We're going to call the meeting to order. Thank you for your patience everyone online and in the room.
Good evening, welcome and thank you for joining us for tonight's meeting of the Arenda Planning Commission on March 24, 2026.
In the back of the room there is a table where you can find copies of tonight's agenda, as well as staff reports for the items that will be heard tonight.
At the dais in front of the Commissioner table, you will find request to speak cards.
If you would like to speak to the Commission this evening, please fill out a speaker card
and place it in the speaker card tray on the table at the front.
If you are the applicant or the applicant's agent, you do not need to complete a speaker
card.
Once we begin the public hearings portion of the meeting, each item will be announced
with a brief description of what is being proposed. After the presentation and
questions by the Commission, the public hearing will be open and anyone wishing
to speak to the Commission on this item will be invited to do so. When your name
is called, please come to the speaker podium at the front. Each speaker will be
allowed three minutes to speak. Once everyone wishing to speak has made their
comments, the public hearing will then be closed and we will bring the matter up to
the Commission for discussion and decision. If you will be speaking to us
this evening, please be sure to make all of your comments when you come to the
podium as a courtesy to all. Comments made from the audience during testimony
or commission deliberation will not be allowed and will not be included as part
of the public record. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission's options
will be to approve, continue, or deny a project application. Now I will proceed with the roll
call and confirm certain matters for the record. I would like to note that Commissioners Armstrong,
Doctors Hubner, Jelanek, Carolla, Obelinski, and Schmidt are in attendance.
Planning Director, are there any changes to the proposed agenda?
Yes, I would like to pull item E-2 under the consent calendar and postpone to your next
planning commission meeting.
You did receive one public comment from Mr. Nick Warrenoff and I would like to take an
opportunity to reevaluate our new updated rules and regulations from 2015.
So I do think there's a miss other than a typo.
I think something didn't get updated
that we wanted to update it.
Thank you.
Regarding the changes to item E2,
I would like to move forward
with the proposed revised agenda
to remove that item E2 and adopt the revised agenda.
Do I have a motion?
So moved.
Do I have a second?
Second.
All in favor say aye.
I, the motion passes unanimously.
Item C, other commission matters.
The planning commission would like to welcome
our newest planning commissioner, Mr. Morgan Oblinski.
Welcome.
The floor is yours if you'd like to introduce yourself
or add anything.
No, just hello everybody.
Got some experience going through the secret process
in my line of work and just construction project in general.
so I decided to help the city 11.
Thank you and welcome.
We'll look forward to having you.
Item D is the public forum.
The first item on tonight's meeting agenda
is the public forum.
The public forum is an opportunity for you
to address the planning commission on items
that are not listed on tonight's agenda.
Is there anyone who would like to address the commission
on an item that is not on the agenda?
There are no comments in the room and online,
so we will move on to item E, the consent calendar.
The consent calendar section of the agenda
consists of items that are acted on in one motion,
unless a commissioner or member of the public
requests that the commission remove an item
from the consent calendar for discussion.
By approval of the consent calendar,
the staff recommendation will be adopted.
If this item is removed from the consent calendar,
the commission will follow the procedures described
in the agenda for new public hearings.
May I have a motion to approve the consent calendar
as proposed, which would include item E1,
the planning commission minutes.
So moved.
May I have a second?
Second.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
The motion passes unanimously.
Item F, policy matters.
there appears to be none item g continued public hearings there appears to be none item h new
public hearings consider a resolution for the citywide objective design standards ods
action three point e implementing action of the housing element the staff recommendation
to discuss updates to the citywide objective design standards,
adopt planning commission resolution 26-03,
recommending the city council adopt an ordinance
amending title 17 of the Arrenda Municipal Code
zoning, and approve the citywide objective design standards dated
February of 2026 for the residential and open space districts
for consistency with state housing law. We will have a staff presentation from Ms. Selena Palmer.
Thank you. Please proceed.
That's okay.
My apologies. I am reading for the script, but thank you.
No worries. Yeah, thank you, Chair Armstrong and commissioners. Welcome to this public hearing on
on the citywide objective design standards.
My name is Christine Thompson,
and I'm a staff member with the city of Verrinda.
And I just wanted to note
that citywide objective design standards
have come before this body before.
It was a study session,
and tonight we are actually having a public hearing.
And so it's a different process
before it was a casual conversation,
looking at the draft of the document.
document has advanced substantially since then and we're looking to recommend it for consideration
for adoption with the City Council. So just a quick process item, the item has been called by
the Chair and in terms of disclosing ex parte communications that hasn't been done but probably
should be. I will summarize before the Commission then any questions the Commission has for
that's the time to ask them. There will be an open public comment period and then following the public testimony comes back to the to the commission. So just a just a quick refresher on that. And, and then, so this is really the staff presentation portion so I don't know if you want to do ex parte.
Or you want me to lunch in.
have there been any ex parte communications or site visits to the any item on tonight's agenda by any commissioner.
Okay, so this is it. Yeah, normally this if there's a particular site and there would be a site visit. This is a document that's been under discussion and development within the city. So thanks.
So tonight, we're going to just talk around about the background on the citywide ODS,
talk about the development of the document itself, and then also move forward towards
the recommendation.
So just to note, I'm Christine Thompson, as mentioned.
Selina Palmer is also on this project.
And then we have Tony Perez from Opticos, who is in the audience, who is a consultant
who helped us move this document forward.
So just a bit of background on objective design standards.
The City of Arrinda did issue a request for proposals,
specifically to develop city-wide objective design
standards.
Downtown objective design standards
have already been adopted.
But there's more housing law that really
wants to expedite housing.
And so city-wide objective design standards
are an important piece, a piece that
helps expedite this process at aligning with new state
streamlining laws, but then also thinking
about the architectural landscape character of the city
and really trying to codify that so applicants can
use that in residential development proposals.
So the project was initiated in April of 2025,
went through a research phase, and then
developed a draft of the citywide objective design
standards.
In September and October, there were study sessions,
And here we are in the spring of 2026,
looking towards adoption.
One of the key questions early in the research process,
this is a product of Optikos, was
where do the objective design standards,
the citywide objective design standards,
where do they apply?
They apply in residential districts.
They apply to residential development.
And so it's a selection of districts.
But the light yellow area is the districts
from RL40 to open space to RM, anywhere that it can accept
residential development, even if it's in a very limited manner.
It's also important to note just very clearly which districts.
So the high-density overlay district, the senior housing
overlay district, the residential medium density,
residential low density, and that's
suite of different districts from RL-20 to RL-6. Open space, which has a very limited amount,
but we wanted to make sure that it was covered. And then recently designated residential high
density, RH-25 and RH-40. The map that you see here, that looks at residential applications
throughout the city in the 2025. We just did our annual reporting on housing.
And so, that was generated as part of this. And so, you can see that there are projects coming
forward throughout the City. So, that was really a key part of the interest in moving the Citywide
objective design standards forward. What does it apply to? It applies to residential development.
So, that means things that are eligible under certain state laws, but it also means sort of
a variety of laws, a variety of situations. So just a couple things that are sort of typically
covered with objective design standards, new infill single-family residential units,
a second single-family residential unit, a single-family residential unit on a lot created
by a lot split, townhomes and multiplex multi-family residential development.
So just a little bit of a context in the state housing laws as well. Most people know at this
time that the state and Sacramento has been issuing a lot of laws trying to facilitate
housing creation. And since 2017, really, there were very particular housing projects that
for whom design review was no longer applicable.
The state required that only objective standards, including
design standards, may be applied.
And objective standards are the only basis
upon which a local agency may deny
the approval of a residential project.
So an important tool in the toolbox.
As we were working with our consultant,
many of these same laws came up.
this question about SB 9 and 450, SB 684 and 1123. SB 9 is the lot split or duplexing.
And then SB 1123 is often the small subdivision. And SB 4 is for religious and college lands.
some of the housing element sites, our religious sites.
And then at the same time, HCD came out with guidance.
This is actually from 2021.
But they really wanted communities
to be able to move forward with objective design standards.
And they noted that there's no universal method.
Each community must tailor their own approach.
And the direction is to strike a balance
between flexibility, predictability,
but also not hindering residential development.
This also is an implementing action in the housing element,
action 3E, objective design standards.
And it has a stated purpose to adopt the multifamily objective
design standards that apply to all housing development
projects for which objective design standards are required.
And so there are a lot of eligibility requirements.
But once the eligibility is satisfied,
then this is a ministerial path available
to these types of projects.
The changes to state housing law continue.
In terms of AB 130 was this year.
And then there are other laws on the books
that are a little bit more about parking areas,
about corridors.
But the focus is always about more residential development
because there is a housing need.
And as mentioned, the 9-450 and the 684-1123,
these are key topics.
And they get represented in the objective design standards.
So as an applicant, with the state emphasis
on streamlining, there is the state law factor
in terms of their describing these particular projects
that they're trying to facilitate approval of.
But there's also the code of ordinances.
So that does not go away.
That is still really determining the density components
of a residential project.
And the objective design standards
are determining the design components of a project.
So these pieces work together, the state law,
the code of ordinances, and then the objective design
standards. So now I'm going to move into talking about the document itself. So this is this is a
the document that this body saw as a draft back in the fall. And just to note that objective
design standards and creating documents to help communities really came out of the Senate Bill 35
in 2017 and the SB 330 in 2019. So that's really where objective design standards became
the way to streamline residential projects. So as mentioned, the study session in September
2025 with this body, with the City Council, October 21st. And each study session identified
design attributes to include in the citywide ODS. There was a draft because many of these
have very similar structures. Same things that want to be controlled or regulated.
But we also wanted to hear from each individual board and body itself.
So in the Planning Commission study session, we heard maintain Orinda's high quality residential
design. Blend with the natural environment. Focus on priority topics and the priority topics were
identified. Make sure that there's massing and variation in the building stock. Avoid being
overly specific. I think we had a discussion about the color of a fence. And then also keep
with the level of detail and then keep refining the document because it was really an early draft.
City Council also got to look at the draft, they too identified a focus that they thought
the standards could benefit from. Think about the topography in the land, think about how
materials are increasingly important, particularly with fire concerns and reduced vegetation.
Focus on massing and proportions, modulate the building forms. We did have a discussion about
architectural style and whether it should be included or not. The discussion concluded with
with it being something for the future potentially.
So it is not in the objective design standards.
Other issues, parking, making that less prominent,
and then the emphasis on fitting into the natural environment.
So we showed a table of contents at the study sessions.
It's not that different.
It's a little bit different.
It still has three major articles, Article 1, 2, and 3.
That's where the standards are.
So site design standards, building design standards,
subdivision design standards.
The fourth article is really about definitions
and measurement methods.
And then there's an introduction chapter
so that applicants can navigate the document.
So I think things that we've added since the session,
so that's what I'm gonna focus on right now,
is we added language to reflect the hillside context.
So very specifically about retaining natural features,
Making sure that the cut slopes are limited and really pulling standards out of some of the hillside design guidelines.
In the site material section, we expanded the allowed paint colors for site materials and we had some robust conversations about how you objectify colors.
And really, the approach that was taken is to use commonly understood names, but also
to reference it to a color standard, which is an international color standard and RAL
is German.
I'm not going to repeat what it stands for because it's in German, but it is a universal
color standard.
So if anyone has a debate about a color, there is a way to standardize that.
In terms of the landscape section, we did adapt a pallet, a plant pallet from the Wilder
Design Review Handbook combined with the downtown objective design standards.
We also looked at the plants for a fire-savvy landscape and allowed plants from both that
and the allowable table.
And then we referenced the city's current plants for fire-savvy landscape because it
keeps getting updated, and then also the disallowed vegetation
list, so that an applicant kind of had a one stop shop of what
they can move forward with and then what they really have the
issues they have to think about. We expanded the and refined the
lot shape and the key of the diagrams. So we really made an
effort to use the example photos, we started drawing lots
that were irregular, trying to reflect Orinda's look more.
And then we really made an effort
to avoid the development standards,
because the development standards like height
and setback are in the code.
The design standards hold things like configuration
and proportionality, and using building typologies
to express that.
In parking and access, we added shielding and setting back
covered parking from public view. We added a building colors and materials table. So again,
with colors trying to negotiate people's color sense and a universal standard, but also describing
allowed and prohibited prohibited materials by major building parts and then also coordinating
with the fire district and adding references to the state fire marshal resources.
So we also had sections on building articulation and massing. It's noted that we, as I mentioned
before, we talked about style. We said, well, 80% of objective design standards don't actually
reference style. They use articulation and massing as a way to do massing controls. So we did that
and refined that according to input that we had received.
So there are quite a few chapters around massing
and building form, using building types,
using facade design, using entry types.
And so we clarified by type and color additional requirements
for facade materials and color.
We got some comments about color blocking
and exactly how a preferred method is.
And so we tried to integrate that level of detail
to really sort of get the kinds of outcomes
from an applicant that we're hoping for.
So regulating building entries by entry type
and then also setting roof form standards
with minimums for eaves, parafits and dormers.
So getting into those building details.
We also identified some standards around large sites.
There aren't a lot of large sites in Arinda,
but should there be one having some guidance
on open space and lots and buildings
and how those should be approached as opposed
to just an individual lot and a building location.
We wanted to make sure that was also covered as a topic.
And then, as mentioned, the subdivision design standards.
And this is really related to the fact
that some new residential directions have come down
from the state around lot splits and about lot creation.
So very specifically, SB9 is really
where you can split a lot and SB 1123
is where you can have up to 10 lots
based on a lot of eligibility criteria and overall size.
So really, in this case, a lot of the direction
is coming directly out of state law.
And so we added the dimensions that the state law identifies
in this, clearly citing it.
We recognize that state law might change.
It gets updated.
This might have to follow that,
but we wanted to make sure that we were tying these new visions
of residential tools to those building types,
to the design around the site, to just making sure
that all of the direction that had already been set
is now tied to these as well, and can move forward,
and all the residential can move forward together.
As I mentioned, we did omit architectural style,
but it may be considered in the future.
And we really were using building design standards,
so building form, facade design, building entries, roof form.
So I did want to also note that it
is a bit of a work in progress and we are also moving forward
with a recommendation.
So we have identified a couple of things
that we would like to update and change.
So I'm just going to walk through those.
And so I think we've had some internal discussions trying
to tighten up any vague language.
And so on page 9, we saw, OK, alternative path
is the word that we had used.
But this really is an added ministerial path
for a residential project.
So we wanted to just be super clear on that language.
So that's page 9.
Page 21, as I mentioned, we had a plant palette.
We wanted to reformat that to make sure
that we had the scientific names first.
And then we also wanted an applicant
to select from the allowed list,
but also select from the plants for a fire savvy landscape,
given the importance of fire and fire concerns in the city.
So that's page 21, a small move,
but important to really tighten up the plant pallet.
In terms of also reformatting titles,
we noted that we had been really sort of talking
about these multi-unit with single unit development
to try and approximate the kind of residential development
projects that would come forward under these state laws.
But it was getting confusing.
And it may also be that an SB 9 as an infill
is a single family home.
And that would also fall under this.
So we just wanted to make it sort of simpler and clearer
that we have multifamily residential solutions,
and then we have all other residential development.
And so just really tightening up those titles for clarity
that we noticed that page 31 has one that
was causing questions.
So and page 89, as I mentioned, the state laws,
everyone uses the numbers.
But then people say, well, which one is that?
And so people are sort of constantly in need of a refresher.
So we wanted to make sure that it was actually
noted that you could go to the City of Orinda web page,
and you can get a summary of the law.
And that way, we could update the web page,
and we can just have the reference there
and still guide people as things change.
Again, on the theme of, you know, lots of laws,
we did really want to add some state law definitions.
So this would be in the definition section, page 99,
really just clarifying the name of these laws,
the housing opportunity and more efficiency, the HOME Act,
or in the case of 450 housing development approval bills
for California Home Act.
So you can see that they're associated,
but also to give the government code location
if anyone wanted to look them up
and then to note when they became effective.
And then to follow them with a quick statement
about giving people an orientation
that the two-unit housing development
and the urban lot splits is the focus of SB 9.
This was also true for SB 684 and 1123,
again, two laws that work together.
But it is about this 10 or fewer residential units.
And again, sort of following the same structure
of giving people the reference
and then also the effective date as well as a quick summary.
And, you know, inevitably this document is a long document.
It's a little over a hundred pages.
It will have some typos in it.
So we did want to note that when we see misspelling our typo,
we will correct that and just make sure that that is updates
and corrections are just part of what we're doing
as we're finalizing this and taking the input from this body
and then also the City Council for any forward efforts.
So this really brings me to the recommendation.
So the official recommendation, just to show it up here,
the city council. The goal of
the city council is to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution.
2603. It's recommending the city
Council adopted ordinance,
amending title 17 of the Arinda
Municipal Code zoning and
approved the citywide objective
design standards dated February,
2026. For the residential and
open space district for
consistency with state housing
law. I did just want to note
that the clarifying updates that
it's just in that document, it is still the one that's dated February 2026,
but that those are things that would be updated through this approval process.
So again, just to note what those six clarifying updates are,
they are for the document itself, so minor edits to the language,
And then generally a statement about picking up updates and corrections
So that is the conclusion of this I mean from after the recommendation. I'll just talk a little bit about timeline
But I wanted to pause here and ask their questions or if I need to show the recommendation again
one, thank you the this presentation is really excellent and thank the
The consultant for all your hard work on this. I really see some of the changes that were made. I like the fact that you
Had the two listening sessions and really incorporated a lot of what was heard at those sessions and
From the stakeholders in general, and I also like the clarifying
References to the law and the code sections. I think that's really important to have everything in a single document
And so thank you.
And I'll open the floor to the commissioners
if you have any questions.
I think maybe just one for me.
Thank you again for the super comprehensive presentation.
I'm curious, I think some of what we've talked about
in study sessions and it's come up
in various other discussions on state law and whatnot is
what have the approaches been that other cities have taken?
Not that as Arinda, we copy paste,
but I think it's because we are such a unique community,
but I do think it's interesting to say, well,
any other local community has sort of done this.
And actually after they implemented this,
they found XYZ sort of gaps or holes
or things that they wish.
And so I'm just curious whether any of that,
whether you as staff sort of discussed that
or we have any references, because this is also new
and there are so many moving pieces to your point.
Yeah, no, I think it's a great question.
Almost every community, it's relatively new.
They're still figuring out what's happening
when applications come forward.
But there are also some themes that have emerged.
I think one of the key things was understanding
that this document needs to work in coordination
with the other pieces, the municipal code and the state law.
And then specifically citing those overlaps
so that each document can be updated by itself.
and keeping the design components as clear as possible
so that any applicant can understand
how to navigate through that.
I think we do have our consultant Tony here.
He could probably talk to a couple other communities
and what their experiences have been.
But yeah, but I did wanna say that it's not at all in common
for a couple of the key components to remain the same,
but then all the uniqueness to be
the actual individual standards themselves. I don't know if, Tony, you want to talk a little bit?
Good afternoon, Planning Commission. Thank you for having us here. Tony Perez of Optico's Design.
And yeah, I think what we've seen other cities do is treat buildings and development as
something to be beat on, sculpted, subtracted from, as opposed to what are buildings made of
and how big are they when they're too big. All those kinds of things aren't really in there.
And so I think as time goes on, cities realize that that approach probably works for really
large buildings that really need to be sculpted and beat on a little bit. But when you're dealing
with buildings the size of the buildings that you're going to expect here in Rinda
to fit in with everything else, you have to approach it more from ground up, like how the
buildings fit best on the site, are there things that you shouldn't allow, configurations that
really don't work, when the building's too long, all those kinds of things. And so those are the,
That's what this document, how it looks at buildings and to answer your question, I guess,
more directly, most of the objective standards we've seen across the state go the other way.
Let's just chip at it, sculpt it, and that works for certain sizes of buildings, but not,
I would say if you categorize it, buildings that are the size of houses, small to large,
and buildings that are bigger than that, that approach tends to work on bigger buildings.
and so I think it it can work but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered so
that's also my way of saying that's why this document is so long it's trying to look at
a building and its site as a menu of components and not all components fit on all sites so.
Right she also asked about sort of other experiences from other communities
Any experiences from other communities that are happening?
Yeah, so that's one and the same. I combine them, sorry. But yeah, the experiences are that
cities are seeing that what they thought was fussiness originally is the necessary nuance
that they're looking for in projects later. Okay, so if I can just try and maybe summarize,
key learning is in many other cities, it's a big list of please don't do all of these things and
let's restrict all of these things. And we've taken a bit of the opposite approach, which is
here is a menu of acceptable ways to build whatever it is you are building in a way that feels like
it fits within our community while also following state law. Exactly. If I could just add on that.
Yeah. So one thing we try to do with the zoning standards that we write is to make them form-based.
And I know that has some baggage to it, depending on your experience with form-based standards.
But the idea of form-based standards at their core is that the question is what do you want
to make with this tool? And zoning as a tool doesn't necessarily make anything. It does
what you were talking about with a lot of cities too is, well, we don't want this, we don't want
that, we don't want this. And it's like talking to that person at the party that just tells you
everything they don't want, they don't like. And after all, you just say, okay, tell me anything
that you want because I'm tired of hearing what you don't want. And so these type of standards
it around and say we're intentional about the things that we want. And we can cite very
specifically the kinds of outcomes you don't want.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you.
Are there comments or questions on this unit?
Just kind of a maybe a procedural question. When these standards finally get approved,
whatever comes back to the planning commission, as far as when does then the person who wants
It's the same thing.
It's not the same thing.
It's the same thing.
It's the same thing.
It's the same thing.
So the person who wants to do something.
Says, I don't like the way the standard is,
is applying to my house or my multi-family house is there is.
I don't see the path.
Do we then go back through that? I'll call it the.
When does the standard say it's staff level?
And when does the standard say you come back to the commission for a
decision on something?
What does the commission get to decide on?
commission for something? Yeah, no, that's a good question. So I think the important
thing about the state laws is that it is facilitating residential development,
but there are pretty strict eligibility requirements and conditions under which
they would fit into this facilitation. So not all residential projects can go through this.
Many can. Of those that can, they can decide to comply with the objective design standards,
or they can decide to not comply. If they don't, they go back into the regular path,
they don't get the ministerial path. And so that is a tool to really say, you know,
this is what we want to see out of the design. If you think that your project can, you know,
meet all of the criteria for streamlining and you can meet these design standards,
you can move forward through this alternative ministerial path. If you decide that you can't,
you don't want to, the regular passer is still open to you.
Can you just give us a quick refresher on what those criteria
are for going through the mindset? There is no single set unfortunately, but
yes, it depends on which track you're taking, but there are some predictable ones like
it can't be on a historic site, it can't be taking, reducing units, it can't be.
and there are some areas where whether it's in high fire that that's a component of it so
so it's usually sort of predictable criterias about around why you wouldn't want to streamline
or wouldn't want to facilitate this kind of housing but there's a lot of housing that does
fit into that track and is looking forward to moving forward in this path. I may have missed
it somewhere in the document but is it I wonder if it's worth in being really clear in the
introduction that these particular standards when you're going through the ministerial path,
or a link to what that is to your point in terms of cleaning up. I see some of the language clean
up that has happened and I think it's really great to be just super crisp and clear. So if
there is an opportunity to do that somewhere, a link to a website, whatever it may be, that may
just be an added for clarity for someone reading this going, oh, this is what this is and does my
project even remotely come close to meeting my criteria. Yeah and I think that's a good point
about sort of what's a sort of typical what's a predictable and then you know how far off
outside that typical are you. Yeah thanks. Yeah kind of a how-to.
Hearing no other questions of staff from the commissioners we're going to open the floor up
for public comment. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to speak?
No public comments. And no public comments in the room. With
that, the floor is closed and I will bring the matter back up here to the commission
for discussion and action. Is there any additional discussion on this item?
um I think it's a pretty monumental progress for our for our city um I'm looking I'm looking
forward to seeing what happens um so many of the state laws we're are going to drive so many
different kinds of decision making um at staff level um I'm eagerly awaiting and and thanking
the consultant and staff for all the hard work that's gone into this yeah I would just add
that appreciation for the work on this.
I think that it feels like it complements
well state laws we're dealing with,
as opposed to providing friction against.
And so I think it's great.
And I think it's going to be helpful to the residents.
OK.
May I have a motion from the commission on this matter?
Leave that screen on.
Oops.
The other one.
Sorry, yeah.
Here we go.
recommended that with the planet commission adopt resolution
26-03 with the clarifying our site that which recommends the
city council adopt an ordinance amending title 17 of the
randomness municipal code zoning and approved the citywide
objective design standards dated February 2026 with the
clarifying updates presented this evening for the residential
open space districts for consistency with state housing
law. Do I have a second? Second. Chair Armstrong, let me make sure your
recommendation is clear because I heard the vice chair mentioned something that
we didn't mention as a part of a recommendation so I need to understand
if this Commission wants us to make that change and that was to the introduction
where you're looking for a ministerial path or I'm using the vice chairs word
the same way. You were saying.
the recommendation with clarifying updates as well as the discussion for clarity around the ministerial process. Is that good enough?
It's good enough for me.
Okay, yes.
I will.
Do you want me to say it again?
Yeah.
Including the commission's recommendations for how to pathway through the process as an intro to the document. I think is the best way to phrase that.
And then maybe in addition to how to win this document is even applicable.
I think that's part of that.
We might need a little clarity on the, on the motion and the recommendation.
So you're okay. Yeah, can I maybe I can try and rephrase it let me see we can do this blank that off and start fresh.
Council. I moved that we adopt
Planning Commission Resolution
2603 recommending that the city
Council adopt an ordinance
amending title 17 of the
randommissible code zoning and
approve the citywide objective
design standards dated February
26th with the clarifying updates
that were presented by staff
this evening and with an
an introduction to the how to enter this process.
Maybe help me with that.
With clarity around how and when
these objective design standards are used or apply.
Kind of an introductory, yeah.
Consistent for the residential open space districts
for consistency with state housing work.
I hope that does it.
Do I have a second to that motion?
And we'll second that one.
That version.
Thank you.
OK, we have a first, and we have a second on that motion.
And we will proceed with the roll call vote.
Commissioner Davis?
Oh, there's something.
Commissioner Obelinski?
Aye.
Commissioner Hubner?
Aye.
Commissioner Gelman?
Aye.
Commissioner Schmidt?
Aye.
Commissioner Doctors?
Aye.
and Commissioner Armstrong is an aye and Commission rolls and I commission Barola.
We have a unanimous vote. Thank you. Thank you motion carried. Item I planning commissioners
report. Is there any report tonight, none from my standpoint. Item J planning directors
update. Leshun, do you have any items to report? Well, one, we've submitted our annual progress
report to the state and the governor's office, LCI, so we're happy to be done with that submittal.
Thank you. And with that, is there a motion to adjourn the meeting tonight?
And do we have a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you.