Ojai City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting

All right, then let's begin. Welcome all to our joint meeting with the Planning Commission, City Council, Tuesday, June 24th. Welcome here, everybody. We're looking forward to this. And Mr. Montgomery, roll call, please.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd recommend a brief introduction by Mr. Seibert as to the topics, then public comment, and then the discussion.

Sounds good. First, I'm going to turn to Mr. Trent here to start off and then proceed.

Okay, did you want me to start, just talk about the recommendations that we're discussing?

Yes, please, even just briefly to say, if you don't mind, how you came to these, a little background, and then Mr. Seibert can fill these out, and I might suggest we take them item by item, potentially, but your call. Yeah,

yeah, we'll start with, these are just items that continually come up when we're having our meetings and just Basically, from the projects that we get before our body, these are typically reoccurring themes that we've heard over the years. And so, what we're trying to do is get a little bit more guidelines or a little bit more direction from Council on which way you guys would like to go with some of these to just see where we can focus on in planning and potentially make recommendations to, you know, the code or to zoning changes or whatnot. To help highlight some of these and provide some more clarity to the public because, again, these typically come up in every conversation that we have.

So the first one I'll talk about is design guidelines. Lucas can highlight some of this as far as objective design guidelines go. The General Design Guideline for Citywide, we wanted to talk about potentially looking at a Westside Design Guideline, because we have a Downtown Guideline, we have an Eastside Guideline, but we don't have anything for the Westside. And we've seen projects come before our body where we've had We've had to make calls on what kind of design standards we'd like to see. The community provided a lot of feedback saying we want to keep it in this Mission Revival type of style, but we didn't really have anything in the code to outline that or to outline that we wanted to have that as something we want to do as a community.

So that's what we want to talk about with general design guidelines. And Lucas, you want to talk about objective design standards real quick?

Yeah, and just to the Chair's point, the general design guidelines, we've, the nice thing about, can I just start kind of an overview, like kind of like at the 30,000 foot level? The Commission sees this as kind of a work program type of scenario where we're looking for feedback on these specific pieces. And not only that, but, hey, can we, can this Commission dive into these further? Or is there potentially a pivot on some other items that maybe the Council wants the Commission to focus on that are maybe outside of the realm of what we're talking about here tonight?

From a design guideline standpoint, the objective design standards are really what's built into one of the programs, which I think is Program 15 for the housing element. So we have an obligation and a requirement through our adopted housing element, through HCD, that We really were supposed to finish this in 2024, but I was lucky enough to reach out to HCD and say, hey, look, we're making amazing progress on this, and we've already had several meetings on this. We're moving forward. And they said, that's fine. As long as we're seeing that you're moving forward and not stalemating, you're fine there.

What we want to do is just recognize that that kind of fits at the top of the conversation, mainly because it's an obligation that we have. The second one tiered from that is the general plan design guidelines citywide. And really what that's focusing on is the commission has already been handed the playbook for all the different design guidelines that we have throughout the city. And as Trent had mentioned, there is this hole on the western end of the city where there really isn't a whole lot of guidance. So really, you're kind of focusing on the surrounding designs and whether or not that standard is something that the community wants to see moving forward. And obviously, the Commission did hear from the community in terms of a design standard that may be something the community wants to see moving forward.

So I think that's something to consider and talk about. Can I keep going? No, you're good. Okay. Parking. In our conversation, it was less about parking in the downtown area. We've already got two parking studies that were done in 91 and 2004. And there, in both instances, it identified, oh, hey, guess what? You don't have a parking problem. Instead, you have a walking problem where people are wanting to park literally right next to the businesses versus those individuals that can literally walk a block, maybe, maybe two blocks at the most. and still get to their destination in the downtown core area. I think what this is talking about is beyond the parking situation in the downtown area and really kind of the parking situation as it relies upon its impacts both through tourism and then also those parking areas that are maybe underserved or an opportunity.

I think those are kind of the focus areas that the Commission was talking about. Fire hardening absolutely came. I mean, it's something that the Commission has been talking about off and on for the last couple of years, but certainly with the Palisades fire has immediately been a bullseye. And recognizing with our most recent high fire map that came forward, We're recognizing that there are significant issues and challenges that we have within this community and recognizing that and seeing that there are opportunities for us to be a part of certain things. Firewise Communities is one of those, and we've started having those conversations and getting that information out. So we're kind of in the very beginning stages, seeing if there is that understanding to move forward and kind of do a deeper dive.

And then noise is something that literally, to Trent's point, comes up every time a project comes forward. Noise or sound, depending on how you're having that conversation. To Bennett's point, I know we've talked about this during commission meetings in the past. The standards themselves really speak to the edges of a piece of property, and we've taken it a step further. When I say we, I mean the Commission's taken it a step further to say, hey, look, let's make sure that we're addressing the areas that are potentially deeply impacted, which are the areas just outside of that, the fringe areas.

And in certain circumstances, there have been specific conditions to address that, so.

Thank you. That's a good start.

Yep. Can I can I have you elaborate a little bit on the objective design standards? The reason why just because it's it's a switch on what we typically do when we're evaluating multi family homes and multi, you know, like, you know what I mean? Like multifamily residence? Yeah. So we're kind of when it comes to affordable housing projects, what we can and can't do dictated by the state.

Yeah, the objective design standards are really held to multifamily and mixed use. And those are specifically tied to those projects which qualify as affordable housing. So it's not that it qualifies through single family or commercial. It is very much earmarked to a very specific populated land use. And the interesting thing is, is with the objective design standards is it is exactly as it is described. It's not that you get to make a judgment call. The judgment call lives within the standards themselves.

Two years ago, I think we started the conversation, brought forward some discussion pieces, and then kind of scrambled, and then brought something forward again, and then threw it in the trash. And then recently, we brought forward something that has some traction, and I think we got some really good feedback from this body, this commission, to bring something back forward. And potentially, Push the envelope as far as we can on certain aspects that have certainly come up regarding recent projects and potentially projects even in the future.

So,

yes. Just a quick clarifying question. So I understand that the objective design standards are General Design Guidelines, General Plan, and things that aren't connected to affordable housing, right? Like single-family dwellings and those kinds of things. Commercial

properties. Yeah, commercial properties is probably the best. Typically, it's Ojai Avenue within

that corridor. And that's where they kind of branch off, right?

Right.

Thank you. Great. Thank you.

Why don't we, if it's okay with everybody, we'll do public comment now and then get into our first piece, if that's all right?

Okay. Well,

I certainly, I was going to do it basically once because I think some people want to talk about a few items at once. Do you have a suggestion which is per item?

Just to confine our conversation to a particular subject.

Well, I think we'll define our conversation to one subject at a time. We only have these three public comments and then anything that's online and one online. So I was going to take those, but let's keep them handy. So let me start with Bill Miley, Larry Steingold, and then Renee Roth.

Wow, first time over here. Okay, good. So my first comment has to do with the East Ojai Avenue Planning Guidelines. They're good, they're loose, but important because they talk about supporting businesses. The Bryant Street Circle has Sidewalks completely around. The one-third of a mile from Ojai Avenue that meets the Bryant Circle has none. And there's no bike lane.

And no, as I understand, no directory to say which businesses are there and how to find them. It's like an ADU way at the back of the rear of a property that's hidden from public view. It needs help. Parking. In my opinion, there is definitely a need for better public parking spaces in the downtown area. More city-owned and leased parking areas. The spaces for the Ojai Libby Bowl are really crucial. At the present time, there is a vacant lot on South Signal Street adjacent to the Ojai Trail. It's been there in the past, and they've had a for-sale sign on it, perfect for access to the working entrance to Libby Bowl.

I also like the idea of a multi-story parking structure behind the Bank of America, with more attendance at the Ojai Playhouse and the El Roy Hotel, at the Libby Bowl. The vacant lot next to the Ojai Arts Center would be perfect for city parking, but it's hugely expensive. Fire hardening. My specific interest in fuel reduction around the city, north of Shelf Road, Black and Sulphur Mountains, annual or semi-annual goat grazing, really good.

We are exposed to black and sulfur mountain lower fuel levels with the live oak trees. Being mostly private, my understanding is state law allows fuel reduction to occur in such properties. The Fire Safe Council has a plan for that. And noise and sound. I have a special interest in sound that intrudes into other people's spaces, produced by the sole benefit for the user. I dislike it. The Sound Noise Ordinance fairly well specifies what levels are acceptable and not.

The challenge is enforcing it. One time measurement is not good enough. An effective way to measure it over time, I personally own a digital decibel logging meter which will continuously measure for a week with a battery and extra power. The data gets transferred to a computer for use. Sound noise by some vehicles can be very loud and disturbing. My experience in a lot of restaurants downtown, usually on occasion, there's a loud muffler going by. It's nasty and prevents hearing properly. Our new traffic officer hopefully will be enforcing state vehicle noise laws. It's an affront to the good efforts by restaurant folks to serve good...

Thank you, Mr. Miley. Larry Steingold and Renee

Roth. Good evening. Hi. Hi. Let me get started. Larry Steingold, Objective Design Standards and Existing Design Guidelines. Everything is fine if you could just explain all initials and all nomenclature and make it so that any person in the city who is not necessarily real estate knowledgeable or construction knowledgeable can understand what they're reading.

So you don't have to keep explaining it. Parking. I really do believe that you need a parking commission that could listen to the public, could gather the information, could do all the vetting, and then present you with something, because you're taking on a lot yourselves. And a lot of cities, even ones this size, have multiple committees to do the grunt work.

So that you can analyze, they can provide you with succinct, specific terminals, termination, whatever, information, what have you. So please, a parking garage, oh, we should have a tour around the city to see which parking spaces have been pulled out of service over the past 30, 40, 50 years, because it's my understanding, through a variety of sources, that there are about 50 parking spaces that could be put back into service.

So we don't necessarily need more parking. And if you do provide more parking, garages or more parking, it'll just mean more traffic because now that traffic fills up. And so, and then you end up talking about paid parking and meters and enforcement. What is the goal here? Is it more parking, less traffic, more income with less traffic, more taxes with less people?

What's the goal? Fire hardening. Please, the Ojai Fire Committee Council, they're up and running. They can get this done. They can start tomorrow. If you're going to put it out for bid, at least put out their proposal so somebody could do Word by word, you know, apples to apples, so we don't need to reinvent the wheel, because the city needs it today, not last week, not next month.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stengel. Renee Roth, please.

OK, Renee Roth, Ojai. I agree with the parking committee idea. You want somebody to vet all the best decisions and do the footwork for you, the legwork, so that they can make their recommendations to you. Maybe it is about making a more walkable Ojai and having walkable art Venues and meetings and places for people to visit. And that would be something that would be in the best interests of all the members of the community. So I think you really should get the parking committee going.

Let's see, fire hardening, I sent an email, I've sent two emails in the last couple of days, I don't know, Trent, Mr. Trent didn't get it, and Mr. Gilman, or you did get it? I did get it,

got it

today. Andy said he doesn't read the emails that arrived today, and I sent one today that was a really good one.

Today I really want to affirm the City's legal and moral obligation to enforce

defensible space requirements for existing homes. that are located in a very high fire hazard area. I happen to live in one of those right now. It was just designated very high fire hazard. I had a home hardening assessment done, blew my eyes wide open, and I went, oh my gosh, everybody needs to do this. So I looked at the Ojai Municipal Code, and guess what? Lucas, Lucas Seibert, adopted the California Fire Code.

in his update in 2022 that was enacted in 2023. And as part of the California Fire Code, Chapter 29 mandates, mandates defensible space for all structures. Some people say it's just new buildings. No, it's all structures. Can I repeat? All structures need to have defensible space guidelines enforced. And you need to be the leader for the City of Ojai because you are the one for mandating what's responsible in our local responsibility area. That also means that you need to adopt Ventura County Fire Standard 515. They are enforcing it right now in their brush clearance guidelines, but nobody from Ojai knows anything about it.

That is really negligent. It's really terrible that nobody knows about that standard. You need to be enforcing it, and you need to help the Fire Safe Council get the grant to do the work to educate and get the word out. Thank you.

Thank you,

Ms. Roth.

You got it. Good job.

Good job.

Online, Mr. Montgomery?

Yes, Mayor. We currently have two raised hands. Okay. First from Starchild, and then second from Teal. Thank you. Starchild, you have the floor.

The Community Development Department should have as its goals promotion of affordable housing, management of road and traffic congestion, promoting the health of our community, and protecting our environment, both locally and globally. Fortunately, there's one policy action you can take today to further all these goals, and that's the elimination of parking minimums.

In Ojai, we have a policy that there are more than enough parking spots for every car but not a house for every person. A hundred people sleep in the Roth. Many more are under house and many live in fear of eviction with no access to emergency rental assistance, something the city promises but willfully neglects to provide. Minimum parking requirements make building affordable housing less affordable because developers have to build parking spaces which cost over $20,000 per space and must build less units because so much of the lot is devoted to parking.

By forcing new construction to include more parking spaces than the market demands, you encourage households to have cars. After all, the parking space is there and has already been paid for. If you build it, it will come. That's one more car driven in traffic And one more car polluting the air and producing CO2. It's one less driver walking or biking, getting healthy exercise, connecting with their neighbor on the way.

So what keeps Ojai from abolishing parking minimums? It's parking anxiety. The fear that a neighborhood will suffer a critical parking shortage. I can tell you this fear is overblown. Today I speak to you from Minneapolis where parking minimums were abolished in 2021. Parking is plentiful and easier to find than a downtown Ojai on the weekend. People adapt by taking Park and Ride, Biking, Walking, and in high-demand areas, a combination of smart meters and permit-only street parking.

Given the slow rate of development in Ojai, we will be able to craft tailored solutions to any areas of parking shortage, and we will continuously monitor the effect of parking mandate abolition. We need to plan for the future as well. As autonomous driving takes more market share, Cars won't sit idle parked on the street. They will work as robo-taxis and the demand for parking will plummet.

We must consider this future as we plan buildings that will be here 50 years from now. Affordable housing, reduced traffic, a healthy community, protecting your environment. You can achieve all these objectives if you have the will. It's time to act. It's time to abolish parking mandates now.

Thank you.

Thanks everybody for being there. And I didn't know exactly where to comment as it's duplicated on this Planning Commission joint meeting as well as on the agenda with the City Council meeting about the fire hardening. So with that duplication, it seems to me that it's taking a very real issue for all of us and turning it into a copy and paste. of the Cal Fire information.

And personally, the way that I see it is we, and did I mention that I'm a county resident, so we all are living together in the valley under the same ecosystem of fire. And the county has already set up, it's ready, set, go, and the Ventura County Fire Department has an entire structure put together for us, and we've all been going on that. And it's taking a very real thing and making it into just the copy and paste, like I said. So with the echoing of the fire preparedness over and over and over again isn't putting a wire on with a staple gun. And I think the community really needs something tangible.

to actually go boots on the ground and help somebody staple some wire to their vents. It's pretty easy and it's something that we were all liable if we're property owners to do through the county. In my situation, so thank you for listening, and I'm not going to repeat this comment for the City Council meeting, but I ask that this public comment be repeated in public comments for the record, because it's really an important issue, and I thank you all for being there. Take care.

Thank you. That's all, Mayor. Thank you.

Well,

I have a suggestion about starting since there's a lot to talk about. Should we start with design guidelines and possibly go to either objective or general as a start? Does that seem reasonable? Yeah. And go down? Yeah. Can I bring up, this is what I thought came up recently that would be interesting. to say when this came up, when I was attending your meeting, and that was seeing things along Ojai Avenue, if we want to start there.

Would that be an interesting way to start our discussion to say,

yeah,

what kind of guidance you're looking for? Yeah,

yeah. So I think when you think about multi, again, these are for affordable housing, the objective design standards. So when you think about what do we want as a community when it comes to these affordable housing projects, these multifamily projects? So when you look at, let's say we had no guidelines at all. So the state is basically saying that if a project meets these certain qualifications and it qualifies for affordable housing, it goes through a ministerial process where it doesn't necessarily become to the body, or come to the planning commission, and our subjective Standards that we have in the code don't apply. So we're not able to use, like, well, it looks similar to this building, or it doesn't look similar to this building, it doesn't fit in this neighborhood, we can't use that.

The state is saying you gotta come up with something concrete, something measurable, something that's not based on opinion. So that's what we're doing right now, because we don't necessarily have that. So when you think about what kind of projects do we want along Ojai Avenue or anywhere in town, Do we want them five stories? Do we want them to be zero parking? Do we want them to have no setbacks? What do we want as far as the community goes?

Can we apply some of our existing code on these design guidelines? Of course. But we need to put those in stone and kind of start mapping that out. So it's just kind of painting a picture on what we want, because once we create this, this sets the guardrails on how these projects will move forward. And it's really ministerial at that point. Like, we won't see some of

these. I'd like to just add on top of that. You know, something that we discussed was just thinking about the affordable housing projects, not specifically what might be developed on Ojai Ave. Right. So I'm curious, Lucas, is it possible for us in the objective design standards to carve out projects that may be along the Ojai Ave corridor and be able to have specific objective design standards for that specific stretch of road compared to anything else in a different part of Ojai Ave?

Please, don't wait. Jump in. Let's have a

conversation. From an objective design standard format, to answer your question, Commissioner Graham, There are linked specifically to multifamily and to, um, wait, I said multifamily as well as, as, so it's gotta be multifamily and mixed use. So the way in which that, Operates, if you look at Ojai Avenue currently, the majority of Ojai Avenue is C-1. C-1 is commercial, so it wouldn't qualify as it exists for the objective standards. Instead, those standards would be more internalized to the north or to the south. VMU being mixed use, it would qualify

for that standard.

SPL overlay is another example, but those are so finite and so specific we only have a handful of those.

Yeah, and so my question is more about can we carve out specific objective design standards for Ojai Ave? Because there are going to be mixed-use or multifamily developments on Ojai Ave. I think right next to the skate park there's going to be one, right? There's also some like businesses that have like a housing structure in the back right next to that parcel. And so, there are some fringe use cases, and I'm trying to steer towards Mayor Gilman's question about, along Ojai Ave, what can we do to make sure that the objective design standards also fit in with our general design guidelines, so you don't end up having, you know, something that isn't, you know, mission style, right?

Yeah, and another framework to look at is look at what other cities are going through. Look at Ventura. Look at, you know, Santa Barbara, Camarillo. I mean, everybody's going through the same thing. So, like, I know there's a project in Ventura that's gotten a lot of pushback. The builder is trying to go the tallest that they can. They're trying to do seven stories.

The community's really pushing back, but because it's affordable housing, it's kind of, the state's kind of saying, well, too bad. So there's a lot of pushback from the City of Ventura on that one. There's another project that went off at Johnson Drive that got a lot of pushback, because there's zero parking. There's no parking on it, because it qualifies for affordable housing. So is it necessarily what the community wanted? No. It just fit within the state guidelines, and they moved.

So, that's what this objective standards allows us to do, is kind of put some buffer, some guardrails up, you know, to say, here's what we want as a community, versus like, go crazy, do whatever you want.

So are there any constraints that the state insists that we put into the objective guidelines? In other words, do we just have the ability to go ahead and say our objective guidelines are going to be this? Or are there, you know, is there a density sort of requirement? Do we have, my question is, do we have free reign to decide what an objective standard is going to be?

So to answer that question, the density, to a certain degree the parking, those are pretty much set from a state law standpoint for the most part. Really the design is, and when I talk design I mean like building height, The materials that are placed on the facade of that building, how it interacts with the surrounding area, and even those amenities that the project benefits to those that are there. Those are all within the framework of what we're talking about.

And under our

control.

And under our control. Now, we're looking at potentially pushing the envelope on a couple of those. We're looking closely at parking, because state standard is very, I mean, to Chair's point, the standards there have basically taken, if you qualify for affordable, and it's a certain type of affordable, and it's a certain percentage, suddenly those parking standards disappear.

which is kind of odd given the fact that people are likely to still have vehicles but then not have to park on-site but instead end up pushing it off-site.

And you also have like chits that you can get rid of some of the standards if you are building a hundred percent affordable versus, you know, exemptions. Yeah, there's waivers,

concessions, incentives for sure.

Right. But I know that, for instance, there are laws coming up about, you know, for instance, using CEQA or using, you know, upzoning or using, you know, so there are constraints. There are things that the state is looking at that communities tend to use to restrict, you know, the state requirements. And so I'm curious about also what those are because I know that there has to be an intent to allow affordable housing. So if your constraints are such that it looks like you're trying to stop affordable housing, then you're in a risky position with HCD.

Yeah, and I would even say, so for even back up the train from the objective standards, when that program was developed as a part of the housing element that was adopted and certified through the state, those conversations early on were within the bailiwick of what you're just talking about, which is, what standards are you doing? Oh, and by the way, we've introduced a new program for you. You're gonna need to evaluate your codes and your standards to make sure that they're not restrictive to the point of restricting housing within your community.

So when I was having those conversations early on and continuing over the course of a couple years, what I realized very quickly is they're looking at our standards and recognizing that we're outside of the boundaries. And we're not the only community. To be fair, there's a lot of communities that are in the same boat that we are. It's been going on for years. Communities have found ways to circumvent development to a certain degree.

And because of that, the states now kind of has a bullseye on the communities and the standards that exist and are literally coming out with the rules where I'm like, oh, that's interesting. A new rule has come up and it basically curbs the rules that we used to have that we can use to enforce. Certain types of regulations from a development standpoint.

Right, so that's my question. It is. Are those something that we can actually... Somebody's phone's going off. Is that something we can actually look at or is it so vague as to let's just be reasonable and hope HCD doesn't come knocking on our door? Can

I ask you, I'm trying to find a way to maybe bridge to what Mr. Graham was bringing up possibly, which is What if I heard you right? If we stick just to Ojai Avenue, just for the sake of clarity, if we were to say, what would we like to see in a standard? That's what I thought I heard you at least proposing. We come up with possibly what we would like to see in a standard and then possibly vet it. If that seems like an easy way to go. I

heard what he asked a little bit differently. Oh, please, go ahead.

Which I

think, and correct me, but what I was hearing was can we set one set of objective standards that are gonna apply along the OHAB in a corridor and then have another thing that's still an objective standard that the state's asking us for, but it's gonna be in,

Objective design standards that talk about mixed use, multifamily developments in Ojai, and then a caveat down the line that says If this project is based on the Ojai Ave corridor, then these additional, you know, objective criteria must apply. And it'd be things like complying with whatever the design standards are for the existing buildings that are on Ojai Ave, like something simple like that to make sure we're at least applying the same type of design standards for other properties on Ojai Ave to keep that cohesive feel downtown. Thanks for the

clarification.

I

appreciate it.

I also wanted to call out something else on the objective design standards. There's a threshold requirement for a percentage of affordable housing to be able to take advantage of that lane to be able to bypass, you know, the planning commission and just work with the planning department. And right now we have that set at 20% affordable. So we should really take a keen eye on what that 20% looks like, as well as do we want to lower that down to 15%? Do we want to increase that up to 30%? Like how, where do we want to move the needle on who's going to qualify for this FASt Lane, knowing they're not going to have to go through? I didn't know that that was our choice.

I'm happy to be mistaken.

The State took away the requirement for a 20%. That's on our SPL, which is one set of rules, but the default state standard is a 5% very low income unit project qualifies for density bonus in all of the state housing protections. And it's a sliding scale. 10% low income, 15 or 20% moderate income, depending on for sale or rental. So that one, the state took away from us. So we can adjust our SPL standard if we want, but on top of all of what's in our code, state law sets it at only 5% very low income.

We could just get clarification on that, Director Seibert, on the next proposal that comes to the Planning Commission, because what we had just talked about, a 20% threshold of affordable units, not talking about, you know, low, super low income, very low income, all of that.

Yeah, and part of the reality is a big-picture point. Writing our design standards to account for every possible state law is a fool's errand because the state's changing laws faster than we can change our standards as to what's protected. As noted, every legislative session, a new law, or in this case, this year, 50 new laws are proposed. About half of them pass. So we're never going to be able to write a set of standards that match precisely the state codes. Instead, what would be the suggestion is to write a set of rules. What do we want?

And then we know there's asterisks. State law forces asterisks. And we can fight over the asterisks. Every state law asterisk has another asterisk. We can fight over the conditions, fight over whether or not it does or does not fall into the asterisk. But we're never going to be able to write our standards that map perfectly with state law because it changes so fast.

So that's just one big picture comment to note on that. The other point to circle back, we can write an objective set of design standards that have different rules for different parts of the city. We can write them that have different rules for different types of housing, different types of commercial projects, all of which we can do. The key is, one, realize that for anything that's affordable housing, again, 5% of very low income or whatever new standard they come up with tomorrow, There's going to be an asterisk on whatever we write because we are part of the state. And then two, recognize that depending on the, that we have to be really clear in our standards. The state's looking for, in their words, Mathematical standards. It can't require looking.

It can't be something we know when we see it. It has to be really clear standards. So we can develop those standards, but recognize that we feel it's right or we feel it's wrong. The days of feeling as a regulatory tool are gone. So there's your comments.

Thank you. Yes. That's a tweetable moment right there. So actually, I for the city attorney, I have I just have a clarifying question. So you said that, you know, the 5% with the 5% is very low. Yeah,

very low

income. So in this context, A project that would be considered affordable would not be like moderate RAID or...

Oh, moderate's affordable too, but there's a higher percentage for moderate. So yeah, I'm summarizing. So 5% very low income, 10% moderate, no, low income, and it's 15 or 20% moderate, depending on whether the moderate units are for sale units or rental units. And then there's another standard for There's another set of rules for senior housing, need not be affordable, but 100% senior, defined as 55+, and then another set if it's transitional or foster youth housing. But yeah, so happy to clarify that. It's a sliding scale.

Okay, thank you.

I just while you're there. So when you said, it has to be objective, meaning told with numbers, let's say, if somebody if we were to say, we have a design standard, which is we would prefer mission, you know, Spanish revival or mission style or something like that, that would not

qualify? We need to define what that means. So for example, in writing on the fly, right, it could be mission style is defined as stucco exterior with arches, with wood corbels, with barrel tile roof, paint in a series of colors defined to Pantone, white or white or earth tones. It's really just gotta be, think about what makes the mission style look and write it down.

And we can't say like, we want our buildings to be not very tall.

Right, no, I get that 100%. And the other thing

to recognize... Got

to have a numeric number to it. No, that's, I mean, that's where stories help tremendously, right? Or a height, right? A height, fine, a height.

And height's a good example also to think about, okay, so we know there's asterisks to projects that have a qualifying affordability, that meet the metrics. One of the often ones is to add more height, right? So if we think about what do we want and then recognize affordable is going to go taller, So think about where you set the base from which they can go taller.

I have a quick question. From what I understood you just to say that, you know, if you can quantify look and feel, you can have look and feel, but you have to quantify it.

Right. You've got to be able to quantify it and recognize the state may still fight it, but at least you're definitively objective if you can quantify it or at least, if not numeric, then at least sort of the checkbox. The idea of this state is that a developer can download your code, download our standards, and assess on their own, without talking to anybody at the city, will this survive review or not.