►
From YouTube: Brisbane Planning Commission Meeting 06-08-2023
Description
Meeting Agenda: https://www.brisbaneca.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-meeting-123
The public may observe/participate in Planning Commission meetings using remote public comment options or attending in person. Planning Commissioners shall attend in person unless remote participation is permitted by law. The Commission may take action on any item listed on the agenda.
The agenda materials may be viewed online at www.brisbaneca.org/meetings at least 24 hours prior to Special Meetings, and at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meetings
Members of the public have the following options for viewing the meeting:
In person at the Community Meeting Room, Brisbane City Hall, 50 Park Place, Brisbane. To maintain public health and safety, please do not attend in person if you are experiencing symptoms associated with COVID-19 or respiratory illness.
Join the Zoom webinar (please use the latest version: zoom.us/download)
www.brisbaneca.org/pc-zoom
Webinar ID: 970 0458 3387
Local Comcast Channel 27.
The City’s YouTube channel at
https://youtube.com/BrisbaneCA
CALL TO ORDER 00:00:19
ROLL CALL 00:01:40
ADOPTION OF AGENDA 00:02:00
CONSENT CALENDAR 00:02:15
Please Note: Items listed here as Consent Calendar Items are considered routine and will be acted
upon collectively by one motion adopting the Planning Department’s recommendation unless a
member of the public, the Commission, or its staff asks to remove an item to discuss it. Prior to
the motion, the Chairperson will ask if anyone wishes to remove an item from the Consent
Calendar.
A. Adopt revised Resolution 2023-DP-1/2023-UP-3
(Note: This resolution was adopted following a public hearing on May 25, 2023. The
revisions reflect the applicant’s withdrawal of the use permit for modifying off-street
parking and revisions to the applicable findings and conditions of approval as a result.)
- 3 –
June 08, 2023 7:30 PM
Printed on 50% recycled paper Providing for Today, Preparing for Tomorrow
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Limited to a total of 15 minutes) 00:02:50
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 00:03:59
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
WORKSHOP 00:05:55
B. Preliminary Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Compliance with SB 478, Housing
Element Implementation and Zoning Ordinance Cleanup
ITEMS INITIATED BY STAFF 01:07:11
ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION 01:08:00
ADJOURNMENT
C. Adjournment to the regular meeting of June 22, 2023
B
All
written
comments
submitted
before
2
pm
of
the
day
of
the
meeting
have
already
been
provided
to
the
commission
and
are
available
for
public
inspection
at
the
front
lobby
in
City,
Hall
and
online
at
www.brisbaneca.org
backslash
meetings,
any
writings
received
after
the
agenda
had
been
posted,
but
after
2
pm
of
the
day
meeting
will
be
available
online
at
the
start
of
the
meeting.
At
that
same
location,
at
which
time
the
materials
will
be
distributed
to
the
commission.
B
Backslash
meetings,
the
phone
number
and
instructions
will
also
be
provided
during
the
meeting
participants
in
the
zoom
webinar
may
make
their
comments
through
Zoom.
Please
note
that
Zoom
participants
will
only
be
able
to
address
the
commission
verbally
and
I
will
announce
time
limits
for
public
comment.
During
the
particular
item,
staff
may
have
a
roll
call.
E
B
The
vote
passes
with
four
eyes:
are
there
any
members
of
the
public
or
any
Commissioners?
Who
would
like
to
pull
an
item
from
the
consent,
calendar
and
I?
Guess
you're
going
to
post
the
number
online
and
we
will
start
a
timer
for
30
seconds
to
give
the
public
an
opportunities
to
pull
anything
anything
from
the
Commissioners
I?
Guess
no.
B
B
E
E
B
C
B
C
B
F
F
F
So
this
is
really
just
the
first
foray
into
that
and
we'll
have
a
a
broader
look
at
the
housing
element.
Implementation
plan
essentially
talk
about
schedule
on
other
programs,
and
that
should
be
later
this
summer,
but
there's
a
particular
program
that
relates
really
to
development
standards,
and
so
it
was
tied.
We
saw
it
as
closely
allied
with
sb478
and
so
we're
putting
it
in
tonight.
F
A
Ken,
so
sb478
has
been
in
effect
for
over
a
year,
so
we
are
currently
subject
to
its
requirements.
We
just
haven't
adopted
and
implementing
ordinance.
Yet
so
we
are
trying
to
advance
that
soon,
but
basically
sb478
applies
to
residential
projects
of
three
to
ten
units,
both
Standalone
and
in
a
mixed
use,
and
it
imposes
minimum
far
floor
area
ratio.
Videos
that
in
most
of
our
districts,
is
higher
than
our
base,
far
not
all,
but
most
those
are
listed
here,
R2,
R3
and
cro2
and
scr1.
A
It
also
eliminates
eliminates
lot
size
minimums
for
those
same
types
of
development.
So
those
are
pretty
prescriptive
standards,
there's
not
a
ton
of
leeway
in
that,
so
we
need
to
adopt
an
ordinance
to
implement
those
standards
but,
like
I
said
they
still
apply
to
us,
even
though
we
haven't
adopted
that
in
planning
ordinance.
A
Yet
we
haven't
had
any
projects
come
through
that
have
triggered
those
requirements,
since
it
was
a
in
effect
and
so
tied
to
that,
since
we
are
going
to
have
to
modify
the
development
standards
of
those
districts
that
I
mentioned,
we
thought
we
might
as
well
Implement
one
of
our
adopted
housing
element.
Programs,
which
was
to
increase
the
Residential
Building
height,
limit
to
36
feet
so
in
some
cases
that's
an
increase
of
one
foot
where
we
have
a
building
height
of
maximum
of
35
feet
in
others,
districts.
F
The
if
we
can
flip
to
the
next
slide
Julia
so
the
way
we
have
proposed
this
in
the
table-
and
this
is
really
up
for
discussion-
is
that
that
the
the
multi-family
three
to
ten
and
over
10
as
well,
those
would
all
be
36,
and
that
would
be
consistent
with
the
housing
development
program.
We
did
not
assign
that
to
the
single
family
or
duplex.
So,
but
that's
up
to
the
commission
and
we
do
encourage
questions
throughout
I
if
that's
Workshop
nature,
so
yeah.
A
A
So
it
shows
here
elimination
of
lot
width
and
depth
for
three
to
ten
unit
structures.
It
also
there
are
some
cleanup
Provisions
for
single
family
and
duplex
as
well
in
terms
of
lot
width
and
depth.
We
have
requirements
already
in
the
ordinance
that
talk
about
when
substandard
Lots
can
be
developed
because
substandard
Lots
can
be
developed
under
many
circumstances.
So
we
propose
eliminating
those
lot
width
and
depth
minimums
as
well
for
single
family,
duplex,
dwellings
and
I.
Think
that's
all
we
wanted
to
highlight
on
this
slide
so
I'll,
kick
it
back
to
Ken.
A
No,
the
code
is
really
specific
as
to
the
circumstances
when
a
substandard
lot,
whether
that's
substandard,
to
width,
depth
or
lot
size
can
be
developed.
So
that's
addressed
in
17
point:
is
it
three
two
or
o
one?
It's?
We
can
find
the
reference
for
you
if
you
want
to
give
us
a
couple
minutes,
but
there's
there's
never
any
debate.
It's.
B
A
Well,
what
I'm
saying
is
you
could
have
a
substandard
lot?
That's,
for
example,
we
have
many
25
foot
wide
Lots
in
our
our
districts,
yet
we
have
a
50-foot
minimum
lot.
Width
you
have
are
the
soap
when
we
are
looking
for
guidance
as
to
okay.
Is
this
lot?
You
know
a
standard
lot
or
substandard
and
what
are
the
development
regulations
that
apply?
There
are
Provisions
in
the
code
that
say
these
are
the
circumstances
under
which
you
can
develop
a
substandard
lot
that
are
not
they're
in
a
one,
Consolidated
location
somewhere
else
in
the
code.
A
A
D
Yeah
treating
fairly
like
in
a
similar
vein
like,
wouldn't
it
make
sense,
just
have
everyone
be
able
to
do
36
foot,
height
ceiling
or
36
foot
height,
just
like
an
assistant
I'm
just
saying,
because
then
it's
like
not
ambiguous.
It's
like
okay,
it's
36
feet.
Everyone
in
town
can
have
a
36
foot
up
or
whatever
yeah.
F
And
that's
that's
so
important
for
the
oops
commission's
discussion.
If,
if
you
want
to
keep
that
kind
of
all
Level
Playing
Field,
regardless
of
the
number
of
units,
that's
absolutely
and
and
actually
going
back,
I
think
it
was
mid
1990s
and
before
I.
Wasn't
here
then,
but
it
was
I
believe
a
35
foot
standard
in
the
R1
and
then
I
got
lowered
to
30
or
28,
depending
on
the
slope
of
the
lot.
F
E
E
D
G
G
C
You
could
look
at
it,
as
you
know,
the
R1
again,
obviously
what
we
did
with
hcd
and
the
housing
element
doesn't
apply
to
the
R1
at
all,
but
I
think
what
you're
pointing
out.
Commissioner
Patel
makes
a
lot
of
sense
in
the
R3
right,
where
you
could
have
a
multi.
You
can't
have
multi-family
in
the
R1
right,
so
so
they're
all
standard
zoning
requirements
height
requirements,
but
in
the
R3
theoretically
you
could
have
a
single
family
or
a
multi-family.
C
D
Because,
like
also
what
I'm
thinking
about
is
like,
if
you
have
a
single
family
house
that
doesn't
want,
let's
say
they
don't
want
to
get
taller,
but
like
the
next
door,
they
build
a
36
foot
house.
36
foot
house,
like
their
view,
is
going
to
be
obstructed.
But
if
they
were
able
to
build
a
36,
maybe
they
could
have
the
same
view
as
the
36
foot
house.
B
E
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
me
and
I
think
that
would
be
fine.
If
then
they
could
put
more
people
in
the
house
right,
so
you
know
we
kind
of
want
them
to
be
able
to
house
more
people,
so
I
mean
I
just
want
that's.
Why
I
was
asking
you
Ken
is
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
nothing
in
our
history
like
there
was
a
good
reason
why
they
reduced
it
and
I
can't
think
of
one
right
now,
but.
B
F
F
For
that
that
whole
section
of
setback
exceptions,
the
other
would
be
to
provide
just
really
clearer
language
and
consistency
across.
So
lastly,
on
this
is
to
provide
a
objective
ministerial
process
for
reasonable
accommodation
for
accessibility,
and
this
is
both
to
encourage
Aging
in
place.
As
well
as
inclusivity
to
to
allow
people
to
move
in
easier
to
to
buildings
that
that
can
accommodate
disability,
so
that's
consistent
with
goal
for
protecting
residents
from
displacement
on
the
Aging
in
place.
F
B
You
give
so
it
sounds
to
me
like
just
for
my
My
Clarity,
like
many
of
the
exceptions,
might
originate
in
a
need
for
accessibility.
Can
you
give
an
example
of
something
like
that
that
would
not
ordinarily
be
allowed,
but
right?
If
someone
has
a
disability
or
needs
to
age
in
place,
they
need
an
exception.
What
what
is
an
example
of
that.
F
B
F
C
F
Not
not
for
that,
for
so
we're
talking
two
different
groups
and
I'll.
Take
you
through
some
slides
that'll
have
some
more
details,
but
the
first
group
of
items
really
is
those
setback,
exceptions
that
aren't
related
to
a
disability
and
those
would
be
essentially
a
zoning
administrator
hearing.
So
those
are
not
ministerial
and
then
for
accessibility
issues.
Those
would
be
ministerial,
as
as
we're
proposing
it
to
you
now
as
a
draft
proposal.
E
F
Right
yeah,
so
the
the
ministerial
would
be
essentially
through
a
building
permit,
and
so
there's
no
got
it
okay.
So
so
yes,
there
is
a
process,
an
application
where
they're,
showing
essentially
what
they
want
to
do
and
and
to
get
approval
and
versus
a
zoning
administrator
item
is
a
public
hearing.
Okay,.
E
A
F
So
this
this
is
I
I
have
five
slides
here
that
show
the,
and
it's
the
same
as
what
was
in
your
staff
report.
It's
essentially
pieces
of
that
table
that
that
you
see
in
the
staff
report
and
I
kind
of
broken
those
out
so
they're
readable
in
five
different,
slides
just
to
see
how
it's
organized
and
where,
where
the
text
there
are
text
changes
for
as
compared
to
the
current
code,
but
we're
we're
it's
not
a
red
line,
we're
essentially
keeping
the
the
content
of
it
the
same,
but
it
it.
F
What
we've
redlined
is
essentially
differences
in
in
actual
development
regulation
standards,
so
the
the
first
is
really
the
residential
structure.
So
that's
the
the
single
family,
home
or
multi-family,
and
it's
taking
from
other
sections
and
and
placing
it
into
this
chapter.
Carports
garages
parking
decks.
So
these
are
not
really
changing
the
standards
just
reorganizing
them.
F
The
next
one
has
to
do
with
did
I
skip
back.
I
did
so.
This
is
overhanging
features.
You
know
Eaves
and
cornices,
also
gutters
downspouts,
cantilevered,
Windows
and
decks
and
balconies
and
again
no
real
chain.
Well,
actually,
there
is
one
spot
that
should
be
highlighted
in
red
here
so
currently
on
cantilevered
windows.
F
It
allows
for
the
window
to
be
in
that
setback
area
and
it's
not
to
include
floor
area
so
include
it
should
include
a
bench
or
something
like
that
to
sit
on,
but
the
definition
floor
area
limits
the
height
to
six
feet
in
the
case
where
you're
talking
about
a
window
with
a
bench,
we
thought
it
reasonable
to
allow
that
height
of
the
window.
If
it's
a
big
window,
it
could
be
higher
than
six
feet,
and
if
it
still
has
that
bench
it
could
still
have
the
exception
applied
to
it.
So
that's
that's.
D
So
like
it
says,
if
you
go
back
to
the
windows
real
quickly,
it
says
front
step
back
five
feet
so
like
if
we
just
as
an
example.
If
we
look
at
the
apartment
building,
that's
on
the
corner
over
here
right
across
from
the
park,
I
think
that
they
have
an
overhanging
either
balcony
or
window
I.
Don't
know
something
overhangs
over
into
the
sidewalk.
Does
that
mean
that?
So
what
would
this
new
regulation
mean
for
someone
that
wanted
to
do
something
similar.
F
Particular
case
I
believe
that
they
have
that
they
go
right
up
to
the
lot
line,
so
it's
the
ncro2
district
and
that
has
zero
setback
requirements
for
the
front
and
sides
already.
So
that's
either
a
front
or
a
side
depending
it's
kind
of
a
weird
pie,
shape
lot
but
I
believe
those
balconies
go
right
up
to
the
lot
line
already,
so
this
wouldn't
apply
to
those
zeros.
It's.
A
D
A
A
Line
well,
if
you're,
in
a
district,
with
a
zero
lot
line
like
I,
think
ncr2
is
the
only
District
really
right,
yeah,
right
and
CR2
district
is
the
only
District
that
we
can
think
of
in
this
moment,
with
zero
front
and
side
setbacks,
any
other
District.
You
have.
You
know
at
the
least,
a
three
foot
side
setback,
if
not
five
or
more,
depending
on
the
width
of
the
lot
in
the
zoning
District.
F
So
our
one
District
as
an
example
but
depending
on
the
the
lot
circumstances,
you
could
either
have
a
15
foot
front
setback
or
a
10
foot
front
setback
for
the
main
part
of
the
building
itself.
So
the
window
could
not
extend
closer
than
five
feet
to
that
front
lot
line.
So
in
a
case
of
a
cantilevered
window,
you're
yeah
and
it's
also
there's
side,
setbacks
and
included
here,
but
so
oftentimes.
Those
are
more
like
a
two
feet:
two
foot
extension
out
from
the
building.
F
A
F
F
F
F
It
was
a
50
foot
wide
lot.
You'll
have
a
five
foot
standard
setback,
a
30-foot,
wide
lot
or
less
you'll
have
a
three
foot
side,
setback
and
so
oftentimes
you
may
have,
especially
on
the
older
homes.
You
may
have
an
entrance
that
actually
is
within
that
side
set
back
and
and
so
it
this
would
also
allow
for
newer
homes
to
be
within
the
side.
Setbacks
too.
In
that
case,
so.
F
G
F
F
Put
it
to
the
Commission
in
terms
of,
if
that
might
be
increased
to
10
feet
and
the
same
without
a
roof
structures
and
and
a
thought
was
well
if
your
height
is
eight
feet,
for
instance,
a
Gateway
entryway
onto
a
property,
it
doesn't
allow
a
whole
lot
of
head
height.
If
you
have
a
structure
over
you,
so
it
allows
just
a
little
bit
more
head
height,
but
so
that's
for
consideration
there
again.
The
Heights
on
the
residential
districts
are
are
currently
28
to
30..
F
B
So
I
was
just
curious
for
some
of
these
they're
they're
so
specific.
Where
does
the
10
foot
recommendation
come
from?
Why
not
9
or
12?
Is
it?
Is
there
a
precedent
somewhere
or
is
it
based
on
some
consideration,
like
you
said
the
height
like
taking
into
account
common
use
average
height
of
residents,
something
like
that
I'm
just
wondering
where,
where
the
specific
number
comes
from.
F
C
A
little
more
art
than
science
in
terms
of
some
of
these
recommendations,
so
you're
right,
it
could
be
11
feet,
6,
inches
or
nine
feet,
eight
inches,
but
right
you
know
we
try
to
come
up
with
something
that
seems
to
be
reasonable
and
appropriate.
So
we're
open
to
the
commission's
ideas,
suggestions
on
any
of
these
kind
of
Standards.
Now.
B
A
So
you
know
a
typical
if,
with
an
eight
foot,
maximum
limit
which
is
measured
from
grade
to
the
roof,
doesn't
leave
you
a
whole
heck
of
a
lot
of
interior
floor
to
ceiling
height
right,
so
I
think
I
would
imagine
that
you
know
10
feet
seems
like
a
the
maximum
allowing
someone
to
have
maybe
eight
foot
ceiling,
Heights
standard
ceiling
Heights
in
that
type
of
structure,
not
maybe
12
feet
in
your
little
home
office.
That's
encroaching
in
your
setback,
but
at
least
you
could
have
eight
feet.
Ceilings
is
that
kind.
B
F
F
F
You
know
this
might
include
like
somebody's
sculpture
in
the
yard,
or
something
like
that
that
we
weren't
quite
clear
on
why
there
wouldn't
be
a
setback
exception
allowed
for
that
and
the
side
set
back,
just
as
it
is
in
the
rear
in
front
moving
down
to
flagpoles
and
flags.
So
we
have
had
in
recent
years
a
a
couple
applications
for
people
to
install
flag
poles
on
their
lots
and-
and
we've
essentially
looked
at
at
those
as
okay.
F
They
need
to
be
interior
to
the
lot
so
they're,
not
in
the
setback
area
and
and
then
comply
with
the
height
standard
for
the
lot
and
and
then
we'd
allow
it.
This
would
allow
it
to
because
currently
the
code
is
silent.
So
this
is
a
whole
new
section
and
so
we've
we've
administratively
looked
at.
It
is
applied
the
other
building
standards,
essentially
buildings
and
structure
standards.
So
this
would
call
it
as
as
its
own
thing
and
put
some
some
criteria
to
it.
D
D
Your
rare
neighbor
may
be
equally
annoyed
as
your
side
neighbor.
If
there's
some
sort
of
issue
so
I,
don't
so
I,
don't
see
the
difference
between
the
rare
step
back
and
the
side
step
back,
for
example,
for
that,
for
that
particular
one
or
if
you
have
a
flagpole,
you
know
like
the
front
setback.
People
may
not
want
to
be
annoyed
by
walking
on
the
sidewalk
and
a
flag
waving
in
their
face,
and
the
rare
neighbor
may
not
want
it
over
their
property,
but
the
side
neighbor
may
also
not
want
it
over
their
property.
D
D
B
D
Well,
I
guess
what
I
I
was
saying
is:
let's
say
there
is
a
difference
between
flagpoles,
because
the
flags
are
longer
than
let's
say
the
the
the
the
span
of
a
pond
like
the.
Maybe
the
pond
doesn't
interfere
with
the
neighbor
as
much
as
the
flagpole,
so
you
need
five
feet
for
a
flagpole
not
to
interfere
with
the
neighbor.
But
if
it's
going
to
be
five
feet
in
the
front
in
the
rear,
then
maybe
it
should
be
five
feet
on
the
side.
Also
versus
five
foot.
Five
foot
not
applicable.
F
F
If
I
could
clarify
through
through
the
chair,
so
for
the
side
being
not
applicable,
essentially
the
the
district
standards
would
apply
so,
for
instance,
in
the
r
districts
it
would
be
either
a
five
foot
setback
if
it
was
a
50
foot
wide
lot
or
be
a
three
foot
setback
down
to
a
three
foot
setback.
So
that's
that
would
be
the
setback
requirement.
Oh.
E
F
D
A
A
Think
I
think
in
adopting
standard
exceptions
we're
trying
to
capture.
We
can't
capture
like
every
potential
iteration
I
mean
not
to
scare
everybody,
but
there
are
also
flags
that
are
bigger
than
six
feet
wide
right.
So
I
think
you
know,
but
even
but
I
think.
The
point
to
re-emphasize,
though,
is
that
our
existing
setbacks
would
apply
to
any
structure.
F
A
Like
to
be
eligible
for
the
exception
right,
the
flag
itself
would
have
to
meet
certain
performance
standards
and
that's
something
that
code
enforcement.
If
we
did
have
a
standard
and
someone
put
up
a
bigger
flag
and
then
someone
else
complained,
we
could
very
easily
verify,
while
you're
actually
exceeding
that.
E
F
A
F
F
F
And
they
don't
want
to
wait
until
they're
they're
actually
unable
to
use
the
stairs
but
want
to
do
something
prospectively,
that
they
could
go
ahead
and
you
know
apply
for
a
building
permit
and
address
what
the
actual
need
is
and
that
it
can't
be
addressed
through
the
other.
Either
height
limits,
or
the
setback
or
height
exceptions,
wow
and
again
that
it
complies
with
state
and
local
building.
Fire
building
and
fire
coats.
A
So
and
the
existing
process
for
reasonable
accommodation
like
we
talked
about
before
it's
a
zoning
administrator
hearing,
the
findings
are
actually
similar
to
I.
Think
the
findings
that
we've
presented
for
the
modifications,
the
setback,
exceptions
where
the
findings
take
into
account,
loss
of
safety,
privacy,
noise
or
glare
for
adjacent
properties,
I
think
what
where
staff
is
coming
from.
So
in
addition
to
wanting
to
make
it
more
streamlined
and
easier
for
folks
to
do
also
kind
of
recognizing
the
Humanity
at
play
of.
A
If
someone
really
needs
to
retrofit
their
building
with
an
elevator,
it's
a
little
for
the
city
to
say:
well,
we're
not
going
to
prove
that
elevator.
If
it's,
you
know,
ugly
or
whatever,
like
it's
we're,
trying
to
make
again
a
little
more
recognizing
that
accessible
housing
is
really
a
big
need,
especially
we
know
we
have
a
senior
population,
that's
only
going
to
get
older,
so
yeah
we're
looking
to
make
it
streamlined
and
a
bit
more
fair
and
Humane
I
guess.
F
E
I
have
a
follow-up
question
Ken,
so
do
you
have
to
have
an
an
actual
person
like?
Let's
say
you
think
you
might
want
to
like
rent
to
the
widest
number
of
people?
You
know
including
people
with
disability,
and
you
want
to
make
a
request
for
a
reasonable
accommodation
now
in
in
thinking
about
future
tenants,
not
that
you
have
an
actual
person
you're
thinking
about
right
now.
Is
there
a
difference.
F
E
E
A
Okay,
right
and
you
know,
I
think
it
makes
again
it
gets
to
the
kind
of
like
it's
for
someone
making
that
request
to
have
to
disclose
certain
information,
personal
information
about
them
or
a
family
member
yeah.
It
just
seemed
in
a
in
a
public
hearing
setting,
especially
so
yeah.
That's
where
we're
trying
to
make
it
more
of
the
focus
on
the
feature
itself.
What's
the
function
and
purpose
of
the
feature
is
it
for
accessibility?
Okay,
then
we
have
these
objective
findings
that
would
apply.
D
F
E
F
A
F
F
So
I
think
with
that
we've
had
discussion
throughout
if
there's
any
more.
Otherwise,
next
steps
would
be
to
come
back
with
with
a
more
you
know,
with
the
actual
ordinance
language,
and
also
you
asked
for
some
additional
information
and
to
come
back
with
with
that
to
consider
more
and
the
housing
element,
as
I
mentioned,
to
come
back
with
more
of
a
schedule
to
outline
it,
at
least
for
the
next
couple
of
years.
What
we'll
have
on
the
on
the
plate.
F
D
F
A
A
F
A
Good
point,
but
I
guess
oops
I,
just
I,
think
I
guess
I
want
to
say
is
I.
Don't
think
that
the
concern
that's
a
new
concern.
If
what
you're
saying
is
true
right,
then,
technically
hypothetically
under
that
situation,
they
could
build
a
30-foot
Adu
over
a
garage
in
a
setback
right
because
that's
our
existing,
although
we
do
have
the
20-foot
height
limit
within
15
feet,.
F
B
It
sounds
like
you
were
trying
to
hack
the
qualifiers
and
in
general,
what
would
happen
if
someone
did
in
a
clever
way
figure
out
that
something
like
that
could
be.
You
know,
by
the
by
the
letter
of
the
code,
would
be
allowed,
but
that's
clearly
against
the
principle
of
the
code.
What
would
happen?
We,
you
wouldn't
be
compelled
to
say
well,
there's
nothing.
We
can
do
right,
I
mean.
D
A
We've
adopted
objective
standards
for
multi-family
development
in
most
districts
that
have
form-based
standards
that
are
intending
to
avoid
those
kinds
of
view,
impacts
right,
but
view
is
inherently
like,
dare
I,
say,
subjective
and
we're
really
restricted
in
the
kind
of
subjective
findings
we
can
apply
to
multi-family
development
and
but
yeah
we've
the
city
has
never.
It
seems
to
me
entertained
a
view
ordinance.
C
Yeah,
that's
that's
correct
and
again
we're
we're
talking
about
some
of
these
same
issues
of
you
know
what
the
state's
overriding
desire
here
and
they're
pressing
is
to
eliminate
or
reduce
governmental
constraints
to
housing.
Hcd
has
made
very
strong
opinion
known
that
they
thought
our
height
ordinance
limitations
were
a
constraint
evidence
to
the
contrary.
C
You
know
for
us
it
was
a
change
we
needed
to
agree
to
to
get
our
housing
element
certified
on
time
and
the
state
yeah
I
mean
the
idea
of
view,
preservation
or
private
view,
ordinances
relative
to
the
ability
for
people
to
build
multi-family
housing,
I
know
which
way
the
state's
going
to
tip
the
scale
in
terms
of
city
ordinances.
That
would
somehow
restrict
multi-family,
but.
C
D
D
A
F
We'll
explore
it
more
and
I
I
think
the
other
kind
of
remaining
question
that
I
had
was
it
was
brought
up.
The
idea
of
36
feet
is
a
height
limit
for
all.
If
that's
something
that
you're
wanting
to
proceed
with
that,
having
that
additional
information,
if
that
might
be
something
you're
here
in
favor
of
I,.
D
C
D
D
C
F
C
B
Fair,
it
makes
sense
it
kind
of
goes
back
to
the
you
know.
The
the
rules
are
the
rules
and
I
guess
it
should
be
in
the
disclosures
right.
This
might
happen
to
you
if
you
buy
right
next
to
it,
whatever
a
zone
that
allows
36,
yeah
I
understand
your
your
point
that
it's
not
necessarily
germane.
If
we're
not
interested
in
in
changing
the
height
in
the
R1
I
would
be
curious.
Just
we're
glad
to
provide
the
research
yeah
either
way.
B
C
Just
the
last
week,
I
guess
it
was
commissioner
lau
and
commissioner
Gidding
did
attend-
that
County
planning
commissioner
workshop
on
housing
and
I
was
there
as
well
and
I,
know
they're,
probably
40
or
50
planning
Commissioners
from
throughout
the
county,
and
the
primary
topic
was
housing
legislation.
So
you
know
again,
if
you
have
those
opportunities,
I
have
another
one
in
October,
I
believe
I,
don't
recall
what
the
topics
will
be,
but
I
encourage
Commissioners
to
attend
if
possible
and
we'll
send
that
information
out
to
you
in
advance.
It'll
be
different.
D
B
You
know
I
one
thing:
I
would
be
curious
about.
I
went
to
one
of
these
workshops,
I
I,
think
as
a
resource.
Apart
from
that
that
could
be
useful
is,
if
you
know,
of
any
programs
like
Forum,
where
housing
legislation
was
discussed.
That
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
resource
for
the
Commissioners
or
you
know,
because
I
listened
to
that,
while
I
was
walking
and
just
what
is
in
these
Senate
bills,
and
things
like
that.