you I I only feel like I don't understand it enough safety issues. Um so I think my motion would be to bring in the language so we could look at what the actual provision is going to be in the future session examples next time, you know, so we could see what because like I'm Yeah. I' I'd like you it's persuasive. I just don't know what I mean my my concern one of my concerns would be that you you have this oddshaped lot or both of them end up as lot shaped lots and then one of the lots is going to be sold and and and there's going to be separate ownership and then they're going to have property lines that are just all over the place. Okay. So, it seems to me that there could be some future concern about how people are dealing with their property lines and that kind of thing. was already lost on how to how to handle that. You The property lines are usually like this is the property line. It's it's right straight down there. But but you have a surveyor. They put markers on the corners and there's a fence that gets set up. Like there's already established processes for how to handle that. Like we don't solve that problem. Our purview is like how do we allow people to I was just gonna offer to help commission when we come back. I know it's hard to graphics might help. So when we come back, I think we got the feedback, but showing you graphics of the variations of perhaps more regulations versus strict and where in between you could sort of draw a line might help. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. At all possible, I'd like some indication of

like understand in theory somebody could make a very strangely shaped lot. Um has that ever been an issue? Like I think to your point like we want to know are we preventing useful things or are we or are we avoiding you know a terrible mistake like how do we figure that out? Yeah. And again the hard part with objective standards is that you have to do your best to see all potential ramifications of your decisions withinity which is quite frankly not possible. So trying to stall on some standards, trying to prevent edge cases, but there really is no right answer to a lot of these questions. Okay, let's move on. Okay. Um, small unit incentives. So the housing element has a program that basically directs the city to consider single room occupancy units and small one-bedroom units under 625 square feet as half a unit for purposes of density. effectively doubling the number of units you could actually build without having to use any other laws. Uh the idea of that is just to create smaller units are more affordable but by design and new housing projects. The housing element is uh not very specific in terms if this should just be adopted this by right requirement or if it should be tied to any sort of requirements but is being limited to certain zoning districts or be subject to any sort of deed restriction whether these units or the extra units created by provision to certain lower income households. Uh the draft does not propose either of those two things u but just for commission discussion. So this less than 600 square foot unit.

How would this stack with the first topic that we covered which was like the 10 unit max and we said like that had a minimum lot a minimum square footage but now this is less than that. So this is for projects that are using density compliance. So the other law doesn't deal with density. It's just an aggregate number of units. Density bonus. Well, density in terms of the general plan has ranges minimum and maximum. This allows you to functionally go beyond the maximum because units only count as half. So if you do the math and you allow to be 50 units at your max density, you do this, you can now build a 100 units and still technically be at the density because each unit is only counted by half. Okay. Now, this could be compounded with density bonus. So, somebody could really try to do a super dense micro unit project that ever makes sense in the future. It could certainly be used that way. But this is something that we effectively promised HCD that we would do. I guess then the question to the commission is matter of implementation. So, one note on this underlying this is the concept of affordable by by design. This has been done in San Francisco. If you made the units small enough and you get economies of scale, you can sometimes sell them at a price that it can be less than moderate. And the concept behind this was just to rapidly open that up so people could develop these. Yeah. I mean, I I see this as, you know, a component of the missing middle. This is one of those missing middle type of developments. You know, it would be on the lower portion, you know, scale, but to me it's a unit. needs. Um so um from my point of view I I like the flexibility.

Yeah, I do too. I think the flexibility is good and it definitely um is headed in the direction of building additional units in a category that isn't really addressed by any of the other um zoning ordinances that we have or are looking at. Um I I don't necessarily think there should be a deep restricted income requirement. Um because I agree that it's really kind of um by design it's a more affordable unit given that it's small. Yes, I think it's a good idea. But how is this different from a JDU or an ADU? Just a small ADU. Well, these are most likely going to be seen within like a condominium or apartment building. Yeah, that's what I was thinking as a separate as a separate as a separate individual standard. It would have a kitchen and everything. It would have well SRO's are a little different like a kitchenette rather than and they share restrooms. Oh, like a dorm, but your dorm I don't think we'll probably not see those in camp, but certainly the one-bedroom units we have seen. The value is if you're a developer and you're you're like, "Oh, I only have a certain number of units I can build. I'm going to build a bigger units because I want to maximize what I'm gonna get from these. So this way you can build two of these smaller units. It's just a little bit of math in terms of how things are counted. Correct. So let me So I see this is mostly apartments. Okay. I'm not quite sure about condominiums, but but so if if this suggests that if they would normally only be able to build a hundred unit apartment, if we use this, they could take a portion of

those, turn them into half units, and that ups it from 100 unit maximum to 150 unit maximum or something like that. Right. Correct. Okay. But we lose on the rea do we not? No, they would be units. Oh, they would be treated as units. This is just treated in terms of density. Correct. I see. Okay. So, it helps with the rea. But but and then if there's an affordability requirement, it would apply to the aggre the true number of actual units. This is simply just for the density map. Okay. It's for compliance. So, so those units could be counted would be well, they have to spread them out in terms of representing what the entire building is like, right? So, in terms of affordability, so it can't be just all 600 square foot units for affordability, right? I mean, technically, yes, that's that's true. Um, but practically speaking, state density bonus law could override that limitation. So, a developer could theoretically put all their affordable units as the small ones. Somebody could do that. Really? I thought there was a requirement that the state required that you couldn't make the subsidized units like look substantially different. That's actually our local requirement. State density bonus law doesn't actually say that. Um some cities have taken the perspective that state federal house fair housing laws prohibit that but the statute is silent on it. You would think that would be okay. So how do we advise our staff or just my my two cents on this. Um I don't think it's a good idea to limit instance to certain zones. Um one of the things I short, but one of the things that I was reading about was how zone capacity in Los Angeles changed over the years. Previously there had been this you know giant unbuilt capacity which

meant that when there was a need to build something there were a variety of places that it could be built. And over the 60s and 70s, it got kind of shrink wrapped. And the idea was that they would they would plan very specifically where any growth would happen. And you can't really predict it very well in advance. And the effect the effect was they built a lot less. I think limiting the limiting incentives in general, like there's not really an incentive for somebody to do this in the middle of Santaas where there's like nothing you can walk to. Um, and in general, I am not in favor of requiring um the restricted income targets. Um that is I see that as a method of of taxing new housing to get new housing and we'll wind up with less new housing and people trying to get more that will that will have a negative impact. That's my two cents. Okay, thank you for that. Any other comments? Um the the limited on zones uh what kind of what kind of limit on zones are we talking? Well, I mean, for example, I mean, the city could limit the exercise of the provision only to the higher density zones, but commissioner Buckfinders perspective, that may just happen naturally. Anyway, so um so to answer those questions, so we are okay with half units, you know, providing that. Okay. Okay. Next one is encourage um affordable by design housing again. Yes. I don't see. Well, that's that's just a feature. Okay. Should the incentive be limited to certain zones? No. I don't think so. Okay. Not if it meets the require it meets the allowable. And then

the the last item on this slide, should the incentive require deed restricted income targeting? And no, I think we said no. So So I'm unclear about this one. Okay. So, if we don't do this, does this mean that there's a 600 square foot studio unit available? And if we don't restrict it, um, a $200,000 a year, 25y old single computer programmer can rent that out, right? The unit would just be whatever the market would stand. Okay. I mean, I I I maybe that shouldn't be a concern, but the fact is is that I believe in this area there's a lot of people who can afford more will take a ch will take a small unit because they don't have a family, they don't have a spouse, they're they're there to work and all all they need is a little space put themselves in, but they're a somebody who could afford something more. And that that then that then um pushes out somebody who really is limited on their affordability and could use a place like that because they're only making 40,000 bucks a year. But but if you're just going to look at that one example, then they're also not renting a three-bedroom, two bath house that they can afford, but then that is going to an actual family that that needs that space. I'm not suggesting that that's the other alternative. I'm suggesting they could go into a market rate apartment complex uh rent rent a a a thousand square foot

onebedroom or two-bedroom apartment that that is just the normal market rate thing rather than go searching for what's limited in availability is a small studio that that may be desirable for somebody who can't afford something bigger. The the thing that I disagree with you is that you're assuming these affordable houses will be built. And my experience tells me once you did restrict something, developers would not even build them if they if they can if they can, you know, be building these things have been the issue because they don't pencil out. And so that's why if you remove this, you actually start seeing housing production. If you make the house smaller then it becomes affordable by nature you know and so maybe that's the way to achieve what we want rather than forcing people to build the restricted units and experience says it hasn't been working. Okay, next one please. Okay. Um we're moving into uh review procedures. So this is a slides trying to summarize a lot that's happening. So first up just acknowledging that u as per or our interim ordinance this will be formalized part of this update. So there will be minister review for all R1 zoning district properties with the upper SP9 SP450. We'll not ever see another single family house again. And then uh Sam is also recommending that the draft include the ability for duplex units in the low medium density residential to also be subject to ministerial review. That actually was the case prior to the current general plan being adopted. It's just kind of a a happen stance that those properties are now subject to the full MFTtds process which been proven a

bit challenging for those properties. So this would effectively restore what had been allowed before. So this would literally just be one duplex on one lot. So we're not talking about a mass, just one duplex. And LMDR properties are found mostly in the downtown area. A lot of the neighborhoods over here. There's a lot of areas that look single family, but technically they're more two family. So this would allow those properties be built with a duplex without is a building. And then also looking at expanding the administrative approval mechanism. Currently the director can approve a housing development project up to five units. And so Sam's proposing that be pushed up to 10. So what prays in par with 23 projects. So the commission would only see projects that include 11 or more units. and then kind of formalizing a a kind of an optin discretionary path for some small projects. Uh there are conceivably a small band of projects that don't quite qualify for some of the laws that we've talked about because they're not dense enough, but they're also not large enough to go through density bonus to seek relief to a lot of our standards, which admittedly are a bit challenging to really apply at a smaller scale. So this would allow a an applicant to voluntarily go into a discretionary review process not protected by the housing accountability act. So it would be an oldfashioned type of public hearing. Go to the planning commission say I have this project elect approved. It's meeting the zoning standards. So the high block coverage for a ratio but the design characteristics would be subject to public review and your approval. So the ask here is if commission is supportive of these things

particularly the uh I guess really all three points excluding minister review for R1 since that's already. Yeah. So we won't see any more single families. You saw the last one uh earlier this year. I I think this is totally the way the the state is going and I I I really get it that you can do a discretionary test which I feel like nobody in their right mind would want to do. um do whatever to get streamlining your density bonus you're saying especially if they're using I think you can start getting dens at five units um I'm very supportive of ministerial review for LMDR zones like makes very little sense to not do that um and a greater sorry level of administrative approval um generally speaking I I would like the idea that we would see few if any individual projects. It would have to be a out of the ordinary or odd project. We'd be more interested in like this setting policy for projects to follow. Um I so to be clear the the optional discretionary process would be like in case they want it we would make an extra a specific path for that like if you don't fit any of the streamlining you can use this. Yeah, the ban that we're talking about would be projects that don't achieve the 66% maximum density under SB 1123. So, they're not eligible there. And while you're right about density bonus being applicable to as low as five units, in practice, nobody does that because that would require them to give up 20% of

their project as an affordable unit. So, if you're under 10, you're not providing any affordable units. So, not voluntarily. So you're not subject to density bonus. So you don't get the normal relief mechanisms of of waiverss and concessions and then you're not eligible for state streamlining. So you can fully comply with our standards. But again projects of these scale are very tricky and challenging architecturally to comply with the MFPDS which was really developed with a larger scale in mind. So and while we are working updates to the MFPDS this is at least something that can be operated in. All right. And to be clear, like for five 510 um unit projects, it's the sort of thing where SB123 would provide a streamlined path. There is a streamlined path. It's just if people didn't fit that, there would be another process for them to use correct or they just didn't hit the dense that's very reasonable and that we should make the processed. So, uh that's yes or yes. Okay. I just got a quick question on uh and I know it was in report. I can't remember uh administrative review uh appeal process. Would would they appeal to the planning commission? There is no appeal in the normal sense of things. Okay. Um so the public cannot appeal an application. Okay. The laws do allow for a applicant to appeal um a determination that an objective standard is not being complied with. So if there's disagreement in how the standard is being imposed, there is some mechanism there. But that would be a very blended range of appeal. Okay. Really on that question. And then would that come to planning commission that that appeal? Uh it depends on the law. Some of the laws require the legislative body and the city council to consider those. But generally that's not something we would Okay.

Anyway, I'm okay with all of these. Okay. I mean generally I mean I would put just if if the law is so ambiguous it's unclear if somebody's really complying with the standard it's not really objective then probably not enforceable question and the 10 units does that include ADUs? Uh no that would be primary units ads are not counted as part of that. Perfect. That was it. Thank you. Um so if we go to 10 units everything over 10 units will come to us. Yes. No matter what, there's no circumstance where where um over 10 units would not we would not see it. Well, not unless they're using one of the state laws. So, a number of the state laws are ministerial approval. So, those don't come through any public process. The city also does have some overlay zone mechanisms are by rights zoning uh reuse zoning that allows certain projects if they provide a greater degree of affordability. Those are just approved ministerially. So some you might not see but traditional conventional discretionary applications. Yes. More than 10 you would still see. Yeah. I was going to bring this up at some point. I might as well bring it up now. So the the whole thing about ministerial review is concerning to me because we're we're defining ministerial review is that Rob Rob approves it. Okay. Um the fact is the state doesn't say that. Okay. The state defines matter of fact I'm sorry you'll have to bear with me on this. Okay. Um ministerial pro. This is from section 301 development review and approval ministerial processing government code section 65913.4 2021. Uh ministerial approval as defined in section 102 of a project complies with article four. These guns will be non-discretionary. Okay, that's what

ministerial review is. It's non-discretionary and cannot require a conditional use permit or discretionary local government review or approval. Notwithstanding that design, review or public oversight may be conducted by the local government's city council, board of supervisors, planning commission, or any equivalent board or commission as described in section 301 A2 and shall be completed as follows. The N with the 90 days, 100 day, 180day deadlines. Okay, this basically says that planning commissions or councils can do a ministerial review. Okay, uh there's nothing in the HH HAA that I found that says specifically that we can't have a ministerial review by planning commission publicly. Okay, as far as I could find. So my question is is I would like us to consider I mean I don't have a problem with necessarily going to 10 minutes but what I have a problem is that not stuff not showing up I have a problem with stuff showing up too late that is bigger and that we basically don't even get to make any suggestions because it's too late. You know we've seen that more than once. um and that we we don't necessarily have to it be a discretionary review by a planning commission. Okay, the state doesn't stipulate that. So if we feel like we want to see the project early in the process so that we can at least give some suggestions or recommendations to the developer which I think some of the commissioners have felt frustrated about the fact that we don't then I would like to think in terms of redefining a ministerial review process

that actually can come in front of the planning commission because the state doesn't doesn't say we can't matter of fact it specifically states doesn't specifically state that develop the director of community development is the minister okay it's specifically actually states it can be councils planning commissioners builder supervisor I I think that's kind of stretching us into saying that we're not doing like we our our job is to give like thoughtful feedback and so forth and our opinions and so forth which is not what doing um a ministerial approval is I I think you're saying you would like us to be able to give feedback on projects even if it's not. Yeah. But the way you would do that is is redefine because right now we're defined as we only do discretionary review in public. That's the way we define it here in the city. Didn't hear about about like preliminary hearings and such that if they want to get feedback from the community, they can come before the Yeah. But it's voluntary. So if we we if we say it it's not a discretionary review, it's a ministerial review, then they they don't have to sign off on it. We can just tell them it has to it's going to come in front of the planning commission as a ministerial oversight. So there's no sign off on voluntary discretionary review. You just bypass them. I guess I don't understand the the purpose of making them I don't think they would come in here pre saying that we can't action them. I mean I think the discussions we've been having at least the last like seven years I've been on this planning commission are like how do we streamline the process? We've heard from a lot of frustrated uh community members who are trying to get houses built or trying to get town houses built and the process is I'm not talking I'm not talking about house individual houses. I'm talking about

projects, a 40 unit project on Virginia Avenue where it came to us late. We didn't get to see the early related to these questions. These are really specific about five to 10 units. That's why I asked specifically about No, I'm saying it's like, yeah, we could go to 10, but what I'm saying is the question I had for Daniel was, are there circumstances where it's going to be we're we're not going to see something over 10 units? And I think that we should always see anything five or 10 unit more than five or 10 units, no matter what. And so what that would require us to do is to redefine kind of about how we are doing our business here with regards to ministerial review. Otherwise it's conceivable I believe depending on density bonuses that a 20 unit or maybe more could actually be under ministerial review and we never see it. That's what my concern is. Is that a reasonable concern? Well, I mean, I suppose just from a policy perspective, the whole idea here is to expedite the approval and construction of housing. There are a lot of tight deadlines, shock plots that if we were to take an application for you to consider, we could run the risk of failing to meet. And it does present a very real opportunity of creating a situation where you have a group of people that don't agree on compliance of a standard. And that that creates a lot of complications, something that really should be objective. So it really runs contrary to what state law is trying to accomplish and what the housing element is trying to accomplish. And I will point out, you're not wrong in terms of the decision-making authority in terms of determining consistency, but the state, you can already see the writing

in the wall. uh I believe SB 423 which was an update to SB35. So just in that narrow area because of this issue because a lot of cities actually did do forward these applications to their city councils and commissions for a decision on objectivity um actually now are requiring that the director that the call on consistency. It can still take it through a design review process, but at that point it's really just a conversation because now the legislative body or commission really has no ability to say get or because the director has already said it it's compliance. So it's likely even if we went down that road, they would probably start adopting those requirements on all the all the other bills. Between the state and the cities, it's kind of whack-a-ole. Whenever cities try to do something, the state comes in with a new law and says you can't do that anymore. Yeah. And I can't see any any applicants would voluntarily would want to subject themselves that extra review. You know, they it's just more time. Just more time. Well, there is a there is a deadline. There's a deadline built in. Okay. We we would have to figure out a way to get that review within the deadline. Okay. And what Daniel is saying is that's difficult for them to figure out. I get that. I get that. There are these deadlines within the law that says you have to get through the process within 90 days, whatever it is, 18 uh 120 days, whatever it is for the different sizes projects. So, I'm not saying we bypass that. I'm saying we figure out a way to maybe on some on some projects to get it in front of us otherwise we're no longer, you know, what are we doing here? So, um I think we have spent enough time on this. I just wanted to get a quick if everybody else disagrees with me that's fine. Let's do a quick straw. Let's do a quick straw so we can move on because I think

Daniel Daniel are you halfway or not yet? Uh we're about halfway. Halfway. Okay. So this is a quick stroke. Um anybody um anybody agrees to keep the number at five or you know less than 10 rather than move it up to 10. So in favor of expanding initially everybody's in favor of 10. Yeah. Who's in favor of 10 and up? We see or I'm sorry. Who's in favor of more than 10? We see less than 10. The director says four, five, six. You're saying 10 or less? Is that okay? I'm saying 10 or less. I'm fine. All right. So, uh, so you're good with that decision? I think it's clear. Uh, so looking at single family design development standards, uh, SP9 and SP450 also require objective standards for single family developments. So, similar to the subdivision conversation, these standards need to apply kind of uniformly. You can't just apply them based on exercise of the law. you can still apply them based on other reasons like geography. So historically the city has not had design standards or design guidelines outside of Santa Moss and Kembell Village. So we're not doing anything there really. Those areas are largely staying the same with an exception of our privacy requirements because of the reduced setbacks. But clearly the community still desires to have some degree of design control in Santa Mas and the Campbell Village area. So what the staff recommendation is is to apply the design requirements that were developed for our current SB9 ordinance which were based on the design principles of the Santaas neighborhood plan just basically apply those to the

Santaas and Campbell Village neighborhoods. So while you may not see those single family homes anymore, they will still be subject to certain design requirements and the design requirements are not prescriptive. So they're not saying that you have to design a craftsman style house or farmhouse style house, but they do provide certain limitations on materials that are more or less in keeping with these areas. So there are specific list materials, design features, roof forms that allow for a lot of different design types, but would admittedly not allow for something that's hyper modern. So you can do a square a glass box for instance that would just be not in keeping with the neighborhood. There's been no indication from community or the council to do away with design standards entirely. So these are new objective standards that have already been developed that would just be applied to these neighborhoods. Can you remind me what we did for SB9? Um we basically limited um roof forms to standard was it 8 to 12 pitch gables hips. Uh you can't have anything that's very angular for instance or completely flat. Uh there are limits on the height of entryways. So you can't have a 20 foot tall column entryway into your house since that's not a feature traditionally found in those neighborhoods. Um there are limits on the type of cladding you could have limits to stucco uh certain types of siding. Again relatively reasonable and normal types of development features we can get into more. It's all in the drafts. But again, the idea is to generally allow wide variety of design without being prescriptive, but have some bookends for things that are simply hyper modern that you wouldn't really ordinarily see in do the do these SB9

standards were they applied citywide or just in the area? Just in the area plans because again historically outside of area plans, you can really design your house however you want so long as you need the height setbacks. Uh so um so one question is what if is is it possible like can this commission say generally yeah we like that but somebody who really wants a hyper design and is willing to subject themselves to um to planning commission reviews. Well, I guess that would actually be an example of that opt-in process, that opt-in, you know. So, so, so they could go through optin in case they have this gorgeous design they've seen somewhere else they want to bring it to Campbo. Well, and things change over time, too, right? So, at least they have enough. Sounds good. So, um did you want feedback or are you And then Yeah. So, if I can just add then the law also imposes 4 foot side and rear setbacks uniformally. So that basically does away with the traditional Santa mos setbacks of 20 feet and camel village 15 feet and sides x 8 and 10. All that's going away. The the table also takes the standards from the Santa moss and camel village plans and puts them into the zoning code. So there's one super table that has all the standards in one place. Uh that's just for clarification purposes. Oftentimes people don't really know what standards apply to them. So it's all now consolidated. So really the the narrow question for the commission is um kind of like the other discussions the law allows a setback up to four feet. It's highlighting you're comfortable with four feet that's fine but if you want to have a less restrictive setback that is within the city's authority to adopt. So I just want to make sure I'm clear on the terminology. When you say setback up to four feet, meaning that a three or two foot setback would be permissible or

you mean minimum of four feet, meaning five, six foot setback. The state imposes that the city may not require setback greater than four feet. Right. So meaning we could adopt setbacks less than four feet if if you wish. But but you cannot make it more than four feet. Correct. Okay. But you cannot require people to have a 5 foot. Okay. So, I have a question. Yes. So, the thing I noticed was mostly the roof the roof stack. There's like a dozen whatever roofs that you stipulated right in the in these area. Um, so why isn't stipulating a particular roof type not subjective? Is that because the state says roof types can be considered objective? Yeah, I mean so the state says I mean the city still has the ability to adopt objective design and development standards within the parameters that the state allows. So some areas were more restricted and other areas were less restrictive. Here we still have a lot of flexibility to adopt design standards such as roofing type. There's no law that says we can't do that. But the but the state isn't saying that type of rooftops are subjective. They're they're okay with that that it's an objective standard. Yes, we do believe it's an objective standard. Okay. Based on the definition of object, for those who may have not looked at that, it's like the pretty much the only roof type they didn't include is flat, which we've had a conversation about in the past about flat roofs. Because I guess, you know, most of neighborhoods don't have any flat roofs. However, you know, I I I have mixed feelings about not offering flat roofs because I've been in lots of really nice neighborhoods where somebody put up a modern I agree with you house and and used a flat roof and yeah, it didn't fit in with the rest of the

neighborhood, but in Glenn it seems to be fine. You know, it seems to be fine in PaloAlto for them to do it in a really nice neighborhood. I mean, has there even been any feedback from these neighborhood areas since like the last time these plans were updated in terms of whether they there's still value? Almost 10 years ago, but until recently, whenever there's been a proposal, it's been publicly noticed. So, the public's been aware. So, moving forward, the public will be unaware. Yeah, but we haven't even really had like any public input when there's been I think if you surveyed the people who live in gabled and and and uh and you know houses roofs that all are on angles and have gables, uh they're going to say, "Yeah, we want that kind of house." They're not the ones that will come in and build a nice modern a new modern house with a flat roof. Okay. So I I think you would probably get overwhelming support for not having flat roofs in their neighborhood. The question I have as well, why shouldn't we? You know, it's why not allow something I would I would look at here is to what extent would we be making existing like the existing built environment partly or largely illegal by doing this? Like I don't know like because if you ask people, oh would you like all the houses here to be traditional? Say absolutely. That's not even the existing built environment. So I I'd be curious to what extent and I realize I think this is a tremendous task may not be doable but I'd be curious to what extent these guidelines like the existing houses there are not compliant these guidelines but with the objective guidelines are not what meeting those guidelines. Yeah. like that the existing houses in Santa Monos or Campbell Village the the extent to

which they are not compliant with the objective guidelines we're proposing um just because I think as a rule that there can be a tendency to pass rules that seem like a good idea but in fact will make the existing like you couldn't build what's there now which seems like not what we're going for again I mean you may recommend to the council that there should be no design standards in Campbell Village or Santa. Well, I mean I that's what I would recommend because I mean the the Santaas area plan that was basically originated in the 70s. The the Campbell Village neighborhood plan I mean that was basically like 10 years ago. Things have substantially changed over those decades. Well, the other thing is is that Santa Mas neighborhood plan my understanding that a lot of part of that was was um was a county and then we do you call it when we take it annexed annexed. Okay. Was annexed in 1979 or something. And then the then um I actually lived down that way briefly. So there was a development that was at Hianda and Burroughs that is a little culde-sac that has about five or six McMansions on it with turrets. Yeah. And then Santaas came up with a neighborhood plan because they didn't want that in. Okay. That's the reason why there's a Santaas plan, right? Is because they don't want turreted houses anymore. And so my take is is like should we be just you know you know giving them an exception you know when the rest of the city for the most part has the same has you know lesser requirements. That's a great question. Um and also from a practitioner point of view um like storm water now needs to be treated you know when you you know

before it leaves your property you know if if if you're doing more than 5,000 square foot of development you know um and so roof gardens actually are fantastic places for you to just do that treatment and enjoy that built environment for yourself and Gable's roof would not allow that. Yeah. And that's an example of things have progressed beyond the what's in the code because of the way things were decades ago, you know. So um so I you know I'd like to you know the interest of time we could do a uh unless somebody else has any has more feedback how about a quick straw poll as do we want um San Thomas and Campbell Village to join the rest of the city and being allowed you know to propose. I would vote I would vote for that for the design standards for the design for the you know I mean opening up the design standards and not be told you're limited to these options. So basically just treat all single family the same. All single family the same in terms of design terms of design. Any objections to that? Well the other thing is the sidewalks. Well, yes, that's true. That that's a whole different conversation. Different kind of Yeah. Um any objections? I think we've been talking about this actually a number of times in our various meetings when this is Yeah. And and and to me, you know, that includes flat roofs, you know, just just to Okay. Um All right. That's that's Give me I guess I guess I would say my only objection, I guess, would be, you know, you don't want something really crazy getting built. Uh, I don't know what crazy in Hannes. It's the problem with that pack of standards. That's the problem with

standards. Yeah. But I mean, do you have an example of something crazy in the rest of Campbell where they don't have these these signs? It doesn't happen, right? I know. Yeah. I mean there's there's a on third on third just before Latimer there's a house you know you know they're mostly cottage size houses on third on this side of Latimer there's a house that looks like a beach house okay it's got a flat it's got a flat roof it's got some circular windows in it used to be all white with with bright blue trimming they've changed the trimming to make it less crazy but it's fine you know it's fine Yeah, it looks like it should be in Santa Cruz on the beach, but it's it's fine to be there. It's fun. It's fun house. Okay, let's let's move on to the next one. Do you want We didn't straw the We didn't straw the It's probably based on the prior discussion. Everyone's fine with four feet. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Okay. Uh this is a interesting one. Um, so the city historically has there different reasons that you can remove a tree. Now, some of those reasons are related directly to the tree, such as it's structurally failing, it's disease, and that's that's fine. Those are fairly easy to assess. It gets more tricky when a tree is obstructing a homeowner's desire to build a new house or an addition. uh with the update a couple years ago, the ability for a homeowner to claim that it's inhibiting my my ability to economically use my property was removed as a reason to uh remove a tree because that's really not objective at all. So, we have a kind of a gap where have a situation where trees can't be removed simply to accommodate new housing, which obviously presents a

problem. There's really not a great objective manner to evaluate whether or not somebody has to retain a tree in order to be to build a house because conceivably you can always make your house smaller. You can build around it. You can build on the other side. You can see the variance, the setbacks. It's just it's it's almost always a no because there's always a way to basically build around a tree just becomes to some degree unreasonable. And so recognizing that that's simply a fact of life, we are recommending some limited exceptions to the city's tree preservation requirement that would allow just by right removal of trees in some circumstances. So this would already come currently under our interim ADU ordinance. This already applies to stateex exempt ADUs. So if you build a state exam you and there's a tree blocking it, you're allowed to remove the tree without any process. This is any type of tree or just the heritage tree, the protect tree. So in single family neighborhoods, which is what we're talking about, uh oak, cedar, redwood, and ash trees, if it's not one of those fours, you you can remove it regardless of how large. So then the second scenario that we're discussing is trees that prevent access to a new parcel created by an urban locks put. So largely we're talking about flag lots. So the tree is where the drive aisle needs to be you would be allowed to remove it without having to go through the permit process. And lastly, immittently probably a bit more more controversial is that if a tree less than 36 36 inches in diameter, so large but not magnificently large is within the proposed building footprint of a new house or in addition, a homeowner could simply remove it without having permit.

Otherwise, they would have to build a route diamond type which is like pretty good. Very small feet diameter. It's bigger than that. Oh, the diameter diameter. No, no, it's bigger than that. It is not perimeter. This diame maybe my three feet. This is 16 in because I do the aract for me. Yeah, it's not like that. Three feet is like that. That's a big tree. It's a big beautiful. It's a big tree. But fundamentally, this is a value judgment call between preserving a tree and allowing a homeowner to build a house where they want to build it or I got no problem with this. Yeah. Um I I'm personally good with four. So yeah, I mean ju just for for to be sure. So if they if the tree gets removed like we have a process for they have to either plant a new tree on the property or pay into a fund where the city will plant trees like that's there is a replacement some kind of parody here. Yes we yeah this is a fine idea. Yes. Uh we see a lot of these and it turns out that um oh you know the city doesn't want to remove trees but it's really implausible to them use the tree and like this is this seems like a very good idea and advance I have a question for Cy. Sure. Cy how long does it take for those four trees to grow to how many years to grow to like 24 it depends on the tree. I will. So like redwood, ash, cedar, that's going to be like a hundreds and hundreds of year. So to get to 36, what about 24 redwoods? Maybe less. Depends. So I'm

trying to replace those trees to their size. Yeah. But but the good thing about the the replacement is the right type of tree gets gets planted, not not the weed that becomes a tree. Yeah. Yeah. And I will highlight this provides a bit of parody to single family homeowners because if you're a developer, you can use density bonus waiverss to simply wave out of our requirements. And if you're using SP 1123684, you can seek an exception under those provisions if it's preventing you from achieving your allowed density. So already there are mechanisms in other arenas that these trees can just be removed. It just currently single family homeowners are subject to much stricter limitation. That's just one member. And I have something that's not about uh construction related. My first the very first month that I came in, we did a we had a tree a request for a tree removal on somebody's property because it was it was it was a redwood. Okay. So they had their sewer. No, there's one where it was dropping big branches down and the kids couldn't go out in the back. This is No, no, it's it was over by Southwest Damas area. Yeah. Near near rolling hills or something that way. It was an appeal, right? And so so there was it the commission denied it because it didn't meet the five any of the five. I think it's five, right? Okay. And I've had regrets ever since. Okay, because you know it was it was sitting by it was standing by itself. It wasn't part of a grove. It was just like this lead tree in this neighborhood and and it was so we don't have anything. My point is we don't have anything. We have a thing if it it's going to affect the the foundation if if it's diseased you know we have all these different other things. We don't have anything about

whether it's dangerous from falling branches. Well, no. I mean, if a tree is structurally failing, that's a reason to remove the tree. If it's diseased, that's a reason to remove the tree. If it's dying, I mean, we actually add there's some more. This doesn't cover all the changes to the chapter, but we've added some additional language in terms of when a tree is dying. And then that can be this wasn't a dying tree. This was a tree. I mean, we I have a big tree outside where I live. Humongous. It's a big pine tree, fur tree. And when the winds blow, huge branches come down. Yeah. And this tree was in their backyard like at the end of their driveway where the kids play. Yeah. And it's like it to me it was a potentially dangerous situation when and they showed pictures of these large branches coming down and they had small children. So, we don't have anything in the in the tree uh removal list that takes into account that kind of situation as far as I can tell. And so I was just bringing up is whether or not you guys can look at that to have another thing on the list that says if it can be proved that it is is dangerous because it blows big branches comes down when I mean in the past we've told people that I mean the reality of having a home with a tree is that there are obligations for maintenance and that does cost money of course but that generally is the response because what you're describing very much is an elective removal. if there's nothing wrong with the treatment. Sure. Okay. Um anyway, uh we need to advise uh anybody uh anybody not supporting the uh the uh so-called recommendation. I think I think we agree with everything you listed. Okay. Can I can I add one thing?

I read all the tree language there. There's like a couple of ash trees that are not native to California that are like extremely hard on people's like irrigation systems and things like that that I've had removed from like other properties. So I'd recommend maybe adding those as those are exempt from these removal standard like so I think on the species question actually does have some policy guidance to actually look at the species again. I mean we haven't really looked at tree species in over 20 years. So it's probably some need to look at that a bit more cohesively and now you have an X but yeah I mean there probably some need to add some trees to the list as well like come okay um moving on to uh commercial streamlining measures. So this is kind of a modest pick up from the commission's work last year. Um this is a very consolidated slide just trying to explain relatively at a surface level what's happening. So just trying to create more definitions to better differentiate some activities from others so that they can be allowed morely than others. So for instance food retail which is a place that sells food with maybe a modest amount of on-site seating is fundamentally different than a restaurant. So it should be regulated differently. Similarly between microb blading cosmetic uh type of work versus full tattooing which is a more regulated activity. We've had a lot of interest in the personal services industry about that and then just uh new fleshed out definitions regarding ancillary alcohol sales quick service restaurants that are small format under 3,000 square feet dog training facilities which is actually an issue that the plan commission behind on some years ago. uh motor vehicle window tinting and just uh clarifying these definitions and subjecting some of them

to more expedited review either ministerial or administrative kind of discuss more in the report but just a small step to help some of the businesses that uh we've seen need a little assistance. Okay. The question is, are there other uses that should be defined or clarified? Can anyone think of any other uses than the ones listed? The the one the way we did this before was like looking at what's come before us. So, it was very sort of reactive. And I would love for the economic development person if this was like an opportunity to do something more proactive. Uh I'm not advocating necessarily for the case that the gentleman presented to us at the last meeting of the like the teaalth uh weight management you know use that we had to do conditionally. But it was possible for Campbell, if we're already going to update the permits, to be kind of proactive about supporting some sort of new uses that are like coming into vogue where we could be the city that was permitting it faster than any other neighboring town and like friendlier to like tellalth or I don't know, juice bars. I don't know. Like I don't know what it is. And this is where I would want a professional to like come in. Yeah. like what is that thing that in 2027 would be really popular where we could be permitting it and then if somebody's sitting there wondering where they want to open their new location they would say hey Campbell actually already allows this um so I don't know what that is but I would love so we have a I guess two things we do have a new economic manager who brings a lot of energy and history and should have good um intelligence on that we actually also have a contract with the broker I think She came to you once. Her name's Christine Penberg. Yeah. And our task to

her was basically, hey, watch the industry. See how it evolves. Advise us on how our ordinances are out of step. One of the big things is the merging. When we say quick service. Yeah. And full service. You go to a lot of restaurants these days, you don't talk to a waiter and you order off a screen. So just having codes that you sit down and you have a meal, but you're not necessarily. So just having codes that are adapted to that. So I think today was just sort of kind of some follow through things. But I think definitely on the work plan is coming back to try and get ahead on what kind of businesses would be good in Campbell and get ahead of it and be friendly to bring visit. Yeah, I mean the broker's feedback actually is what informed the 3,000 square foot threshold. So right now under the change made last year all quick service restaurants irrespective of size are subject to a conditional use permit or added. So that's kind of a high lift for smaller restaurants. But there's also a recognition we don't want to necessarily just say Chick-fil-A is permitted by rights. Sure. So the feedback from the broker was that that's largely a function of the size of the restaurant that some of the restaurants that could present community concerns are much larger format. So 3000's kind of on the conservative end that should pick out those smaller format restaurants bigger national change would still be subject to public review. Okay. So any other? Yes. So if we want to be like really forward looking um so this probably be outside the scope of this but um if anyone's familiar with the concept of um an auxiliary commercial unit and sort of by analog auxiliary dwelling unit sorry accessory commercial unit. It's the idea that if you have a residential use you have a small commercial use on site with it. Um this is very common in other countries but there are other places that I think Portland and Raleigh have have set this up. So it it greatly greatly reduces the

cost of starting a new business. Um, and it it's very much not usually what we zone for because we strictly separate uses is an actual thing that's been done in some places. And we're talking about trying to for economic development make it easier to start a business that it may be a really straightforwardly easy way to do that. Seems like um small coffee shops and restaurants and like really small businesses, that kind of thing. There actually is a state law and that's implemented in this update. It wasn't really important enough to bring up that does allow forgetting what it's called, but it does allow for very small format restaurants within personal residences. I'm not sure we've had any Campbell, but it's something that's licensed through the county health department and we have to allow There's a coffee kiosk on on Hamilton just west of Santomas, right? Is this would that be example of that's not that's not residential. That's in a that's commercial. That's in a shopping center parking lot. That would that would require conditional use. Is this a microenterprise home kitchen operation? Yes. or Mo. Yeah, that's that's in the update here. Yes, it's a it's a county Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health thing that they do. I did not know about that. Not if you haven't seen one yet. So So Daniel, I I ran into a situation during the COVID crisis where a guy who was a chef was cooking things out of his house and then you could order something, go by his house and pick it up, take it away. Would something like that not be allowed? That's actually allowed under the cottage food law. The states have taken some action. There's really not a whole lot for the city to really regulate on these. It's mostly done through the county health

departments. Okay. Oops. Cheerious. And not that I didn't It was not It was good. It was good food. It was fine. Okay. Moving on to uh sign architectural review. So this is an area of significant updates. So generally speaking, most things require some degree of sign architecture review approval by the planning commission. The director has some ability to allow changes to projects that have been previously approved by the planning commission. But if something predates sign architecture review approval requirements or was approved in the county, basically any change requires commission approval. As you've seen, you've reviewed some very minor stuff in the past. So this chapter really need to be cleaned up a bit. So it very more clearly identifies those things that require planning commission approval and then everything else is either subject to administrative approval by the director or it's really minor ministerial. So the only things that would come before the planning commission under this update would be all new non-residential buildings. So brand new buildings, major additions which are being defined as any addition that's greater than 50% of the building's existing floor area and then conversion of residential buildings to non-residential use. Those are basically the three things that you would see. Anything else would be done administratively or ministerally. And then the sign architectural review committee would only get involved when one of these proposals is subject to commercial design guidance which the city currently does not really have in most circumstances outside of couple corridors. So that would be kind of a future update. So the commission's volume of work on the commercial side would be substantially lessened and particularly on the SARC side would be

functionally non-existent for a while. So the input request from commission if you believe those thresholds are appropriate for example if you want to be even more permissive should all additions be administrative. So you would functionally only see new non-residential buildings or conversions of residential to non-residential use which in a lot of ways are basically like new developments. So when we talked a few minutes ago I thought the planning commission wasn't going to be looking at any new any single family. This is all just non-resident. I'm talking commercial build. Oh, so when it says 50, so 50% of existing for area for non sorry that I should have said non. So yeah, that makes sense to me. So my concern on this one was the 50%. So if it was a small commercial building that was 10,000 square feet and they wanted to add 5,000 more square feet, got no problem with it. But if it's a 50,000 square foot building and they want to add 25,000 square feet, that seems like a lot. So can is there I'm suggesting maybe we would put thresholds uh based on square footage. Okay, not just lower the 50% but say up to a certain square footage 50% is fine but over a certain square footage maybe it comes down because you could in theory have somebody that's got a pretty big commercial building and they want to add on significant you know if Home Depot wanted to add on you know 100,000

square feet or so we probably want to get involved with that right so that that's just my take on that is that maybe we could have thresholds based on square footage. You could certainly have an upper cap. Um I mean I would also point out that the currently and in the future the director can always forward an application to your consideration if he or she feels it's of some notable consequence. Yeah. But you can stand but again you can have a ceiling. I like I like your your suggestion. We should have an like a upper cap and Yeah. I don't know what the number is, but you know, how about 5,000? Anything over 5,000 addition? So, it's a lower cap like anything above that. Thank you. Anything above 5,000 then commission likes to hear and and and this thing can change again. If if we decide 5,000 is too often, then we can I don't know what the right number is, but you know, spirit of like the 10 unit, how we're increasing five to 10 for the other properties of like whatever is sort of in that same spirit of size or I mean, it probably should be relative to both. I mean, it could very well be like 50% but no greater than 5,000 square feet, right? It's just like that. So, it's relative to the building. Makes sense. Yeah. Everything else is great. This okay, this is this is such a big win for streamlining the experience. So, go. Yes. Okay. Perfect. So, so we're all in agreement for that. Okay. Um, that's basically it. I did highlight there are several other items that if there's any interest to discuss or get any questions, I can try to answer those. I mean I know there's a lot but I don't think any of these really warranted

discussion highlight this get any question when we talked about fences a few meetings ago we had discussions around fences along the property lines were there any changes streamlining this does a couple things it does allow for 7 foot tall fences without any fence exception so that aligns with the building code so historically fences were capped at six because the building code required a building permit more than six feet. Building code was updated 7 feet. So this kind of brings this zoning standard same level. It also aligns the fencing standards with camel builds throughout the rest of the city. Um, in terms of the corner situation, the visibility of the upper portion of the fence, I believe the text provides a little more flexibility on when and if it's necessary to make that fully or transparent by more than 50%. So there's a little more case by case determinations above the seven foot. Oh no, above the three and a half foot in terms of intersection corners and driveway corners. Correct. So at least there can be some analysis whether or not that can be solid or it does need to be open but there would still be a limit of three and a half feet without a fence exception. You just wouldn't have to get a variance like we had recently with Milton. So what happened with Milton could have been approved that evening by the commission. You didn't you shouldn't have to come back with a variance in other words. Okay. So it added an offense exemption process. Yeah. Yeah. provide a little more flexibility in how that standard's applied. And what about the three and a half feet was I mean previously that was allowed on the property line but you had to go in five feet if you wanted that private fence. Correct. So that's still in place but

you can get an exemption. you could seek a fence exception and then you could if the director believes that there's no particular reason to require that upper portion be transparent uh it could be approved in that manner. Um I just like to strongly endorse the legacy zoning district and permit modification provisions. The idea that you can't touch a legacy permit without like doing an entire like new permit has seemed like pretty unhelpful people who happen to have a a legacy permit. So that is a very I very much appreciate that. Can you define what you mean by legacy zoning? Sure. Campbell has a long history of using plan development zoning which allowed prior councils and commissions to functionally just make up standards for particular projects and this goes way back to 60s. So much of the zoning map is zoned PD blue. The challenge is that all those permits allow things that were very sight specific and the 2023 update basically had to sever that process because we're moving away from PD zone. So the inram basically said those PDs can those PD permits cannot be amended which functionally means that those properties are just frozen. You can't really do anything with them unless you want to reintle with a new conforming sign architecture review permits which is fine if you're doing a substantial addition. If you're doubling the size of the building, sure. But for people who want to do minor works and facade improvements, small additions, it's really problematic. we're finding. Um, so the legacy district provisions create a whole new chapter dealing with how we're going to manage these properties moving forward because they're obviously not going to go anywhere. It's going to be two generations before we get rid of PD zoning. So, this provides mechanisms to

allow reasonable updates to these buildings um up to the point where they need to get a proper entitlements into the future. So, all this would be administrative. The commission would really not ever see these unless there was a reason the director needed to forward it to the commission or if there was an appeal appealed by the applicant or somebody else public. So I had a question about the unbundled unled parking. So it's my impression this is mostly about like apartments. It's it's it's for carports and open parking only, right? And for over 16 units, right? So So, this is only going to be applicable for new developments starting January 1st this year, right? Okay. So, it's not going to go back and ask departments to unbundle, correct? Okay. That's I just had a clip that's and it also makes the new apartments more affordable. Well, I understand the the point of it. I understand potentially the that that the people can not have a a carport and might save some money on the rental. Yeah. Just two questions on things that caught my eye. So we uh because this comes up to us once in a while when the development permit expires. So now I guess we're allowing a one-time administrative reinstatement of expired permit. Sure. So that's a new provision and that lasts for a year or longer. Uh that would be yes I believe one year. One year and then I'm sure there's a lot of are park fees required for ADUs. they are in some circumstances if the ADU is it's over 750 square feet but okay so and then it's proportional relative to the size of the house so there's some math that goes into that thank you how about the utility undergrounding can you expand on that a little so our current so there's two two types of undergrounding there's service lines that go from the pool that

directly feed into the site and that's basically required for everything that's not single family anything bigger than that. We require that. Um that's pretty standard. Now anyway, what we're talking about here is the frontage underground requirement. So yeah, these are the lines of transmission lines that run parallel with the property. So the city has a requirement that certain project types, you have to actually put that underground. Admittedly, this whole section probably needs a serious reook after the San Bruno Pen disaster. The way PGs manage the requirements for undergrounding has become very problematic. Um requires more poles to be added which is kind of undermining the whole point of undergrounding the lines. But until we really revisit all of that as kind of a patch fix for at least the smaller projects, this would exempt projects that are 10 units or less. Right now it's five units or less. So this kind of brings that up. So at least it captures all SP123 projects would never be subject to underground. Okay. I mean practically speaking they'd have to anyway. You've granted variances for this multiple times for other projects and it's a significant cost. It is not a small cost. It is a lot. So I understand about the underground. So if you you you got you go in and put in the eight or 10 units and there's a power pole on the on the curve. Yeah. Right. That was accessing that house that was there. Whatever. So when when you require undergrounding, does that pole have to go away or does or is this just undergrounding for the units? It's the the poles that are along the frontage go away. But in practice, what's been happening is that we end up seeing new poles get dropped in at either end

because PG& no longer allows a single pole to have overhead and underground service on it anymore. So you have to have another pole next to it where it transforms into it. So it's again this whole section needs to be relooked at but as an interim step for housing projects at the smaller scale but they but they go underground from there right for stays they go underground so there's not a line going to correct exactly so I was clear just to throw this in there like the way we've been doing undergrounding where we get exceptions and like doing it on a project by project basis seems pretty implausible um seems to indicate that we should have something more like an impact fee where everybody kind of pays into it and like a small project will pay not enough money to underground an entire street but if an entire street gets developed that's enough money to do the entire street if that makes sense. Yes. I mean the general plan does speak to revisiting these requirements. The challenge with fees is that they don't really generate enough money to do an undergrounding project and then under the mitigation fee act we really have to use that money a certain period of time. So, we run the risk of just having to give it back. And yeah, I mean, comprehensive review of the requirements is certainly warranted, but really outside the scope of this update. This is a very surgical tweak just really dealing with smaller scale housing projects so they don't have to go through a whole extra round of review just to prove to us something we already know. And then and and then there's the other issue that usually you have the poles on one side of the street. That means those poles serve both houses across the street too. So you can't just remove the pole unless you underground their service as well. Correct. Which then you're in position of compelling a developer to enter a private property that's unrelated to them which you can't do. Yeah. Which also has been ground for variance in the

past. Okay. Um any any objections to or any um items with the ones that they've mentioned? really general report. Okay. Is this is this the last thing? Uh yes. No, next up. Oh, yeah. Next step's just reiterating this is a draft clearly going to take your feedback and update it. And so when we come back for formal adoption, we'll highlight kind of the key changes based on the feedback referred tonight. Uh we'll do our public outreach, see how that goes. It's it can be difficult for us to reach the broader public. We don't not a giant email database. have access to. Be great if we did, but we don't. But we'll do our best. And then just in terms of timing, um the state is, you know, currently discussing a lot of new laws, some significant potential changes. So, this update is going to provide a better framework to implement new laws in the future faster. So, it doesn't take another year and a half to do this, and we'll need to keep at it. I mean that's B79 for instance it's going to do some radical changes if it gets adopted by the legislature. So at least with this we can get this adopted in a timely manner it will set us up for success for 2026. Wonderful. I just have you know I went through this whole thing. So so there's a couple of things I noted that in terms of kind of errors and things I can quickly just Yeah. Go ahead. So on the on the 700 list of things with the check marks, you've got some missing. Okay. Okay. That don't have check marks. So I don't know if you added them later and then somebody didn't put a check mark, but there are some mostly about removing tables and some other things. So there's a number of them that didn't have a check mark. Um this is a sickness of mine. Okay. So, so, um, I did have a

question about, um, uh, I found it interesting about, uh, street vending. So, on the street vending, I know that's well, I mean, it's kind of under a perfe. So, so the street vending, there's a requirement. So, it's like, you know, people, they have the little sidewalk vending carts, right? And you have restrictions on that. They need a they need a business license. They need a health county health thing, which is good. I didn't know that. So, and that's supposedly post has to be posted. So, but in there, you have a requirement that says you have to if they're on what I assume is a sidewalk, but you have to they have to have 4 foot opening for people to be able to walk by, including disabled people, but it seems to me that there's not enough room to have a cart on the sidewalk and still meet that requirement. So, I I was I was curious about that, but it's it's something, you know, I don't know. You just look into it. I we don't need to discuss. Um the other thing was there was a mistake on the um on that section. Um and it's 650.040 where you say you may it says you may block eress ingress and egress of the driveways when it should be may not. Okay. Um big difference. Um and uh and then there was another thing about about that. Um, this is a I'm not sure what it's about. It says it says

6.08.02 permits required. Section on permits required. So, it says the permits are required, but then it says no permits required. And maybe it's just the wording is strange, but and I don't have it in front of me, but um there was the permits required section. And there was a there was a paragraph there was a sentence or two there that said at first that permits are required but then said no permits required. And maybe it's just I'm misreading it but or maybe it's just needs to be rephrased. I'll just jump in real fast. If there's to jump in if I miss it there just miscellaneous patches. I mean it's a 700 page document to staff. Yeah, I guess I guess I don't know if I have anything else, but I can look and I can send you a no problem. I can send you a Okay. Um, thank you for that. A tremendous amount of work. Quite a jab, Daniel. [Music] Would you like an extra MacBook? I will take it. Thank you for all your work, Danny. Okay. So now, uh, thank you, Daniel. That was great. Next item is new business planning commissioner sub commmittee reports. Um, I I had an I had an update based on our subcommittee, but I think it's best that we um actually review offline based on what was presented here today um and then present the next one. Yes, please. I think that would be the best. Um, great. Um, is there any uh So, so that was the one subcommittee report. Any other subcommittee reports? No. No.

Okay. Great. Moving on. Uh, report of community development director. I'm not going to stand between you and getting out of here after that big discussion. But, uh, two things and Daniel. Yes. Three things. uh one is next meeting I'll bring back to the housing discussion on potential policies and programs we can do to maybe stimulate more housing. Uh number one, uh number two, we are losing one of our planners, associate planner Tracy Tam job with another jurisdiction. Um try to get in here to get a nice accommodation for didn't didn't work out, but uh I know she had a lot of visibility to you lot. Yes. And pass on all good kudos that I know you had of her how she interacted with you. And in three, uh we are in budget season. Unfortunately, the city does have a 3.1 plus million dollar hole in its budget. A lot of that's related to measure uh a lawsuit against measure K which freezes the funds that could have come in under that. Uh so we are looking at some interim both interim use of some reserve in the city uh but also cuts across department. So um we're trying to do everything we can maintain services but that is a pretty large state of this. or to come. We'll see how that shakes out, but that's we're dealing with right now. So, they got the court gave them an injunction to freeze the tax. Yeah. They're put into escrow. We can't receive those until the lawsuit is settled. If we lost the lawsuit and attorneys have advised we have strong case, but if we did, those have to be returned. Uh if we win the lawsuit, then the city would then get those. Sorry, which tax is this? This is the sales tax increase under measure. that was adopted by over 70% of the voters. But after that, we were sued by the Silicon Valley Taxpayer Association. I

believe one Campbell is they get I see them on Facebook a lot. All right. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, one other thing. Sorry. Um did um multimodal plan got awarded as I I saw um what are the next steps? What's the next thing happening? Uh yeah, the city council approved awarding contract to a consultant and uh the contracts being routed and we'll have a kickoff meeting with the council probably next couple months. But I can provide to the commission schedule at some time there'll be a review for you and if you have questions offline. Okay. Thank you.