Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Terry, are you ready? Perfect. I can wait. Are we good now? Oh, we're good. Oh, okay. Okay. Welcome, everyone. It is 6 o'clock. I guess I should state the date as well. It is September 1st. My gosh, it's already September 1st. So welcome, everyone. Let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Cortez?

Here.

Commissioner Barron?

Here.

Commissioner McKenzie.

Hi. Here.

Commissioner Armstrong. Here. Chairman Thomas.

Here. Okay. We are moving on to approval of minutes, last meeting's minutes. So I will open it up to public comment. Allow for any public comment on last meeting's minutes. Any public comments? Doesn't look like it. Okay, so we'll close that and bring that back up here. Commissioners, any discussion?

I move we approve item 1A as written. Second.

All in favor? Aye. No opposed. Okay. No abstentions. Okay. Then we'll move on. Citizens addressing the commission on non-agenda items. Any or either? Anyone any non agenda items? No, okay. We'll bring it back up here And we will move on to our public hearings so we are starting off with to a inclusionary housing requirements ordinance amendment zoning amendment Z and Z 0 Z 0 a 2 0 2 6 dash 0 0 2 and environmental ENV 2 0 2 6 dash 0 0 2 0 and I will Let staff take it from there, please Thank you.

Good evening commissioners Elizabeth Sorg assistant to the city manager here tonight to present edits to chapter 17.95 of the Rockland Municipal Code entitled inclusionary housing requirements The revisions before you tonight incorporate the latest recommendations from the Kaiser Marston and Associates report as they completed their inclusionary housing and in lieu fee report in addition to direction received from City Council at prior City Council meetings. The current inclusionary housing ordinance requires that residential developments as defined must include affordable units as part of their development. Projects must construct either 5% of their units available to those at extremely low income levels 10% of their units at very low income levels or 15% of their units at low income levels. On April 28th, 2026, following a Kaiser Marsden and Associates presentation of the inclusionary housing and in lieu fee report and further presentations from staff, city council directed staff to amend the existing inclusionary housing ordinance to remove the three options for construction of onsite units and instead require 5% of units to be constructed at low income levels. On June 9, 2026, City Council also adopted an inclusionary housing and in-lieu fee set at $2.75 per square foot. Attachment 2 of this packet contains the redline version of Chapter 17.95 to update the percentage of units required to be constructed on site. In addition to these edits, there are edits that remove definitions that are no longer relevant and provide additional clarification about the types of housing developments that these requirements apply to. After the publication of the agenda, staff was made aware of a typo in Section 17.95.060C, Alternative Methods of Compliance. The blue memo you received this afternoon addresses this correction. The item before you contains two resolutions, which were Attachments 3 and 4. The first resolution is a notice of exemption that states how this action is exempt from CEQA. The second resolution is the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.95. Staff recommends that you approve both resolutions inclusive of the blue memo before you tonight, and I am available for any questions you may have about the item.

Okay.

No questions. So we will open it up for any public comment. Please. You know the rules. You can state your name. Will you turn on your mic, please? There you go. Perfect. Thank you.

Am I off?

You're good now.

Do you need me to restate that?

No, you're good. We heard it.

You read things sometimes so many times you start reading either things into them or you read right over them. And so when I was looking through the changes and really appreciate staff's work on this over the last many numbers of months, I was looking at one of the sections and I think You could read it two separate ways, which is never good when you have to implement something, rather than just approving the ordinance. In section 1795060, which is alternative methods of compliance, under B, the in lieu fee, number two, the timing of payment, can be read two different ways, one of which is impossible to comply with. I think what it is meant to say is that you pay the fee prior to a building permit for a housing unit, that's coming forward but this says the full amount of the annual fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for any part of the housing development project well normally a builder is going to build models and then they wait for buyers to come in and say i want that model type on this lot so you don't know until they do that what the square footage is and the staff said the in lieu fee adopted by the City Council is a per square foot fee. So we think it would actually be better for implementation if that sentence said the full amount of the in lieu fee for a particular residential unit shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for that particular residential unit. Otherwise, builders are going to come in and say, what does that mean? And again, knowing how corporate counsel for builders work, they're going to always read it as the worst case. So we thought that that language might be, and I talked to staff this afternoon about this, that might be a good clarification so everyone knows that this Rocklands, like every other jurisdiction in the six-county area that has it in Luffy, is You pay it for the particular unit or unit. Sometimes builders come in, and they'll process like five units at a time, and they just pay the in-lieu fee for all five of those units. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any discussion on that? Start to my left. No.

I guess the question to the staff would be, do you support the amendment as proposed? verbalized?

Yeah, so Mr. LaDuca reached out to staff this afternoon to voice his concerns, and we certainly appreciate those. Given that the hearing is tonight, staff has not done the analysis on what an exact language proposed change could be, the implications that may have on the inclusionary housing program. So we're not recommending any changes at this point to the proposed language. We haven't done the analysis to be able to support a different recommendation. However, this is an ordinance similar to every other ordinance that we have in the city, and it is subject to be changed at any given time, whether it's through staff's recommendations or whether city council directs staff to make changes. So As it stands, the item before you tonight, we're still recommending to approve as written, but you are certainly welcome to make any other recommendations to staff as well.

Okay. Just quick, will any analysis take place prior to the city council meeting that reviews this so they have the opportunity to look at the verbiage?

Yeah, so we have not actually set the exact hearing. Because of the item that you're going to be hearing next, staff are working out how we would like to structure which goes first when we go to city council. So In all likelihood, this will probably go to City Council after the zoning ordinance amendment, but we haven't set the exact date. And so if that's the case, we would certainly have more than enough time to do that analysis and potentially change a recommendation. However, I don't have a date right now. It's certainly something that staff is going to be looking into.

Thank you.

We'd like to welcome you back up then.

Can I have a question?

I'm not sure. Just a second.

So if we add a recommendation for staff to look into this particular proposal, last minute recommendation, that would be an official way for you to start working on it?

Whether or not you officially request that staff look into this, we will certainly be looking into the options for the language. Mr. LaDuca raised a very good, compelling point on how builders actually construct and pull permits, and it's something that we need to consider. So whether or not you decide to make an official recommendation to staff, I will certainly be going back and looking at the language and seeing if there are any edits, and then if we do recommend edits, what the potential ramifications of those edits would be. As to whether or not you'd like to make that an official motion in action, I would look to legal counsel to weigh in on whether that would be appropriate at this time, but it's something that I will be looking into, yes.

Okay, thanks. Mr. Laduca, did you want to make a comment?

Yeah, well, Marcus is walking up. I get it, because if you read that section, it kind of makes that assumption that you're going to do it based upon the square footage, but you don't know if they're going to be, you know, 10 additional 1,800 units or 10 additional 1,900 units. It's kind of hard to pay a fee based upon some, you can do it based upon an assumption, but an assumption might be wrong, and it's best to get fees right. Otherwise, you're refunding, and that's a nightmare, so.

I think I offered six different words. I don't know what analysis needs to be done. If that was the intent, was for each unit to pay its building permit, I'm not sure what analysis needs to be done for six words. But anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

My question to that follow-up would be just what are the... I don't see the issue with it other than are there implications if we modify this on the go up to the city council? I mean, if we make this change, we don't know what the implications are, how this impacts. This could all wind up back here again in front of us because it's something we, there's six words or is that what you're saying?

I would offer up that. I would let staff do it. If he contacted you today. This is just my two cents with regards to your need to take a look at it to give the city staff the opportunity to take a look at it. And then I would be much more comfortable with them coming back to us If there is a need before it goes to City Council and letting us know this is our analysis of those six words that were offered up. Because it appears you were already going to do that anyway before it goes to. And please correct me if I'm wrong. You're already going to do that anyway before it went to City Council.

Yes, we would certainly be looking into this. Thank you, Commissioner Armstrong. To Mr. LaDuca's point, I understand the six words seeming quite trivial. The recommendations before you tonight are a result of both City Council direction, but also the official review and analysis of our experts that we've hired to do this, right? And so, although from my lay perspective, six words may not seem like a lot, there could be further ramifications that I'm not aware of. And I'm not comfortable at this point telling you, yes, those six words are fine, move forward. I can't make that recommendation for you tonight.

Okay. Thank you. All right. We're still open for public comment. Anyone else like to make a public comment on this item?

And we've been known to not follow city council direction on occasion and come with our own wording. So, you know, for me, that's just me.

Yeah. Jerry Mitchell Rockman. So what I want to understand, is this a continuation of the efforts of the city to align its development approvals to Comply with state law that already exerts a lot of authority in this area meaning higher density and lower cost at least for a portion of the housing to be built I Mean we've gone through this exercise some months ago where many people were in this room looking at Things that the Planning Commission in such a company City Council looked at regarding the CERTAIN ZONED AREAS ZONED CERTAIN WAYS AND PROPOSED CHANGES WERE MADE. SOME WERE REJECTED BY YOU. MANY WERE ACCEPTED. ALL TO TAKE US IN THE DIRECTION OF CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LOWER COST HOUSING AVAILABILITY. AND SO NOW WE'RE FOLLOWING ON WITH A LARGE SCALE CHANGES IN OUR PLANNING DOCUMENTS. ONE COULD SAY FURTHER PROPOSED CHANGES TO MAKE IT MORE DOABLE. This is not just an independent effort out of the blue. It's coming on the backs of a series of decisions that you and the Council have made. Is that correct? That was more than six words, I realize.

Would you like to answer that, please? Yes. Yes.

I can certainly, yeah, I can certainly respond to that. So I believe a couple of things Mr. Mitchell is referring to is one, the Reno rezone process where the city went through the process of selecting parcels to identify them as available for development to low and moderate income households. It's a requirement that the state puts on us. So that is something that we did last year. This is related to that, but separate and distinct from that. So this process is closing the loop on the inclusionary housing requirements. So as part of the housing element, the city said that we would identify and evaluate the potential to require housing developments to include affordable housing as part of those developments. And we certainly did that analysis. We created the report. We presented it here to you, and we also presented it to city council, had many follow-up presentations to city council where we went through a variety of different options. This is the tail end of that and completes the cycle where we are now finalizing the inclusionary housing requirements. So as you are aware, we already have an inclusionary housing ordinance that is effective in the city. It was adopted by City Council November 11th, 2025, effective 30 days after that, so December 11th. And so that has already been in place. And that is the 15%, 10%, 5% that I discussed earlier in my presentation. This level sets those requirements and makes it so that developers constructing affordable housing only have to build 5% of units at low. And that's to align it with the recommendations that came from the Kaiser Marston study. So this just finalizes this, this kind of puts a bow on that process and ends that inclusionary housing program that we've been working on for the past year or so.

Okay. Thank you. I think it is a continuation of that effort to get aligned with all the state and state requirements. And I presume it would apply to even the recently discussed development proposal at the corner of Midas and Pacific.

You can answer that.

Okay, if the Commission would like me to respond to that. So the proposed development project on the corner of Midas and Pacific is a 100% affordable project, which means it is not subject to these requirements. These requirements are for development projects that do not have affordability built into them. And so if we have a development project that has fewer than 5% of the units already proposed to be affordable, then it would be subject to these inclusionary housing requirements. If it already has more than those 5% at low income, then it would not be subject to this because it's already meeting the bare minimum of what this would require anyway.

Makes sense. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any discussion, comments, questions? No? Okay. Okay. We will, anyone else want to make a public comment? If not, we will close public comment and bring it up here for any discussion on this item that needs to be done. I'll start to my left. Your mic's on.

It was on. Thank you, staff, for bringing this item back. Obviously, this item has gone a long way since it initially came to the commission, the studies, city council discussions. YOU KNOW, KIND OF MY, THIS PROCESS IS HARD, RIGHT, BECAUSE THINGS GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL PROVIDES DIRECTION, THAT COMES BACK TO US REALLY WITHOUT THE CONTEXT, SO I WENT BACK AND RE-RED SOME OF THE STUDIES THAT I HADN'T READ FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS TO GET TO, OKAY, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS, HOW DOES THIS FIT IN, AND, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY IF I WAS TO CHARACTERIZE THE the inclusionary study, it's that those other things weren't feasible. And so this is largely what we're left with. It's a feasible outcome of all that work. And so with that, I support the shift and the recommendation to the council. I would include in our recommendation as one commissioner that the planning commission's recommendation to the council includes consideration of the changes offered by Mr. LaDuca. Obviously, staff's going to have to analyze that. The city attorney's going to have to analyze that because words matter. And to the extent there are words missing from this, I came to the same conclusion quickly that You can interpret that different ways, so kind of shoring that up is important, but I don't think we should opine on that this evening. It's going to take some city attorney and staff time to look at that. It might be the perfect six words, or it might not be, but we'll let them work through that. That would be my recommendation.

I agree.

Commissioner Cortez?

Yeah, I agree. It's a long process, and it seems to be this will be wrapped up, I guess. So I'm the same opinion with Commissioner McKenzie about including those additional words or making it a little bit tighter, the language on that particular section. Thank you.

Yeah, first of all, thanks, staff. It has been kind of a long road, and I think this has come. I like the terminology, feasibility. This is feasible. This is something that makes sense, and I think our final iteration of this does make sense, and I can support it. In reading number two, obviously, it jumps out at me as well, so I agree that we should at least with this up to city council give a recommendation to look into that verbiage. I don't know. I'm not going to. pretend I know what six words are correct. They sound nice to me, but let's make sure we get the appropriate people to review it. But having said that, yeah, I'm comfortable with everything.

Thank you. And I feel the same way. I'm not sure exactly how we pass, you know, what it is we need to say in terms of adding, you know, a consideration here or if we need to or if we pass it and say, you know, add to that. Does anyone counsel? Do you? Any suggestions on what it is we need? How exactly we should pass this?

Yeah, the recommendation, I think Commissioner McKenzie recommended approval with direction to staff to consider the request for particular residential permits to be considered and make a recommendation to council based upon staff's evaluation.

Just making sure that that was the correct way to do it, right?

In addition, the recommendations in the blue memo, which are for clarifications. And I'll just add, I know Elizabeth stated we weren't sure on the timing. In the event that this matter goes first, the existing code section references are accurate. In the event this recommendation goes after Zone Rockland, there will be a need to rectify the new code section numbering. And it was staff's intent to have that rectified numbering go to council. So it's just a processing that staff will update the numbering as it's needed if zone Rockland goes before this. Just to clarify that reference.

Okay. Thank you. Any more comments, questions? Okay. Can I get a motion?

So, yeah, I'll take a stab at it. So all... MOVE APPROVAL OF THE ITEM AS WRITTEN WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CHANGES IN THE BLUE MEMO AS WELL AS FOR ITEM B, WHICH IS THE RECOMMENDATION, THE RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION approval of an ordinance that section seventeen point nine five point zero six zero Two timing of fee payment that staff take into consideration make a recommendation to the council based upon the public's feedback on item two Second second all in favor aye Any opposed?

Okay motion passes. Thank you Okay, moving on to 2B, Zone Rockland Comprehensive Zoning Amendment, General Plan Amendment, GPA 2026-001. And I will give staff a half a second to get settled in. And whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate to have a second. Nathan Anderson with the Rockland Planning Division. Tonight, let me get my notes ready here. At long last, we are here to present Zone Rockland, which is the city's comprehensive update to the zoning ordinance. So as the commission is aware, this has been a significant undertaking. Rockland's current zoning ordinance has its roots in a code that was originally adopted in 1977 and has been amended many times over the years. The goal of Zone Rockland is to modernize and reorganize the code, making it clearer and easier to use, eliminate inconsistencies, and ensure that our zoning regulations are consistent with the general plan and reflect the way development is reviewed in Rockland today. This effort also includes consolidating a number of general development plans into the zoning ordinance updating the zoning map and making several technical amendments to the general plan to improve internal consistency and correct mapping issues. This is primarily a modernization and cleanup effort rather than an effort to fundamentally change the way that the city's established land use patterns or development framework occurs. Major focus throughout the process has been maintaining consistency with the general plan while creating a code that is more predictable and understandable to staff, applicants, decision makers, and the public. So the commission and council have an opportunity to review earlier portions of the code during our joint workshop in May, and tonight represents the culmination of a considerable amount of work since then. So the city's been working with Miller Planning Associates throughout the process, Martha Miller to my left, has led the consultant team and has worked very closely with staff in developing the updated code. So Martha is going to provide the commission with a more comprehensive overview of the update, including the organization of the new code, the major changes of the items before you for consideration tonight. So with that, I will turn it over to Martha.

Great. Thank you, Commission. It's good to be back before you tonight at this stage in the process. As Nathan introduced, it is a comprehensive update to the zoning code, which is Title 17 of the Municipal Code and the zoning map, and overall creating a really concise, user-friendly set of regulations consistent with the general plan. So we did start the project in 2004 with an analysis and evaluation of your current code and regulatory framework. And from there, we developed an outline or a framework for a new code and a new approach and reorganization of the regulations and incorporating the general development plans and some of the other components. From there, we started drafting the regulations, working very closely with staff and with others, working through that exercise, and then made some revisions, put those all together into a draft code, the majority of which you saw at the May study session. So now we're at the more formal hearing and adoption stage of the project. So the zoning code includes five divisions. First is general provisions. Division two is zone regulations, which includes regulations that are applicable to individual zoning districts. Division three contains citywide standards, which are standards that apply to development in some or all zoning districts throughout the city. Division four is administration, which includes the administrative procedures for permits and other review procedures, and then Division 5, which is terms and definitions. The zoning map consists of two sheets. The first is the base zoning districts, and then the second sheet is the overlay districts. On the city's website and with GIS, this is going to be one map. It's just different layers, but just for legibility in the printout, it's designed as two sheets. So the majority of this you saw at the study session and what we called part one. So part one was the subject of the May study session, and it included the majority of the provisions. So it included divisions one, two, three, and five, as well as the zoning maps. So the only portion that wasn't included in there was the administrative procedures. And I'll give a summary of what's included in there. But first I wanted to go over the revisions that were made to what you had seen at the May study session. So after that study session, we did do some revision. Some of it was cleanup or things we discovered. Others were based on discussion at the study session. So that included removing the residential zone maximum density designators from the zoning map and the code. So what we brought before you in the study session had for residential districts kind of a number designator after each one, which established the maximum density. Well, the general plan really sets the maximum density that applies throughout the city and in the different zoning districts. We were bringing that over into the zoning code and map in the intention to make it kind of more user-friendly and clear. What happened with that, there was the opportunity for some inconsistencies or interpreted inconsistencies between the two. So just to kind of make that simpler, we just point to the general plan. The general plan is what sets the maximum density and that's what everything refers to. Another change was to special events. So the regulations for special events, we revised the standards for special events to more closely reflect the current provisions. That was always the intention was to carry forward the current provisions. Looking back at that, we could see that it maybe wasn't as close as we wanted it to be or staff was comfortable with. So we revised those to more closely match existing language, including the existing exemption for small events. Similarly with accessory structures, we revised text to, again, more closely reflect current provisions. Again, that was the intent as they were originally drafted, but looking back at them, there was some areas that could be interpreted differently. So we reflected current provisions. We also added a maximum rear yard coverage limitation, and this was from some of the comments we heard at the study session about concerns with know too many accessory structures or a lot of sheds and and so on so we added that limit also the part one that you saw the study session had some placeholder sections for sections that had currently codified text that there were no changes to except for cross-reference updated updates so we put those placeholders back in again in those sections the revisions are solely for consistency with updated code and mainly consist of reference updates and then there's some other miscellaneous clarifications refinements corrections we included some reserved chapters just some things to clean up and make it a complete package the zoning map was updated to remove again those density designators so we have an updated zoning map and the accompanying overlay district map So Division IV administration was, again, not included in Part I, so I want to give kind of a summary of the contents and the notable changes from your current provisions. So Division V, the administrative procedures set the kind of procedures for administering the code, explains who responsible for making a decision and what the process is that it goes through. Overall, these provisions are intended to maintain your current provisions and your current practices and also just reflect best practices, simplify and streamline that process, not changing the process, but really making it step by step more clear what that process is, who's making the decision and what the requirements are. And we took all of the administrative procedures from your existing code and group them into one division so that they're easier to reference. It covers everything from planning authorities, identifying who's responsible for decisions, to all the different review procedures generally going from kind of the most, the simplest to the most complex kind of legislative provisions. So first there's planning authorities identifying the roles and functions of the City Council Planning Commission, Architectural Review Committee, the community development director, the responsibilities under this code. Not all of the responsibilities in totality, just the ones under the code. Then there is a chapter on common procedures. So this is the uniform procedures that are common to multiple application types. So it's for making an application, permit processing, One change that we incorporated into these procedures was extending the timeframe for validity of an approval. So extending that from three years to five years, and then additional time extensions could be approved by the applicable review authority of that original permit. So if something was a conditional use permit that the planning commission was the review authority in order to request that additional time extension, that request would go back before the planning commission. So that is a change that was incorporated. For design review, these are the procedures for conducting design review, identifying what's subject to design review, who's the review authority, what those procedures are, basically retaining the existing procedures. There is a change to that with a refined threshold to exempt single family homes that are within architectural districts. So it's currently written in architectural districts, single-family homes are subject to design review. This would revise that. Use permits. This includes the processes for use permits. Use permits are discretionary permits, which require public notice and a hearing. The conditional use permit, which you have now, goes to the Planning Commission. There's a new permit introduced, which we've discussed as we... kind of reviewed the other provisions where the community development director is the review authority, similar to kind of the process that you have currently in your borrow zone. Special event permits, again, carrying forward your existing provisions, including those exemptions for small events. Minor deviations carries forward what you have currently for, it's called an administrative variance and minor deviation provisions, which allows the director to approve some minor and identified relief from standards when consistent with the provision set in the code. There is a provision that allows the director The director to approve or grant relief of development standards up to 10% just for any dimensional standard, just to incorporate some ability for flexibility into the code. And then other deviations as specifically identified. Reasonable accommodations, these are the procedures for, it's really consistent with state and federal law for accommodation of persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing. And this is really what you have currently carried forward. Provisions for variances, where situations where variation to standards are determined kind of justified based on unique physical hardship. There's certain findings that need to be made that state law really outlines out, so it carries forward that. Provisions for zoning code and map amendments, similar to what you're going through today where the planning commission makes recommendation to the city council, as well as general plan amendments, similar legislative procedure where the planning commission makes recommendations to the city council. Carrying forward provisions for specific plans expands upon the provisions for adoption and amendment to specific plans, so just adding more complete procedures to what was included currently. Carrying forward provisions for development agreements and also enforcement of the code. Along with the comprehensive update of Title 17, there's other amendments we need to make to other portions of the municipal code for consistency. So there's amendments to other sections of the municipal code included in your packet. There's a number of different titles, but all of them are really related to cross-reference updates for the most part. References, definitions, chapters, zone names, etc. There were also, as we went through this process, a couple general plan amendments that we saw needed to be made for consistency or just discovering some errors that were made in the mapping process. So one, removing the zoning compatibility matrix, which is currently in the general plan. It was referring to outdated zones, and it really isn't something that is required to be in the general plan. So just for consistency and ease of use, we're removing that. The zoning code does identify which general plan land use designations are implemented by which zoning district. So that's included in the zoning code. And then there's some corrections to mapping errors that were discovered as we went through the zoning map update. Just kind of four of them, two of them really related to just the boundary. The line was drawn a little bit to one side or the other, capturing a parcel it shouldn't have. And then two numbers, I think it's two and three, were ones that kind of subsequently had some easements, open space easements across it. So we're updating that to be consistent. Finally, there's no further environmental review required both for the zoning code and map. There's a couple of exemptions pursuant to the CEQA guidelines identified, but basically the general plan EIR and the EIR addendum conducted for the housing element really cover There's no changed circumstances that would require a subsequent EIR and all of the development intensities and allowances are consistent with that general plan densities and intensities. So there's no project specific effects that would require additional environmental review. For the general plan technical amendments, they're really just improving consistency, correcting mapping errors. So there's no possibility of a significant environmental effect. Before we get to the recommendation, Nathan had some items on a blue memo to describe.

I do. Thank you, Martha. I actually have a little presentation as well. Excuse me for a second. Did you guys bring that up? It's that one. Yep. Thank you. So yeah, there is a blue memo tonight. After publication of the packet, we Identified a couple of additional things that I wanted to bring up and they're fairly important. So I wanted to make a little slideshow to kind of go through them. So the first change deals with footnote one. This is the this is table for one of the existing general planned land use table. It's a land use element. And as Martha mentioned, we're proposing a few relatively minor changes to the general plan as part of this update. But there's one that we had initially overlooked. So currently, footnote one, which is shown with that blue arrow, allows minimum lot sizes within the PD zoning districts to be reduced. when sensitive land constraints exist or when there are other factors that justify a reduction in lot size. So we've used this provision many times over the years to accommodate things where biological resources or wetlands or topographical constraints or oak woodlands. It allows lots to be somewhat smaller so that development can be shifted away from the sensitive areas while still allowing the project to achieve the density required for the site. So as Martha explained, however, the new code eliminates nearly all of the PD districts, and we certainly don't want to lose that flexibility, and we definitely don't want to encourage the creation of new PD zones simply to accommodate these types of situations. So staff is recommending that the modification, as shown on the screen, which simply removes the references to PD zones. This would allow the same flexibility where sensitive land constraints exist, provided the project continues to meet the applicable density requirements. And the second one deals with a change to proposed table 17.06.030. This is in our new proposed code, which establishes development standards for residential districts. So the minimum lot sizes and lot widths, which are currently shown for residential medium high, and residential high districts were actually included in error. In practice, those minimums could make it very difficult for a project to achieve densities required by the corresponding general plan land use designations. If we go back to that table 4.1 in the general plan, you can see that both the low density residential and the medium density residential designations established both density ranges and minimum lot sizes. Then the development standards in the corresponding zoning that we were just looking at were specifically designed to match those general plan designations. You can see the 12-5 and the 5,000 there. But the medium-high and the high are different. The general plan establishes density requirements but does not establish minimum lot sizes. So to better align the zoning code in the general plan and to provide flexibility, Necessary for higher density residential development staff is recommending the modification is shown on screen which removes minimum lot size and minimum lot width requirements from the RMH and RH zoning districts. This would allow density to be met and be consistent with the general plan. The other two changes identified in the blue memo are administrative numbering corrections probably don't require a lot of additional explanation. Of course, we're happy to answer any questions on those changes or anything else in the memo But if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zone Rockland project tonight, staff recommends that the Commission's recommendation include the modifications identified in the memo. Those changes would then be incorporated in the materials that move forward to the Council. So I think that concludes our presentation, unless you have anything else. Staff is available for any questions you may have.

Thank you, staff. Yes, go ahead.

In the memo itself, the figure, the parking lot, do we have anything that states that the... The one that is parking over the landscape area that that's not acceptable for handicap or accessible parking?

Are you asking if in the figure 17.31.100, which is shown here, if there's anything that states that you cannot park over the overhang in ADA?

That configuration is not. acceptable for accessible parties?

I don't believe there's anything specifically which states that, but ADA would trump it, and it would be reviewed as part of the review.

My question is to avoid any possible...

It's here. Yeah, it's something that would be reviewed as part of the review, but I don't think it specifically states that.

Well, I think it would be a good idea just to make sure that everything is clear, but if you could take a look at that. And I have a question that just when in the presentation there's the lot coverage the minimum lot Coverage would be 40% Just came to mind is that? 40% of net meaning excluding the setbacks or the gross area It's 40% of the gross area of the rear yard.

Okay, so we don't Okay. All right.

Thanks Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you appreciate it.

We will open up for public comment Mr.. Chairman members of the Commission Marcus LaDuca is this on? 1508 Eureka Road, I just want to applaud your staff and the consultant on this This is a massive undertaking which is why many local agencies push it off as far as they can and try not to do it because It is simply a massive undertaking to do this and to bring this package forward and bring your zoning code up to modern standards is tremendous. I've represented projects here in Rockland for over 35 years. And I can tell you, PDs and general development plans cause untold issues. Every time you want to deviate one little bit, you're doing a general development plan amendment, which in essence is a rezone, and it complicates things tremendously. And I'm sure staff is tired of hearing from me and hearing from others. No one else in the region does this. There's six counties and 22 cities in the region, and Rockland was the only one with these PDs and general development plans. It makes it very difficult trying to bring users in because they're always trying to figure out, oh, now we have to do a legislative entitlement. But in essence, we're just doing a design review in a map. So I can't applaud staff enough and your consultant on this for what they did to bring this forward to you. This is a tremendous amount of work, simply tremendous. And they really need to be recognized for this effort that's going to benefit this city for many, many, many years to come. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Thank you, staff. Anyone else open for public comment? No? Okay. We will close public comment, bring it back up for discussion.

SO I DO ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR STEPH, AND IT'S REALLY JUST MORE SO A CONFIRMATION. YOU WALKED US THROUGH THE MINOR USE PERMIT AND THEN THE NEW MINOR USE PERMIT, NEW MINOR DEVIATIONS. THAT'S ALWAYS SUBJECT TO APPEAL. FOR INSTANCE, WOULD THE MINOR DEVIATIONS GO TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND THEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

ANY DECISION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS ANY DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE'S A TABLE ON APPEALS IN THERE ON WHO THE APPEALS GO TO. BUT, YES, MINOR DEVIATIONS ARE ALREADY APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THE ONLY ADDITIONAL APPROVALS WOULD BE THESE MINOR USE PERMITS, WHICH, AS MARTHA NOTED, ARE KIND OF SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE BORROW ZONE IS DONE. THERE'S STILL A PUBLIC HEARING. People can still come and provide feedback. But instead of doing this formal process, it's a little bit more informal. Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, staff and consultant, for all the work. It is really appreciated.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, staff and consultants. It is a major endeavor to get this updated. This is in my other capacity of planning commissioner in another city. We went through the same process. And, yeah, it's a lot of work. Thank you. You did a good job on this. Thanks.

I'll echo that. And I appreciate the words from public as well. It's nice to hear we're moving in the right direction. And I'm all for simplifying and clarifying. And I think that's what this does. And again, it's been a long process, and it is amazing how far we've come during the process. And again, to hear the public talk about it and to go to different jurisdictions and say how important this is going to be for us as a city moving forward to make decisions and be efficient, that's a good feeling. I mean, that's nice. So I think we've got everybody kind of clicking on all cylinders here, and it's a good move for us. I like it.

I agree. Thank you so much. And thanks for the comments, too. Okay. Can we have a motion?

SLOW DOWN HERE FOR A SECOND. I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM 2B, ZONE ROCKLAND, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, INCLUSIVE, I'M SORRY, ITEMS A, B, C, AND D, ALSO TO INCLUDE THE BLUE MEMO DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2026, INCLUSIVE OF THOSE CHANGES AND ALSO REFLECTIVE OF THE RED LINE CHANGES IN THE BLUE MEMO.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. We will move on to non-public hearing items. General correspondence presentation reports from city staff.

Good evening. Arwen Watt, WD Director. Our last meeting was August 4th. Since then, Sierra Wilds came up for another public hearing at City Council. No decision was made that night. It was continued to September 22nd. On August 25th, Midas Apartments went to City Council. No decision was made that night. It was continued to October 13th. Also, what will be? Upcoming is I think to City Council is the SDF time extension I believe which is scheduled to go the same day this year walls But I think that limit I think that's the limit of the items I have for you tonight.

Thank you Okay, any reports or discussion items from the planning commissioners? Okay Well, it is 6.50, and we will adjourn. Thank you.

Thank you.