City Council - Regular Meeting

Turn. I don't know.

I know. Mr. Mayor,

it's now 5:30. Are we ready to begin? Are we ready to begin? It's 5:30. Yes, we're good. Okay, we're good to go.

All right, I see we're recording is in progress and so let's get our meeting started for tonight. Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the Pedaluma City Council and Paluma Community Development Successor Agency for Monday, December 15th. And if you wish to provide a public comment uh on tonight's agenda, please fill out a speaker card. They're in the back of the chamber. And bring it to our clerk who's up here in the front of the chamber. And with that, uh, let's have a roll call for the evening. Barnacle, present. Kater Thompson here. D Carly here. Now here, Quint here, Shribs here, McDonald

here. And we do have a quorum. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Let's all stand for our pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty andice for all.

And a moment of silence. Thank you. Um, I'd note that, um, from time to time the city council uses the opportunity to honor a member of the Pedaluma community who's contributed to the fabric of Pedaluma through their efforts and their life and who has passed recently and tonight is such a time of honor and sadness. Paul Heavenidge, our Sonoma County Library Commission appointee, longtime library commissioner for Pedaluma. since 2018 and board member of the friends of Paluma River and founder of literacy works has died. Uh Paul's service stretches back many years in Pedaluma in his insights, passion and commitment to public service will be greatly missed by all who had the privilege of working with him. With that, I'd like to look up and down the dis and see if any council member wishes to change to the agenda. And seeing none, we will adopt the agenda as it is posted and u move forward to our report from our close session that we had just a minute ago. And um the uh there is no reportable action from our close session this evening. I think I have that right, Mr. Attorney.

That's right, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you. And that brings us to our uh general public comment for the evening. And uh during general public comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the city council's subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed on the current agenda. Public comments are limited up to three minutes per person and depending on the number of persons wishing to address the council, time will be allocated in equal shares totaling no more than 20 minutes. If we have more than 20 people who wish to speak, the additional comments will be heard after the last business item on the agenda. So, I'd like to ask our city clerk, have we received um online email comments early?

We did. We received seven comments ahead of the meeting and those are posted online. Wonderful. Thanks. And please read our messaging.

At this time, I will start a 30 second clock for general public comment. So during these 30 seconds, members of the public should bring their speaker cards to the clerk's desk if they have not already done so. Speaker cards received after this time may not be accommodated. We have a 14 um people with general public comment cards submitted and that puts us at 90 seconds uh per individual. And I'd like to invite Bruce Howell to speak first to be followed by Mark Williams. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um [clears throat] I want to just address uh some examples of uh recent examples I've come across about racism that are really concerning for the community. one um saw the article in Press Democrat about the owner of Bam Bam uh um training um having his car vandalized multiple times uh with racial racial slurs. uh forced me encouraged me to like search more and then I saw um a known anti-semite taking coming back to Paluma who has facing a lawsuit him and his associates for violent hate crimes and also I know a friend who has a child at of at Kennallorth and there's students that have been making Nazi salutes with impunity in class

and these and this this these actions are really concerning. Like to know what is being done in the community uh or you know broadly to um counter these things. This person sending this known anti-semitum setting up shop here. Is there any is he being kept an eye on you know these things. So um just uh really concerned about the potential rise of races in the community. Um so that's Thank you. If there's any comments from the council, if they want to share thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I'm sure there will be when we get to council comments. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mark Williams. Uh to be followed by Tina Flores.

Good evening, council. My name is Mark Williams. I'm with the Environmental Justice League. I know Council Member Barnacle very well. I've been organizing at the Bay Air Quality Management District for about a year now, going to the meetings regularly and attending. And uh we're a group that's based out of the Bay, not the Bay, we're in the Bay Area, the East Bay. And um we're really uh impressed with the air district. We called for more e more economic analysis, which they're working on, but also more community engagement. I noticed that's up there, community engagement on your uh review. I want to thank Council Barnacle and the staff there. They're going to actually have a meeting in Oakland where I'm from. You know, it's a little bit it's difficult for people to get to these meetings sometime. So that engagement is appreciated. One of the things we're also supportive of is social economic policy which the district is finally taking up and looking at. So wanted to congratulate uh Trump and Barn for supporting that your council for sending him and we just want to make sure you know that we support that agenda. And also when the district is making rules you know one of the things is maybe replacing your uh your water heater or I live in a home with gas appliances maybe converting to electric. That's a huge cost. Groceries are up. Inflation is up. no uh no matter what somebody in the White House may be saying. Um so those issues are important to us and anything that the air district can do when the rules are being made to be as transparent as possible, let us know what those are going exact costs are going to be and there's a compromise work out to keep the cost down. We would appreciate that. So thank you for your uh attention and uh look forward to working with you. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Tina Flores to be followed by Ivon Eastman. Thank you so much for um um allowing the community to speak. Happy holidays. My name is Tina Flores. I live in Conquered and I ride BART um to Alama. I'm an instructor with inhome support. Um and so the tolls, the cost of BART, gas, um all the prices are going up. So, I'm here to support the socioeconomic policy that the um the air quality is putting together and and to really think about the impact that it's going to have on the community, any regulations that are going to be um discussed or mandated is to think about the community and the cost and the impact that it will have on people like me. Um I am really um looking at um the people that I teach are the providers and they are um working with the recipients that have chemical sensitivity and the people that have chemical sensitivity cannot go out of their house. And so there needs to be more communication and community meetings so we could inform the community how best to deal with people with uh chemical sensitivity and so they won't be left u in their house by themselves in case of an emergency. Happy holidays and thank you all for serving your community.

Thank you very much. Ivonne Eastman to be followed by Jasmine Cage. Good evening. My name is Ivon Ishman and I'm a member of the Environmental uh Justice League. Um I am I'm a senior and the air quality in my area has impacted my vision. Um, I live near the Parkchester section of Richmond where the railroad goes through 3:00 in the morning every day where Amtrak goes through every day. And some of my friends have been dramatically affected. Several has receive disorders and then those who have other chronic conditions, it has been amplified. Uh, I do I do appreciate the more meetings because the more meetings are bringing out transparency. I do support the Bay Area Air Quality League for um their social economic policy right now, but there still needs to be more and the more meetings then it will enable more seniors to come out and give their their their expression and I thank you so much. Thank you. Jasmine Cage to be followed by uh Karen Kmer Baldwin. Hello everyone. Thank you for your time. I'm Jasmine Cage. I'm a local artist. Um I recently reclo relocated here from Memphis, Tennessee about a year ago. I lived in Memphis for nine years. Although I grew up in Santa Monica. Um racism in the South is, you know, it's well advertised. I don't have to tell you much about it. Um the disparity is it's remarkable. I brought my daughter here. She's 13. She's queer. Um I'm half black, half white. A lot of people don't

know that, especially since cutting my hair. Um so they say things around me when they think it's just us white folks. This what happened recently the other night. Um is deplorable. I happen to be serendipitously I'm a I'm an artist. I was doing window painting on this man's gym the night it happened. And the next day as I was working, all these people came through um in solidarity and I heard so many stories of people, prominent people, people whose families have been here for generations, people of Jewish descent having their cars torched to the ground. My daughter is the one he spoke about who I go to pick up her pick her up every day. I hear n-words. I hear I see kids doing Nazi salutes. She talks about it like I feel like a little bit of a heel cuz I brought her here to Soma County thinking where is the most liberal place like where we could just I don't know I know there's no perfect spot but I was just blown away over this last weekend learning about how much of a problem that this still is in this in this community and I'm really hoping that we can do a little more than thoughts and prayers. The the answer is going to come from privileged white folks. It's it's just got to

Thank you. that we can't do anymore. Thank you. Karen Kramer Baldwin to be followed by Jod Johnson.

Hi, and thank you. I'm here about a hazard on the Paluma River that needs to be removed and I wrote to the planning committee a week ago. I got a response back today that directed me to try three other agencies to see if they were in charge of it. And my feeling is somebody here knows whose jurisdiction it is and it needs to be dealt with before somebody gets hurt or drowns. And the hazard exists about a half a mile down from the turning basin on the east shore. There's a big tree that I understand fell over when they were building the walkway for the river park. And it's just been there in the river for I don't know how long. And I'm a rower so I'm on the river a number of times each week. we go backwards and you do your best to avoid the hazards, but um where it is in the river changes based on the tide and sometimes I try to avoid it by going to the other side where the Darly dock is. Um but you can slam into the dock. So the tree needs to be removed and somebody knows who can remove it. I don't know who that is, but please please do something about it before somebody gets hurt or drowns. Thank you.

Thank you, Jody Johnson. To be followed by Tina Yoners.

Good evening, city council and city staff. As 2025 draws to a close, our mobile park residents, although weary, remain committed to the truth and enforcement of the truth against the bad actor large investment group park owners. Last week, Littlewoods residents received the appeal decision brought against the first of three arbitrations the park owners initiated. Park owners were denied their entire appeal. In fact, we remind our community that park owners sought on appeal a complete redo of arbitration and a new arbitrator back supported this decision as well as now seven arbitration decisions and two appeals in just the last two years. False narratives are being ruled against in arbitration and in superior and appellet courts. Once again, the intention is for these large, highly profiting investment groups to bleed dry all mobile park residents in any city that supports enforcement with frivolous or unsupported costly litigation. Youngsttown senior citizen residents are still reeling from the pullback of a payment plan that resulted in $1969 more added to their November statements. Just in the past three weeks, multiple residents found their utilities turned off for non-payment, communication shut down for non-payment, no heat in three different mobile homes in one of the coldest winters, food insecurity worse than ever, and grief from losing loved ones through their constant turmoil. This retaliation by park owners should not have happened, nor should a decision have to be made by a senior as to whether to avoid eviction or pay for food, heat, or prescription drugs. Tina Yoners to be followed by Lorraine Grumbberger.

Tina not here, not reading. Okay. So then we're on to Lorraine Grunberger. Kelly Walker. Pardon me. Kelly Walker.

So we're on to Kelly Walker. Yes. Next up with Janice Barker want to call me. I'll take them all. Thanks. To fight these investment groups cost money even in the most outrageous abuse to seniors through canvas, excuse me, canes, walkers, wheelchairs, isolation, abuse, and severe retaliation. These seniors stand up to these egregious, excuse me, actions that must be stopped. The city council and city staff have expended resources and more hours than one could count to ensure residents remain housed in a mobile home residents own. We are very aware of the toll this takes on cities, counties, and our larger community. Our most vulnerable residents need us to continue to lend our voice, boying the residents up and erasing any stigma that money, power, and greed will always prevail. The parking issue is front and center at Littlewoods and at Capri, as well as the preservation of an operating mobile park they chose to buy a mobile home in. This is one of the most prolific cases of reduction of services that the same bad actor investment group is doing in every city they own a mobile park in. Immediate litigation is needed to restore parking and unauthorized pass through. Patience is thin for the wife or husband, the single mom, or the teenage daughter, the disabled resident who must walk a long way at night in pain or fear to return to their home. While the whole area parking fenced in last year at this time remains vacant, unused by this act of retaliation. Our communities like Capri and Littlewoods and Youngstown continue to face daily acts of retaliation like 7-day notices for parking or non-issuance of statements for residents to pay. Thank you very much. Janice Barker should be followed by Lydia Alen.

Hi. How about a little change of pace? Finally, we wish to reflect on the disgruntled recall attempt at our district city council member Janice Kedar Thompson. The clock ran out a few days ago on the petition sign petition signatures that would have pro promoted a recall special election. This recall could not be withdrawn just as it had been had just as as had to dissolve once the allocated period of signature collection ran out. December 14th that date ran out. community may hear that this recall was withdrawn, but you cannot withdraw a recall campaign at a signature in at the signature gathering time frame. You will also hear the false narrative that this recall attempt was done to help Pedaluma residents and shake up our city council. These are false narratives and they are just false. This was a recall attempt not based on legal or ethical violations but based on anger and disagreement. It was meant to inflame anger, fear, resentment and resentment against someone who may who who did not even who many did not even know. It was an attempt to place unreliable information untruths in a community member's mind. It became a campaign to change the makeup of the city council into one that would mirror individual disgruntled residents. Oops.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Lydia Ashlin to be followed by Rebecca Carpenter.

Good evening, folks. I'm Lydia Alen. Uh, from info obtained through a recent public records request, I was surprised to find that as of October 14th, a full two months ago, EKN Development had quote abandoned their six-story hotel design for downtown, rendering it no longer viable from an investor uh investor funding point of view. So, I'm sure I'm not the only inquiring mind with questions. Um, does this mean that EKN's six-story hotel application has been withdrawn? Does this mean the city will be rescending the general plan amendment that was the basis for the referendum? Does the referendum become moot or does the city still plan to put the referendum to a vote on some future ballot? If the six-story hotel has been abandoned, is the proposed downtown zoning overlay also moot? So, I I hope that this new four-story hotel uh proposal, which conforms to current zoning requirements for height, lot coverage, and F is something our entire community can get behind. I'm looking forward forward to hearing more about it. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Rebecca Carpenter to be followed by Juliet Stern and Daisy Blades.

Good evening. Uh, I got involved in the no recall campaign because I saw the horrible treatment that Jodie Johnson was getting on social media and I thought it was terrible. For several months, I was witness to the constant harassment dished out by John Hannania, Ed Ansor, and Heather Crack. John would tease them by bragging that the petitions were coming along nicely when they were not. Ed would bully them, even taking a picture of the Youngstown entrance and saying they would that they would be knocking on their doors the following day. This was very upsetting to the elderly residents who would remind him that there was no solicitation and please stay away. Heather would argue with them using the very same words the mobile home park owners would say. Along the way, thanks to some local folks on Next Door, I learned that Ed Anor had made somewhere around 30 fake name accounts on Next Door. He would often create discussions among these many fake names, making it appear that several people were in the same in agreement about the same topic, but it was only one person. Although not as prolifer, and I know of a couple people who did this in the last election. I'm calling these people out because I want everyone to know how cruel they've been and how much they've added to the stress of the mobile home residents. I want everyone to be aware. Thank you.

Thank you. Our last speakers for the night um is Juliet Stern and Daisy Blades together. Hello, my name is Juliet Stern and I'm Daisy Blades. We are seventh graders at Valley Vista Public Waldorf.

Firstly, we want to thank you, the city council, but especially Mayor McDonald, for supporting the vibrant and diverse community that helps to make Paluma the great town it is. We're here to speak to you about Copperfield's books, which is a powerhouse in our community and one that is vital to kids. We found when we found out about the possibility of Copperfields' downsizing, we were concerned because Copperfields is such an important place for both us and our friends. We all love to go to Copperfields to explore and buy books and attend author events. We love reading and Copperfields is more fun and social than the library. It's an such a nice and comfortable store and the staff is so helpful. We feel safe and at home at Copperfields. Also, Copperfields is a source of information and education for us. It's way to better It's way better to ask Patty, Copperfield's children's books expert, advice about what to read and how to find information we're looking for than to do a Google search, especially when you consider mental health concerns associated with too much screen time. We started a petition to see if others were concerned to help raise awareness about the possibility of changes to the store and to motivate people to have the um to have power to influence Copperfield's continued success. We here today to continue to promote awareness about this issue, to use the public forum of the city council to speak up for what kids want, and to ask you as a city council to do all you can to do to ensure our town always has a great and an independent bookstore in the town area.

For example, we urge you to designate Copperfields a legacy business with a non-competitive protection on other advanced use. Thank you. Thank you very much. Always fun to have our future in our room. Um and uh that closes public comment for the evening. Um I do um want to ask staff since we have staff at the DAS tonight. Um if um if they could address that um note about about the uh application for the EKN. Is it uh um is it withdrawn or is it still an appending state?

Thanks, Mayor. Um so, we just received we're we're just starting the process to review uh the four story. Um at this time, it's um they're both active. They're both active at this time. Yeah, there there was some information out there. It was nice to get the direct answer from you. So, thank you for raising the question. And that um uh that closes public comment and brings us up to our council comment and I'd like to start over uh on my left with council member Shribs tonight.

Uh thank you. Um it's been a busy couple weeks here. Several meetings going on. Um one, um I did a little research with on geothermal energy. We talked to Sonoma Clean Power a couple times and uh found out that uh there is going to be a big push to expand and increase the geothermal energy up at the gers and other places with the new closed loop systems. Uh so you'll be hearing about that, but we need to um look forward to supporting that whole effort which means Sonoma Clean Power um maybe getting on 100% green energy. We need to get more folks on that program. Um just as for information um Bill Gates who's one of the leaders of of climate change actions and the like worldwide um is shifting a little bit from uh climate action realizing that we need to do more adaptation rather than uh uh restoration anyway but also other groups that's saying restoration. So anyway still a very important topic uh that's going on but we may be shifting gears. One of the indications is record travel this season for both Thanksgiving and Christmas. So individuals are still taking huge actions uh emitting carbon. Um so that's one of the concerns is that um even though the issues are there just something to pay attention to uh we may have to shift gears a little bit. Um I went to the county tourism uh meeting uh up in Santa Rosa for the whole entire county about the tourist uh group and uh they're saying that that is actually economically our future for growth. Um we need to expand that even more so than even agriculture. Um and they are looking for cooperation from all the municipalities. Um they have a new thing called life opens up LOU uh and marketing and uh and several of the municipalities are working with the county group on that one. But it looks like tourism which also adds carbon uh to our atmosphere. So yes, it's economic benefit, but there's a cost down road

for it. Um at several meetings uh I've been to the concerns is dollars from the state and the feds declining. uh something to pay attention to. Uh I did go to the north station specific plan um uh workshop this last week. Uh lots of folks did show up provide lots of information. Still more information is being gathered. So and but there is an actual work group that's going to do more intensive work on that. So everyone's invited to join in or apply for that a work group that would be continuing that effort for the north station um Corona Road basically area looking at that. Um and the main concern that was coming up being generated there was the um uh higher density in housing and congestion on Corona Road. So that's be worked out um at a couple other meetings um that the there are bay plans for 20 just like we have a um a city general plan. The whole Bay Area has plans heading toward 2050. Lots of them. So there's lots of possible participation there. And our general plan seems to be following what what the Bay Area plans is also doing. So we seem to be linking up and and cooperating at least in in phil in theory and philosophy on all those plans are coming together at the North Bay Water Reuse Association this morning. Um there we met in person for the first time since 2019. Um and I fig okay must be important meeting to do that. But what they went to is uh Paluma has one been a recipient for fairly large grants to do recycled water which our purple pipes are on track and going in and happening. So we're a major re recipient of those efforts by that association. But it's a regional and working together as a region. It's going to be really important that we continue to lobby uh the state and the federal government particularly the state for sea level rise drought adaptations um and re and reuse of recycled water. uh we're

competing with Southern California tremendously um for hundreds of millions of dollars and because of that competition um and they're going after um using recycled water for potable uses or portable uses I should say. Um so with that we need to put more effort in in a unified effort to garner monies here for sea level rise and drought adaptations and reuse of recycled water for um for agricultural type use and parks and the like. So, there's things that are going on there. Um, let's see. Um, lighted bike parade is is this Friday, so at 5:00 pm, uh, join us there at Walnut Park on the 19th here. Uh, light up your bike and bring it on on a big holiday tour. Um, at the climate action uh, commission, which was this last week, there is um, a slight shift. We're going to um, we we've got the policies in place, the frameworks in place. So, there's going to be a shift for next year. So instead of 12 meetings, we're going to drop down to six meetings, but there's going to be an emphasis now on implementation, outreach, and supporting staff for the implementation and also looking at general plan. So that's happening at the um for the climate commission. Okay, that I think I've got it all covered.

Thank you very much. And the bike ride is rain or shine. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Guess we could get our first rains. Council member Quint,

good evening. Uh yes. Uh so Wednesday the 3, I participated in a joint uh transit advisory committee uh pedestrian bicycle advisory committee meeting to review and provide feedback on the concepts developed for the Lakeville corridor corridor improvement study. So we had um uh we had a nice showing from the public um and lots of of good input for there. It was a great meeting. Uh then I just want to thank our community members for showing up and speaking out against the current rise of racism in our community. I support those community members. I echo their sentiments and you know I'm really bothered by those developments and I'm committed to working with community groups to help find solutions. So it it I do believe it's an important problem and we all need to stand together uh to find a solution. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member D. Charlie,

good evening everyone. So, at airport commission, we more or less just had an endofear recap and that included, you know, a lot of successes that um that the airport commission, the airport, the airport manager had. Um the biggest one being title 16, which was an update to the municipal code for the airport. That was a big heavy lift for staff and everybody else involved. Um lots of ramp projects got done out there, upgrades um and upgrades to the electrical infrastructure. Um, the display days that they do in the warmer months of the year have been very successful this year where the community gets to go out, interact with pilots, see planes, and see what the airport's all about. Then, um, you know, they got the avionic shop back which opened up a lot more business to the airport and for for current tenants there to be able to get instruments calibrated and worked on. Um, and then it just goes on and on and lots of hanger improvements and the hanger that got crashed into over three years ago is uh finally getting fixed. So that was a lot of stuff to celebrate this year from the airport commission. Then um I attended the other week the candle um candle light and tree lighting at Walnut Park. That was um you know that's an event to remember those that are no longer with us. So everybody held little candles in solidarity and then they lit the tree at the end. people spoke and you know that was a nice event to remember those that aren't with us anymore. And then yesterday attended the holiday makers fair at the Hotel Paluma. Um you know Pedaluma has a ton of small businesses that maybe not a lot of people know about because you know some have storefronts, some don't. You don't always get to see them unless you do events like this where they can come set up, you can interact with owners. Um a lot of them have great cool innovative products. Um, so it's a it's a nice way to help smaller businesses out and um, yeah, so that's if you didn't go to that next year they do it and there's other types of maker fairs throughout the year. And then lastly, since we're 10

days away, wanted to wish everybody a merry Christmas. Thank you, Council Member Barnacle. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no report outs. Um, although I will say that, um, there's for a lot of people that it's not something new to hear. It's something we have to work on every single day. And every time that we hear about these these issues of racism in our community, we all have to stand together and push back on them because um that's the only way it's going to get better. And it doesn't um go away. It just goes dormant. So um I want you to know I it's troubling for all of us to read that stuff and we we do take it seriously. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Kater Thompson.

Thank you. Um I want to also talk about the racism. Um it's nothing new to Paluma. It's um been here for a long time and it's really surfacing and it's really disturbing when you're seeing it in your junior highs and high school kids. Um it comes from the home and if parents don't recognize this what they're teaching their kids, we're going to have to do it as a community. Um I will be talking to um the superintendent of schools, plan on calling him tomorrow. I've already called some school board members talking about this. I've heard other incidences that are just as disturbing and it just can't continue to happen and it seems as though racism is definitely on the rise in all small cities in the entire United States and this is really unfortunate. Um I feel u my recall had racism in it. I'm Jewish and there were pictures of me or pictures, you know, long noses and all this crap on social media and it came from the few people that Miss Carpenter spoke about and it's just disgusting. Um, so and I think I did write back to um Mr. to Bruce and I'd like to connect with you and anybody else please let's um connect soon. Um I also um the light of boat A bike parade may be cancelled because of the rain. So, it is not rain or shine. I talked with Pete Gang today. So, we want to

game time decision.

Yeah. Something something might change on that. We'll see. Um and I just want to say as far as my um committees, the League of California Cities, um I'm on that board and we met and planning our agenda for the year. Um, as far as Sonoma County Transportation Climate Action, this past Friday, there was a group of us that had a com conference with Calrans on the HO lanes and the times and there will be changes coming. We're not 100% sure what the changes are, so I can't say, but there's a lot of um prep time to prepare for this because it's, you know, like a 56 mile corridor and there's a lot of signs that are going to have to be changed and so it'll take some time, but we really asked them to expedite it because we recognize what the problems are and and so it was a good conversation to have with them. Um, and let's see. Um, and I think that's just about it. And I'm just I just want to also talk about just what's happening with the killings um Brown University um what happened down in Los Angeles um with the Riner family and also what happened in Australia and it's just every single day people are being murdered um because people are delusion they have bad delusions of they just don't respect other people and that's what's happening and unless we start respecting each other and um making changes. It's not going to happen. And I hope I never have to go out after midnight at night and have two people that are in this room videoing me and one up and down the sidewalk. That is not acceptable.

Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. Now,

um thank you, Mr. Mayor. um on the um pedalist dance against United Against Hate, there's a QR code and I just brought it up on my phone and it talks about all the um ways that our city has been um standing up against hate and strengthening our commitment to diversity, equality, inclusion, and belonging and our commitment to uphold the values. So, um check it out. Um the it speaks for itself. Um this past few weeks have been very busy with Pedalum's many grand openings, public art, ribbon cutings, holiday events that create lasting memories during this special season. I hope you have been able to enjoy our community's festivities with family and friends. This meant our city staff has been completing numerous projects to help keep Pedalum safe both today and into the future. One example of their dedicated efforts was shared at the recent zone 2A Pedalum River watershed flood protection zone advisory committee meeting. Staff provided updates on the regional and local hazards mitigation ma plan city creek maintenance FEMA mapping and the and our general plan. There is far too much information for me to cover tonight in a brief liaison report, but I encourage anyone interested to reach out to me anytime for further discussion or visit our city's website, especially for information on stream, creek, and river management as we move through the winter weather season. Wishing you all a wonderful holiday and a peaceful and joyous new year. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um, well, for my report, I guess the the coolest thing that I've been involved with lately was a legislative tour of emerging electrification technology and decarbonization uh firms in the Bay Area. Uh, the group, the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators was going to be in the Bay Area, and they invited a few mayors to join. Um, but the highlights were city of Oakland has an all-electric bus fleet. And the cool part about bus fleet as we're learning about energy is uh the problem with peak use of energy. Well, school buses and their big old batteries are in the yard at 5:00 when everybody turns on their power needs. They feed back into the grid. And so, you know, green electric energy that charges the battery and drives the school kids around um is reserving back into the community during the peak. So, that was cool. And then they talk about the tech that new things have and there's just so much new cool tech on any um new device that the performance their stops are shorter so they need less buses to achieve the same route. I mean, just so many good things are going on. Um, I toured copper in Berkeley where they make an oven, a stove that is on a 110 circuit. Most stoves are on 210 electric circuits. If you do it on Well, the trick is there's a big old battery that surge inside the stove that surges when you need more electricity. And so, you can do whole apartment conversions just by plugging it in the outlet that's already in the apartment. Um and this addresses uh some of the building decarbonization that's in our climate blueprint and we want to make changes on. Also s saw window style heat pumps which are cheaper and easier than the mini split systems that are on the market now. We got to ride uh over to San Francisco for more of the tour on uh the emerging electric ferryboat systems of the bay. Many of the ferry boat systems are changing their boats to

electric. Um we got a tour of the Tesla factory. we um um which is more like Disneyland than anything. Um and but the big takeaway is that um solar and and uh and cars, electric cars have kind of reached a maturity in an economic sense and can withstand a loss of subsidy. They're still good value. The payback happens really quick and um you know all all these things are happening and they're going to be coming to a house next to you soon. Um you don't have to be a climate thinker. one of the one of the things we put forward now tech is just better and cheaper to do these things um on the county's continuum of care board the homeless board the federal government again changed for the worst for our housing and homelessness it's thrown another challenge at us they changed all the criteria for fun for getting funding and then when that was pushed back they said well then just we won't put out any funding so I mean we've we're we will have people out on the streets because there isn't the money to keep them in their already housed conditions. It's really it's very sad the measure O oversight board account it's a county tax measure O um and as a result all these federal funding cuts um this tax is be being used to backfill all the mental health programs that have been losing their funding and thank god the Sonoma County voters in 2020 uh agreed approved that important funding. I do want to thank staff for the Keller uh street parking garage improvements. We held a parking workshop and people told us what they needed and the the lowhanging fruit was make the parking structures better and and and uh those actions have been uh taken and there's more on the way. Um I design I attended a webinar on designing safe streets. So many cool things other cities are doing and hopefully um they're doing them makes ours better when we do them. Um, I

attended the hospice treelighting with several of our C. You can't go to a public event without seeing several council members. So, thank you for the team. Um, that was a real good community event. I got to judge at the lighted boat parade and it was a perfect night to watch all the boats. It's our third parade in town. We have Veterans Day butter and egg and boat par. Um, I was able to attend the opening of the historic museum's toys through time from machine age to space age. That's at our Conne Library Museum downtown. You should all check that out. Uh we were able to with the vice mayor, we were at the dedication of Cherry Valley Mary Collins School for their uh Mary Fuller Machznney sculpture collection uh city art being installed at schools. Tonight I facilitated a meeting with the Copperfields bookstores and several concerned school groups where they Copperfields could explain it's not as dire as you might have read previously. That'll be fine. there'll be in there'll be changes but fine um I attended the northstation community meeting scoping session and I was pleased to see all the attendance there um and community input there and um I too have to weigh in on racism. I know we've mentioned it from the DAS any number of times and I probably have to continue to do so. I mean there's no question that institutional racism is a part of America. It's part that we can work on, but when it's personal racism, you have to stand up in your chair and shout and you just um it's just wrong, wrong, wrong, and we can't sit through that. Um today, uh December 15th is a day of significance. Today, the recall campaign against one of the council members has died. The effort was made, but there was no substance in it, and uh it did not resonate with the community and now has failed. It's always a risk in as a public servant like council that people will disagree with you. It's a horrible

abuse for one individual from outside the sub subject jurisdiction to misrepresent the character and record of council members who's doing admirably. So I'm happy to see December 15th and this issue be gone. Um, I do want to wish everyone a happy holidays as this is our last meeting of the year. And I just want to note that uh um I really appreciate the council's and staff's collaborative nature and openness, transparency to all issues. It's been a very good year and uh look forward to the rest of tonight's meeting. Thank you. And I'll pass it to our batting now for our city manager, our assistant city manager. Any comments from the city manager's chair?

Sure. Thank you, mayor. Um, good evening, council and community. Two quick things. First, I would just encourage everybody, uh, if you're interested, go check out Luma Ice. It is now open at the fairgrounds. Uh, looks really great out there. And, uh, since we may have a little rain coming up, it is actually indoors this year, so rain or shine, Luma Ice is there for your holiday enjoyment. uh you can go to luma ice.com to get tickets and check out more information on on that and it is open through January 6th. And then second week uh continuing with the rain theme, just wanted to remind the community that intermittent rain is expected over the next few weeks and that accumulations uh of water may be significant. While there are not current weather or flood alerts, it is possible that we could experience some localized flooding at points during this rain episode. City uh as we typically do have set up sandbag uh self-service locations at two two spots in town. So 840 Hopper Street, which is the city corpyard, as well as Prince Park. So those are self-service, meaning we provide the sand and the sandbags, and you provide the shovel to scoop the sand. Uh for more information you can go to city of pedaluma.org/ flooding-fac. And then one final safety reminder. Uh as with all storms, we recommend motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists use caution when traveling on the roadways. Drivers should not pass road closures or flooding signs. And if there's standing water on the roadway, they're advised to not attempt to drive through the water. So, thank you and happy holidays, everybody.

Thank you. And I can't believe we got through seven council people and didn't get a Luma ice shout out. That's wonderful what's going on there. Um and so that brings us to our consent calendar for the evening. And um so um thank you very much. Happy holidays. And I'll look up and down the DAS to see if anyone wishes to remove any particular item. And I see the vice mayor's hand up. An item to uh remove from our consent. Um Mr. Mayor, can I please pull number eight? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.

Um any others? Good. So um let us handle this by uh taking items 1 through 7 as um a group and then move on to number eight. Um and so um uh we will do all of the public comment uh together uh on items all eight and then break it into two separate voting motions. So um public comment um madame clerk have we had any public comment on the consent calendar?

We did have one public comment on item number eight. Uh I have not yet received any cards but this is the moment. So public comment is um open for folks to come in. Not seeing anyone standing and not having any cards. We will close public comment on um all all the consent calendar. I'd like to bring it back up to the dis and ask for a motion on one to seven. Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion for one through

recusals on I thought we needed recusals on some. So, um um I'm going to defer to our attorney, but I believe that there um there's no required recusals that um required recusals that I'm aware of. That is that is right. Um um I'm just double checking. Right. Um based on our review um um there are no um disqualifying conflicts and no required recusals. um either because um of the distance of members property interests from the business improvement district or because the public generally generally exception applies because in pedal luma um um more than 25% of the commercial property in the city is within 500 ft of the business improvement district.

So if there are more questions happy to address them. Thank you. Do you wish to make a second to the one to seven? Second. Thank you very much. So, we have a a motion from the vice mayor and a second from council member Barnacle and um not seeing any uh other questions. May we have a roll call vote, please? Barnacle, hi. Gator Thompson, yes. D Carly, yes. Now, yes. Quint, yes. Shri, yes. McDonald, yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. And um on to item eight. And u vice mayor since you uh raised the question, why don't you uh uh give us your feelings on the subject?

Um yes, and I actually wrote them down so I wouldn't forget them or waste any time. Unfortunately, I supported this item before I had an opportunity to speak to our stakeholders in the industry. Um North Coast Builders Exchange and the Northern Engineering Contractors Association. Both of these groups were not contacted regarding this item and they feel there should have been more discussion. So I will not be voting in favor of it this evening. You know, and um that is a good note. I I raised those questions at at our last meeting.

You did, Mr. Mayor, but unfortunately it fell right on the Thanksgiving weekend and I played telephone tag with the stakeholders myself to get their input. Oh, um just by way of um saying that I support what you're saying is that we should be uh doing the outreach in the stakeholder groups and and in the community. And um and when I raised it, it um you know, I felt uncomfortable about moving on without the two biggest organizations in that this will affect having had a chance to make comment on a public uh document. So, I think I'll be joining you in that tonight and um I'll move approval. Did well did we get any uh feedback from staff as to why they weren't included?

So, let's put that in the form of a question to staff and um and that would be through our legal department.

Um thank you, mayor and council members. So, as we discussed um when the item was introduced um we were pressed for time to have these tools available staff um with a number of solicitations that are going out currently um and we're not able to give more notice than the uh Brown Act pro agenda notice provides. We did get some written comment from one of the trade groups um um that seemed to be um higher level sort of commentary that didn't get into the details of what was in the regulations. I've not had other outreach from any of the trade groups um since that time up up through and including today. So that's my answer. If there are more questions, happy to address them. Do we have any questions from council?

I'll second the motion. Okay. And council member Shreds. Um, can I amend the motion so that we maybe table this till next meeting so that the outreach could be completed first beforehand just for full transparency? I think that's a good question for staff. We can defer that question to staff.

Um, the the [clears throat] council can absolutely do that. um and um and uh delay the second reading, but that will delay the effective date of the regulations um and you know delay the the regulations being available to address um issues with um with contra contractors that may be bidding on city projects that may have histories that um reflect um risks to the public um and to our programs. So, but but it's totally up to the council. Um we, you know, I know the information is out there. Um and I don't know if any of the members council members have received specific comments or inquiries from trade representatives, but we have not. So, um we could use some direction about that if the council is

Okay. Let's find out if we're heading in that direction. Council member um Shrebs. Okay. Um just with that uh considering that this was supposed to be a rarelyus ordinance um even though it might have implications for right now today for one or two um because it's supposed to be rarely used I think a delay of just a few weeks um should be adequate and okay for us to move to get that moved next time. Um I don't see the deed right now was not presented to us that needed to be done today. Um, and this is a second reading, so I'd rather have it be transparency. So, thank you very much. Or did you have a comment, Council Member Car?

Um, well, I would support that. But then I Eric, are you saying too that are there any particular bids that you're concerned about that the effective date needs to be in place by? Um, well, we're going to be we're on a pretty tight schedule with the public safety facility, which is one of our most major public works projects in a while. Um I I don't know if we've got if Paul's here if he wants to address other projects we have in the pipeline, but I think there are a number. Um yeah, because I mean this is part of what I was referring to at the last meeting we discussed that is trying to figure out why the urgency, why the rush and

so I my understanding it's because the project pipeline including in particular the public safety facility. I do know that uh staff have been eager to have these tools available which is why we've been working on them and and brought them and and frankly did a um we're kind of um sort of working hard to get them to the council as soon as we could but I see Paul has joined us so he may have some additional info. Thank you.

Sure. Good evening council Paul Kro public works director. I'll just add to including the in addition to the public safety facility we also had two projects that just went that just were advertised for bid uh last Friday. uh including um the skate park as well as uh Rainineer Avenue paving project. So those will open in January. I don't have the the dates off the top of my head, but those will open in January. Thank you. Okay. But we always have projects going up to bid, too. So, I mean, maybe it's like John said, if this is going to be so rarely used, we should give some stakeholders a chance to weigh in on this.

Absolutely. The council's prerogative to give us that direction. Um and and the more specifically you do the more we can be confident of you know being responsive. Okay. Um thank you. Thank you. Um I'm coming over to Council Member Kater Thompson.

So has staff heard from any of these stakeholders? Is there any information any letters that anybody sent? We saw one letter that as I mentioned I I think it indicated um that um that that that trade group had had begun to review but hadn't completed their review of the of the regulations that were being prepared for introduction. I in in the city attorney's office team, we've not received additional input from from those groups, but I don't know if they may have, you know, they may have sent directly to council members or other I I don't know if if the public works team has we have not.

Thank you. I'm not done. Um I'm actually comfortable supporting this tonight because it's protecting the city. We have bids going out and that's what we should be doing is protecting the city. And I do know contractors, few of them that have had problems in the past and that may not be the best, you know, for this community. And so I think this is a tool that we should have to use to make sure that when the contracts go out that they are contractors that are up to the standards. And I don't really see what I'm not sure what the communication is going to be between quote the stakeholders who could have contacted the city and actually had a conversation before tonight. Thank you,

Councilman Barnacle.

Yeah, I um I mean if there's not support to move the item tonight, we can table it and move it out. Um we always complain and come budget time when capital projects get pushed out. Um, and good contractors are not going to complain about um con, you know, irresponsible or non-responsible contractors that being disqualified from a bid. Um, so um I'd like to, you know, hope that we can get four votes for this and um give our staff the tools they think they need to um deliver capital projects more efficiently. And um but if we need to table it until after the new year, then that's what we'll do. But um it just feels like um we push our staff to get our capital projects done come budget time and then when they bring something to us that is going to help them do that um now we're pushing back and forcing them to go through uh more outreach and and whatnot um instead of get their bids out and get the projects on schedule. So,

I'll be reminding folks of this uh come budget time when when we're asking why capital projects are not getting done, I'm going to be reminding folks of the extra bureaucracy we're we're creating for our staff. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Quinn.

Yeah. Uh I think Brian and Janice took the words out of my mouth. I agree with them given the fact that we haven't received communication or we've received one. Um, you know, I might feel differently about it if there were uh if we had received several and uh to the point that one of them made, the good contractors I think would appreciate this because they're not being underbid by contractors who are not qualified to do the work. So, I fully supported I'm going to weigh in here a little bit. Um um I I think the um the burden on doing outreach for innovative ordinance in one city is on city to reach out to the stakeholders. It's not for them to come in with the letters first. I mean how do they know the issue is rising. Secondarily on this it is a draconian measure for um you know special uh circumstances which are highly um unlikely to occur. You don't you know you want for that one awful day. Um but I would anticipate that our stakeholders will not like this as it puts rules in place but I don't think that they'll object on the basis that the rules the implementation is so unlikely to occur which was my basis of support in the last meeting was like this isn't going to happen and so um I'm willing to wait the time to uh find out if that's in fact what the um organizations will give you as feedback. back because they hate it, but it's not going to matter. Um, any other comment on this before we council member Shribs come back here.

Okay. I think the question we're raising is not if they came to us, but did we go to them? Um, because in this type of ordinance, we're actually applying it to a group of folks um who should have known about it or or uh and if we're not telling them about it ahead of time and then taking an action on it, there's something wrong with that. So, did we inform the the two major building groups here in the county that this was coming and we wanted their feedback first? Uh, did we make that outreach because we we were all about outreach. We've been doing a lot of that and all these cases. Did we do the proper outreach? So, that's a rhetoric. It's a rhetorical question. Well, it's rhetorical because they've said no, they haven't. So,

no. Uh, right. They did not do the outreach to the group. So, I just would that's that's a a fine line that uh I think we should not cross. So, council vice mayor,

um, this item came out in the agenda after Thanksgiving, that Friday after Thanksgiving for a Monday's meeting. It looked like it was just a housekeeping type, you know, we want to protect our city. We do want to make sure that our best contractors are hired, but now the public has brought it to the attention of these two organizations. I reached out to one and have been playing telephone tag. They may be in, you know, approval of this and support it, but they have not had an opportunity to ask any questions. And that's what they want is just an opportunity to talk, have a discussion, and have that transparency before I vote on it. I would like to have that conversation between staff and these organizations. Council

K Thompson. A lot of times when agenda items are out, organizations like that actually look for stuff like this and so they didn't. So maybe they didn't find a need. And is anybody in the audience here tonight to speak because they had plenty of time to come and speak? And so now we're asking for something special and we're going to pull this and and give them special courtesy when they could be here tonight because we have a council member that's already been talking to them. So why aren't they here tonight is my question, right? We did have one public comment.

We did receive one. And I and I think part of the reason this is important is because if successful uh tonight, it will probably be a model ordinance for others to follow. So I think it's important for us to have had that conversation. So we have a a motion and a second on the table and uh my frank question is is council member Shribes, will you support it if we make the motion or should we table it? You're the swing vote. I think uh my preference at this time is to just table it for for a couple weeks. Um and then I'll be in favor of it. But after the after we give the folks a chance to give us some feedback. All right. I'll make a motion to table item eight until um the first meeting in January.

He's agreeing to You should second. Yes. Okay. I should say I thought I made that as a motion to amend. I thought I was the first to do that before second. So we we have a motion to table from Barnacle and a a second from Shribs. And And do are we going to be anything? you want to modify on this before we get going? No, that's that's fine, council. Um, and I'd appreciate it if um if the members that have received the contact refer those callers to to me. Um, and then we'll be glad to hear what their questions are and address them and if they haven't seen the the full ordinance, we can share a link with them. Thank you very much. U with that uh we ready for a roll call vote, please.

Barnacle. Hi. Gator Thompson. No D Carly. Yes. Now, yes, Quint. Yes. Shribs. Yes. McDonald. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. And uh that brings us to our public hearings and matters for consideration for the evening. And uh while the team uh comes up and loads up, um it is number nine, a resolution of the city council, the city of Paluma approving the preferred citywide land use map and associated land use designation standards for purpose of informing the development of the draft general plan update and associated environmental review. Uh leading off for us tonight will be Heather Hines, our special projects manager. And um joining will be Ron Whitmore, principal of Remy and Associates, who have been working on our general plan update. So, thank you. Take it away. And uh there'll be uh a momentary delay while we load um a uh presentation into the computer and monitors. Okay. Good evening, Mayor, council members. I'm happy to be here tonight. It's a big milestone in the general plan

update process. Um so very happy to be here tonight. Very happy um to see members of our general plan advisory committee in the audience as well as members of um the planning commission. So um it has taken all of us a lot of um time and effort as um to get here tonight. So um let us start this presentation. Um so is this the our first slide? Yeah, it is out of order to me. Um so this is the recommendation that is outlined in your staff report. So we are going to start with the recommendation, finish with the recommendation, but it gives you as well as members of the public um here tonight an indication of of what the action before you is. So there is a resolution, draft resolution that is part of your packet and it is um to adopt a resolution that will inform the preparation of the draft general plan and the associated environmental impact report. Um and that would be approving the land use designation standards and the citywide land use map um for the purposes of the draft general plan and the EIR. So I want to be really clear on that because approving this resolution tonight does not change the land use map um for the city. um it is just adopting the preferred citywide land use map for purposes of this draft general plan. Also included in that resolution, we have had a number of um individual requests from property owners for properties that are outside the areas of

change which has been the focus of our land use um discussion. Um, so we will talk through those. Um, and it is we are recommending that a few of those be changed along with this preferred citywide land use map. There are also a couple of recommendations that came out of the general plan advisory committee and planning commission discussions about this packet um that we are forwarding to the council and we'll go into more detail. uh from the GPAC there was a recommendation that we should restrict standalone residential development on properties that are identified for our 15minute town center and neighborhood centers. Um so we will talk a little bit about that more in detail. And the planning commission had two recommendations from a majority of the planning commission. One was to um recommend that the city council reconsider their previous direction to eliminate the station mixeduse land use designation. The other one had to do with Paluma's city schools um and the recent um the recent um measure parcel tax measure that was before the voters and didn't pass and um acknowledging that and wanting to make sure that properties owned by the school district had some flexibility to help them in that in that time um of restricted budget. Um and so specifically talked about the Kasa Grande site that is designated as a 15-minute neighborhood center and um a a recommendation to consider increasing the density and intensity on that site. So we'll go into each of those um in a little more detail and ready for discussion, but that gives you an overview.

Uh so this the presentation largely follows your staff report going to give you an update on the general plan project overall talk about those property specific requests recommendations from GPAC and planning commission and then the bulk of the presentation is a report back to the city council on land use direction that we received from all of you during the three workshops we had earlier this year. um discuss briefly um a couple technical analyses that were completed as we had previously discussed and to um make sure that the land use direction that the city is going is in keeping um with those values and making sure we're not making land use decisions in a vacuum. Um, and then we'll touch briefly on general plan implementation as we are hitting these big milestones and looking forward to what comes next. So, I'm going to hand it over to Ron to give a project update. Good evening, council members. Thanks again for having us on your agenda. Uh, as Heather mentioned, we're very excited to be here tonight. Um this is an important moment that culminates much of the work we've been doing for several years and very much an opportunity to celebrate and you can see that in part uh in this project roadmap that you've seen many times. We're now getting very close to the end of it. We've done a tremendous amount of work um and for the land use work specifically that is the focus tonight. That work really began almost at the beginning of the project where through initial community engagement and some initial work with the GPAC during discovery and visioning phases, we began to identify specific or particular areas in the city where we thought there that might be candidates for change in general plan land use designations. Um but before we get into that detail, just to remind you, um it

has been a multi-phase project. Um along the way we've done several other major things that are related andor uh central to the general plan update including adopt a a housing element develop flood modeling specific to pedaluma which is very much informed not just our land use policy but also other strategies and policies in the draft general plan. Um you also adopted the blueprint for carbon uh uh for climate action. uh the residents confirmed the importance of the urban growth boundary. Um and as Heather will say a bit more about later, um also already initiating some zoning code updates. So, a lot has been going on throughout this process. But again, land use has been very much a theme and we've been discussing it at at length and in some detail for some time. So, this is an exciting moment um in the project's progression. Um the reason we're asking for you this evening to confirm the map and designations is so that we can um complete the um environmental draft environmental impact report which is very much which is very dependent on the map and designations and get to your um the deadline that you've said it we're aiming for which is a September 2026 adoption deadline. And so um we we'd like your affirmation tonight so that we can stay on that schedule that you've requested. This is a very high level overview but just to refresh your memory for some time now the project has been on two major tracks. One has been a policy track and the second is the land use track which is the focus tonight. Before we focus on that, just wanted to remind you that the two are coming together in the draft element, um, excuse me, the draft general plan, um, which is on track to be published in the spring for public review. Um, and so though we're

talking tonight about land use mapping and designations primarily, it's important to remember that they're complemented very much by policy, and we'll speak to that several uh, at several points during tonight's discussion as well. Um, but just to re-emphasize here with this slide is that they the policies went through extensive public review already, including a close look by the GPAC planning commission and yourselves. And we've been taking all of that input and um finalizing refinements to those in preparation for pulling together the draft general plan. The land use map or uh pathway has been a bit longer than the policy development. As I mentioned, it started all the way back in 2021 um with a lot of considerable public input. The GPAC um probably more than anybody has spent many many hours, probably at least 10 different meetings over the last few years focusing specifically on land use mapping and designation starting way back uh in in 2022 really. Um, it's also been on your agenda several times already, beginning in spring of 2024 when we brought to you candidates for areas of change and some initial thoughts on options we might present to the public for change. Those were then presented to the public last summer. We got we did extensive community engagement, got lots of robust input. Um and then that was further deliberated on by uh the GPAC and the PC and the general plan advisory committee made its final recommendations early this year which were reflected in the briefing book that was brought to you in I'm going to get the dates wrong. Uh was it March to kick off the workshops? Yeah. So then we were with you in March, April and again in June to get your feedback on the draft map and designations. And so the reason we're coming back to this evening is to show you the revised map

and designations reflecting your direction and as Heather mentioned some analysis that has been done to confirm that there won't be any unintended consequences with these land use changes u related to the city's fiscal health um utilities wastewater and wastewater capacity um and transportation and related climate goals. Um, just to remind folks, this map, which is more conceptual, is really just what we've been has what been has been driving our land use um, work for some time now. This kind of summarizes what we heard from the public and it real boil really boils down to five main things. reduce development upstream um where we know there's value to open space and where uh the city is particularly vulnerable to flood impacts both present and projected future. Then concentrate development largely in the core and along key corridors. Um and then um also uh supplement that with policies that support infill residential and the integration of some non-residential commercial into the the largely residential neighborhoods throughout the city and then complement that with these 15-minute activity centers with the goal of providing people easy access to their daily needs. And so that's kind of been the big picture that's been driving a lot of our conversation. And it's often helpful to keep that in mind as we think about the detail. And as I noted a little bit earlier, just to re-emphasize, we're on track um pending tonight's direction from council to release a public draft general plan in the spring so that we can get it back to you um late summer for consideration for adoption.

So, um, wanted to start this presentation really with, uh, reporting on some of the new information, um, that that goes into your deliberations this evening. Um, the first of which has to do with our property owner outreach that we've done. So, back in April, we did a direct mailing about 160 properties and we've been having conversations with um with property owners as a result of that ongoing. Uh more recently we sent approximately 500 direct mailings um direct letters direct mail to um property owners within the areas of change or adjacent to areas of change. Um alerting them to okay this is now taking the next step and you might be seeing um some proposed changes. Um while a lot of those are lateral changes um we still thought it was important to um do that next round of notification to property owners um in those areas of change. We have also done outreach um in advance of this meeting on in our newsletter our growing constant contact list that receives emails as well as social media. So, one of the things that came out of the direct mailing was a lot of conversations um with property owners and a number of um individual properties that are being requested for a change as part of this process that are outside of areas of change. Um so, attachment 8 to your staff report had a longer list. A number of them we had already incorporated or um the intent of their request has already been incorporated for instance uh wanting additional density options

and there's already um increased density happening in that land use designation. So a number of them are on attachment 8 but um don't require additional action um to incorporate. So, what I'm going to focus on is the shorter list within that list um that we'd like to solicit council input on today. Um so, the first being a property at 921 transport. This property is currently um designated industrial, but it is developed with an with an office building. Um it was office when it was purchased. Um that redesation happened during the last general plan and it really created a nonconformity um for that property owner. Um that causes um additional process or delay when retening office spaces or um any kind of changes. Um so they're asking to be redesated to business park to address that ongoing nonconformity. um staff looked at it and didn't see any um issues with with that. It's really changing the designation for the um longstanding existing use of the property. Um so that is one that is recommended to redesate from that industrial to business park. Uh the next property 705 North Webster Street. This is um a number of properties, three properties. They have different designations, public, semi-public, and low density residential. All three of these parcels are currently used by Spring Hill School. Um, and their request is to reddesate all three of those parcels to education to align with that existing school use on the site. Um so again uh request is to redesate it to be

consistent with the activity um and the development that's already on the site. Um so that recommendation is also to redesate to education. 525 Western was on your request list. This is um a property near the crearyy um on the corner. It's currently diverse low density residential and there had been um interest um in occupying that space with a personal service use and concern um that that the existing um residential wasn't allowing that. Um we have since had conversations, staff has had conversations with representative of the property owner and they are not in support of a land use change at this time. So we have um changed that recommendation to leave it as as it is as diverse lowdensity residential given that these are properties um that the reason we're talking about them is property owners are requesting the change. So um with with that conversation with um the property owner's representative um we have changed our recommendation to no change. Um the next one is actually two separate property owners, but they are um own property that together makes a a existing business park complex. So this is out at um North Mcdal, 1420 North McDall, 5341 Old Redwood Highway. Um the property owners are requesting redesation to a mixed use to allow housing with optional ground floor, commercial or office. Um the site is underutilized and has according to the property owner is unable to lease as office space. Um I do want to point out that this complex is currently four

buildings. The fourth being the Applebees building out on the corner and then there is one common parcel. So the landscaping, the parking um is all jointly owned by the three different property owners that own the four existing buildings that are each on their own parcel. So the footprint of each building is its own parcel. Um so this this area is within the 100red-year flood plane. Um it is in proximity to existing commercial and business park development. So um staff identified the benefit to redesating to a mixed use that might support adding some residential um in proximity to existing commercial uses. Uh also wanted to um point out it is business park. We do have a finite amount of business park um designated properties. We estimate that there's approximately the city has currently about a little over 500 acres of business park designated property. This is about 12 acres. So, it is um it would be a reduction in the city's um office um office park um property. um office is an allowable use in mixed use, but also standalone residential is an allowed use in um step down mixed use. So, it just want to kind of like lay out that there's a a number of things to consider um on on that one specifically. We would recommend, staff would recommend that if a redesation is supported on this property that it be the entire complex and not just the footprint of two of the buildings and leaving the rest in a different um designation as they're all under the

same PCD zoning designation. And then the last one is a new newer request since um since the packet went out. There is um a property on Cineabar, the north side of Cineabar um that is currently medium density residential. Uh it is adjacent to um a much larger property or series of properties, one of which is owned by the same property owner that is and these are being changed to maker micro business. Um so the property owner request I think it came in as a public comment letter. um is to also include that cineabar parcel which is currently vacant as maker micro business to um have that consistency across across the properties. Um this property is bordered by medium density residential on one side and maker micro business on the other side. So, um it it could it's consistent with the neighborhood either way. Um but um in keeping with the property owner's request and um kind of surrounded on two sides by maker micro business, that would be staff's recommendation. So, these recommendations um are included in the resolution. Um should the council move forward with that re that resolution, we do have a few um edits to make sure we're brought up to speed with some of the changes I discussed today. So, moving on to general plan advisory committee and planning commission. Both of these advisory bodies um received a very similar presentation and discussion

in November. Um the general plan advisory committee unanimously um made a recommendation to not allow 100% residential um in the properties that are designated as the 15minute activity centers. And this really came about after discussion um as you've heard a number of times, the GPAC was instrumental in going over those land use um designation standards with a fine tooth comb and increased flexibility was a big theme of many of the GPAC discussions. Um, so while not wanting to lose that, they realized as we were specifically discussing Legghorn Plaza, um, that the mixeduse land use designation could allow 100% residential, but if that as a neighborhood center became 100% residential, it really lost some of the intent with having those um, third place nodes within areas that were primarily residential. Um so the GPAC's recommendation was to um was to make some change in the requirements to make sure that um that those they weren't redeveloped for 100% residential. staff did look at this and our suggestion is to include it under a land use policy. Um that would clearly state that 100% residential isn't allowed in those identified 15minute activity centers because many of our mixeduse designations are mo used in a lot of different places. It didn't make sense to just take off the 100% residential allowance but really try to um tailor that towards those centers. Um so that that is the proposal um to address the

GPAC recommendation doesn't change anything with the adoption of the designation standards or um or the map except we would um include a crafts reference on the designation standards to the policy and then you would see that in the general plan when um that draft general plan comes out and then the planning Commission recommendation. Um, two recommendations from a majority of planning commissioners. The first was to recommend that the city council reconsider um the elimination of the station mixeduse designation. Um, this was generated by um a public comment letter from Generation Housing um really um emphasizing the importance of focusing highdensity development in proximity to transit. Um, similar to the flex designation that is created in the general plan, the station mixeduse designation could be created but not applied at this time to any specific parcels. Um, um, so that was the recommendation from the um, planning commission to re reestablish that as one of the um, designation. And then the second one was around Pedaluma schools. Um specifically um the Kasa Grande site was the property that was discussed. Um and recognizing increased financial pressure on the school districts. Um staff has and continues to meet with Pedaluma schools. We did meet again with um representatives from the district since the planning commission meeting um to talk to them about their plans um whether they felt there was um a benefit

to re reconsidering the density and intensity of the mixeduse designation that is recommended. Um the district remains supportive of the change as currently proposed um and is not seeking an increased density or intensity um as they're looking at what their plan is for that property. Um so um they were pleased continue to be happy with the um I believe it's neighborhood center mixed use is what it's being proposed as and I'm going to hand it back to Ron. Thank you Heather. Um, so I'm just going to briefly recap the direction we received from you over the course of the three workshops earlier this year focused on the map and the designations and and show you how those are reflect how your direction is reflected in the map and this and the designation standards. The first couple slides just kind of recap um what we what the direct the direction you provided us and then there'll be some supplemental supporting slides that provide a little more of the detail. So first related to the land use designation standards um you asked us to make sure that a minimum lot size of 2800 square ft could be accommodated downtown in the mixed use downtown mixed use designation. you wanted us to maintain the maximum height of four stories and and not increase that. Um, you had asked us to remove the station mixeduse designation. PC is inviting you to reconsider that this evening. And then you had a a quite robust conversation about the distinction between the business park and maker micro designations. And at the end of the day uh asked us to retain the

new designation, the maker micro designation, but clarify that um it really should not allow any uses that would people put people in harm's way because that's primarily used in areas that are projected to be uh uh floodprone. And then also reduce the height which from what I think was a proposed four to three stories. And then um you went through every area of change, considered the input from the public and the GPAC and the planning commission and made your own specific uh provided specific direction on how to re uh what what changes to make in the map. Um and so this summarizes the different areas in which you provided specific direction. Um have some some some additional slides to show you the changes on a map. But to summarize, um, pro, uh, re really reendorsed a, a two-pronged approach to protecting the riparian zone upstream, balancing that with allowed development. Um, and I'll go into that in more detail in a moment. Um, that's that complemented very much the graduated approach you asked us to take on Pedaluma Boulevard North. And so you, as you'll see on the map in a moment, um there's a nice transition from the more intense downtown to the much more rural upstream area complementing the efforts to preserve open space along the river. Um for the river park, the area across the river from the warehouse district um where the foundation has has purchased the property and has developed plans for a mix of residential and non-residential uses. You asked us to align the land use map with their vision considering specifically the opportunity for housing within a half mile of the downtown smart station

downstream. Um you had a great recommendation for considering um applying the maker micro designation to a parcel caddy corner from the area that we had originally proposed. And so you'll see that reflected in the map. And then um for the downtown smart area as I already noted um we removed the uh station area designation and that that brought down the height in the areas immediately adjacent to the station from a proposed 8 to six. Um and then downtown again no change other than an increase in allowable density. And then on Pedaluma Boulevard North, as you'll see on a map in just a second, u we uh extended and connected the area of change at the bowling alley and veteran center with the area change closer to downtown uh with an extension of the step down mixeduse designation. And then finally, in the shopping centers in the along the Cadal, uh you asked us to increase the allowable intensity by changing that to the urban corridor mixeduse designation. I'll show you some of these on maps here really briefly. So quickly uh just to recap the designation changes uh and these and these slides really just show the changes from what from the briefing book that you had before you for the workshops to now. So kind of just shows it in markup format. Um and again just to recap, GP designations are all about identifying allowable uses and setting um parameters for uh maximum intensity and density um and generally describing the uh character of the area. So that's the intent here. Um and so the one change in the residential designations that we made um this is specific to specifically to allow for the uh smaller minimum lot sizes you requested. So, we increased the allowable maximum density in the lowdensity residential

designation from 8 to 12, which in during the zoning code update, you would then allow you to get down to very close to that 2,800 square ft. We'll also add specific policy language in the land use element. There are a number of different um policies and supporting actions that require followon uh adjustments to the zoning code. And so we'll specifically note in the most relevant one um that the intent is to reduce the minimum lot size to 2,800 square ft for the mixeduse designations. You see here the elimination of the station mixed use. And then as we were thinking through all of your requested changes and looking at the designations again more holistically, we made a few other refinements. Um, two are in the um mini center and neighborhood center mixed use where we recommend reducing the F slightly just to better match um the uh ma minimum max density. Um and then for downtown to allow for a building form that mirrors much of the existing building form downtown increase the F from 3 to four. Um, and then just to make it consistent with the smart code, uh, in the TCMU allow an F with PC approval. That's currently how it's allowed within the central pedaluma specific plan. Um, and then we refined some of the minimum ground floor active uses uh, in response to the recognition that the the active ground floor is not always street facing. And so we just refined the language to to be mindful in the zoning code updates to allow to make sure the the active frontage is where it's most appropriate, particularly on larger sites. On that last point, this is the revision and the language that you'll see in the attachment that outlines the designation standards.

Um and then for the non-residential designations, this just reflects the changes you requested for the maker micro designation reduction to three stories. Uh it required a requisite change in the allowable F and removing hotels as a permitted use. And then moving on to the map changes that you requested. Um this first map is simply a summary of all the areas throughout the city where we're actually making an explicit change in designation from uh its comp its current use or current designation in the general plan. And then you also have a map in your packet showing the citywide changes. And as as Heather mentioned, many of these are lateral changes from current designations across to the new corresponding one. Particularly for current mixeduse designations because you only there's currently only one mixeduse designation in the general plan. We had to determine what the appropriate new mixeduse designation is. And so we did that in a fairly um objective way based on current use, current zoning, etc. Um so those are all reflected in this comprehensive citywide map of proposed general plan land use designations. So just to quickly recap some of those um map revisions we made based on your direction. This is nothing new. You discussed it at length but again the two-pronged approach. First making it very clear that the city supports the friends of the rivers pedaluma gateway project. As part of that support, the plan, the draft uh general plan, as you'll see, explicitly identifies the the desire on the city's part to acquire either acquire outright or in collaboration with community based organizations, acquire um vacant parcels along that upper reach river corridor. So, that's kind of the long-term or most permanent solution. In the meantime

through the general plan update in the near term um establish a no build retention area and this is done through the land use policy um ele land use element and you want so you don't see it so much reflected in the map directly but you do do see the no build retention area reflected on the map that you have. It's basically the area that's projected to flood two or more feet and the intent in there is to um restrict uh not prohibit basically prohibit development in those areas. and then also establish a 330 foot river buffer um intended to also proh prohibit development but but with some accommodations as you'll see on the slide in just a second. And just to remind you that this also is these are also complemented by the intent to establish a river park in the upstream area, establish a coherent a cohesive river greenway along the river that connects uh throughout the length of the river. And then there's also complimentary noise mitigation um policies within the general plan and the land use designation applied upstream where residential is allowed specifically is intended to reduce intensity and cluster residential to development to be more consistent with the city's vision. And so here's um to complement the land use policy 5.1 which establishes the um river buffer. This is the new language that has been added in draft form to explain how that would be used in practice. Being very clear about the intent to protect water quality, prevent erosion, stabilize the riverbank, and accommodate trails, pathways, and public access. Prohibiting new encroachment into the buffer area. However, obviously accommodating existing uses where the parcels are not currently vacant. Um and then um to honor property rights allow

for the transfer of rights to other sites on on that particular parcel in the case of large parcels outside of the buffer area or as possible elsewhere in the city through a transfer of development rights program. And then there are a couple examples where an entire vacant parcel is within the buffer area and in those instances again allow the owner to retain development rights but through site plan approval and review push push that development as far from the river as possible. This is a bit of a messy map but again our intent is to show you what we've done based since you last saw this through the briefing book. Um and so you'll see where we adjusted the MDR in the lower part of the map. But mostly what you see here is the both the river buffer, the larger um strip along the river as well as the uh uh retention area which is mapbased modeling based. And so that's the jagged one that you see um underneath but overlaying the colors uh representing the designations on the map. And then again complemented very much by your recommendation to um transition down from more intense to less intense as you move from the downtown core upstream. And then as I mentioned, we added this uh parcel right across from the area where we're recommending Maker Micro uh in the downstream area along Lakeville. And so you'll see that new addition to the map. And then also along Paluma Boulevard South, we added that step down mixeduse section connecting the bowling alley veteran veterans uh center area with the rest of the corridor that we'd been discussing as an area of change.

So again, nothing new or different from what you asked us to do. We're simply recapping for you what we did to reflect your direction uh in these maps that you now have before you as well as these updated designation standards. Um all along we had planned on doing analysis to confirm that there were no unintended consequences related to some of these land use changes. And so those were completed since um uh the last meeting with you in June. And there were three that were done. The first was a fiscal impact analysis. Um, you have that detailed um report in your packet. We're not going to recap the detail uh for you, but the bottom line really is what's important is that it it really projects a neutral impact on the city's budget over the course of the planning horizon of the general plan, which is quite a good thing to be honest with you. Um, as you know, um, it's often more expensive for a city from a fiscal perspective to have lots of residential, particularly lower density residential as opposed to nonresidential development. You gen cities generally generate more revenue with non-residential development, commercial, retail, etc. your your city has been very explicit about its desire to allow for and encourage greater residential development, a diversity of it, more affordable residential development. And was very encouraging through this fiscal analysis is that even in doing so, um you're able to maintain fiscal sustainability. second uh of three reports you have in your packet is really recapping what we shared with you. I believe it was uh as

late as April 2024 where we highlighted the anticipated transportation impacts from some of the land use direction that we were recommending. And so our team uh confirmed that with these changes, we will in fact achieve those transportation related goals, many of which have significant implica implications for implementation of the city's blue blueprint for climate action and the related goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And so our team confirmed that making these land use changes would reduce vehicle miles traveled, support the shift of modes of travel um from vehicular dominated to transit, walking and bicycle and other micro mobility modes and improve access to daily destinations. And so it very much advances many of the cities expressed climate and transportation specific goals. And then finally, lots of very legitimate good questions have been asked about what impact would this um mix and scale of growth mean for the city's um utilities. So we looked at uh both water supply and wastewater systems. It was nice that the city's in the in the process of updating related water and waste water plans. And so they were able to use that existing team of consultants to take the anticipated change in land use from the general plan project, apply it in their models, and they were able to confirm that there is sufficient water supply to meet anticipated demand. That the wastewater treatment plant is projected to have sufficient capacity. And that though, as is often the case, there may be areas where water and wastewater conveyance will exceed um capacity, that's not unusual. Um and they're also because they're in the middle of the planning process. Um

that'll be incorporated both into their master plans and then in a case-byase basis in certain areas where uh upsizing will be required that can be handled um as those projects arise. I'm going to hand it back to Heather who will give you a sense of where we're headed from here and that'll wrap up our presentation. So, uh wanted to touch on a number of things that are coming out of the general plan. Even though we aren't done with the general plan, we're already starting efforts um on some of the implementation measures. Uh so, the first is a zoning code update. The city is um doing an initial phase of zoning code updates currently. This involves implementation of housing element, tree preservation, streamlining new housing developments and um some modifications to support local economic development and sustainability. uh staff will then be looking um at subsequent phases uh to focus on specifically to implement the general plan. So there is a long list of um code updates that are called for in the in the general plan. Uh, also looking at blueprint um and where code updates are um called for in that adopted document as well as making sure we're hitting all of our our housing element um programs. Um so those will be um grouped into phases um that the city will has begun and will continue in in groupings. uh North Paluma station specific plan

kicked off with the community kickoff last week. Um so this is um funded by a a a grant and it's really creating that policy specific um policy specific to that designated priority development area and focusing on that half mile around the pedalum north station. So, lots to come still um on that process. It's about an 18-month process um that we have just kicked off. Similarly, uh central pedaluma specific plan um also grantf funded. Uh this will be looking to update the settle central pedalum specific plan and smart code really looking at uh what what worked and what hasn't worked in those and what we should update um to implement general plan and um just make sure that specific specific plan is working for pedaluma. So that is um set to kick off in early 2026. Uh consultants leading that process were selected by MTC. Uh it was a different approach on this grant. Um and so they have been selected and they will be kicking that process off in the new year. And then the fairgrounds master plan um RFP released going to be not yet going to be released before the end of the year. So that is another exciting one. All of these are referenced in the general plan um as next steps. So it's exciting that those are all kicking off. Um and then finally touching on development impact fees, infrastructure financing. So this is another thing that we will be kicking off um shortly. Uh this is looking at

updating the nexus studies that um set will then set the development impact fees for the city. This will directly work with the general plan the plan capital improvements that are called for in the general plan. Um so we um are gathering staff is gathering um an internal group um of city staff because this effort will touch a lot of different departments because there's many of the fees parks and wreck, public safety, um housing, a lot of these fees touch a lot of different um departments. Um, so we'll be working together to um kick that process off so that we have uh the nexus studies and the updated fee structure for adoption soon after the general plan is adopted. So that wraps up the presentation. Thank you for your patience. It was a lot to cover. I just want to close with what we are asking for um from the city council tonight. So we are asking for direction on the GPAC and planning commission recommendations. Um specifically um whether adding in the support of adding in a policy specific to restrict the standalone residential um in the identified 15minute town centers and neighborhood centers. Uh we're looking for direction on the planning commission's recommendation to reconsider um the station mixeduse land use designation which the council previously um directed to be eliminated. Um based on conversations with the school district um the Kasa Grande site um as currently proposed is supported and meets the needs of the district. So that seems um a it was a recommendation to consider that the school district seems

quite happy with where the recommendation or the proposed land use is on that site. Um, and then we're looking for support to adopt the resolution which would approve the land use designation standards and the preferred citywide land use map for purposes of informing development of the general plan update and the associated environmental impact report and looking for um support for the property specific requests which include the 921 transport 705 North Webster, the um business park complex at 420 McDall, 5341 Old Redwood and the Cineabar Parcel. And that concludes our presentation, Mayor. Um turn it back to you.

Thank you very much. Um any of these general plan topics just um they cover a lot. Um so I mean how you get your head around all this at one time is pretty impressive. Um I do want to remind the audience that the presentation that you just saw uh is already posted online and you know you can you can follow along at home um this if you need to refer back to any one of the slides and I appreciate the staff's got that up in time for the meeting tonight. Um, I think what we'll move next is to go um directly to uh public comment and that way um the feedback we get from the public council can use in their comments and and push back. So, um I'd like to open public comment and and ask the clerk if we've had any comments on this item and uh then take it right into the messaging.

Sure. We have received comments on this item. Uh I believe there were five and they are posted to the website. Um and at this time I will start a 30 second clock. Um during this 30 seconds members of the public Thank you. perfect uh wishing to speak should bring their speaker cards to my desk if they have not already done so. Um speaker cards received after this time may not be accommodated. [clears throat] And I did want to um thank all the the general plan advisory committee members who are here tonight. And um and if they have comments, make sure you get a comment card in. We appreciate all the work you put in. So, we have seven comic cards on our list tonight. And

[clears throat]

um the first is Vin Smith to be followed by Eric Zel. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Um, it's been a minute since I was uh last here. I think it was 2014 when I presented to this body for successfully convincing the city council to approve the riverfront project. And and lo and behold, it's partially built and some of it's under construction and it's good to see. Um, so I am here representing the owners of of the properties on Old McDall and and North McDow Road. Um, specifically those are 53410 uh Old River Highway. Uh, uh, excuse me. Yes, Old Highway. Uh, 1420 McDall and 1400 uh, McDall, North Mcdow. Um Heather made a comment at the end of her uh description of these properties that um there's a quest request to include all buildings and the common area around the buildings and that's completely acceptable to to the to the request that we're making. And our request is that um as staff has has very very uh um appropriately and completely described that that complex that campus um be allowed to be developed with residential units. And so um and and so the the question often is well why why do we want that? Well um over 100,000 square ft of that office complex is vacant right now um and trying to find tenants is uh extremely difficult. And so in our conversations with Brian and his team um about trying to convert that to residential um it seemed to make sense that uh we make it I guess more permanent if you will in a request to to include that in your general plan update process. Um also as Hazard described it's a request to include it in the general plan update process. The action you're not taking is to change the

general plan. That'll happen um sometime later. Um but we'll certainly monitor, participate in and and support the efforts in in trying to achieve that. Um the other reasons why uh uh the corporate demand for space um such as a suburban office uh complex or building is very very low. Um I think uh as we've all experienced from from 2020 until now, the environment in which we we do business is very different. Um and certainly in the suburban office market um it's it's uh the request has gone down uh tremendously and it continues to go down. We also feel like this is a a site that that if you were stepping back and maybe master planning the property over again, which was done in 1986, that it might be a good uh residential site anyway because of its proximity to uh transportation services um for autocommuting on 101 um public transportation. There are bus stops uh in and around the the site and certainly its proximity to the to the I guess it's called the north smart station off of Corona in North Mcdow. Um so we think it's a good good location. We've we have been entertaining uh uh conversations from residential developers. Did I just make my three minutes? Holy smokes.

Even 3 minutes goes fast. I know you think I do this like that I'm an actual professional, but I guess not. Um, so well, we would support uh the planning commission's recommendation, staff's recommendation, and your GPAC's recommendation that that uh this property be included as a mixed use site. Thank you. Eric Seabel to be followed by Darren Razersonen.

Hello, Mr. Mayor, Council on Staff. Uh, it's great to be here. I'm Eric Sable and I'm here on behalf of the uh 705 North Webster property, otherwise known as the Spring Hill School. And uh I'm proud to say uh that I am the new head of school uh for the Spring Hill School. Just started up in July. Feels like it's been uh just a week or two. Um we've had a busy fall. Um but Spring Hill um has had uh the great honor of celebrating its 50y year anniversary just this year. Uh in fact, we were honored to have uh the city proclamation um uh celebrating that fact. Um uh from our founding in 1975 to today. Um we have stood for a progressive independent school education um here in Pedalum. We started as a monastery preschool. We still have that starting at 18 months uh of age. Uh but and now uh we have grown and evolved um over the decades and now we have uh students all the way up to 8th grade. And our Webster property um which opened up in 2018-19 um now serves uh children kindergarten through 8th grade. Um and our preschool property over on Middlefield uh continues to have our um little guys, the 18-month-olds up to the 5-year-olds. So, um we are incredibly excited at at the prospect of um the 25-year vision that this general plan revise represents. Um we'd love to see um ourselves over the course of those 25 years be able to grow and evolve um across our three parcels for educational purposes. Um we feel strongly that Pedaluma is a wonderful spectacular educational environment. Um from public, charter, independent, prochial, homeschool options, we we got it all. And we're a part of that fabric. Um we

have our preschool kids, they go out into the city schools. Sometimes we have kids uh arrive to us from from different loces. Um we graduate our kids and they go to any number of different high school settings. Just two weeks ago, I visited our graduates at Pedaluma High School um to talk with them and and be connected with them. Um so we are so excited uh at the prospect of continuing uh to be a part of educational uh Pedaluma's educational heartbeat. I love seeing uh your goals document um from April. How education and children the heart of any community is so central to that. Um, and we feel so committed uh to helping make Paluma an amazing place for families no matter what educational option they choose. So, um, on behalf of the Spring Hill School, we support uh the recommendation uh for this uh this general plan um to uh be put into action and thank you very much for your time and service. Thank you, Darren Rackerson. To be followed by Lydia Alen. Thank you, Mayor and Council. We've seen this one quite a few times. My general theme here is that the general plan land use map and the zoning code are connected, right? Your general plan land use designations are the base layer of planning. Your zoning code and zoning designations sit on top of that. and I'm worried that we haven't had a clear enough explanation of how future zoning code is supposed to line up with the land use designations before you. So, at our last planning commission meeting, staff confirmed that the zoning code is already being updated alongside the general plan. Heather confirmed that this evening using the draft plan documents as guidance, which tells me we already have some idea of how a future zoning code will eventually sit on top of this general plan map. I think it's

really important and for the past few years I've kind of gotten my hand smacked out of the cookie jar on planning asking about zoning being told zoning needs to wait until the land use policy is totally settled. But that doesn't hold if the zoning is already being revised. We're not going to have a fresh new zoning code, you know, starting from zero. We're going to be evolving our current zoning code and we're doing it already. So if we're making land use designations now that we kind of know how zoning will later enforce, it's important to understand what the zoning code is expected to do, how much flexibility it's expected to keep. And I think without the context of at least hints of the vision of a future zoning code, the general plan map in front of you gets a little harder to understand. Right now we have seven different mixeduse categories on the map. It's not clear why we need seven. Will each one have a 1:1 zoning designation or will we have step down mixeduse one? and step down mixed use too. So which could quickly scale in complexity maker micro business and business and business park designations are almost identical except for one land use without understanding the zoning code in the future. It's hard to know why we need both of them. And then on the opposite side of missing context we have the flex designation which kind of blows apart the internal logic of the plan as I see it. It allows an incredibly wide range of uses from industrial grain mills to housing under one label. So in some places we're being hyper specific and prescriptive with mixeduse designations and in others like flex we're being so broad that land use distinctions disappear entirely. So without zoning context it's hard to understand or make sense of some of this internal logic especially with flex. It feels like it doesn't fit well with the rest of the map. It feels like if the mills need a new direction in the future they could select from one of our seven mixeduse or resident several residential designations that already exist. And then adding another mixeduse category, stationary mixeduse, I think makes this harder, not clearer. That becomes our eighth mixeduse designation. Uh I think the council already discussed that eight-story buildings aren't really in

our design direction and per the strategic economics report. Eightstory buildings aren't really economically feasible at this time in Pedaluma in terms of the building types they necessitate. So if we don't expect to see those buildings, why put them in the general plan? Um, so I don't expect big changes tonight, but I think we need to be clear about future zoning code and I think flex should be removed and stationary and mixed use should not be brought back. Thank you. Thank you very much. Lydia Alen to be followed by uh Robin Riley.

Good evening folks. Lydia Alen again. Uh, I'm going to I'm going to riff off a little a little bit with what Darren just said about the the um station mixed use designation coming back. I you know, I remember this is this is what this is the fourth fourth time we had three times in the in the spring where we kind of got into a deep dive together about all of these categories. And and I thought I understood back in the spring that going to eight stories and 90 ft at the smart stations was just a little bridge too far to take. And so that was the pullback. Let's take this let's take this station mixeduse out of the out of the discussion. And um so so hearing or seeing in the staff report that this could be coming back. Let's talk about what 90 ft 8 stories looks like. And if that's housing and we have the state density bonus layered on, are we talking about 12 stories and 135 ft? If we're going to go there, let's let's do a viewshed analysis of what what buildings of that size look in the context of the of the surrounding areas. Thanks.

Thank you, Robin Riley. To be followed by Ryan Williams. Uh, good evening, city staff, city council. Uh, thank you all for your time and, uh, a huge shout out to the fellow members of the general planning advisory committee. Uh, five years ago, I knew so very little about land use and here we are. So, um, this is an exciting and gratifying milestone that we're we're reaching tonight. Um just a few brief remarks here. Um I uh I was not able to participate in a number of the meetings uh through the middle of the year. So I did not uh was not party to the conversations about the elimination of the station area mixed use. Um I'm pleased to see that the uh planning commission has recommended to reconsider bringing that back in. Um that's certainly something that I as a member of the general plan advisory committee would would be supportive of. um especially knowing that again we're not saying that this is exactly what's going to happen there. We're just creating flexibility for opportunities if it comes to pass. Um just the two other remarks I have uh I uh absolutely of course support the uh along with the rest of the GPAC as Heather noted there was a unanimous vote to support the uh making sure that none of the 15minute designated centers became 100% residential use really defeat their purpose. Um, and I'm pretty pleased with the way that staff found to um, enact that through policy. Um, the last comment is specifically the redesation of parcel the parcel at 5341 Old Redwood Highway to step down mixuse. Uh, that both seems reasonable on its face. Uh, but also recently learned that the Sonoma County Library is looking at purchasing property uh, perhaps in that area. uh moving from their currently rented property in Runner Park. Um would love to see a headquarters for the county somewhere uh here in town. And so

I think that would dovetail also with their interest in that site. Um that is all I have to say other than happy Hanukkah, merry Christmas, and have a cozy new year. Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan Williams to be followed by Brent Newell. Uh, Mr. Mayor, uh, city council, good evening. Ryan Williams, trustee Pedaluma City Schools. Um, first I want to thank every single one of you tonight for your support of the students at at Pedaluma City Schools and of education. Um, it was uh, tremendous to see the overwhelming support of the community, but just not twothird support for Measure I that was on the November ballot. So, that has put the city uh, the school district in a tough financial decision. We have to make approximately $4 to5 million um in cuts in the coming year. But uh with measure I being the second attempt at a parcel tax to support our secondary schools, we are now thinking about additional ways to generate revenue on our school sites. Uh the planning commission um and city staff have been fantastic in their proactive approach in collaborating and working with the school district in uh the communication. That does not always happen. So, we are very grateful for the city's um again working with the school district. Um so, planning commission and in the report tonight was some additional flexibility at the cost of site. So, I'm here in an individual capacity as one of five, but I want to say that I personally support that additional flexibility. Um and we'll be making decisions um with the city in the year year, you know, year or two uh in in the future. is not going to be very immediate, but it is something that we'll be working at and we would like to work with the city on the best use for that site. So, thank you all for your support and thank you to the staff as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Brent Newell is our last speaker tonight.

Uh Mr. Mayor, members of the council, good evening. [snorts] Uh before I I really launch into what I wanted to say tonight, I just want to uh acknowledge all the hard work and effort that's gone in from staff, you know, Ron and Heather and Brian and and everyone who's been working on getting these uh land use designations and the general plan together over the years. Uh the members of the GPAC, I was on the GPAC for a short period of time. you know, incredible amount of effort has gone into this and thought uh and you know, I I think we all share the same goals. Um, which is to guide the future of our community. Uh, one thing that I learned both on the GPAC and as a a planning commissioner is how dire our uh, housing needs are and how difficult it is to build uh, housing that's affordable um, and how uh, far behind how we did not meet our last round of Reena goals and targets for affordable housing. Um, we met the above, you know, market housing targets. Great. We exceeded those, you know, but that's not what we need. We need housing that's affordable for working families, uh, for teachers, for police officers, for firefighters. Um, so that, you know, I I can't speak on behalf of the planning commission. and I can only speak on on behalf of myself, but that really was the sort of guiding principle for me as I first reviewed the, you know, the item that we we got on November 20th, uh, and seeing what GPAC had recommended in terms of the stationary mixeduse designation downshifted into a six-story retain what we have right now zoning designation. Uh

it kind of shocked me that because I didn't remember that and I was very I I appreciate Generation Housing sending in that comment letter. Uh so I I I hope that you take that into account and revert to the mixed the stationary mixeduse designation to go to eight stories. Uh because we need housing. We do not need to be erecting artificial barriers to uh meeting these housing needs and meeting the needs of our entire community. Not just the wealthiest, not just the the most privileged, but those who need housing and you know, young police officers, young firefighters, young teachers, they can't afford to work here. Are we going to tell them to live in Valleo and commute here to teach class every day? That's ridiculous. That's utterly ridiculous. We need more housing. And uh I just want to close with how I got to work today. I ride the bus in the wintertime. Uh cuz riding a bike really sucks when it's this cold

and I walked past the station and it's vacant. That's part of the viewshed, too. So,

thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. And uh that closes public comment for the evening and like to bring it back up to council. We've obviously heard a whole lot from staff and public and um is there a particular area of question or comment anyone would like to start with? Who wants to start tonight? Council member Barnacle. Um, thank you uh Heather and Ron and Brian um the members of the public who commented tonight um for all the effort that's gone into this and thoughtful comments. Um couple of questions um to kick it off [clears throat] the um the single family minimum lot size of 12 units per acre isn't actually 2,800 square feet. Can we help me square that? So that comes out to be like 3600 or 3,300 square ft. Um minimum lot size. The minimum lot size for 2,800 square f feet I think is like or at 2,800 ft² is like 15 and a half units per acre. Um and then I noticed we only applied it to the low density but not the very low density and and the rural and and that sort of stuff. So um I thought we were pretty clear about that being applied citywide. So, I'm just wondering what happened there. Um, I can give you the high level high level overview of what we did. Um we have on Zoom and available to help answer questions. Other team members uh including Simron, another principal with Raymond Associates who works a lot on um both general plan designations and

corresponding zoning code updates and she helped us make this adjustment. Um I want to look at the just look at the designation myself here quick. Um so it had been at uh so we it we made the adjustment in the lowdensity residential designation corresponding with the R2 zoning. Our understanding was that we wanted to make sure that the designations accommodated a shift in from the current what is it 6,000 odd square feet down to 2800 and so um the maximum density in the RLD had been 8 and so we increased it to 12 to which we understand would accommodate the 3,000 about 3,000 square ft uh minimum lot size. Now, that actual change uh is you wouldn't typically reflect a minimum lot size or designate a minimum lot size in a general plan. That level of detail is typically reserved for a zoning code. And so, what we're trying to do is set up the designation standards to allow for that corresponding adjustment. We'll also make that uh minimum lot size preference very explicit in the body of the land use um element as well. Um, I guess I'll turn it over to Simron if you have more to add about your thinking in the adjustment from the 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre on that specific designation.

Um, yes, of course. Um, good evening council. Um so with regard to the the change in density from 8 to 12 units to the acre, we wanted to give a little leeway as to uh the minimum dens the minimum lot size of 2800 would still be the minimum lot size. But in the density given that this is a uh we want to give some flexibility for driveways um and other other dedications public dedications etc that might come up. So the density at 8 um at 12 units to the acre uh accommodates that the minimum lot size in the zoning code would still be uh 2800 square ft. Um with regard to your other question about why not in why did this not uh get reflected in both R1 and rural residential? Well, rural residential is a county zone primarily. Um so we didn't think that was um I mean though even if we changed that it wouldn't really apply but it didn't match the character of that area. And then uh the hillsides did not seem appropriate for uh for the smaller lot size um partly due to the hillside nature and evacuation uh related issues if there are potentially a lot more units within the VLRs uh designation.

Okay. Um, so the parcel on Cineabar that's requested, is there a reason why we wouldn't like I'm unclear on the maker micro and then mixed use like I understand the maker micro being that we it's basically we don't want housing there, right? But I don't think that's the case here. So is there a reason why in in that instance because when we apply mixed use, you can still do all commercial, right? We're just you can also do residential. So, I'm just wondering why the the landowner wouldn't want more flexibility um with their land use designation. Maybe maybe that's a question that doesn't have an answer, I suppose. But

so, I think the question is why didn't we go to um a mixed use in that area as opposed to the maker micro for that whole I understand that. I don't understand why the the land owner would want something that basically limits the you like the potential uses instead because all the things that they could do with maker micro they could still do with the the mixed use. Correct.

Uh yes. I can't answer that off the top. I just know that they were very happy with the maker micro and I think that site is currently it's vacant but like I was looking at um aerials and it looks like trucks and you know that. So um the request was to make it consistent with the other property that he owned owns.

Okay. um for the the um the let's see here. So on the the Applebees area there, the Redwood Business Park I think is what it's called. Is there a reason why we wouldn't apply if we were going to change the designation apply the designation to more parcels around there and look at this as actually becoming something that's like a true area of change? Um I suppose

well part of that is it's so it wasn't an area of change so we were looking at lateral right and so it came up as an individual property owner request so we haven't taken it further than that to now look at expanding an area of change in that area. Um the property I think it's kind of right across well across and up a little is the barn property that was recently annexed in. Um so no we didn't take the individual property request and kind of look at it on a larger scale to introduce a new area of change at this point in the process.

Okay. Um [snorts] I think that's maybe something for discussion that we can look at as a council. it just if we're going to be doing it for one area, might as well look at the whole. Um, and then so we talked about some changes to Ron, you mentioned at some point said, you know, changes to density necessitates the change to F and height and things like that. And um to to the the comment we heard earlier from Darren um this is like level one of the the rules that we're putting in place and then we're going to stack our zoning code and then we're going to stack our impact fees and what are the other process hurdles we want to create. You know really becomes our development paradigm. And I'm um one of the things that I'm cognizant of when I look in here is that some of the things that we're we may be trying to do with F and density and and and maybe height too for that matter are actually like things that we're trying to accomplish with the building form in relation to its surroundings and things like that. And so is there a reason why like a change in density ch necessitates a change in F or is that just like these are planning rubrics that we've used for ages and this is why it's done this way. Try and help me understand this.

Is your question specific to a particular design designation or just generally? Um, it's a it's a general question, but like the uh the step down mixeduse is the one that comes up for me where like I know what we're trying to do with it, right? Is we're trying to not stack a four-story building right up alongside of a single family resident, right? and we want it to to step down and we'll probably in the zoning code establish some setbacks from that I would imagine. Um but like dictating that it's a 2.5 F, right? Versus um the other mixeduse ones where it's a four F. Um there's certain areas where that zone is applied and it literally backs up to the train tracks. Right.

Right. Like I don't think we need to have step downs on all sides of that. I don't think we need to. And like if an F goes up to three for that that project, like are we creating like functional like hurdles in our general plan now? Um that are really just like something that we're trying to address with building form in relation to surroundings that are more situational versus like hardcore like you know state requirements for the general plan.

Yeah, those are great questions. I'll give you some general um background on why we landed where we did and then Siman may have some additional uh points to share specific to your core question around like that inter relationship between density mins and maxes and F. So generally what we've been trying to do with the standards is to accommodate a variety of community goals. So on the one hand, as has been said many times already, make sure that Paluma is a housing friendly city. And so we're trying to get the densities right. And so we've add in some cases minimum densities to make sure that sites that are designated for relatively high density residential development or mixed use come in at a at a minimum floor of density. So we're not, you know, quote unquote wasting some of those important sites. and also in in some places increasing the density to accommodate desired um increases in uh housing by type use um etc. The other um goal we're trying been trying to accommodate is as you noted kind of form related trying to make sure that as the general plan guides future development that it retains uh development retains a form that is consistent with the character of the cities because we've heard a lot of concerns around the right amount of building bulk and specifically height in different parts of the city. So those generally are what will be trying driving our considerations and that we're trying to in some cases balance right um and then related to step down specifically um the intent is that the step back or step down is only in areas adjacent to residential. And so on the map and I think we did it correctly but if we made any errors I apologize. We we not we

noted in with numbers three or four depending on the the designation like where those step downs would be. So it's not on all sides of the parcel. So I'm sorry if that wasn't 100% clear. Um but that step down is intended for

just let's just riff on that one then. So because while we're there, sorry I don't mean to cut you off, but like it's a good interjection point. This is like if if that's the purpose of the step down, why the 2.5 F? Why is that needed instead of just saying like and this again goes to why do we need so many areas of of mixed use categories and things because I think the only real difference or is between the downtown and the step down is the F is really the big difference right so um my my question is like why the 2.5 F is needed there um because it feels like it's creating more of a limitation than it's um you know at least in this specific instance, right? Like

yeah, I'll just I'll just note that um I don't believe I reviewed our notes from our council meetings. I don't believe this came up previously as a question. So this is not something that we've changed since the designation standards that you saw earlier this year. Um and and Surman, I know you weren't specifically involved when we came up with that particular F, but I know you looked at these again after getting council input. Do you have anything to add, Simron, as to why F 2.5 F is appropriate for the step down next use?

Yeah, sure. So, um we want to make sure there's a link between density and F. And given that in zoning we'll craft the development and design standards that allow for the molding so to speak of the form. Um per state law the maximum density must be allowed. Your development and design standards cannot uh make it so that you can't reach that maximum. So the 2.5 F and the 45 units to the acre generally works in tandem and allows enough flexibility when when the zoning is being written to allow for that form to be modulated.

Can I just add to that? Brian O, director of community development. Um Simron, do you mind? There's an example we um so we ended up talking about this earlier because it came up in a different way and I thought you had a really um elegant way. I mean essentially all you know whether it's F, whether it's height, whether it's a step back or a setback, these are all ways to control um their control mechanisms, right, for development. Um and Simon just touched on the fact that there's this need at um with state law that there has to be this consistency. But if we were to move forward with just the units per acre and sort of set aside the F, there's a fine line where you lose one way to control and regulate um bulk and size. But there was a scenario that you talked through um that I thought put it pretty clearly on what happens if you drop the F. Could you repeat that? Um it was about the units per um as it relates to the minimum density.

Um sure. Sure. So the example I had um shared earlier with Brian and others was uh was using a typical typical uh lot size uh of say 1 acre and um assume a typical unit there would be you know relatively small you know the city is trying to encourage small units or you're looking at 1,200 let's say a gross unit size. So that gets you to a F of uh 1.25. Um you don't get to the 2.5. You could do 45 units to the acre on an acre site plus build uh the equivalent of another 50,000 plus square ft of um commercial. So it gives you that flexibility to do that. But if you went to all residential and used the 2.5 as the cap, then you would actually get to a much higher density number. So, um the balancing act of the density and um and the F is to make sure that with using typical sizes, you allow for a mix of both uses to uh to occur on any any single specific size. if the F is too high and uh it can and then and then the density number is still a limiting factor as to what can happen on that site. So so um you so the balancing of the two needs to occur which is why the numbers are what they are. Ultimately though, one of the two is going to be the the limiting fac or one of the three height, density or F is

going to be a limiting factor. Right. Right. But per state law, the the since there is a density number here that should prevail and the F is an additional limit on top of it. So, so the way these designations are developed, you have a density limit up to the maximum F. Um, it's not the F doesn't prevail unless you get big enough units or there's enough mix of uses for it to get to that get to that number. Okay, I think I hear I think I hear what you're saying which

and if you just went to F only the density number is irrelevant at that point. So since there was a desire at the start and throughout this process to have a density number in the general plan um that's a number that prevails and the F is is of outer limit to what can get built.

Yeah. Um so I'll guess I'll turn this into a comment to the council now. Um my concern and when you look at the economic analysis is that the costs of of are generated on a per capita basis and the intensity is what generates the revenues is where we actually get to $18 million equivalent, right? Um and so if this if if we don't actually get the intensity out of this and we get a bunch of low density development, it's a structural loser for us. We know that, right? And so I'm concerned about in introducing um pro provisions into our general plan land use map that create those sorts of structural barriers that might bring down the density, bring down the intensity and things like that and that um are uh going to impact the long-term financial stability of our city. We've already had enough problems with that and I would like to make this a much more financially viable project or general plan. Um I'd like to make sure that um we're pushing toward affordability um in here. I think we all share these goals, right? Like fiscal sustainability, affordability for businesses and for um for residents. And so, um, like to me the the things that matter are honestly the height because I think that's what gets most people out and and frustrated. And I think that that's are the things that block people's viewsheds. And if someone can get 60 units in a four-story building, more power to them. If people can um, and I don't want the F to be a barrier to that. I don't want our density metrics to be a barrier to that. Um, I want to encourage that developer to to give us 60 units because that means more property tax for that piece of property. Um, it means more people spending. It

means um more people have homes. And I think all of those things matter. So my my pitch to the council is um increase density and um increase the FS, relax those two things and set um height thresholds that um that limit things. But um it just feels like we're uh honestly I don't feel like we're being as bold as we should be for a council that says we're pro housing and for council that's had so many economic problems. Um and so um yeah, can we touch on that for a minute? Kind of get a feel here.

Yeah. Um I'll jump in and then Yeah, I'll jump in. Um the um so what I think I hear you saying is that we should allow for a greater density units. I think in certain uh areas for sure. I think the step down mixed use um is a great example of that. I think downtown mixed use is a great example of that. Um I think any of the upper upper bounds where we could push it. the town center mixed use at 55 units per acre feels like um a piece of cake and if we could, you know, if we could get that, you know, significantly higher, those are areas that are right next to transit and that are right next to services and things like that. So, um I think some of these mixeduse zones we can definitely be increasing.

My question I think because I like you, I'm trying to really get a grip. I mean, I I think I have a vocabulary but not really a grip. And so um because you know state rules and all the rest of the things that make it fuzzy if you will. Um so if we increase the density and we think we're curtailing by F and height and encouraging a higher density within um what's the state part of that? Will the state allow uh density it if we allow a density that's higher? Will the state um say that our height or our F don't govern the density governs? There's a bit of that conversation going on. Uh if I may, um mayor, our development standards, um density, F all need to work in tandem. Um if the height is not enough to accommodate the density being proposed uh in the or the maximum density allowed in a general plan. Um that that would create a conflict and a a potential applicant can come in and ask for that height to be increased to accommodate the whatever the maximum density is. um form is is important and um in the in the general plan we want to make sure there's enough uh leeway for that form to be modulated within the density and F parameters that are being proposed. If the density and F are raised higher but the height isn't um that can create uh potential conflicts. So is a propo is the uh state if if we make a proposal that allows for

1,200 square foot units in an apartment complex you know not in a single family sprawling but but say in a in a um apartment complex will they say you've made a good that's the square footage per unit that's appropriate or if the developer says I need 2,000 square foot units Does the state weigh in on that kind of thing? I mean, we're viewing it as an apartment. I mean, and actually, you know, square footages don't matter, but we're saying small square footages, a lot of them. Can the developer turn and say, "Well, you asked, you gave us a density, and we want big units at that density."

That's right. Is is is the developer able to prevail at the state and over us that the hype needs to be waved because they think 2,000 square foot is the market and we want 15 or 20 or whatever the number is.

Um yeah that's a good question. In my opinion the density is what would prevail. So if you have a project if like right now going with this example in step down mixed use the density is 45 units to the acre. If a developer comes in with 2,000 square foot uh units, they are still within the allowed F and they can do that, right? But if they come in with 3,000 ft unit, they can't get to the 45 units to the uh acre and um they'll have to build it at a at at the lower size. There are certain assumptions one can make um in in our projections or and typically 3,000 wouldn't be something that gets built. It's not it's those units are way too large.

So, can I just ask a really specific question? Why is the F on the downtown mixeduse 4 and the down and the F on the step down mixeduse 2.5? What is the what's the reason to have it be 60% of what the downtown mixed use is?

Um I think that's a well I can provide my thoughts but um Ron and Brian maybe you can chime in on this as well. Um the downtown is a slightly different situation because you're buil you have buildings which are at zero lot line. There's no setbacks from the front or sides because they're all attached to each other, so to speak. And the likelihood of getting, in my opinion, the likelihood of getting to a 4.0 F in downtown is is low, but that's matches what's been built there um in the past. Um and uh I believe that's the reason that number is higher in the step down mixed use. um designation which is in a slightly less urban context. There are potential stepdowns to neighboring residential. There'll be setbacks um etc as well. Um the 2.5 is more of a reasonable F there.

Let me ask one other question. Um state density bonuses are given out like candy. Um so what's you know don't doesn't every project have a density bonus that would allow for um changes? How does that affect this dynamic of of what the density is versus what the height is? Can it's yeah

can the developer choose the bonus to be height or can he choose it to be density and we have no control. there is a limitation to the control we have. So it really depends on the project what the type of concessionwaver um a project would seek. There's also the reality of it. The last handful of projects um while they have sought out a concession or waiver through the state density bonus law program, they haven't actually um requested more density. So there is this economic you know in in this point in time um limitation um there's so many different permutations um so that's where it is important for us at the local level um to you know have the most certainty of you know what the amount of density um we want uh or envision um for a particular uh part of our town. Um, but we could be here for a while just talking about if this then that. Um, with respect to the state density bonus law, it seems to continue to evolve. Um, I think part of our concern is we would like to have an affordability and I think maybe that's through minimum density not maximum density. Is there there any path to that? Can you So affordability could mean a few different things. Um get you know projects to pencil out. We have to reduce um increase certainty uh increase um streamline the process of getting a project into the ground. Um so there's a

few different ways. And then if you are talking about deed restricted 100% affordable, I mean that's there's a whole other process, but I I I gather you're talking more about how do we build sort of that missing middle um smaller units. I think affordable by design, correct? No. Um clearly uh the bigger houses do better in the market right now and that's why the development pushes towards larger units, but we want to push back that that's taking care of itself. We want the units that that aren't being proposed like that to bring us maximum affordability. Um so I I've got no more on that one right now. Council member Barnacle sit on that one right now.

I'll sit on it right now and come up with some proposals. So um is this continuing the theme? Yes. So council member shrimps

not not changing the theme although I will eventually. um um for the uh yeah because it's almost like um a fourthdimension Rubika cube here we're talking about. So we're talking about um the the density, the height, F, but also um when those are in play, but also what's outside of that. If if F is not 100% whatever of the entire landscape, then where's the parking? Where's the landscape? Where's the open space? Those things. However, um the only trouble I see running into is if okay, we we're say, okay, you can have a fourtory here, but it's going to have setbacks, but the F is at 2.5, but someone comes in and says, oh, I'm willing to bid a two or threetory, even though I'm allowed four, not do setbacks. I'm just going to do a solid two to three, and I want a 100% lot. Boom. We're now at um above, say three stories, full 100% is now at a 3.0 O far f even though um you're allowing four stories in high density but he's overreached on F because it's only 2.5 and he has a three now even though solid three story he's not even four. So the problem I see running into is if you put these controls in it really limits that physical space uh rather than someone wanting to do a smaller unit but a wider footprint. So I see a little problem there mathematically. Um I am just going to assume that that might be allowed in the system if they go over F if they have less than the number of floors designated or less than the step back. Um because they're 100% block right which is easier construction if it's 100% square block. Um so I just want to make sure that all these designate which is very complex um which have designate different designations all the way up the line based on the placement and where it is and the shape of it

stepbacks and all that. Um do we lose anything by setting the FS at a at lower than the number of floors allowed? It's always seems to be lower except for maybe downtown. So is um does I'm just asking because I haven't done the math but it just seems to me let's get an answer. Is the math going to work? Are we limiting preventing a solid block that's shorter than than what we asking for by using the FS less than number of stories?

Well, I think what Simmerin was also and you even council member you mentioned it there's a lot of other things that have to go into a development, right? Like you do have a you know private open space requirement. Many don't require parking depending on where they're located, depending on what we end up doing with um parking regulations, but what we've seen is the market um and developers wanting parking, which then takes up some of some of the space on the lot. So, we haven't seen a lot of solid threetory blocks because once you once you integrate all those things or an interior courtyard or um you know ways to step step the building so more people have views through a viewshed. You know, there's all those kind of things that come with design that we haven't seen threetory blocks. I think what Simarin brings to the team is looking at what's that right balance between the height and the density and the F which we've relied um heavily on her experience and her expect expertise to guide us in that and do those you know we we talked about them as like fit tests you know if you're going to have this density or if you're going to have this height because height has been such a common theme throughout this process um But you want these increased densities. Where's that? Where do all the where do they all balance? So a lot of them are coming from that expertise in the consultant that the city hired to

Okay. But just as a checkin on that, the only area that I can see where I would like to see the F equal number of stories allowed might be the downtown where you have small spots. No. Uh right out to the edges of the property going straight up. That would be the one place where where a square block might go. And if we're going to limit to four stories rather than allowing six or eight stories, if we drop it down to four stories, we should allow F of four for a a complete 100% block there just like we have downtown all the other buildings,

right? Which is why um you will see that on the land use um standards that in the downtown mixed use, it's a four-story max, but it's a 4.0 I know F because of that context because the development um pattern you see in the downtown is the 100% Glock coverage. You typically don't have parking on site for most buildings in our downtown core. Um so that that was one of the reasons why you do see exactly that proposed. Okay. I just want to make sure of that. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to try and push this one. Did you want in on this? Yes.

Just a quick weigh in. I so on the topic that Brian brought up, I was um the thing that resonated with me was when you get to Paluma, thank you. When you get to Pedaluma Boulevard North around Piran, some of those lots to me, the step down mixeduse that butts up against the train tracks uh to me feels a little limiting. And so maybe to get uh to what Brian was getting at, I think, and I don't want to speak for him, but maybe maybe um looking at a different designation in that area that gives you that um 4.0 F.

All right. Um I think I would like staff to weigh in on that comment. I was trying to look at where the um the step back is required on those lots. Um yeah, so um at at Pan and Paluma Boulevard North, the Lucky Shopping Center. Yeah. The back of it, it butts up against

the train tracks. And um that that's where to me that feels like limiting that enforcing a step down doesn't may not make sense. And I'm just wondering if that that section might be considered for making it more of a downtown. And I and I'm looking at like you could see so on the map you're uh just past Lakeville you have the downtown mixed use and then it and then it goes into this step down mixeduse but I'm not sure that on that I guess it would be on the east side of Pedaluma Boulevard. Um I'm not sure that that's necessary. So that's

the suggestion and and I and I see that um I think the thinking was because you have single family on the other side of the tracks there the railroad tracks but there is a distance there across tracks. So something um that would be direction um if if we want to look at changing that to a different mixed use for that for that center. Okay. Council member D Carly.

Um, you know, I don't I don't think that we know our infrastructure could handle increasing the density everywhere. We have reports tonight for what's been proposed as is. Um, and we don't know that our infrastructure, our water, everything else can can handle this, you know, at max capacity. Um, we, you know, as you kind of touched on a little bit, we've already got the density bonus laws, Senate and assembly bills, and that all overrides everything we're we're deciding here tonight if if you know, they can apply it. Developers, um, you know, I really think, I've said this before, that we ought to be looking at every way possible to protect our towns so that we can grow and develop the way that we want to and not the way that the state wants us to. And so if density is is one way to protect ourselves and I think that we kind of have the way things are I don't think that we should be messing with that. And um you know in in regarding kind of what you said Heather is is uh you know eliminating step down around areas of the railroad. I mean, you still do have houses all around there, you know, and and I think a lot of residents would be upset um to find out that something huge is going to get built right next to them and they live in a single family, you know, one-story home or two stories or whatever. You know, they're going to have a giant shadow cast on them at some point. Um, you know, so I I don't think that uh I just I don't I don't think that's a decision we should be making here tonight. Um, I think that should have come up a while ago if it was going to. But, um, I mean, I think keeping the density the way that it is is, you know, it's and and too, you know, it's, you know, this this is also about the people who live here, right? And so, you know, if pedalummens, um, I I don't think they're really being

considered in some of this. you know, everybody that lives in a single family home or or wherever, they're they're not being taken into consideration here if it's all about density, density, density. So, yeah, I I'm not in support of doing something like that. Okay. Um, good point. Um, so I I think we've kind of run a course on on um that one. Um, anybody want to kick off a different new and different? Well, I will. Um, so I have other questions but on other things. Yes, we're moving to the next thing. Would you like to be our first next thing thing?

Council members John jumping at the bits here. Uh, okay. Moving on. um with how we're proposing things. Uh uh switching gears over to the CASA site. Could under this designation could Brody Ranch be built at CASA? Can you pull up the land use standards? And what type of housing is allowed? [clears throat]

and it's neighborhood center, right? Yeah. So, you'll see this in the um land use standards um page five um looks at the different type of housing types that would be allowed. So, in the neighborhood center, mixed use, single family, detached are not allowed. Um, so it would allow Plex, it would allow town homes, it would allow multif family, but it wouldn't allow the single family detached. Birdie Ranch is a mix of condos and single family detached. So, no, not not to that.

Yeah. So, I didn't think so. Um, but that's a that's a concern that I have. I think I think when we talk about housing for Paluma, particularly on the main transit corridors, the density is, you know, I think um trying to get density in those areas is great. And I think if we can get some better density over on that side, that's, you know, I'm I'm I'm not opposed to adding some more density. I am a little concerned about well let me back up. I think we need a mix of housing and pedaloma. Um I think and and for me Brody Ranch is a great example of a mixture of homes. You have some single family homes, you have some plexes, you have some town homes, and they're all mixed together. when we think about ideal residential neighborhoods like that's something that's talked about and and I think something that's admired and I and I think so as I sort of try to think about what would be built there um as a uh sorry community center mixed use right uh with how it's designed signed. I'm a little concerned that we might be incentivizing a deer park where you've got apartment buildings next to some retail uh you know some retail that may not be an ideal fit there and an alternative might be a Brody Ranch style neighborhood. Um, and again, I'm more about letting like I would love to see it be a a

wellplanned mixeduse where you've got some businesses in there and homes. And I think that would really be ideal, but um I would also be really excited if we had a Brody Ranch style project that was proposed for that site um as an alternative. And I wouldn't want to disincentivize that. And I'm I'm a little concerned about prohibiting it.

So So the mini center mixed use has a slightly lower minimum density, the same maximum density, same F and the same maximum height. Um, and it supports business there.

You can have commercial or residential. It allows small lot single family detached. So that would allow more flexibility to have a detached product potentially. I'm just going to throw one other nuance into the Kasa Grande specifically. It's owned by the school district. There are a number of things when the school district wants to do it. they do not have to follow local regulations. Um so um just so I want to be clear because it theoretically if um the school district if what they wanted to build met those thresholds and I can't recite those thresholds to you but it's about them being for a for the school. Um, and so I think that some um, teacher or staff housing could fall under that. It could be something that could come in without a local process that would go through um, the state um, and the state uh, state architects. Um, so I want to just have that nuance because

Sure. I totally full disclosure. No, I totally I I get that and I can appreciate that. Um, is it possible that CASA would sell the land to a developer and the developer would come forward with a project? So, is that is that something like and again I'm kind of new at this so I'm just

so asking because I don't I in no way want to speak for the school district. Um what I understand is that's not what they're thinking they're going to do with the property um based on some of the um the the bonds um for the school district. That doesn't mean it couldn't change or there couldn't be an evolution of that thinking. Um but um they have some plans for that site as part of that um the bonds that were approved. So, um,

would changing it to a mini center be would that prohibit the school district from doing what they want to do?

Um, I do not believe so. It's pretty similar to neighborhood center mixed use when I'm looking at the standards except for it allows a slightly lower density down to 12, but it allows the same maximum density, same F, same maximum height. Uh although it does require a step down to two stories along the rear and sides where neighborhood center mixed use does not require that the the density piece I'm a little le so I'm a little less concerned about it here. I'm less concerned about a 12 minimum only using Deer Creek as an example right now. Deer Creek is 59 units. It was approved 59 units on 5 something acres and that works out to be something around 11.3 uh a density of or not yeah 11.3 units per acre and um that already feels you're are you am I mistaken on that? because if I'm saying something wrong, I want to know. But it's like 59 units on 5.6 acres.

Are we talking at the Deer Creek shopping center? Uh, sorry, not Deer Creek. It's um Creekwood Housing. So, right across the street from house Creekwood Housing. Sorry. Okay. Sorry. I was thinking Deer Creek. I think it's like one I was getting I was getting the deer in the headlight look. [laughter] Um, okay. I'm following.

Yeah. So, in that neighborhood, uh, Creekwood at 11.3 already feels for those people pretty snug. And so, I'm not so concerned about a minimum of 12 for the mini center for um the cost a lot. Um, again, we're talking about something that's on the southeast side of town. it's not near transit and I think it would be more conducive for that neighborhood. And again, it may not matter for the uh the school district, but if they could if if if the mini center designation wouldn't prevent them from being able to do something, I would advocate to make a change. So adding adding into that for a heartbeat. Um would can we presuppose that um any school development would um would engage a developer and have option on property and get entitlement under school liberty and and um and and so be entitled under the liberties that the schools have rather than uh under the code strictly. I don't I don't know the nuance of of what they're allowed to do with the [snorts] state. Um they re I believe they recently put in some new um yeah classrooms at the front of that site.

Okay. Yeah. I think I think I thought they had Oh, okay. It's not on the site. I think it's that's that's separated from the 18 acres that was still that was still owned and intentionally was part of the school. So, like something like that. We don't see a building permit for that.

No, for for school purpose. Sure. But I was just thinking about the two times that they sold already, you know, um in 2008 or whenever they um didn't they they they took an option on the property and then and and pursued a development application and the contractor walked development company walked away and defaulted then their option money over to the school. It would be the same. All I'm suggesting is is that it wouldn't be sold and then subject to our rules. it would be optioned and they take the benefit of whatever process gains they get by being at the state. Um so I'm not worried that they would get to do whatever the heck they want to do more kind of sort of. So um ships just on that particular site maybe three things I want to think about. Uh the first one is um that is one of the larger open space vacant lot sites that we have available in the city and we have looked at that and designated it. We really want that as a 15-minute community site with with services, not just 100% housing. So, if we really want to uh make that a full statement, we need to put that in um with the purpose of becoming a 15-minute community site with services and um if and really recommend even though it's owned by the school, that is what we would like to see happen on that site. So, that's my just first as a comment. I think we I don't want to allow 100% housing on that site. Um even if they want it. Um but we can talk about that later when they actually make the proposal. The other things about that site when bringing up any large site like that in the city um and then talking about the square footage per um unit um at 2,800. Now here's my thing. There's besides the mobile homes we have now, there's a possible new new thing that might be called tiny home communities. Also, there's ADUs involved

here. So, on lot sizes, the state allows an ADU to be built and then if a city so chooses, the city can allow that property to be subdivided into a separate property. So, now we're talking about ADUs with a square footage of 500 square foot as a separate property, which is way below the 2,800. Will that be impacted by our limitations? And if someone wants to build a tiny home community again with 300 to 500 700 square foot homes on a th00and square foot lot and put put in 10 of these units in in or more within a small little area which is nice profit for a developer to come in and do it. Are we are we preventing that? Uh I want to make sure that that's allowed. So even at the Kasa Grande site, if a portion of it could be tiny home community, a very high profitable type thing per land unit, um that our 2,800 square foot prevents that. So I'm hoping we don't put too much limitations if we if we allow that in those type of communities, ADUs and tiny home communities.

Okay. So that's a question for staff here. And you want to paraphrase, you got it.

Yeah. Um, with with a lot of these kind of different configurations, um, we do have a policy about novel configurations um and and more more flexibility to ensure that we're not prohibiting um those like the tiny home villages, those those kind of things. Uh, so we do have policy language in the um the general plan um that calls that out to make sure we're accommodating [clears throat] that in our zoning code and that we're we have some flexibility for the things that maybe we don't know are coming but we want to facilitate as another housing option.

Yeah. I just want to make sure that that we're not preventing. Okay. Back back over here to K.

Council member K Thompson. I thought we had this conversation the last time around is that all of that area is within a 15inute walk of a town center that's already existing in the area. So, why aren't we talking about building that town center up? And why are we talking about using property that we could be using for highdensity housing is what we need? And why are we talking about a tiny home village in an area? And I'm just confused why we're talking about it being this mixed use so we or a use for retail when there is one within 15 minute walk. It just seems like we have something there. Why aren't we wanting to advance?

And I'll bring it back to Council Member Quint.

Yeah. My thought on it is if a developer wants to come in and create housing with some mixeduse business, we should uh create that flexibility. if um if a developer wants to come in and create another Brody Ranch, we should have that flexibility because on you know I think that's a great neighborhood and that's the kind of missing middle housing um that we need and I I understand the aversion to single family homes but you know the McKenna uh neighborhood is a great application for where it's at. And so over there, um, you know, I I just want to create the flexibility to to continue that kind of, um, development if it were to work out.

So, I'm going to try and ask for a quick straw poll on on what we're thinking here. Just want to chime in just quick. When you're talking about Brody Ranch, um, there's the town houses and then there's the homes. So, they're not really integrated. I'm looking I would think that I Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I mean, if I'm looking at a neighborhood like that, it would be nice if you could have like um multi-ousing mixed in with single units instead of the separation out. That's all I'm That's I'm using and let's let's bring another voice in. Council Carly.

Yeah. I mean, I think the the mini center makes sense. Um you know, he kind of helps preserve the character of that neighborhood. It's right there next to the school. um you know I think something like that would would make sense there and I understand too about what what we've just learned about you know schools and liberties that they can take um in development but um I I think many centers is a better application okay so again I'm going to try and do a little quick draw hole do you need to weigh in or can I oh vice mayor has the floor

I'm I'm chomping at the bit here the commercial sites next to schools don't work. We already learned that with Kennaworth Junior High students walking in to uh what used to be G&G is now Safeway and there it's it doesn't work. So, I asked the question before the meeting, is there any mixed use next to schools? And I believe there the answer was no. But this property, Council Member Kater Thompson is correct. We have two struggling centers at the end of Kasa Grande and Lakeville and McDow which are struggling there. It's this big box that has been uh dented canned foods. It's been a gym. It's been numerous gyms and it's empty right now. So, we need to help the that. And it's got a cleaners. It's got a vet. It's got restaurants. It's got a deli. It's got a lot of services and um salons. So then on the other side of the freeway, we have another struggling commercial um shopping center and it's always running through tenants. But the Kasa Grande site, can you remind us historically what it was before that developer backed out? It was a very unique high density neighborhood friendly. It was going to be for uh it was probably 2007 and then the recession hit in 2009.

So it was a very it wasn't zippered lots. It was very unique. I can't I've only been here since 2010. Okay. I can't remember. Sorry. I wish I could find my notes from that year. I was there at the time. I was teaching at Kasa Grande High School and I remember mostly it was three-story condos for the entire site. very high density throughout. That's what I was originally proposed. It was single family homes, but they had they were like zippered, but the driveways were you didn't see the driveways.

Let's remember they defaulted twice on two different proposals. It could both You're right. Um let's bring back um um our planning director wanted to weigh in.

So I I also wasn't here. Um but I just [clears throat] I wanted to refer to the the current designation designation which is the medium density and so that is very similar to what we're experiencing up and down uh CASA. Um so I suspect that was a starting point. we'd have to go back into the to into into the files, but everything I've heard about that site in the past has always been um similar uh density and development um that we're seeing um up and down the boulevard. And I did just I wanted to chime in and answer or at least provide a response to your initial question about what we're doing for the other um strip malls down the commercial centers. Um each time we ask a struggling business or a successful business um what's the best thing we can do to help um it's increasing foot traffic. So in one way one way or in one perspective by adding more density by adding more ability to have you know the foot traffic that happens in and around the centers makes it more successful. So each I mean that's literally the question that we ask um when we're confronted with this. Um you know I shop at basically every single one of those. Um but we don't have the density around there really to um to be sustainable and that's one way that the general plan is.

So we have a long we have a long run yet tonight. I want to try and see if we can so on this far. So we're now discussing between the existing misuse that's in the documents or a different mixed use that might do a different thing for the residential density of the style. Both of them would allow but would not require commercial or anything other than resident. You could be 100% residential in those. Correct.

Well, not no because it's identified as a neighborhood center. Um, so you'll remember the recommendation from the general plan advisory committee that in those areas that are identified as neighborhood centers not to have them be 100% residential, which doesn't mean it has to be retail. There are other things that could so for for for well and for instance um uh you know uh school facilities or a performing arts center or those kind of things that kind of create third third places um in a neighborhood not just it's not just retail.

Okay. So, we have two competing um mixeduse facilities on the table and I'd like to take a quick poll down the council of um whether um the lighter can we call it the the um the mini center just so just so we know it's not it doesn't reduce density. The only thing different that it does is it allows for small lot single family homes to be built uh intermingled with other units if a proposal came through like that.

Okay. So that's that's your suggestion, your advocacy. Council member Shrims in for that or staying on the high density the higher density of the two at this point go in any which way at this point. All right. Council member Carly. Oh, I'm saying it doesn't doesn't really change that the density, but I mean it just allows more flexibility. Council member Barnacle.

This is between neighborhood center mixed use and mini center mixed use. Yeah. I mean, as it currently would be, I would go with mini center mixeduse because of the flexibility. But I think this is just another example just to get on my soap box again of why we're like not being ambitious enough when there things are, you know, so damn close that like you can flip a coin and it's basically the same thing like like more flexibility. So, you'd like to have it as a more dense than neighborhood and because I'm because what I heard here was these two would like more dense, too. So,

yeah, we've got a struggling shopping center right down the street. Um, I would think that we would want to put more people there. Teachers need housing. Everybody needs housing. Um, and uh I'm not oppo like that. I'm not opposed to the the small lot single family concept that Frank brought up either. Um, but I think that we're like those are some of the the things that I'm that I'm struggling with when I look at these designations, I suppose. Can I make a proposal for getting out of this maybe? Yeah. This is one of those sites um they talked about Flex.

This is one of those sites that since it's owned by the school district, we basically call it just Flex, which lets them do whatever they want to do with it at this point. and so we see what they come up with. I think a lot of us would rather have some certainty that the the density minimums that we're talking about would like to be in there staff got a path. I'm sorry that just took a a left turn. Are we talking about uh going to flex instead of

Okay. So, council member Barnacle has on the table what's the next more dense location and and council members Shrib said, you know, would Flex do all that for us? And

so, uh Flex does not allow 100% residential. So, yes, it's a lot more density. It goes up to 75 units per acre and six stories in height. Um but it does not allow 100% residential. Um and it I mean this the flex designation if you look at the intent and description future designation when appropriate for sites currently designated historic agricultural support that allow all uses except heavy industrial. So it's not really the intent of the flex to be used in an area like this. that

can can I make just one more plea here? Really, what I'm after is I'm after like I think uh Brody Ranch with its mixture of single family, small lot, duplexes, triplexes, apartments in that same area is a really nice neighborhood. And with this current designation, and and by the way, the same developers that developed uh Brody Ranch developed McKenna, and they're the ones that are on the books for Deer Creek. [clears throat] So, it's not incon it's not inconceivable that they could bring that there. And you have advocated this point. I'm going to try and get to council

I'll support it if we can go to 40 if we move the mini center to 45 units per acre. I like the flexibility. I just want more more opportunity. And I'm going to ask staff, doesn't that upset the apple cart to change all the densities at this point given how many different places? If we change mini to 45, doesn't that ram have ramifications down the road to everything else we're doing?

Well, everything that mini center um I don't know how much it changes, you know, studies that are underway. Is that what you were referring to? The other option is you could allow small lot single family in neighborhoods that are mixed use is another that's another lever not not for the density wise but for the the discussion for the diverse for the diversity right I'm saying there's a compromise to be made here where we increase the density and we get the single the small lot single families and I think we could probably get four votes for that so is is changing that is is the neighborhood I'm going to let Ron answer that.

Is there enough neighborhood stuff enough neighborhood zoning stuff that it would be a problem going to 45 and other projects in this zone?

So just so I'm clear you're suggesting for for just mini center or for both mini center and neighborhood center mixed use increasing the maximum density to 45 dwelling units per acre. I'm s suggesting the the mini center, but I would go the neighbor. I would do the neighborhood, too, but right now I'm I'm bartering over the mini center. I That's not an easy question to answer on the fly. The challenge being that the designation is applied across many different lots citywide. So, I don't know off the top of my head how that would shift. Just to give some context around density, folks, can I just like the the Midpen project at 414 Pedaluma Boulevard is 67 units per acre.

The Lavia apartments are 47 units per acre, right? So when we're talking at 30 units per acre, we're talking at like half of what the Midpen project was built at, less than half of what the Midpen project was built at and like 2/3 of what we're seeing in Lavia, right? Like we're not talking about like skyscrapers here. We're talking about homes for people. So again, I think does anybody have a problem with that idea of going to 45? Okay, [laughter] wait a second. Let's bring Carly first. No, John can go first.

Um, two things. First off, um, there is se thousand homes that are east of Eli. in in district three there that are not within walk distance of of a of a of any services of shopping of any sort, restaurants or anything. It's much longer than 15 minutes from that whole section there to go anywhere. So that's the reason why it needs to be a 15minute community center and and that we're talking about 18 acres and not a small acreage of four or five or six acres. It's 18 acres and that high density on 18 acres, there's no way that's going to work uh on that road system out there to have that that much density.

Okay. So, no one's talking about removing the 15-minute designation yet. And um let me bring it back. Is that these um densities are not are are not required. They're maximums. They're minimums. If we go to 45, he's saying if we take 15 minutes center for commercial and keep that 45, it gets really dense.

So I'm looking at like mini center mixed use. Mini center mixeduse is used in a lot of areas where literally like there's a little node dropped in an existing neighborhood. Um so that's that's why it was the lowest intensity because it's dropped in um within existing neighborhoods. the neighborhood center mixed use, it gets bigger. You know, the the um if you look at where those are, they're larger parcels. They're generally like it's along East Washington or it is out by Cineabar on Magnolia Avenue. So, they're they're a little bit bigger. They're a little bit more located it looks like on on um corridors, major corridors. Um, and that's why it doesn't have things like the step down to two stories within 25 feet of the rear and side. So, they're like a graduated. So, I don't know if I answered any question, but just the intent there is that graduation. So if if the neighborhood center isn't right, does that mean the neighborhood center isn't right anywhere or we should pick a different designation for the Kasa Grande site to allow higher higher density but stay with that graduated

hierarchy? Yes, council member prefer to change the designation for this particular site to what? I don't know. We can talk about what to what but I think we have we need more density. Okay. And I go higher density on that side. We can't get both things happening at the same time. So um you know are we allowing the housing in that we're talking about and if we do and if we then try and do that designation it applies to zone to parcels that it wouldn't be appropriate to later. So, I mean, we don't want to individually zone each parcel for what's best on that parcel.

This site is a little bit different because it's a school site. We don't have as much um control over it. And I think this could be taken out. And I also want to talk about, you know, when we talk about 15minute, you know, neighborhoods, it's not going to happen all everywhere in this town. There's a lot of areas that aren't going to have 15-minute neighborhoods because it's just cookie cutter houses everywhere and it's just not going to happen. And I don't want to be in the position of having a center that we want to increase the foot traffic and now we're just going to decrease it by putting another center somewhere. I mean, we're just we're just trading off

and we're not we're not accomplishing what we really always talk about, which is we need housing. So since this is a school property and has a vast amount of latitude, I'm going to suggest we are not in agreement on any part of this I mean of the whole here and we should adopt asis and see what the school brings in with their broad latitude and since we were started early so we wouldn't get to midnight. I'm I'm looking for either either. So, this is voting round straw poll and my suggestion is leave it is. That's the vote we're voting on. Leave it is asis and uh understand that latitude comes with the school's proposal which is not our prerogative.

Just a quick point of clarification, leave asis as we're proposing or the existing. No, I'm sorry. The proposal on the table. Okay. So, well, it be asis versus a mini center.

Yes. Right. Leave it the way they proposed it knowing that they're going to do whatever they want to do anyway. So, why are we why are we going to be here till midnight if they're going to do whatever they want to do? And so, let's start start a straw poll. Is that a yay or a nay? Hands up for yes. Hands down means the motion doesn't pass and we keep talking. So hands hands up is leave it the way the report calls out. Okay. So um since um that motion of leave it alone didn't work. Somebody see if they can get a second from [clears throat] the opposite wing. You can't have a second from the same side because there's three versus three here. Sure. Can I get a um so going with mini sitter mixuse offers a little more flexibility with the same flexibility sorry with the same virtual

sorry I understand the definition that's in there make the proposal second but that's the the proposal is to change to change it to mini center to mini center I'll second it now the rule is it's got to come from the side that objects so you get a fourth you three are going to do that thing these three similarly are going to do that thing so is there a second over here for changes straight away to mini center. I'll uh second it with a friendly amendment to increase the mini center uh density to 45 units per acre knowing that it's going to apply to many other properties where it's inappropriate that in I I don't I don't have a problem with that. Is that a doable thing? I think we just did that.

But I mean that that drastically changes that land use designation. Yes. So, and that drastically changes every other spot in town. That's going to be mini center. Yes. So, if you're We have a a motion in a second on a straw poll. And um so, if you're in favor of the the Frank and Brian, we don't know what kind of impact that's going to be in hundreds of more cars. So, so to that point, I don't want to go down the path of Thank you. Thank you, Alex. I don't want to go down the path of trying to change mini center mixuse all over town and have us get into a a drug out comp. So you don't have a second then?

So if we don't have a second that's fine. Um I think it's a missed opportunity. But is that the end of discussion? So lacking an alternate proposal, we're not modifying the document presented to us tonight. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um these are tricky. This is a a lot of big thoughts here. Um all right. So I think we had other specific areas we wanted to discuss that um anybody with another thought on the table. Um yeah, council member strips.

Okay. Okay. Another one is um especially for the downtown area, but could be applied throughout the entire city is when you put the limits on the housings, the F and everything, and someone builds up uh to the max. Um what's happening in Europe is that they're activating the roofs. So whether it be a green roof, an observation desk, a little athletic type of uh center where the little exercise machines. Um I'm going to push this to be concise.

Concise. So, can we um so in these designations of four stories or height on the roofs, can we either um recommend or allow um probably not require but recommend or allow somehow um that roof activation is a bonus or an addition to the height or to the number of floors. So, if we just focus on downtown, um we're at 4.0 F, um four stories, 45 ft in height. One way we could potentially do that is in our zoning code, there's a exceptions. Um because what I'm hearing is an activated rooftop that exceeds the height limit for a very specific reason. um that could be written uh expanded. We already have an exception section in our zoning code. Um so an activated rooftop bar or space would not count towards the height. That's one way you could.

Right. That's that's what I'm suggesting if we can get that some either zoning or codes or in in the design system. But do you see a path to that in the zoning code? Yes. Yeah. So, we would probably want to add a policy um in in the general plan that that sets that forth to uh allow rooftop activation through zoning code amendment would it would be adding a policy. And I make that a motion to be um is that part of the land use designations or is it a different day a different way? It it is part of the general plan not the land use.

So I think what you're doing is providing direction to staff you or suggesting that we straw poll again for uh that effort and it would come into a policy they write in the general plan rather than the resolution that's going on tonight. Yes. Okay. Friendly friendly amendment. Yes. Not just in the downtown. Make that citywide. I think we want Yes. I I would want it to be citywide. So, it could be done anywhere and it's totally discretionary because it needs the action. We just said it it required what action. Uh, so I think the direction is add a policy in the general plan to um for a an amendment to the zoning code to allow

exceptions to facilitate rooftop activation. But is how is that get done? Does it get done in a CV? Does it get done in a um depends on what we decide as part of the zoning code? Okay. So you're going to bring that back to us. We don't have to sort that out tonight. Um, and I'm going to go throw a poll. If you're in favor of Council Member Shri's idea of activating rooftops per the direction, can I see a show of hands? Those in favor, raise your hand. So, um, looks like we got six to seven. That's, um, an idea to bring back to us at a later date. Um, and anyone who else has, uh, comments on tonight's presentation and items? Councilor Shribs.

Okay. just going back Spring Hill uh school. Um I've I've been there. I was a guest teacher there once. I was there with the leadership class which is really good to go to. Um but they've been very successful and they're grow they've grown over the years and the site is limited in space. There is a possibility they could actually grow and get bigger and bigger and [snorts] need a new location there. They may want to trade with another school. So what the concern is if we designated an education site because originally it was a church site, are we preventing them from selling it if moving to a bigger site and preventing them from selling it to do something else? So um yeah, is is that a simple yes no?

Uh there's always general plan amendments. The the general plan is a living document. as needs change over the next 25 years that that that could happen that there could be a general plan amendment. So, can I ask um is that their request to go educational? Yes. So, we could honor their request even though they may incur difficulty from the request they initiated. That's fine. As long so, if someone were to turn it back into a church and they moved out, it could be done. As long as that's possible, I'm okay. Is that one of our discussion points for tonight is what are we going to do about Spring Hill in in North Webster? Yeah, it's a it is a

So, I'm going to ask for Does anybody have a problem with allowing North Webster to go per the property owner's request? All those in favor say I. Thank you. It looks like we have a a majority on on that. Um, you have a list. You want to keep going?

Sure. Uh there was a a comment about making eight stories around the uh station. Uh that was brought up whether to do that or not. Um and I think if we put the limit at six stories, it's a possibility that someone might come in using state law to make it eight stories at that point. So I think we need to keep it to a maximum of six stories for sure um in that zone. Uh and say other comments on that. So that would be a comment based on uh so no station zone at eight stories. I don't want to see a Let's Let's see how the rest of the council feels on it. Anybody want to comment? Weigh in.

I got a comment. I'm just, you know, when we're talking about this, nothing's been built there. So, I'm just not even convinced that we're we're sticking with the same number that we have today and nothing's been built. So, maybe nothing will ever be built. Okay, good comment. I mean, I would support bringing the station area um designation back. I think um planning commission made a good point. you know, the generation housing made a good point. We say we want to be pro housing. I think it's a um exactly where we say we want housing. So, I'm supportive. Other comments on this before I straw poll this out,

I just think that uh Ly's designation is nonsense for pedaluma. You know, I think that kind of changes the fundamentals of who we are as a city. Um, you know, I mean, I have other comments on it, but I mean, if we're gonna straw hole on it, you know, let's find out how straw hole goes first. Yeah. Um, so was the planning commission suggested that we go back to the other and the other was allowing eight. Is that what

the planning commission's recommendation to the council was to reconsider their previous direction which was to eliminate um station mixed use which can you pull that up for me? Station mixed use allowed the designation standards.

Um the intent was very high density mixeduse development adjacent to the transit hubs like smart stations. It did not allow standalone commercial. did not allow standalone residential. It required vertical mixed use. It did not allow horizontal mixed use. So really the intent was very true uh mixed use. 60 to 125 um units per acre, 5.0 F and a maximum height of 8 stories. A minimum ground floor active use.25 F. So requiring some ground floor activation. That was the previous proposal that came to you as part of the briefing book from the general plan advisory committee. Planning Commission is asking you to reconsider adding that back into the mix.

So we understand it that we um my only feedback push back on that is with state densities and everything if we say six we get eight allowable. I mean the well but the developer knows he walks in he doesn't have to he doesn't have to have us saying eight because if he wants to build eight um he he gets the density bonus that gets him from six to eight. Council member Barnacle um we say we want to be pro- housing. There's no proousing organization that would say um set your standards based on what you think and plus assume state density bonus law. They say certainty in every step of the process give me clarity. And so I just like I really like if we want to be pro- housing like the way we talk about it, the way we approach our policym does not say and then layer state density bonus on and like what your worst fears are and then back it back from that. It says like set it with what you want to see and and like get it get it going because the density bonus law could be just as well used on something like you know weird outdoor spaces or you know winding window finishings or whatever. You know it's like we just don't we don't know what it's going to be but we shouldn't be setting our like using the worst potential thing that we can think of in our head and then backing back from that with state using state density bonus law. Like literally what like that's the worst like that we could be doing right now. That's not being visionary. It's being reactionary and fear-based. And I just really encourage us not to do that.

Gotcha. Council member Carly. I mean we've we've met our numbers with what's proposed currently. Right. Correct. We showed capacity for six cycle housing element arena existing.

So I mean we're we're already there. Why why would we want to even increase that? I mean I think honestly if anything right there I mean anywhere we shouldn't be going up to six stories anyway. I think it should be less than that. I don't expect to gain significant support on that. But um but I mean I think we you know we should again be protecting ourselves from these but density bonus laws and and other Senate and assembly bills and um you know we we've met our numbers. So, I don't think we should be increasing that right in the center there.

Good point. So, we know what uh the staff has asked us to weigh in on that planning commission recommendation, which is to put that zoning back in and we should be aware of the zoning that zoning back in is an eighth story allowance. Correct. Just for clarification, the land use designation. Thank you. Not zoning, but this

Yeah, [laughter] keep me honest. Um so again, straw poll if if if you support what the planning commission has recommended back to us about adding that uh station area back in and allowing eight stories, please raise your hand. So one, two, three, four, five. So there's that is a yes on that. And I agree with you. It's bold. And I agree when you do both things you're going to catch some flak. So um uh let's see what are the other do

can I ask one uh clarifying question here? So straw pole was to add that back in as a land use designation. Um do we also add it back to the map? So that what what that just did is add it as one of the land use designations. You'll remember that in the briefing book there was a proposal and maybe Ron combined it really quickly, I don't know. Um where on that parcel um adjacent to the smart own parcel that that was where the station mixed use was proposed. So my question is you're saying what parcels to apply this?

Yeah. Are are we just creating the designation for use in the future or are we applying it to parcels on the map as part of this process? Planning commission's recommendation. I I think it's probably the latter, but they didn't specify. They just reconsider this, but without it being applied on the map, somebody that certainty that council member Barnacle was talking about doesn't it's not there on the map. So, are we saying apply that? We we have five votes for that. We're saying apply it to the smartowned parcel and the adjoining um haststack or just the smart owned.

It was just proposed on the smart own parcel and I think it wasn't even a full coverage. I think it was like a Ushape. It was the full parcel. I think it's the U shape right now. But okay. Um, is anybody object to this one we just included being assigned to only the smart parcel incompletely that smart parcel? Okay. And sensing no one who voted for putting that land use back in has say they objected to it being applied to the smart that we're we all hearing each other. I think it should be applied to the smart parcel.

Thank you. Full parcel. full parcel. Good. So, what about the CVS parcel? So, let's um back. I think we've done a deal here for the smart parcel and now this one the the council woman has asked what the zoning is or what the land use is on the payless CVS across the way. Um CVS parcel I think it is I think it is the um no proposed I think it's the urban core mixed use a mix of urban core and town center. So the

the frontage is 75 units but the the back part the bulk of the property is actually only 55 units per acre. Yeah. I'd propose that we apply the urban corridor mixed use to the whole the whole parcel. Is the designation such that it tapers down into a lighter use further from the station? Yeah. So, if memory serves, I was trying to find the slides. I couldn't find it my fingertips. If memory serves though, um the intent was to follow the roughly the um central pedaluma specific plan boundaries. And I'll just share a screen really quickly to show you. No.

And those are not does not include the entire parcel. It's the street frontages and the st station frontage. Um, give me a second. Shouldn't we use the have the whole area the same and not just look at the smart property? Seems like we should look at the whole if if memory serves the intent was

Sorry, it's Why is it not? I'm sorry. because it was considered a lateral um I think this was an area that was lateral. So the areas that were T6 um were designated as urban core uh mixed use and the areas that are currently T5 or town center mixed use. I will point out that in the town center mixeduse, it's four stories up to six stories with planning commission approval. So, it does allow up to six stories, but it is um an a lower density. It goes to 55 instead of 95.

Okay. Um we're kind of settled there, Council Member Carly.

Um I mean, I I don't think it's right to start looking at other properties like that, especially if the owners haven't been noticed, you know, or included in this conversation at all. And and I kind of think that I think it's funny that we're even, you know, everybody's deepest, darkest desires are coming out tonight, you know, when we've had all these workshops to to discuss this stuff and here we are in the final minutes um talking about it, you know, and I think this is the kind of thing. This is why the community doesn't trust the council necessarily or the city is we're doing all this stuff right now, you know, almost 9:30 at night making these really big changes or proposing them and throwing them out there and um yeah, I just I don't think this is right to

I hear you and I understand and in the item we were talking about specific parts and and u that that came from planning commission and were you know kind of noticed out for who's doing what potential changes. I like the idea keeping it towards just what things were discussed in in the staff reports. Um, so and you had a separate comment. Yes. Maybe we should just go with the staff report and just not even have the meeting. I do have a right to actually make comments. True. And this is not deep and dark.

This is what we're supposed to be doing and we're looking at the whole picture. I mean the the central specific plan has a lot of flaws in it and that's why I we are not moving forward with development because of we have so many of these specific plans here and there and they're all different. I mean across the street from where um the square is that's going to be different. I mean you know so but but that's no different. That's a boulevard and the boulevard should be actually consistent on both sides instead of one side being different than the other because it's a different plan. Well, maybe the plan is the problem and we are we're fighting these plans and that's what we're supposed to be doing with the general plan is to actually make things maybe a little bit more consistent instead of having 50 different plans that really don't give us what we're looking for. That's my opinion. We do have a lot of plans. I would concur with that.

Yes. And they're inconsistent. So, um, they're outdated. Outdated and inconsistent. We addressed um, we addressed the North Webster Spring Hill issue. Does staff need a second? Uh, no. Okay. So, I think direction was clear. Uh, on on the Spring Hill. Yes. No. Um, on the smart. Uh so what I heard was redesate recreate the um smart mix uh station mixed use and apply it to the entire um smart station. Okay. Smart parcel. Sorry.

Is that like three blocks? No, that's that's one. It's between uh D and Washington and Copeland to the little Yeah. the little road that runs by the art center and train station. It doesn't go to the bridge. No.

Are we ready for the next

opportunity? So I would say then the the parcels that abut that that are currently zoned as urban core mixed use um like the CVS shopping center for example and the area between Weller and Copeland could similarly become urban core mixed use. Um and just really try and provide more opportunity in that area um to to build So, so that was we're looking at the briefing book. So that was um an alternative that was considered was uh the like grocery outlet part of the shopping center hay stack and then uh the CVS parcel was originally one of the alternatives was urban core mixed use. Um, and then was was this the recommendation?

This what was presented to this was what was recommended to council. Um,

and I thought we took that. That's why I'm like I'm sort of like stunned to see that it's not that because I'm pretty sure that when we looked we weren't like we got rid of the eight stories. I remember I was a little disappointed at that, but it was fine because the stuff that was around it was still like zoned higher than the town center mixed use, which town center mixed use is 55 units per acre and that's like literally you can hit the train station with a rock if you throw from some of those parcels. So, do we want to go back to um what was in the briefing book in terms of the urban core mixed use? Um can you share that so they can be clear?

Sure. On is this a share screen situation? Yeah. So this was um an alternative that was proposed with in the briefing book um but that there was changes change direction um by the council. Was there another alternative? Ron this is

or was this a recommendation? Okay. I propose we go back to that. Does T5 exist? T5 and T6, they still exist. Yes, there's zoning districts in the smart code.

So, by adding I mean I'm looking at the grocery outlet here is T5. It's currently T5, right? Um it is this would this alternative that had been considered would is had proposed to change it to urban core mixed use which is T6 more more akin to T6. Um, I'm looking at at the the grocery outlet's a lavender color and it says T5 in the center and it says no change.

Um, I think that's actually the area that is uh the exchange bank and the Dollar Tree that section would stay, right? Okay. So, what what is what does that become in this scenario? in this scenario. That's the what is the town center mixed use. Okay, good. Thank you, Council Member Carney.

Um, if I remember right, back when we discussed this, you know, we we intensified some other areas in exchange to keep this low at the same time. Um, but you know, I'm also wondering too, it was um I think it was almost unanimous when we decided to keep keep it at uh limited to six stories back then and and you know with with very little discussion or compelling reason tonight only on the basis of you know that it was a recommended discussion for council um how we're so quickly everybody's flipping to go back to that or or go back on what we decided you know as a as a council. So, I don't understand the shift in dynamic because there's been no compelling argument tonight as to why it's necessary.

Mayor McDonald, I don't think that people are shifting. I think that people I know for myself, I've been really thinking about this since we made the decisions the last time and I feel like some of them just weren't the best for the long term of the city. This is this is till 2050 and the added input of the planning commission and and the planning commission and I think we need to listen and not be so rigid. Good point. I'm going to bring it back down to council member Shrebs and say, you know, any any feedback on this right now? I don't want to I want to close the door before you get a chance to

um if we're going to go to a eightstory on the the train station, we need to step down. And if we're going to go with eight there, we six is a step down so that it looks like a community of buildings, not just a single fail symbol sitting in the middle of our town. So to step it down, you're going to have to have a couple six stories around it so it doesn't look so ugly. So, um I I go at this point if you're going with eight there, you better go with six nearby. That's not that it all is six. So, I just want to be clear the urban core mixed use and the town center mixed use both have a maximum of six stories.

So, uh is there a need to make a change? Yeah, there's I mean it's density. This is literally I mean this is what transitorient development is, right? So, was trying to address council member Shrebs that eight stories is not being disc I don't think um outside of the smart station. It's it's a the nuance is more in the um density. Gotcha. Okay.

Um Heather, is it SP79 that was the one that was developed for station areas to to basically steamroll local stuff and go up to was it eight stories? Start right there. seven or eight stories. Okay. Seven. And is is that not applicable to our train station area? No, it is not applicable. If you look on I can't remember if it's MTC's website or um it that the SB79 where it landed and was approved only applies to I think it's like Alama County or Santa Cl. They pulled out tier three stops which took out Sonoma and Marin County from it.

Okay. So they're they're deciding that that amount of density and height is not necessary around our train station. They decided that SB79 doesn't apply to Sonoma County. Okay. So because they don't feel that it's necessary. So why would we be then saying we need to go denser and higher? Okay, I think everybody's had a chance to weigh in. I'm not sure if that's what they're saying. Political reasons politics in

So, um, Heather, can you um capture where we're what the proposal is, which is the change of smart plus I think beyond that. Is that what we're saying? So I I think um we had one conversation which there was a majority on the straw poll to re reintroduce the uh station mixeduse land use designation and apply it to the smart parcel. That's one. And there was a straw poll. I I believe there is another um motion informal motion on the table to um go back to this modified alternative one which would make the um CVS parcel the haystack parcel and part of what I call the Golden Eagle shopping center but just because I cannot remember the new name of the shopping center um urban core mixed use instead of town center mixed use

and that uh doesn't change the height it changes the density in that in that little switcheroo we're talking about correct so a does everybody understand what the proposal the straw pole on the table is I'm not quite um can you say again what the two densities is different so they're both six stories but the density is what and what can you pull up the designation standards so smart included

it doesn't matter Um the urban core mixed use [sighs] urban core mixed uses for highdensity mixeduse commercial and civic areas of regional importance. It does not allow 100% residential. It goes from 50 to 95 units per acre. A maximum height of six stories. a maximum F of four stories. So that's what the proposal is to go to. As it was currently proposed, it was a mix of that and town center mixed use, which is major destinations that include a robust combination of uses including regional and local commercial as well as residential. It would have allowed 100% residential, 30 to 55 units per acre, 3.0 0 F up to 4.0 with PC approval to correlate with a fourtory max height with the ability for planning commission to approve an additional two stories up to six stories. with that uh clarity um straw poll those who want to take it to the proposed to change what staff report included to uh that prior that we were looking at and that Heather captured um raise your hand.

Okay.

To urban core from town center. Yes. Good. Done. Um I I'm going to like um try and pivot a little bit here. Uh staff made a great presentation about the transport area. Does anybody have um a feeling about the transport line item? Then um then I think we're um accepting uh the the staff report suggestion um on Western. This is this is property owner um input and the property owner suggested not doing what we're got in front of us. Uh does anybody have a problem with that? Okay. Um I mean I don't like it because I think it would be cool to have stuff there, but the property owner doesn't want that. I'm I'm willing to So

I have some comments. Oh. Oh, okay. Good comment.

Yeah. So, I I was reached out to by that property owner and some others who in the last week received a letter basically saying that, you know, this is what we're doing and your land use may change. Um, well, let let me back up first because I I did have a specific question about that. You know, how how was it that it even came to be that that land use might change if the property owner didn't request it? Who who requested that? Uh so there was um multiple inquiries about um a a new tenant going in there. Um it was um looked at as our our economic development arm looked at it as an opportunity for a local business. Um and it was I think um the understanding was that potential business owner was working with the property owner. Um, so when we sent the letter out saying, "Hey, you're in a you're in an area of change." Um, uh, and we heard back from them that, hey, I didn't wasn't working with that person. That's we then modified it.

So, it was potential tenants that got this on the board to potentially change the land use, not the owner. It was potential tenant. Yes. that um my understanding was was represented that they were working with the property owner and they were running into um difficulties. How did staff not confirm that by approaching the property owner instead of taking a prospective tenants's word for it? I I can't tell you the details.

I'm I'm going to suggest that that's a complete conversation already. I mean, I I think we're aware about the the land use thing, and tonight we're going to stay focused on the land use and pick up that at a different time, different place. Well, but it I mean, it ties into kind of what I was going to say about Say what you're going to say.

So, you know, I mean, I I think I think outreach is incredibly important, especially with land use, especially with the general plan next 25 years. Um, you know, and businesses and land owners being a key contributor to that. And so, you know, with with that property owner um and and others reaching out to me saying, "I just got this letter in the last week." You know, what what does this mean? Is something changing? Um you know, getting this at the end of the year, right before the holidays, if you own a business, you know what kind of a crazy time of year this is? Um I I don't you know,

so I'm going to take that in. start well we started this process a long long time ago and they're now just finding out right before we're about to you know cement these things more or less so I just I just want to highlight it as you know I I talk about um you know all this outreach and how important it is and I don't think this is a good look for the city when this is all being done at the last second when they can't really hardly figure out what any of this means wrap their heads around it talk to their attorney attorneys, their business partners. Um, you know, there was a a downtown association meeting with property and business owners a couple weeks ago and everybody at that table when land use came up. Um, which I don't know that that was really supposed to be part of the discussion, but it became that way. You know, they were all like, we don't know anything about this. What's going on? And so staff was nice enough to set up a kind of an impromptu, you know, this is what land use is going to be and what's coming up on the 15th. But um I mean I think this is I would like to highlight and point out that you know I don't think staff has been reaching out to because the community so I I agree with you the the uh the challenge with communicating with the public is is uh over underestimatable. You can't overestimate how hard it is to connect with the public and you've got to do it and do it and do it. The communication can't end and you gota you gota um have that all those opportunities and I think there's a balance in between and we're hitting a balance and we've been in this conversation in the public for a long time. um you know uh especially larger uh larger invested uh property owners in town need to find a method through and working with the downtown business is not uh their fund downtown business's fundamental core they're they're the business not the property owners side so

property owners got to find a way to the table much as the city has to find a way to the property owners yes process could be better yes everyone could do better tonight uh you've made your point and we're going to we're going to move Yeah, but it's well, it's not just that it could be better. It's that uh you've made your point and I'm going to move us on to the next part of the conversation. So, it's just plain bad. So, everyone has flaws in this on all sides. It's been well noticed and we can all do better. Um I'm going to move us to actually um a question on that. Does anybody have a problem accepting the owner's proposal for their owner's property on Western? We're all good to not change

to not to Well, they Yes, I think that's a not a not change from current today, right? That's correct. Okay. And there could always be a general plan amendment. I think that's the future. So, we can just let it go and

when the property owner when the potential client came in, they were being told that it would take a conditional use permit, which is a substantive change. So, this is a long history of interesting parts. But if the owner wants to keep the thing the way it is, and we all agree, then this motion, this item is resolved in with direction to staff on this. Um, so, um, I' I'd like to talk about the Old Redwood project and get us to the Old Redwood project, uh, neighborhood, um, buildings and ask, um, if [snorts] um, anyone wants to lead off any of that conversation. I'm supportive of the the approach from staff to um include all the parcels up there. Um it may [clears throat] be too much for us to bite off. Um, but if we're going to be welcoming residential in that part of the city, it might be worthwhile for us to um can, you know, maybe we don't put the it into the map or something, but we can have a general plan land use policy or something that says that, you know, if owners want to do this, you know, like we're going to support them in it or something. But um it just feels weird to to just be doing like one one property when we're zoning for an area, you know.

Okay. Okay. I would agree with that only because the market is really changing and it's not just for these particular parcels. It's going to be more spread out in the entire area.

Okay. I uh want to express the opposite opinion. Um I think um changing to uh residential uh would be bad here. We have pushed hard for um residential in so many areas and um and I worry that we're going to eventually starve the the markets pivot when when um um the Deer Creek Freriedman's went in first. There was um it's got to be all we said mixed use and the development came in said it's got to be all commercial, you know, it's got to be all retail and we don't want to do any housing. And then you wait 10 years for the second half of the project. Think, wait, wait, wait. We should have done all residential. Um, markets change. I hate to lose existing structure. We talk about climate and they talk about the best buildings and the buildings that are already here for filling. And so, you know, I I'd like to push that um we need to find better economic development support through economic development efforts rather than pivot limited commercial spacing. And I know we have 17% vacant commercial spacing in town, but which is huge, but um [clears throat] but I just wanted to get that on on the table. Other opinions? Council member Shribs. Um, first I I pretty much agree with what the mayor just said on that. And um, if it the housing that they're proposing is not a separate whole housing unit in their parking lots, but rather okay, they have empty office space, they can convert and put housing in there, especially for their employees could actually have housing on site. Um, that would be kind of a nice thing to have as long as it's inside the buildings, not an extra. So um so there's but then it could be converted back to office when it's needed as office space. Um the other thing that you mentioned I think I want to support is um yes housing is is number one. We need to focus on that and get that done

but unfortunately the land use the whole general plan seems to be almost totally focused on that and housing alone isn't going to cut it. Um we have to have the um we have the waters pretty much taken care of but what's not taken care of is the transport systems around uh all these locations can the uh what's going to happen to the roads people are already really complaining about congestion the increase that's happened just in the last 5 years I'm hearing from everybody about how much congestion they're feeling on any of the major roads around town now freeway Washington uh downtown area folks aren't aren't going places. So, we have a problem with congestion uh coming up and um and we've really even talked about our population uh demographics about how it's shifting as well as how much senior housing we need versus housing for young folks and new newbies. Just as a reminder on um uh even for the tiny home village, we're talking about 1,000 square foot per property, which is 43 houses per acre. That's 43 per acre. Okay, that's not a low amount. That's actually a pretty good amount as a per acre thing. Okay, then the next thing is on businesses e economy. Housing is great, but where are these people going to work? If we're going to house people and then they're going to travel back to Vallejo to work or down San Francisco, no, they need to be working here as well as living here. So, housing alone doesn't cut it. We need housing and we need the businesses. So we need to have and if we have limited as you mentioned limited industrial space limited have medium industrial space limited even business office space now um there needs to be a balance. So I I want to see that balance and I want it reported back in the land use. How much population is housed versus how much population is for

working during the day and if we have enough space in working conditions in businesses in commercial where the people that are living here can actually have the space to work here. Is that a balance or not? So that's the problem I'm having. So I'm sort of agreeing with what you're saying um on that. Um but it's it's much more complex than just what you've just said. Thank you, Council Member Quinn.

Yeah, I disagree. I think um you know, we talked a lot about 15minute neighborhoods and uh I think a lot of times it's a mistake to try to in a town like ours that's already, you know, sort of developed to um take an area and say, "Oh, we're going to turn this into a 15-minute neighborhood." Well, I think part of the way you get to 15-minute neighborhoods is you let uh you let it organically grow. Um, and we have someone that's talking about putting housing right in the middle of all of these businesses. And so, what better way to sort of get um that walkability? Um, also I mean I'm looking at that building it's like I think like just looking at it I have no doubt that they're having a really hard time like who would want to go like it just doesn't look like a desirable place to go to work and spend your time and um and and and you know the business owners that own that building have a good sense like I'm fearful ful that if we say no to that that in 25 years on the next general plan, we're going to be looking back and we're going to be saying, uh, man, we sure wish we would have let them because I think it'll still be there and it'll be an empty building if we don't let them do something with it.

Council member Narly, do you want to weigh in?

Yes. No, thank you, Mayor and Councilman Shri, for what you said. Um, you know, I think too it's it's looking at changing an entire area like that. You know, again, we're not noticing people. We're not engaging with property owners. Um, you know, we've been approached by one one owner and and to just make that single change, you know, in the middle of a business park, an industrial area. Um, I mean, that's the whole reason you have you have these maps is is to make put like things together and have different parts of town. So to change one thing right in the middle of all that doesn't doesn't make sense either. So I I think either way it doesn't and I don't think we should be changing it.

Thank you. Any other thoughts on it? Yeah, I'm going to do that again where I say straw pull because I don't know how this is going to turn out. Um so um what exactly is the owner's uh proposal or or request of us to to change the um the complex that um to step down mixeduse is what is what is meets meets their they were looking for a mixeduse designation that would allow the addition of residential step down mixeduse was proposed proposed um um in the

and and um from from your from business park. Yeah. Do you have an understanding of whether um this would require demolition and construction or we do not have nothing more than the proposal for land use change of land use designation. I just have a question. What what could actually be could you end up with a Home Depot on that site

with this use? Can you go to step down mixeduse? Um, so a couple things I want to just remind that there's a big difference between the zoning and the and the land use designation. Right? So the zoning is when we get down we dig into um the specifics. So what I can tell you step down mixed use uh area similar and mi mix of use and intensity MU2A um but with height step down that blends into abuing neighborhoods. It would allow 100% commercial, 100% residential, vertical or horizontal mixed use, 20 to 45 units per acre, 2.5 F, and a four story max was stepping down to three um where indicated.

To be clear, 100% commercial could be there. Okay. I mean, just going to make one final pitch here. Like,

diversity of uses is how we get to 15-minute neighborhoods. We like think all the time about how do we get that corner store into a residential neighborhood, right? And like gosh, if we could just put a little raised grocery in every little neighborhood, we'll just have 15-minute neighborhoods. And then there's like the inverse of it. And that's what we have here. We literally have a property owner coming and saying, "Look, please, like, I'm trying to better utilize my space. I've got 100,000 square ft of empty commercial space and we're not seeing a huge market for rebounding on the commercial office space following COVID. Um, and you know, we've got Barn 5400 there that is like would love to have more people like in that area and it's literally right across the street from it at that corner of that lot. like this could be, you know, it could be the start of a 15-minute neighborhood if we just like gave them the flexibility to to do something with it. Um, it's not often like we would go out and beg land owners to come bring us viable housing projects and here we have someone coming and saying, "I'd like to explore doing a housing project and we're saying no." So, I respectfully I would hopefully would accept their proposal. little push back on that idea is that um um old Redwood Highways, you know, approaching um Lakeville level congestion. Um not traffic per se, but but congestion. And we get so much guff from folks that are wrong side of Lakeville, those apartments we built out on the uh industrial side, how they get into a neighborhood, how they get to other parks and things like that. And I feel the same way about whenever we put people further and further from amenities. I love what we're doing to the core and and how we're building up the core, but it's trickier on the edges, but and council member Carly.

Yeah, I I don't even see that area as a good node for a 15-minute center. I mean, there's others that are much better. They're all surrounded by housing. This this entire part of town is nothing but business, industrial, and you know, all all of that. I mean, it's it's there's no housing there to begin with. So to have one parcel become the the beginning of that and literally everything else. I mean that's that's not going to be any kind of 15minute node. Thank you council member Shibs.

Yeah. So the original question I was trying to get to and asked but didn't quite get answered was are they is this about adding buildings of housing or changing buildings from office to housing and commercial so that they fill space up in current buildings? We do not have a development application. So we don't we don't have something we're looking at that is it's just a request for a change of land use designation to allow the potential for residential. Basically, I'm in favor of conversion of not additional, but if it's conversion, put some housing on upper floors and put some commercial bottom floors.

That information is not available for your consideration at this time. And this straw poll is going to happen independent of us knowing you know all the details. So, uh, with that, let's go to, um, straw poll. And, um, I would, um, like to phrase it as who are in favor of the owner's proposal, which is to change it to a mixed use. Step down mixed use. Step down mixed use. And so, hands up for stem step. So, I see [clears throat] one, two, three, four.

Five. There's that other hand. So um it council has um gone in that direction. So um all right um we also have the cineabar question in front of us and um cineabar proposed to make it move towards maker. That was their ask and um does anyone have an opinion on that or are they comfortable adopting the um property owner's recommendation for a lighter use? I believe it's lighter use. Um, anyone question about it? Council member to Carly.

Was um when staff discussed this with them, was there any reasons to choose the maker micro versus business park? Ron, do you recall the the consideration of choosing maker micro in that in that general area? I'm I'm gonna ask staff to recap and pull us I'm losing counsel to to wondering where we are here. Yeah, they're trying to um Ron's pulling up this area for discussion. Um

so it's it's that small parcel. Um, but maybe you could turn on the proposed land use. See how it's it's the red maker is what is proposed all around there. Um, that's not right. Oh, yeah, that is. Um, yeah. Um, and it's it's that little rectangular parcel there. It's owned by um the same property owner as the abuing maker space. It is. So, that is the request. I don't recall the consideration of Mike Maker micro on that one.

It looks like we were trying to bring the designation into conformance with existing which is uh the existing use and the existing zoning or industrial on those neighboring sites there it looks like. Um and so it just seemed to be a appropriate lateral adjustment. No. And on this one, it's existing medium density residential. And so we did a we just did a lateral. Looks like a a cleanup is what it looks like to me. Yeah. I don't necessarily have a problem with it. I was more curious why why that choice versus business park.

I think because some of the existing uses I think Ron's right, some of the existing uses in there are more industrial in nature. Like I think there's a some contractors um building contractors in there um a little more. Okay. So, if we're uh if if I don't see any objections, I'm going to call that a a day on that one. There we go. Um and I don't have my scorecard in front of me for other um efforts we need to be making on this. I think I

that was the last of the GPAC planning commission and business owner I mean an owner requests and so the other is just just adopting a res the resolution for the land use map with those changes and the designations. Council member

I've got I've got one more proposal. Um uh so we got two more proposals. one is lift the F to three on the step down mixed use. Um and then the second one is the the old Lucky Shopping Center. I feel like that right now at 45 units per acre, the step down mixeduse is um probably significantly lower than what we'd like to see on a on a project built there or at least um and so I would increase that to the urban corridor mixeduse um or at least the town center mixeduse. But I think the urban corridor mixeduse, it is a corridor. It um there's um plenty of amenities around it. um it feels like it's um a better upzoning for that uh area and there's nothing abuing it. There's no single family people that are going to come out screaming about that there. There's literally nobody near them. So, I'm going to ask staff to pull up some uh assistance on the screen here so we can all see this. And I think this was a heavily discussed item when we were doing the playbook.

Yeah. And while I'm doing this, um, Siman, if you're still there and still awake, if you could think consider, uh, the 3.0 adjustment for step down makes use from 2.5 to three. Yes. Give me a minute. So this it's this area here I believe just at Pedaluma Boulevard North and Peran/Magnolia where Lucky Shopppee Center. That's correct.

Yeah. And I'll just say just to to add to it, there's like, you know, the Smart Path is right there. So the potential for people to get down into into town into the station, it's like, you know, it just feels like it's perfectly situated with all the different modes of transportation. and the bus line runs right down there. Um, it feels like the type of again the type of place where we'd want to see more density. I I I love the enthusiasm. I'd like to ask what the history workshops and the what's the playbook you you brought to us. Hit us with that analysis again.

Uh, that'll take a second. Um with just I what I can say is we we did this to reflect the council's direction which was to taper from a more intense um allowable use at the city core and then gradually less intense as we moved up the corridor. And so that's why we changed this entire section to the step down mixed use. Give me a second to find the spot in the briefing book. And so this uh Lucky Shopping Center is north of Pyan and the step down is also applied south of Payan. Is that what we're seeing here on the screen?

Yes. Thank you. I know I'm asking you to do three things at once, but you're doing great. Since we have a moment, I just want to say that this development is only 500 ft from having a smart path into downtown. Will happen, God willing, right? Uh so in the briefing book, they actually had originally proposed something more intense, a step down.

Uh wait, Excuse me. Uh, what are we proposing? Yeah, step down. Oh, I'm sorry. So, this is consistent with the original proposal and you had asked us to keep the make the neighboring properties. I'm going to ask you to speak into the mic, please.

I'm I'm sorry. The uh briefing book originally recommended this for step down as well of a few adjacent properties and you allow you asked us to intensify the parcels directly to the south of there to make them consistent. We had asked the public, one alternative had suggested a more intense use there allowing four stories and another allowing up to six. And there was mixed support for both of those, but there was stronger support for Yeah, there's really no clear public input on level of intensity there because we asked a question around the the the transition as you move up the corridor as opposed to appropriate intensities on specific sites.

Okay. So, input council council K Thompson. I just wanted to comment that the planning commission just heard about the project across the street from this area which is Gallagher Galler beyond the police station in the neighborhood. Yeah. So I mean it seems it seems like it would fit to have more density in that area. So um what is the height maximum of of a step down versus step down's uh 45 ft uh or 50 ft and the uh urban corridor is 60 ft.

So it's another two stories. It goes from four to six. Is that what we're saying? It says five uh step down to four in the urban corridor mixed use. So we're we're stocking one one additional story but we're increasing the density considerably basically. [clears throat] So um that is the suggestion on the table. Any other feedback? Council member Shribs.

One of the points was to um reduce down from the center of town out and so now we're going out further out of the center of town and raising it up. So um which is against what we've originally proposed. Now in those sites um yes high density is good but I don't think six stories at that point um uh increasing the densities. So um you're talking about increasing to urban which is six stories 60 foot or or urban corridor is five stories. Five stories. Um still that's picture a fouron one at the lucky. Yeah. Um yeah as long as not six. I I was worried about six. Five would be livable.

Okay. Council Quinn, any comment? Council member Carly. Yeah. Know, I I think that coming in since tonight um you know, we had a map that the public at large was very comfortable with and hence why there's um very few left except for staff in the audience. And um you know because again I think I think they liked it and I'm very surprised at what kind of seem like you know some unethical changes that my colleagues are making tonight. It's I'm going to call you out. It's not unethical. It might be bold. It might be a lot of things. It might not be well uh communicated but it it's not unethical. Don't go there.

I mean I think it I I think it is. You know we're this this is a map that we agreed on a long time ago. you know, and ethics of it council member, you know, everything's suddenly changing.

So, and one of the things I'd like to point out along those lines is as just a reminder in terms of the direction staff are seeking is there's no enactment that's happening tonight. It's still policy direction that's going to come back to the council. There's no amendment to the existing general plan. So this is still policy direction and that means all the opportunities for public input and response are still are still there. So um to the extent POS folks in the community have not weighed in property owners and other community members they're still going to have additional opportunities to do that. Thank you. All right. Um so then uh I think we have a proposal to go to the next level from step down to urban core. urban core and anybody

urban corridor corridor not core urban corridor and it's a land use I got this um uh so uh can I have a show of hands or thumbs for who approves in in that regard and that's uh that's a majority so we'll head in that direction as well and now any other questionable parts that anybody has from tonight what about the F in step down to 3.0 No, that was another uh suggestion. Can you recap that issue for us? So, current F is 2.5. I'm proposing we increase it to three in what zoning or in what land use? Step down mixeduse in step down. Can can I invite Simron to please

we just because she can speak to the compatibility between that and the suggested density range. Go ahead Siman. So the density, so council member Barnacle, you're not suggesting changing the density, right? Just the F. Um so that doesn't necessarily lead to more housing. Um the 3.0 F, I think it it could work. Um but with the step down requirements in in on several sites um it'll be hard to get to that maximum. So you know our proposal of 2.5 was appropriate for that density range that's being offered. But if the council decides to change the F um acknowledging that they won't it won't lead to more housing necessarily. It's a change that that could work.

So, um that's not a powerful inducement. My suggestion would be to leave it as is. Uh but it's of course uh the council's discretion. Yeah. Um if there's no support on the council, I'm fine with it. Um I just uh have an aversion to F as a as a metric. I feel like it's pretty arbitrary. It's all a little integrated for what will and won't work. Um, Council Member Quint, you had an um concept on a different Are we moving on? Yes, we're moving on.

Yeah. So, um, in the documents that we received, I think it was in the, um, the descriptions, the land use designations in here, there was a there was a chart that talked, um, mixeduse designations. um on page four has sort of which designations allow for 100% commercial, 100% residential, so on and so forth. And then there's been talk tonight about GPAC's recommendation for uh making certain designations um they cannot be 100% residential. And so I wasn't sure if that was a recommendation, but it sounded like it was being sort of adopted and I wanted us to be able to weigh in on that.

So it's a little more nuanced than that. What what we didn't want to do is the flexibility for 100% residential was also really important to the GPAC. So they spent a lot of time with the that exact table on page four and looking at how do we give the most flexibility um for these properties. What they did want to make sure is that those the sites that are identified in the draft general plan as 15minute town centers and neighborhood centers. So not everything that's got commercial around it per se. the ones that are actually identified. And you had seen that map where it had those that are identified. They wanted a policy that said at those locations, we don't want 100% residential. So, not changing the o land use designation that would apply then citywide, but a a kind of an added layer for those town center and neighborhood centers to not not be 100% residential. That was their recommendation. Got it. And so I I guess my point of view is I respect that point. I respect that point of view and um but I I disagree with it. I think uh in uh I like the I like the vision of trying to encourage and incentivize um areas where people can live and get to services without having to get in a car and drive across town. I'm 100% on board with that, but I'm concerned that I'm concerned about uh enacting a policy that is going to kill a project that brings housing just because it doesn't incorporate some level of commercial.

Um, one of the nuances of the conversation was around Lake Horn development and uh, there was a public speaker and some conversation by the GPAC about when that shopping center was established, it was really import neighborhoods. And so by changing the designation on that site to step down mixeduse, the concern was is will somebody come in and demolish the commercial and just build residential and then it would be a loss to the neighborhood from that that one center that pulls it together. So, I just wanted to kind of help help um communicate the conversation that happened at GPAC. It it really that conversation and that recommendation came from that that perspective.

I think that's an important I think that's an important center and I would be disappointed if that shopping center went away completely and it was replaced by housing. I think that would be a disservice for that community for sure. And if we had if we were in the middle of sprawl and we were developing new neighborhoods, uh, and there was an incentive to bring, um, to to tell a developer, you have to build, you know, if you're going to build this many houses here, you're going to have to put a school. If you're going to build this many houses here, you're going to have to build a shopping center. All of that I I totally get. But what we're trying to do is different. like we infill is much harder than developing, you know, than sprawl. And I'm concerned that that kind of when we're looking at trying to find little pockets of town that we're going to put some housing in that forcing someone to put some commercial that's not being sort of created by market demand is um could hurt our ability to put housing where it otherwise would go. Well, I I uh I don't uh disagree entirely with you. I know we have talked about the difficulty of uh putting business in the mixed juice that does get built. It doesn't, you know, it often goes wanting. But I think we need to have economic development policy that addresses that rather than um walk away and you know to allow it to be um 100% residential. And I know we've talked about flex space where you build and and rented as residential currently, but it's been built under commercial standard. Once you have a tenant, you know, it's very rare you would I feel that the tenant would ever leave and you

would repurpose that space. Um, so I would rather we find economic development incentive to put people into a commercial space than allow it to be 100% residential. where I am on that one. And uh Council Member Kate Thompson, this is a different subject. Um we got to finish up with this. Okay. Are we still on this?

I I tend to agree with what Council Member Quinn said. Um I would be disappointed to lose all the commercial out of the Legghorn Plaza as well. Um, and I also, um, don't want to create an a situation where things aren't happening because, you know, that's applied to all the zones in there. So, um, I think I'm in council member Quinn's court on this one. Could I just clarify one thing? So the GPAC's original request was actually to adjust the designation so that it would not allow 100% residentials. We didn't think that was practical for exactly the reasons the council members are raising concerns about is like this is we're not saying citywide these designations would no longer allow for market to respond to the demand for housing. What we're suggesting is the slight adjustment in policy that clarifies for those areas that are identified as 15-minute activity centers where the explicit intent is to provide some access to folks who live in neighborhoods and surrounding to retail office other kind of day-to-day needs. Like we don't they didn't want they don't want to lose those. And so just in those areas where 15-minute centers are identified, don't allow it there. but but not apply it citywide for exactly the reasons the council members are raising concern.

Clarifying question on that too. The the exact amount of commercial space that we're talking about being provided for something like that is going to be like bore out in the zoning code. Correct. Yes. In this case, it wouldn't it that level of detail would not be included in the GB.

Right. So, I guess the the the place where I'm landing on this is like, you know, if we said 2,000 square ft of commercial space, right, literally just a little corner store and the rest of it was residential. Um, like that would theoretically p work for, not 100% residential. That's what I guess I'm where I'm going. or even a a community room in a all residential project would probably satisfy that. Is that am I I'm trying to just get a sense like talk me into this I guess is what I'm saying, right? like help me help me understand it because um I know that this is getting the can's getting kicked to the zoning code on what the the exact provision is on this, but I think to like the concern that council member Quinton and I have is like I guess that maybe we just have to live with that level of ambiguity at this stage and and recognize that the the sausage isn't completely, you know, cooked up. Yeah, I would hope that those who are working on that specific zoning code revision would be very mindful of the intent, you know, and consider and look at examples from across the city that people would consider to be appropriately appropriately scaled retail, other non-residential use that that really does serve the surrounding neighborhoods and consider those examples when thinking about how to establish the threshold in the zoning code. But yeah, I think we do need to defer to folks who have have more time to think it through in more detail and the various potential scenarios across different sites in the city to come up with the appropriate threshold. We haven't had time since the GPAC meeting to look at it in tremendous detail, but we're just trying to honor the intent of what was expressed. I think you achieved

I think you achieved the uh 15-minute neighborhoods by making uh by making our policy flexible enough for people that are currently in existing homes that have the opportunity to turn those into businesses. Like I think that's where you get 15inute neighborhoods instead of trying to tell someone that, yeah, you can build this, you know, 50 unit apartment complex, but you have to put, you know, a 1500 square foot of retail on the bottom because it's just going to jack up the price for the retail or for the for the uh housing.

Thank you, Council D. Carly. But if we're filling in pockets of of town and and isn't that kind of counter to the idea of 15inute cities if you're you know eliminating little spots where there could be you know commercial and things that people need and um not even just within walking distance but within their own building. That's very good point and um you know we've seen this in a number of um locations where we're trying to encourage 15-minute neighborhoods and the commercial aspect of it is varied and and we allow varied. There's no it doesn't say you need to have a grocery store doesn't you know um but repurposing would be great. What's the new uh county and state ordinance on home kitchens? I mean, those would be wonderful, but I think we need to protect for better. And since we have such diversity, I'm more in favor of keeping that together. 15-minute neighborhoods. Um, so is there Yeah. Give me closure on this, John.

Just this this issue in particular or Yeah. Okay. Um, just going what Councilman Quint said earlier about the home businesses. I think that was in the um some of the proposals that we actually allow that uh to happen which is what he mentioned. There there's an entire chapter of the Landis element that talks about diversifying. Good. So So we don't need to discuss that if we're all in favor of that. Okay. I just want to bring Good. Okay. Um Council Member K Thompson, I'm done with this subject. Um one second. Are we all done with this subject? Do you need a direction or we I need to I need a direction. Am I am are are we

adding a policy in to prohibit 100% residential on those nodes that are identified as town or neighborhood centers with the detail to be worked out in the zoning code or are we not including that policy? So we have an existing 15-minute policy. Does it adequately cover that those that are development within the No, we would be adding a policy to the land use element under the chapter on 15minute neighborhoods to say you can't have a So I think we're going to go straight.

So council, if I could also just make one sort of structural observation, it's going to be important to bear in mind tonight and subsequently. Um and it also even relates to stuff we're talking about is in terms of the extent to which um uh school district owned parcels can deviate from our requirements. Um, currently and prospectively, I think it's going to be important for us to remember that it um the state law that is unfortunately attempting to limit our local discretion about about questions like housing and land use is going to continue to favor general plans. and it is going to um allow the potential for ignoring um zoning requirements that are more restrictive. So the general plan designations in terms of the density they permit are what are what is going to control and it is going to be important to think of the your general plan policy as as setting a maximum that's going to be available to people that won't necessarily be able to be constrained by the zoning um regulations. So, um, so there can be, like we were talking about earlier tonight, some potential exceptions that are in the general plan that would allow the zoning to open up developability. And I think that works. Okay. But it probably is not going to work to um look to zoning regulations to um limit u developability that the general plan otherwise permits. That'll be the kind of inconsistency.

If I'm hearing you right, then if we want to um enshrine 15-minute neighborhoods, we need to do it in the general plan rather than in a zoning. you need maybe what I'm definitely trying to say is um you need to contemplate that the full extent of the developability that you're providing for in your general plan land use designations is actually going to be available and not able to be constrained further in the zoning ordinance. But what about with a another policy in your general plan,

right? Well, so so the Okay. So that might mean that the that the the general plan is constraining itself. That's okay. That's okay. So, I'm thinking there's something to the effect of 15 ne 15-minute neighborhoods as shown in this mapping are um to be built into any future development in this area unless released by some action of some body, you know, planning commission says released. So, that it is in there as the thing we do unless we don't. So, the zoning's the permissive.

Okay. I and and we can work on because remember it's going to come back and there's going to be words smithing. But I think what I'm just trying to help you think about right now is um the developability the density that you're providing for in the general plan land use designations assume that it can potentially happen. So be okay with it. Okay. comments. I know you are and maybe all of you are, but that's

and I don't think the intent was to I don't think GPAC's intent was to say restrict the residential. I think the intent was say was to say and add something a a community a coffee shop or a community center or a something to as a as a community asset to the neighborhood to make it into that third space. It's it's a feature. It's not a fly.

Yeah, I get that. Um, but I also, um, I support that and I want to say I support that 100%, but I guess, you know, the words that follow may indicate otherwise. I think that's um great if you're in an environment where [snorts] people are trying to build homes, but we're not in an environment where people are knocking down our doors to build homes and we're in the middle of a housing crisis and we need to build homes and I'm concerned that um putting that strict requirement could um have a potential negative impact fact in the future

and and I think we've tried to allow for the flexibility to sort that out in the market of that era and you know over the next 25 years. So if you put in your best thoughts now and then and then deal with it as as as it comes up during the lifeood plan, you've got that built in. And didn't we go to the mat on this on Meridian uh requiring some some mixed use coffee shop on the smart parcel and things? So, you know, um and we went to it the mat on riverfront development and you know, now we're having to think, well, is are we really going to do that? So, we can have the leniency to accommodate at a later date so long as we have the rigidity at the earliest date.

Good. I I I'm not sure we're not Yeah, I still don't know which way the council is going. Straw pole is so that where it says that mixed use cannot be 100% something we we let that stand. It can't be 100%. [snorts] Paraphrase for me. I'm lost. Uh, how about the straw poll be? Do you do do does the council support um adding a policy to restrict 100% residential on identified neighborhood and town centers?

Restrict 100% restrict from being 100%. Yeah. So, a yes vote would accept the GPAC's recommendation. Correct. Yes. All right. Yes, vote has filed the DPAC. All those in favor say thumbs up. Okay. One, two, three, four. I hate having four three split votes, but it will come back as as we noted. So, so um there you go. Uh you were going to pivot to a new point. I want to pivot to a new point, which is um the upper river um instead of 25 ft um go to 50 feet. 500 500 feet. Well, we talked about 500 feet in the past though. Yeah.

The 300 foot buffer zone. 330 foot buffering. Is that what we're talking about? What are we looking at? What are we looking at? Um the from the from the bank of the river east. We have a map. So that is something. Um is that subject to land use tonight? Yeah, it is.

Yes. But but it's um there's some some important balancing of considerations regarding that issue and and one of the most important is to make sure that um there's substantial evidence in terms of the um the um the [clears throat]

the environmental analysis that supports that because um and and that um you know that's what there because there's takings considerations there. Um and so that's got to be warranted because it affects the um developability of the parcels. Um and depending on which ones we're talking about um you know some may be you know having vesting arguments or seeking vesting arguments. Um it's in um consideration of that that there's there's been proposed language uh policies for flexibility where if developability is lost because of the what the the studies show what the data shows about what's needed to preserve habitat and also provide for public safety in terms of um flooding. um that it could be the um that allow for relocation of developability outside of the setback. Um but but I think that needs some pretty careful consideration about matching up um what's in the record in terms of um public safety considerations and and preservation considerations versus um people's uh property owners expectations about what they can do with the property.

I remember the discussion. So, what is the setback from downtown? Let's do that. And also the upper reach. What are the setbacks? I'm going to defer to staff for that. Sure. Um, thanks.

So, following the river access and enhancement plan, the its land use policy 5.1 that basically uh creates three sectors, the upstream, core, and downstream. And in the upstream, we're recommending the 330 ft buffer based, as Eric noted, on a meta study demonstrating that there was scientific support for that distance from the bank for the purposes uh of the policy. And then in the in the core area, it's 25 ft because it's largely already developed. And then [snorts] downstream, it's 75. Okay.

So, it's 330 30. So, that was what was determined. That's that's based on, as as Eric noted, it's based on substantial evidence, in this case, a meta study of a variety of different studies of the benefits of different riparian setbacks for different ecological, habitat, etc. purposes. So what is the setback then from like the river u park area that development uh housing

that's in the core however in that area there's already um parkland and then the river park foundation proposal the last iteration I saw had also a significant riparian setback slash area designated for kind of public use path pathways, park space, which is larger than what is required. Yes. So, can we go with But that's actually being proposed by the property owner, right? Correct. So, that's a vacant part. It's a vacant or you know, right? Because that's the use they're actually seeking.

Okay. I'm I'm what I'm talking about is the need to to um have adequate support for and and consider what property owners expectations have been for developability of their property based on existing regulations. Okay, understand that. Besides,

so it doesn't sound like there's going to be any changes then. Well, I I would say, you know, this is a time for the council to give staff direction about where they want this to go in in the regulations that come back to them. Um but but you know and and if there's direction about this, we need to make sure that you know we need to show and look at how the record could support that or or possibly let the council know why what they'd like to do is is constrained based based on our review of the law and the and the data.

Okay. Well, does anybody have an opinion on this, Council Sh?

Um, couple things. Um, the 330 ft is even in agriculture areas, that's a pretty good amount. Um, sometimes it goes up to 500 in certain areas, but for a urban area like this, 330, especially after uh looking at the possible takings, um, that the 330 is because you have that on both sides. So the plus the river itself which is 100 ft across uh from uh top of bank to top of bank. So we're talking about about 700 ft now in a middle section for repairarian. Uh I think that's what we can get away with at the moment. And also uh I asked the question u earlier um that was answered in today um from the staff um about the wetland areas. So there are certain um uh creeks that flow in and so the flood area enters into those little bit of a creeks and a north and then north section um it is actually gets pretty well flooded right above the outlet mall and be extremely and being wetland areas um which has the water in them that those particular little uh segments would also be I think protected at this point forward. So which which is going to make development very very difficult in that area. There might be one spot where they may be able to do something down the road here, but I think it's going to be difficult. So I think the 330 is going to be um appropriate and uh adequate. Okay. Is the 330 the full width or is it both each side 330?

Uh from each river bank on both sides top of bank. Uh yes. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Barnacle.

So I'm I'm fine with 3:30 tonight. Um I'd say um I've had members of the public talk to me and say that there's studies out there that could easily justify 500 ft. Um, so I'll ask them to send those in and um if there's um if staff reviews those and deems them to be appropriate, um I'd ask that we come back with 500 ft at this area. Seems like a reasonable solution. Yes. Yes. Um good. So other things we haven't been talking about. Council member Shri.

Okay. New topic. Um, the first time I really noticed what the flex um, uh, zone is or um, so could you go over what that is and exactly where do you think that might actually work because I didn't see a spot in town that was actually designated flex. No, you are correct. It's not currently applied on the proposed map. the its origins go back to a lot of the conversations in community and certainly with council about the desire to um on the one hand preserve um sites that are currently HSD designated and I always get the name wrong historic agriculture support thank you um so it's it's it's the prominent historical kind of a quasi-industrial sites. Um, so Hunting Baronss, uh, Derryman's are the are some of the best examples. And so, so we considered originally actually redesating those, but then the the argument to to not interfere with the existing uses won the day. And so the compromise we reached was retain. Don't change the designation but in the land use element be very clear that when the landowners think a change is appropriate then support that and the reason then we retained the designation was to a was provide a designation the flex designation was to provide that designation for their use when and if that time arrived.

Um is it possible that uh around the airport I know we've got 10 acres the city owns near the airport. Um, is is that possible? Is that the type of area we're talking about? Or is it the um other places like maybe Bounty Farm? Are those the types of places we're talking about?

When you look at the standards associated with this um designation, the assumption is it's it's quite intense. And so the it allows up to 75 dwelling units per acre, F 3.5, heights up to six stories. So it's really for more of a core urban use. We were very much had those those current HSD sites in mind when thinking about the application of this flex designation. Okay. But but basically so we have no area that that is designated as flex at all at this point. So it's midpoint then pretty much.

Okay. Thank you. And is that footnoted in the land use effort what its intention for that? Yes. So we we drilling down far enough we would learn that. Yeah. I believe it's I believe I can't remember the exact policy but I believe it's around 11 where it describes in some detail the desire to support both existing and changes in the future when when proposed by the property owner. All right. Are we homestretch people? Um, we've been making lots of comments and suggestions. Are you ready to recap? I am. Okay, take it away. Thank you.

Uhhuh. Um, so looking at the draft resolution um that was in your packet. Um, I'm going to run through what I think has changed. Um, so the first one under the near there now therefore be it resolved. Number two, I'd like to ask that um exhibit one after citywide land use map and exhibit two under land use designation standards. Just to make sure we're citing uh realizing we didn't site to them, we just named them. So, uh just a little technicality. Under number four, this was where we bulleted um the individual property owners. So, the first two, 921 Transport and 705 Webster, no change. Strike 525 Western. Um specify that for 5341 Old Redwood and 1420 North Mcdow Boulevard, it's the entire the whole complex that would be changed to step down mixeduse and add the Cineabar um property. Um then a new number five that would add um that the approved version of the land use designation standard shall include the stationary and mixed use designation um and include the following standards and all those standards that I read to you for that one. Um and um and be shown on the land use map on the smart own parcel adjacent to the smart station. Um new um

can we take a little break here? Council member Sh. Oh um just did in there we received a letter um about the um uh right now the printing one of the shopping centers uh asking about that. Is that under discussion tonight also? No that that was a change. So was that about the plaza plaza north plaza south? Yes. Uh that was already taken care of. And what does that mean? Um the let the letter was just clarifying. Yeah. And and and in fact what what the letter sought to clarify is is true. So true. So it's going to stay shopping center no housing is what they're asking for.

No, it is going to a mixed use. It is the I believe it's the Is it the urban core mixed use? Is that the Plaza North Plaza South? It's going to a No, it would be urban corridor. It's going to a um mixed use that allows 100% commercial. What they were concerned about is having to have mixed use and not 100% commercial. Good. And they're satisfied with that. They're satisfied. Okay. Just checking because we just got that letter. I saw that today. That Oh, I didn't see it come in as a letter. It came in as an email just confirming a conversation we had had. So, okay. I only saw the letter requesting it. That just came to me today. Okay.

Okay. That's not part of what your list is. Oh, and could you please put the list up? I can't see it, so it's hard to follow you without seeing the list. Sure. It's not pretty. Oh, shoot. I can't I need Zoom.

Uh, bear with me. I have to log on. This computer isn't logged on. Oh, yes. It's It's a Yes. Yes. Good idea. Do we really? Does anybody else need the list? If not, we can just move on.

I got it. We have to extend the meeting.

Okay. So, we talked about adding back in the station mixeduse designation um and those standards that we had previously had um and applying it to the smart station. Uh changing the land use designation of the haystack property, the CVS property and the um portion of the Golden Eagle Shopping Center. and I will add in the APN numbers to um to track with that to urban core mixed use. change the designation of the Lucky Center and again I'll I'll add the APN numbers that I don't have at my um fingertips from step down mixeduse to urban corridor mixed use and to add a land use policy and associated footnote on the land use designation standard to prohibit 100% residential on sites identified in the general plan as town center and neighborhood centers in the 15minute activity. Anybody catch something that uh didn't make the list?

Then that being the resolution in front of us. Um can I get a motion? I'll make a motion. Have a motion by now with a second from Is this for everything tonight? Is this our This is our This is our the motion as amended. No. So um so that's the amended resolution and and the motion is to approve the amended resolution as shown in front of us. Correct. And we have that motion and I need a second. Second. Second. Thank you very much. Second by Barnacle. And we like to have a roll call vote, please. Barnacle. I.

Peter Thompson. Yes. D Carly. Um, I I just want to say I'm very disappointed in the changes that have been made tonight and I'm not going to sell out our town and community at the last minute before Christmas. So, I'm not going to support this. I'm no. Thank you. Now, yes, Quint. Yes. Shri, sort of a reluctant yes. I sort of agree with Alex that some of the things I think we're going to get a lot of feedback negative. Um, but I'm going to go with a yes uh just to uh to support the group make this move forward. Thank you. McDonald. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. And that uh concludes that item. Thank you very much staff. Appreciate uh all the work to guide us through all of this. Uh, I do want to mention before we head off, happy holidays to all and um and just as I said at the beginning, how much appreciate the the the collaboration between the council and all the staff and all the hard work from all the staff and council. Happy holidays. And we are closing tonight's meeting in honor of Paul Heavenidge, our library commissioner, who's passed recently. So, thank you all very much. This meeting is adjourned. Are you okay?