[0:36] Ready? All right.

[0:37] good afternoon everyone. Welcome to today's hearing,

[0:40] monday, july 27th. Welcome.

[0:42] I hope you all had a great weekend.

[0:45] we're going to go ahead and get started with roll call, please.

[0:53] >> clerk: good afternoon. Commissioner biehle.

[1:02] >> m. Biehle: here. >> clerk: commissioner lind.

[1:07] commissioner sandoval. >> r. Sandoval: here.

[1:11] >> clerk: commissioner muralles.

[1:35] >> c. Muralles: . >> g. Stepanicich: if anyone

[1:38] has any questions or comments or would like those minutes to the

[1:41] meeting be approved. I guess I can --

[1:47] >> I'll move to approve. >> g. Stepanicich: I'll second

[1:51] that motion. Commissioner bielhe moves.

[1:56] I seconded the motion. Sorry.

[1:58] thank you. All right.

[1:59] we're going to go ahead, are there any communications?

[2:06] oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

[2:08] we need to vote. Thank you.

[2:11] no. All those in favor say aye and

[2:18] commissioner commissioner [indiscernible] is sustained.

[2:22] are there any communications from the commissioners that we'd

[2:24] like to share at this moment? I just want to remind everybody

[2:29] has on their packets a flyer for the training that will be

[2:33] happening on september 30th. If you can go ahead and make

[2:36] sure you can sign up in the next couple of weeks for the

[2:39] logistics of that training, please.

[2:42] thank you. Then we're going to go ahead

[2:44] into item two which is the director's report, go ahead,

[2:49] manny, thank you. >> good afternoon,

[2:51] commissioners. And thank you so much.

[2:54] kate stafford has joined us. She will be our planning

[2:57] commission and cda legal council.

[3:02] >> hi. My name is kate stanford, I've

[3:05] been with the county since 2019 and have been working with the

[3:08] variety of departments and working with some divisions of

[3:11] cda back in january and with brandon's promotion, I'm taking

[3:16] over most of his work at this time.

[3:18] I'm looking forward to working with you all and meeting your

[3:31] >> next planning commission will

[3:35] be august 24th, 2026. At that time, the new planning

[3:38] director will be here and there will be no meeting on

[3:42] august 10th. It's too soon.

[3:43] we want to give her some time and room and familiarize with

[3:48] what's going on. At that.

[4:03] on. >> withwill have our new

[4:05] planning director in place. Her name is julia crog and we'll

[4:10] do a proper introduction when she is here and the other item

[4:22] will be the set of code amendments to respond to

[4:28] essentially notifying our adu ordinance, so we need to adopt

[4:32] an adu ordinance. Our sb9 ordinance.

[4:39] ab20 ordinance. As well as our sb35 in order to

[4:46] be a very narrow scope of updates to respond to hcd.

[4:52] and there will be no workshop. It will be.

[5:19] >> g. Stepanicich: I would like to open up.

[5:26] >> r. Lind: I'd like to can questions.

[5:29] to prepare for those changes, could you recirculate that very.

[5:48] >> we will also circulate the draft amendments well ahead of

[5:57] time for many of us it's hard to distinguish the nuances of the

[6:06] different distinguishes. >> g. Stepanicich: we'll also

[6:30] have manny here to give us a presentation on that?

[6:34] >> we'll have two agenda items before you -- one of them is a

[6:37] workshop which is item four related to off side objective

[6:41] design standards. We have members of the bpws.

[6:47] we have bob brown as well as consultants and present.

[7:06] the planning is not to make any positions or.

[7:24] >> as you know, we're in the process of updating the public

[7:30] works infrastructure that are entitled 24.

[7:33] both are objective, but also to update them since many of these

[7:37] were adopted back in the 1980s and 90s.

[7:40] and since this is a large undertaking, we have started

[7:44] first with developing new street standards we would very much

[7:58] like to share these with you, get your feedback and we can

[8:01] relay that feedback to the board of.

[8:12] >> in terms of today's agenda item, we will talk briefly about

[8:16] the process we've been through, then we will have a technical

[8:22] review of the street standards and we will update you from the

[8:28] may 11th workshop. We'll talk about the exemptions

[8:30] to the standards. Focus on the minimum safety

[8:33] standards that have been refined since may 11th and the

[8:38] documentation for those. Title 24 that will also go

[8:43] through. In terms of the process, we

[8:48] started back in the plan is to bring these and we hope for

[9:12] adoption before the board in september.

[9:23] I'm going to turn this over to my colleague, and we have one of

[9:28] her associates amalia laten cody online that will answer

[9:37] questions. >> before angela speaks, I wand

[9:39] to recognize robin from dpw is here as well as cpa director,

[9:46] sara jones. >> all right.

[9:49] so, yeah, we are going to go through with the six street

[9:54] types that we're proposing as part of title 24 updates

[9:58] starting with residential road. So this is the street section

[10:03] you saw previously at that may 11th meeting.

[10:05] and I want to show you the updates we've made since then.

[10:10] one of the primary updates was actually based from -- based on

[10:16] feedback from staff working on ada compliance and some concerns

[10:20] brought up in our stakeholder conversation about the 7'

[10:25] parking lanes that we previously showed feeling a little tight.

[10:29] so we've updated the residential road from 7 foot parking lanes

[10:35] to 8 feet. That extra foot gives us a

[10:38] little bit more room within the curb to curb radon and it also

[10:43] happies address ada and also addressing some concerns about

[11:11] the seven foot p and here's an example image of

[11:22] residential road just to represent the street type.

[11:25] okay. This is main street.

[11:26] this is, again, the previous section we showed in may.

[11:33] as we discussed last time. This is a slow wouldn't justify

[12:01] that amount of space. I do also want to point out a

[12:04]

[12:08] code zones allow for a 0 to 10' setback.

[12:12] so in practice, that means there might be situations where the

[12:16] sidewalk directly abuts the front of the building.

[12:21] when that happens, any frontage related activity like indoor

[12:26] seating, displays, pet circulation would need to occur

[12:31] within the sidewalk area. We would still want to maintain

[12:34] a generous sidewalk space given that the setback is loud in some

[12:41] cases. >> may I ask a question?

[12:43] >> g. Stepanicich: yes, go ahead, commissioner.

[12:51] >> just is there a way to compensate that and make that

[13:00] happen as long as it's subjective?

[13:01] >> I think no matter what, we'd still like to have a 10' clear.

[13:32] >> rather than a ministerial review if there were such a

[13:37] request received. >> it would only be -- the idea

[13:41] is to move away from any kind of discretionary review process and

[13:46] make it as objective as possible.

[13:48] I think what I understood commissioner peggy kerr is

[13:55] saying if there was a decision to happen, can we write a policy

[14:05] saying. >> it wouldn't be done as a

[14:09] request for variance or waiver. I just wanted to clarify that.

[14:15] >> thank you. >> let's move on to.

[14:23] I did want to point out here. Also the planter zone has been

[14:27] increased from 4.5' to 5' and that's, again, to get that 13'

[14:36] minimum width to minimum standard parking spaces.

[14:40] okay. And here's another example image

[14:42] of a main street. >> could I ask a question

[14:46] generally about these images. So the images you're showing,

[14:49] they are actually the same as the standard being proposed?

[14:53] >> not all of them are 1 to 1. >> I see.

[14:56] how close are they? I mean so we can understand the

[15:02] street feel. >> right.

[15:04] the character. >> and character of this

[15:06] particular standard. >> exactly.

[15:09] so maybe exact dimensions aren't 1:1 but generally the street

[15:14] layout with the street tree next to sidewalk, you know.

[15:19] >> what about the travel lane and the sidewalk standard?

[15:21] >> are you talking about for ada compliance?

[15:25] >> no, for just a normal case. >> yeah, I mean, I think these

[15:29] are pretty standard. It should be very close from the

[15:38] example image. >> g. Stepanicich: commissioner

[15:40] lind, can you speak to your mic. >> r. Lind: I'm sorry.

[15:44] this is two travel lanes? >> I don't want to say

[15:49] definitively yes. >> g. Stepanicich: I think

[15:51] we're going to go ahead and let you -- I don't think we're going

[15:56] to let you continue with your presentation and we'll save the

[15:58] questions for the end of the presentation, okay.

[16:01] thank you. >> okay.

[16:02] >> thank you. >> this is collector street

[16:06] type. This is what we had shown

[16:08] previously. 8' parking lanes to 11' travel

[16:12] lanes, 6' planter zone, and an 8' walkway.

[16:16] so one of the key up dates we've made here based on kind of key

[16:22] feedback we've received from the marin county bicycle coalition

[16:26] is the desire to require bicycle facilities at sidewalk level.

[16:34] so that is a bikeway that is vertically separated from the

[16:37] radon and you can see that here integrated as a 12' class one

[16:43] shared use path, so that would be two directional lanes,

[16:48] favored to one side and that would include users that are

[16:52] both walking and biking. So that is a key update here for

[16:59] collector. And then the other big change or

[17:05] relatively big change. So we would include a note here

[17:14] is that if the collector is on a designated truck route, 11'

[17:19] would be required. The thinking here is that the

[17:23] 10' lanes could help support lower operating speeds while

[17:27] still allowing wider lanes and locations where tra

[17:44] okay. So moving to arterials, again,

[17:49] cross section as we showed at our last meeting.

[17:52] just some minor changes here. One is we've reduced the

[17:57] affective median width from 11' to 8' here.

[18:01] this allows us to provide a 1.5' buffer on either side of the

[18:08] he'd ymedian to better accommodate fire access.

[18:13] the better trade is there's a narrow median which would

[18:18] require a street tree selection, probably something with less

[18:23] horizontal root systems and ones that would thrive well and be

[18:31] healthy. Also importantly similar to

[18:36] collector street type, and the expectation bike way consistent

[18:48] with here is that example image again

[19:00] as an arterial and then industrial commercial.

[19:04] there have been no changes made to industrial commercial since

[19:09] we last met. It maintains at 12' travel

[19:13] lanes, 8' parking lanes, 6' okay.

[19:25] and now for the last street type, we want to look at an

[19:30] alley. This is the standard we showed

[19:31] last time and the feedback was that it felt, yeah, it felt a

[19:36] little bit too wide at the 30' total and we've been working

[19:44] alongside standards in the form base code to actually um, date

[19:49] this to a 20' total width. Now we are including that 5'

[19:58] kind of set backspace where there could be driveway lamps

[20:01] and landscaping as a requirement in the form base code which

[20:05] would require a minimum 5' setback.

[20:08] so the effective with the alley would remain the same at 30',

[20:12] but the paved width is going to be established in tit

[20:22] and here's an example of how that would look.

[20:36] >> can we just talk about context real quick before we

[20:39] move on to the exceptions. >> yes, please, go ahead.

[20:42] >> yes, good morning, commissioners.

[20:45] sara jones, community development director.

[20:48] really appreciate getting your thoughts and guidance around

[20:53] what these standards ought to be.

[20:54] I just wanted to kind of bring it back to the kinds of

[20:59] development that we see here in marin in unincorporated marin

[21:04] county. Of course, as you know, this

[21:07] would be standards for really the more urbanized portions of

[21:11] the county and looking at the more rural areas is the next

[21:15] phase. Some of these street typologies

[21:18] that we that we've presented here today are ones that while

[21:25] we need to codify what the standards would be, in the event

[21:31] that we see proposals that would merit, you know, these types of

[21:41] streets, as planned right now, we are not expecting that we're

[21:45] going to see a lot of say the main street treatment or the

[21:51] industrial corridor treatment, I just thought it would be maybe a

[21:57] little bit useful to kind of connect these to the types of

[22:02] projects that we're seeing now. So the residential street types

[22:06] which are ones that would be serving the development on the

[22:12] larger sites that we have mapped out on the housing element or

[22:15] that we have proposals on. Those are the ones that we

[22:20] expect to see most frequently here and now we're going to move

[22:23] on to talking about how they might, how we would go

[22:31] >> okay. So also in terms of providing

[22:34] some context, the new street standards that we just

[22:38] presenting I think are largely intended to apply to new streets

[22:42] in new developments, but we have a large network of existing

[22:47] streets throughout the county very few of which have developed

[22:50] these standards that we've presented.

[22:52] most don't have sidewalks. Most don't have bike facilities

[22:56] that are defined. So how do we deal with infill

[23:03] developments that have street frontage on currently sub

[23:06] standards streets. So we propose to offer an

[23:11] exemption in situations where there's an existing sub the

[24:47] additional -- the addition of off street parking so we allow a

[24:54] narrower radon lift and it's only available where's accessing

[25:00] six or fewer parcels as is the current definition for

[25:05] residential road. And here is an example of a

[25:08] limite we also proposed an exception

[25:16] for what we've termed connector streets.

[25:19] these are streets that would connect an existing arterial or

[25:25] collector street but which would have no development along this

[25:30] frontage. An example might be an extension

[25:33] of the parkway as a secondary access to a future development.

[25:38] again, that frontage along the property would not have

[25:47] development at this point shows the mat

[26:24] and lastly we've added an exception to allow an offstreet

[26:30] class one bike path that would be parallel to the street right

[26:34] of way to allow it to substitute for the type of design that we

[26:43] showed previously. There are a few additional code

[26:48] as the title 24 that I wanted to highlight that don't necessarily

[26:52] apply to the street standards we've discussed.

[26:55] in the roads chapter, there are a number -- one would be to

[27:01] require that bulb outs be added to intersections so that the

[27:09] sidewalk crossing distance is narrowed and also to require

[27:16] that that there would be a pedestrian in the center.

[27:25] we were supposed to change the maximum block link so it would

[27:29] match what's in the form base code for the properties in the

[27:35] city centered and corridors. We would propose to the turn

[27:44] around standards and they would make the determination as to

[28:17] whether or not the street name proposed is in conflict orient

[28:22] cal to an existing street name, so, again, there would be no

[28:28] confusion created. And that would be incentive to

[29:03] penalize the on street parking and not be penalized for that

[29:07] and in the sidewalk chapter, chapter 4, we would delete some

[29:10] of this subjective language and we would reference the state and

[29:15] federal accessibility standards there.

[29:17] and lastly, we discussed may 11th, the intention to

[29:22] develop minimum safety standards as part of this process.

[29:26] as you're aware, we are getting a number of requests from

[29:32] developers for bonus law and that law includes provisions

[29:37] that would allow jurisdictions to deny those waivers if they

[29:42] would create the health and safety impacts.

[29:46] so we have had tool and requiring that there be a buffer

[30:08] between the sidewalk and the traveling that would be

[30:18] landscaping. Minimum and then also minimum

[30:22] radon with a traveling width and those relate more to the fire

[30:27] codes. And these minimum safety

[30:29] standards are in some cases less than are ideal and desired

[30:34] standards we would put in the code, but, again, they would be

[30:38] the minimum standards below which developers could not wave

[30:41] below those limits. And the intention is to have the

[30:45] board as part of their adoption ordinance make findings to this

[30:50] effect and also incorporate in that adoption ordinance the

[30:54] justification memo, are the tool design that's produced which you

[31:02] had in your packet. And this is it other than our

[31:07] intention is to go to the board in august and then it's

[31:11] september for adoption. And with that, we would be happy

[31:14] to answer your questions. >> g. Stepanicich: thank you.

[31:18] questions from our commi commissioners.

[31:32] >> m. Curran: thank you for that.

[31:33] overall this is good stuff. I just have a couple questions I

[31:35] want to make sure I understand. Where there's no parking on the

[31:39] street, so you talked about that situation where there were six

[31:42] or fewer units, it is the assumption that there's adequate

[31:51] parking on the various homesites or building sites because people

[31:56] have guests. People have parties.

[31:59] people have deliveries, people have all kinds of stuff.

[32:01] what happens with all of that traffic?

[32:12] >> g. Stepanicich: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[32:15] commissioner cur ran, can you turn off your microphone please?

[32:19] >> I would mention that the current code allows developers

[32:24] to utilize that standard so through their own discretion,

[32:32] they can put a limited residential road as long as it's

[32:35] for six or fewer lots. Added it as an exception instead

[32:39] of an allowance. And, again, the intention is

[32:42] that you may have a parking port that serves very few homes and

[32:47] those are intended to be narrower.

[32:50] typically kids play in them. They're not intended for through

[32:54] traffic and so you don't have the same traffic volumes.

[32:57] so the idea is that in those situation that is are single

[33:00] family, you know, there would be typically parking on the

[33:04] driveway apron or in the garage, so I don't know, manny, if you

[33:09] have any additional thoughts along those lines, but that was

[33:12] the intent in terms of sort of moving that over from the

[33:15] current regulations where it's an allowance to in this case an

[33:20] exception. >> the projects that we see

[33:22] where you have developments, we typically see is two parking

[33:34] spaces again, as bob said, the hope is to min nays this

[33:39] application as making it an exception while also keeping it

[33:48] on file. >> m. Curran: I'm trying to

[33:55] think about the practical implications.

[33:58] I'm a narrow street myself so I don't have that general bias

[34:02] against something like that, but it is -- and I guess perhaps the

[34:07] developer has an incentive to have the spaces be livable and

[34:10] have that not be a problem. Anyway, it strikes me as it

[34:15] might be. There may be days when it's a

[34:20] problem. And I had a question, another

[34:24] parking question. When you said the that's in

[34:29] certain circumstances, the provision of street parking can

[34:33] be counted toward the number of required spaces for a

[34:38] development, I presume that does not entitle them in any way to

[34:42] privatize those spaces. They can't be, you know, space

[34:45] number one, two, three for tenant number one, two, three,

[34:50] they're really public spaces? >> they would still be the

[34:52] public right of way. So the developer doesn't own the

[34:55] land and can't control it in that way.

[34:58] >> even though, so they're providing that but they don't

[35:00] have any other rights to it? >> no.

[35:03] they can count the spaces towards their total parking

[35:07] requirement but they can't designate them.

[35:10] >> m. Curran: okay. I think I had one more thing but

[35:13] I'll stop now. >> g. Stepanicich: thank you,

[35:17] commissioner curran, can you turn off your microphone.

[35:23] >> g. Stepanicich: thank you. I question on the shared use

[35:27] pathways. I think the idea of creating

[35:30] class one bikeways is a great idea and sometimes I think we

[35:34] need to do more of. But my only concern here is the

[35:38] shared use and residential on collector streets and also on

[35:43] arterial streets, to what extent do we have conflicts between the

[35:47] pedestrians and cyclists and therefore what should be the

[35:52] size of that shareded use pathway.

[35:54] and my question is number one does 12', is that a standard now

[35:59] that's being used for this type of facility.

[36:01] and in a 12' pathway, would there be sufficient space for

[36:05] pedestrians to move to the side to allow the cyclists to safely

[36:16] maneuver through pedestrians and the walkway?

[36:19] >> that's a great question. On our materials, pedestrian

[36:23] activity is likely lower than that of a main street

[36:27] residential. 12' is pretty generous.

[36:30] it would allow for bidirectional travel.

[36:36] 10' again is what we're listing as our minimum safety standards,

[36:39] so 12 is a nice generous amount of room.

[36:42] also, we are including in the code language that if an

[36:45] arterial or collector has a posted speed of 30 miles per

[36:50] hour or less, that it can also be added into the ra

[37:07] >> g. Stepanicich: great. Thank you.

[37:13] >> c. Muralles: commissioner biehle was next.

[37:17] >> m. Biehle: thank you. I keep getting kicked off.

[37:23] okay. It sounds a little bit wonky,

[37:29] but the main street with 8' parking lanes on both sides,

[37:34] that leaves, you know, 20' of width, but and so which is

[37:44] minimum for fire access, right. But main street is also

[37:51] considered one of our mixed use sites which could go up.

[38:00] which we need -- there's a -- hang on a second.

[38:04] I wrote this down. Right.

[38:06] the developer stakeholder told us in may that these buildings

[38:12] might be three plus stories which would require an arial

[38:16] fire access which is 26' wide, so

[38:24] . >> so in the title 24 mark-up,

[38:28] underneath kind of our dimensional standards for each

[38:34] roadway's classification, we have notes or sort of exceptions

[38:37] to the foundational rule, so there's a note 5 I believe

[38:41] that's included that says, you know, where that happens that it

[38:50] would -- >> it may be required.

[38:52] >> right. >> but then that's a

[38:55] discretionary standard. >> like if it's a fire code, it

[38:58] would prevail, it wouldn't be an option.

[39:02] >> okay. >> m. Biehle: okay.

[39:03] so then, wait, I've got another question.

[39:10] the 8' for parking is was noted as like a safety floor for main

[39:18] streets for sure, but then in residential, it's only 7'.

[39:23] so how are we justifying that? Because I think the developer in

[39:28] may not the developer, but the presenter in may said that the

[39:35] 7' parking is a sideswipe hazard and maybe that's just for main

[39:38] street streets, but there was a disconnect there between

[39:44] residential streets and main streets that I'm curious about.

[39:50] >> so the standard for residential street has been

[39:51] increased to 8' parking lanes. So our minimum safety standard

[40:00] for residential streets is 7', but the foundational standard is

[40:04] 8' which is the same as main street

[40:15] I guess my next question is of the -- sorry, am I taking too

[40:23] much time? How many of the submittals that

[40:26] we've had to date would thi >> I'd say all of them.

[40:42] we've held firm that sidewalks are public health and safety and

[40:47] we've compelled in every single case that they provide parking

[40:51] sidewalks on each side of the street.

[40:54] where it has been an issue is the street width.

[40:57] there's a conflict between the pw code and the fire code.

[41:00] the fire code is the minimum public health and safety.

[41:03] so if you apply the public code, the fire code which is 10', it

[41:09] requires a narrower path of travel where dpw.

[41:18] so most that would have come in have been terms of the fire

[41:25] code. To comply in most cases.

[41:27] there's maybe one or two that we've reached back and forth.

[41:31] >> okay. And then I think to further

[41:36] respond to commissioner biehle, what we're seeing with the

[41:41] applications that have come in is that locations that we had

[41:45] basically envisioned would be multi-family buildings are

[41:51] coming in as small lot single family.

[41:55] and so they basically look more like your standard single-family

[42:00] subdivision and so they do have more internal streets involved.

[42:06] so I think we're seeing that these standards are, um,, more

[42:12] necessary than we might have envisioned at the time of the

[42:19] >> m. Biehle: okay. So would we be -- I mean, have

[42:23] they been deemed complete. -- would we employ applying

[42:27] these standards if the supervisors ultimately adopt

[42:30] them? Are we applying them to these

[42:33] standards or do they get in before the --

[42:39] >> oh, we can't apply new standards to applications that

[42:44] are already on file. So they would be applied to

[42:48] applications that come in going forward after the standards are

[42:56] adopted. >>.

[42:56] >> m. Biehle: okay. I think that's all I have.

[43:00] >> c. Muralles: thank you, commissioner biehle.

[43:05] commissioner lind. >> r. Lind: I have a little

[43:09] list of questions. So, first of all, the bowl belts

[43:14] that you discussed at the intersection, so they would be

[43:20] basically in the sidewalk, the portion of the right of way that

[43:24] the sidewalk with continuation of the sidewalk.

[43:27] would it be the 13'? >> they would be connected to

[43:32] the sidewalk but they would be within the space allocated to

[43:34] the parking lane. >> r. Lind: so it would be

[43:38] within the travel lane? >> within the parking lane.

[43:41] >> r. Lind: within the portion of it.

[43:44] >> right. Within the parking portion

[43:46] within the curb to curb. >> r. Lind: within the 8'.

[43:50] okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

[43:52] >> yep. >> r. Lind: and then I have a

[43:55] question about the pedestrian and bike shared configuration.

[44:02] how would e-bikes be regulated in the shared use situation with

[44:08] the category 3 e-bikes be allowed on those walkways?

[44:19] >> that's not something we talked about but they would

[44:23] likely be allowed with some rules and regulations and

[44:29] enforcement would be needed on speeds.

[44:32] >> r. Lind: I'm an e-bike rider and I have a class 3 and they

[44:36] can get up to 30 miles an hour if it's flat.

[44:40] and, you know,, I think that if we're -- if we don't have a

[44:46] dedicated path, that can be difficult for pedestrians.

[44:50] it's already an issue on the path that goes from the valley

[44:58] to but I've been on that road in instances where people can

[45:04] barely get out of the way particularly when people have

[45:07] dogs on leashes and other constraints.

[45:10] that's just something to think about.

[45:13] it's not part of our regulations, but it would be an

[45:16] administrative ruling probably. >> right.

[45:17] and maybe that's something we can follow up separately with

[45:21] traffic about and kind of finish the discussion as well.

[45:24] >> r. Lind: yeah. It's a difficult enforcement

[45:27] problem, for sure, but at any rate, it's potentially

[45:32] dangerous. Then we haven't discussed the

[45:35] alleys at all. I -- I'm encouraged by the

[45:39] changes you've made in most of the standards, but I'm not

[45:42] satisfied with the alley standards.

[45:45] I don't see any need for two-way traffic in an alley since our

[45:49] last meeting. I visited a number of alleys,

[45:52] I've majored them. One of them involved a project

[45:56] that myself was involved in up in washington state 20 years

[45:59] ago. I went to see how it has

[46:02] involved and how it was used and it doesn't -- it's more like a

[46:09] 16' to 20' width. There's always the 24' back out

[46:14] requirement, but you're allowed to use your across the street

[46:19] property owner's driveway to accomplish that.

[46:22] so I have some questions about that.

[46:25] I'm afraid that particularly the configuration that you showed us

[46:28] in the illustration, it looks pretty much like a residential

[46:31] road, it just doesn't have the parking.

[46:34] and my experience is when those people drive too quickly on

[46:41] them. And then a related question that

[46:44] applies to all of these areas of accommodations, are you road

[46:50] widths, counted towards density? Are we doing this on gross

[46:54] density or net? So do the roads come out and in

[46:58] particular the alleys. Do the alleys come out for

[47:02] density calculations? >> they -- the alleys in the

[47:08] street areas dedicated streets, alleys and so forth do not count

[47:18] towards density. >> r. Lind: they don't count

[47:19] towards density, so on that situation, I don't think we're

[47:22] going to get anyone doing alleys particularly.

[47:26] if the right of way is as wide as you're showing it, we won't

[47:29] get any alleys because it won't be cost effective.

[47:33] they have to be allowed to have a density transferred off of

[47:37] them if you really want them and I don't think you need to see

[47:40] traffic on them. I see no reason for two-way

[47:45] traffic. They're usually quite short

[47:46] blocks. These are people who are going

[47:48] to their homes and that's the way they function traditionally.

[47:58] 16' total pavement standard for alleys.

[48:00] with the stipulation that you can't park on them.

[48:02] and some of the ones I visited actually did have red curbs

[48:08] which is unfortunate graphically but probably the most effective

[48:13] way instead of signage. Anyway, it's a tradeoff that I

[48:17] think is important. I'd rather see red curbs than

[48:22] additional impervious service. >> you're absolutely right that

[48:27] probably the driving factor in the design and based on the

[48:30] current regulations is you need at at least 24' to back out and

[48:36] turn. The proposal we have is 30', so

[48:39] that additional 6', you know, provides the opportunity for

[48:43] little driveway aprons into the parking, also for landscaping

[48:47] between the driveways which a lot of developers choose to put

[48:53] in just to break up that row of garage doors down the alley.

[49:01] I think what we see is a lot of townhouse development do use

[49:05] alleys and like to because, again, it provides vehicular

[49:11] access but it separates it from the main pedestrian access to

[49:12] the unit which is are on the streets.

[49:15] again, the difference we're talking about here is six feet

[49:19] from the required minimum 24' for backup.

[49:23] >> r. Lind: yeah. I appreciate they're really

[49:24] valuable in terms of design and I was pleased to see the ones I

[49:28] was involved with years ago actually looked really nice and

[49:33] are green, very green, you know. And we didn't have developer

[49:38] planting, just homeowner planting.

[49:40] but at any rate, it's very effective but I don't think

[49:45] you're going to get alleys if you do the density transfer.

[49:49] the alleys were allowed to count for density if you write that

[49:55] into the code. If you want alleys, I would

[49:58] strongly suggest that. I still don't like the width of

[50:04] them and no they're at least 24' backup space.

[50:09] >> can I put this in context? We have two proposals, one of

[50:14] which got approved is now under review, they actually include a

[50:21] 20' dry valve for alleys and we're basing this code based on

[50:25] that project. And those are not single family

[50:28] homes. Those are typically townhouses

[50:31] or they have pedestrian entrances from main street and

[50:34] then they're isolating the vehicular access from the shared

[50:39] driveway. The reason you want the width is

[50:42] because if you keep it narrow, you can almost make it

[50:49] impossible to turn around and come out.

[50:50] otherwise you will be forcing people to back out for the

[50:53] length of four or five homes towards main street.

[50:57] the intention is just to avoid that because we experienced it

[51:00] with one project that we recently approved.

[51:04] >> r. Lind: I could see the difference if you're thinking of

[51:07] this as a townhouse kind of standard, I was thinking of it

[51:10] more of a single family standard with plotted lots and I could

[51:16] see that difference and you would have more driveways.

[51:20] >> oh, I agree with you. I don't think we will see alleys

[51:23] in a single family home subdivision.

[51:26] a proposal is because it is inefficient use of land and it's

[51:31] very costly. >> r. Lind: right.

[51:33] >> I do see form based alleys and projects that follow the

[51:38] form base or multi-family housing setups and I think you

[51:42] do need the width. Just playing devil's advocate.

[51:47] >> one more point of information.

[51:49] >> r. Lind: okay. I just had another question, but

[51:52] go ahead. >> your land development

[51:57] division mentions it requires a minimum of 20' in the travm

[52:03] lane, that establishes a minimum width of 20'.

[52:07] >> r. Lind: okay. But doing a design that creates

[52:10] a kind of two lane, it really elevates the road more toward a

[52:15] regular residential road and I think people will speed on them.

[52:18] I mean, I really -- I think that will happen.

[52:25] I want to go on to the adu question.

[52:29] so I'm not clear on all of the parking requirements for adu's

[52:32] but I can tell you from my personal experience on the road

[52:38] where I live which has six houses on it and 50% rental and

[52:47] one third have short term rentals and one has an adu and

[52:54] so there are cars all over the street and people are storing

[53:00] stuff in their garages and so I think it's good intentions.

[53:04] I mean, I'm always in favor of not having more parking, but the

[53:11] reality is that people use these properties the way they're

[53:15] accustomed to used them and they will park on the street unless

[53:21] there's a lot of enforcement. And people who have adus and/or

[53:28] maybe illegal adus, they're not providing on site parking for

[53:34] their tenants and they're using their personal garages for

[53:37] storage and their tenants are parking maybe one car in the

[53:41] driveway and a car on the street.

[53:43] so that's just the practical reality that we have and I know

[53:46] when you review the adu plans, they have to account for the

[53:51] uncovered parking space some place and it's probably usually

[53:54] in the driveway apron. But in terms of practicality,

[53:57] it's going to be on the street. So with this restricted

[54:02] residential option which I actually like, it's a creative

[54:06] approach, what would the enforcement br and how would --

[54:09] what would you do about those cars that are going to end up

[54:15] out there? >> adus are very complicated

[54:21] proposals. They're hard to be controlled

[54:23] through the state laws and the county cannot in many cases we

[54:27] cannot require parking spaces for adus.

[54:32] for example, if an applicant converts their spots to an aqu,

[54:37] the state law clearly states the county or any jurisdiction

[54:44] cannot require eye placement. It would be but almost in every

[54:56] circumstance, they come under state law.

[54:59] they're placing parking spaces for the surface or parking

[55:03] structure to create adus. I'm afraid the control of and

[55:16] that's very limited but even in those instance, under the law,

[55:31] you can have your adu legalized. >> r. Lind: right.

[55:34] so I'm aware. It is going to happen.

[55:36] we're not going to say you can't do adus along residential

[55:41] streets. Just in terms of reality,

[55:43] there's going to have to be a parking enforcement program if

[55:46] you expect to not see cars out there on those restricted

[55:50] residential streets and if it's an option for people, they will

[55:55] probably apply for I so at any rate, and there's also

[56:01] the matter of the short-term rentals.

[56:04] like I said, on my street their property.

[56:21] >> let's be sure. The county strictly short term

[56:28] rental and adu unless prior to the ordinance was adopted.

[56:33] what you probably conceived as the main house has become a

[56:37] short term rental and the owner has moved to an adu.

[56:41] >> r. Lind: one of them is like that and the other is there's no

[56:44] adu that I know of. One short term rental and one

[56:49] it's just a short term rental. At any rate, my point being that

[56:56] parking is going to be very hard to deal with in real time and I

[57:00] think we need to be aware of that when we create options for

[57:06] something like this restricted residential street that even

[57:11] though it's a really good. >> excuse me, commissioner lind,

[57:23] I think that's a very fair and accurate that parking is a

[57:28] growing challenge as state laws go towards not, you know, sort

[57:33] of limiting the ability to require on site parking, people

[57:39] do still have cars. We do not have a transit system

[57:45] that really supports the ability to get around, there's still

[57:56] going to be a need for parking. It is very challenging to manage

[58:01] for that and I think that being sort of understanding how this

[58:07] might change our operational requirements as a county is an

[58:11] important part of this that we will be sure to highlight with

[58:15] the board. We also have that condition that

[58:24] mr. Brown referenced around the waivers under density bonus and

[58:30] really kind of have limitations on what it is that we can

[58:35] require and what it is that we can allow, so where sidewalks

[58:41] are something where there is a, you know, strong and clear

[58:48] safety effect of not having sidewalks for people to walk on,

[58:52] with parking, it's more nuanced because you really only reach

[58:59] that point where there's a safety impact if you have people

[59:05] blocking emergency vehicle access and that is a line that

[59:09] we can hold but it's difficult to keep in place in reality so

[59:15] this is something that we will I am sure be working with and

[59:21] struggling with. What we -- what is, you know,

[59:25] something that we are hoping to move away from in marin county

[59:28] is the conditions that we have on a lot of the streets and the

[59:34] unincorporated area which is that there aren't safe places to

[59:37] walk. So the streets have been

[59:40] developed in favor of having the parking but not having the

[59:43] sidewalks. And, you know, we're hoping to

[59:49] preserve that ability for people to get around on foot safely and

[59:55] also are just going to have that ongoing discussion and that --

[59:59] those are the kinds of things that we are looking at very

[1:00:03] closely as we review development applications is, you know, what

[1:00:09] is the condition being created here.

[1:00:11] but I really -- I went on for a while, but I really appreciate

[1:00:15] your raising these points and I think we are going to need to be

[1:00:19] doing further thought and working within the county on

[1:00:24] what is really implementable. >> r. Lind: yeah.

[1:00:30] it's not going to be easy. I do have one more question

[1:00:33] which is just a technical kind of question.

[1:00:36] >> c. Muralles: go ahead. >> r. Lind: you talked about

[1:00:37] the block length. So is there a curb cut

[1:00:42] separation standard? So --

[1:00:44] >> there is a maximum block length between the

[1:00:47] intersections, that's in the code.

[1:00:51] >> r. Lind: so but between driveway entrances, there's no

[1:00:57] standard -- >> there's no standard for

[1:01:13] that. >> the form code does have

[1:01:15] maximum driveway width, but I don't believe it's separation.

[1:01:19] >> r. Lind: okay. That's interesting.

[1:01:21] something to think about for the future.

[1:01:25] >> c. Muralles: thank you, commissioner lind.

[1:01:28] I think commissioner sandoval had a question as well.

[1:01:31] >> r. Sandoval: I do chair. My question is on this concept

[1:01:35] of maintaining a right of way, is that something new that we're

[1:01:37] -- is that like a new addition that isn't already in the

[1:01:42] development standards and is that indefinite or is there some

[1:01:47] sort of time limit on the right of way that the county would be

[1:01:49] giving itself? >> I'm not entirely sure of the

[1:01:58] question. If it relates to currently sub

[1:02:03] standard streets when that improves that frontage.

[1:02:07] your question was in those cases --

[1:02:11] >> r. Sandoval: is there like an indefinite right of way.

[1:02:16] >> -- as part of that development entitlement, so the

[1:02:19] county would have that right of way indefinitely.

[1:02:29] >> r. Sandoval: got it. I'll say I support class one I

[1:02:34] think it's safe alternatives involving bikes in the roadways,

[1:02:38] so I support that. Thanks.

[1:02:41] >> c. Muralles: thank you. I would like to go ahead and

[1:02:43] open up for comments or if there are any comments relate today

[1:02:46] this manner. Go ahead, manny.

[1:02:48] >> I actually found -- I have the form-base code in front of

[1:02:52] me and it does say a minimum of 30' between drive

[1:03:05] please turn on your mic, commissioner lind.

[1:03:10] >> r. Lind: I did want to comment on this dedication of

[1:03:14] right of way issue. So in that instance, manny, is

[1:03:19] the land that would be included in the dedication subject to

[1:03:21] density? .

[1:03:28] >> it would be dedicated for purposes of roadway.

[1:03:32] >> r. Lind: so it's a net calculation.

[1:03:35] I think that is problematic we're allowing people to

[1:03:48] retrograde a role extending older standards but we're taking

[1:03:51] the right of way, but we're not giving credit for density for

[1:03:55] the right of way. So.

[1:04:07] >> c. Muralles: kate, do you have an opinion on that?

[1:04:11] sorry, the question is your concern about dedicating the

[1:04:15] right of way and the sub -- like the road not meeting current

[1:04:21] standards? >> r. Lind: right.

[1:04:23] so we're basically asking the developer to dedicate the road

[1:04:28] standard right of way although we will approve a development at

[1:04:33] a lesser road standard. So there will be a hunk of land

[1:04:39] that will be in a county right of way status not available for

[1:04:43] development or amenities for the project and there's no density

[1:04:51] compensation for not having the use of that land.

[1:04:54] so it would -- so the rationale that was given in the

[1:04:58] presentation was at some point in the future, then the county

[1:05:01] would already have that abortion of the right of way if it were

[1:05:05] to ever go back and redesign the entire street, but I think quite

[1:05:10] frankly being practical, that's a rather unlikely situation,

[1:05:14] because there's going to be all sorts of existing development

[1:05:19] within that theoretical right of way and I just don't -- I have

[1:05:27] it seems to add to the cost of development to phrase it in the

[1:05:31] way we are required to look at housing these days.

[1:05:34] it seems to me that that wou >> did you want to speak?

[1:05:41] >> I would just mention that, again, under the state density

[1:05:44] bonus law, applicants have a great deal of leeway in terms of

[1:05:51] increasing beyond your density calculation limitation.

[1:05:54] again, if a developer wants more density to make up for what

[1:05:58] they've lost in counting the right of way, they certainly

[1:06:02] have options under state law. >> r. Lind: that is of course

[1:06:05] true, but the density starts at a baseline and if the baseline

[1:06:08] is higher, they get even more density.

[1:06:12] so I don't think that argument eliminates the issue of it being

[1:06:18] an additional -- it could be a regulatory barrier or it could

[1:06:24] be cost. I think we've seen that it's

[1:06:27] difficult to predict how developers are going to approach

[1:06:31] density. We have not been seeing

[1:06:37] development above the base dense it's.

[1:06:39] in fact, they have been using waivers to reduce the density

[1:06:43] relative to what is in the zoning on the property.

[1:06:46] >> r. Lind: that's really interesting.

[1:06:48] so the market isn't at those higher densities at the present

[1:06:53] time. >> in some cases, not for what

[1:07:01] the type of development that we're seeing in the

[1:07:11] unincorporated area. >> m. Biehle: you're allowing

[1:07:12] the development to proceed at a reduced standard, but with the

[1:07:17] caveat that the right of way is being dedicated so it's a

[1:07:20] tradeoff I assume. So I don't see the legal risk

[1:07:26] there. >> and not only the tradeoff but

[1:07:28] it's also a deferred maintenance for the county frankly.

[1:07:31] we are not making the applicants make the improvements.

[1:07:40] instead they're providing the right of way.

[1:07:43] you can look at it from that perspective and argue that

[1:07:46] actually saves the applicant's money.

[1:07:50] >> r. Lind: so then who maintains that area?

[1:07:57] >> c. Muralles: can someone say that into the microphone.

[1:07:59] >> the developer's required to maintain the right of way.

[1:08:10] >> c. Muralles: before we move on -- let me finish.

[1:08:14] can you state your name and who you are.

[1:08:17] >> land development division manager and also the principal

[1:08:22] engineer. And there is a benefit to the

[1:08:25] developer that they save money by not paying for those

[1:08:30] improvements at this time. To the developer u

[1:08:38] >> c. Muralles: thank you. So this is a time for other

[1:08:43] comments if anybody else has some other comments, feel free

[1:08:44] to come to the podium. We're good?

[1:08:47] so I'm going to go ahead and close public comment for this

[1:08:49] item and we can go ahead and continue with the conversations.

[1:08:56] commissioner curran. >> m. Curran: thank you.

[1:08:59] I think the requirement to dedicate the right of way to

[1:09:04] have that more optimal standard is absolutely an important thing

[1:09:09] to do. It's in my experience which is

[1:09:13] I've spent most of my career in local government, that right of

[1:09:17] way, you have one shot at it a roadway system.

[1:09:43] also, it's not like it can't be landscaped.

[1:09:52] it can be utilized in a variety of way, not with a building, not

[1:09:55] with that kind of improvement, but it absolutely can be made

[1:09:59] beautiful. It can have a bench on it.

[1:10:02] it can be made useful. And I mean if anything people

[1:10:06] over do it and kind of forget that they don't have all the

[1:10:11] entitlements to it that they might wish.

[1:10:14] but I for one think that that's a really important thing.

[1:10:16] I was glad to see that in there and I was going to inquire about

[1:10:21] it. Earlier when I was reading this.

[1:10:24] that's just my two cents. I just have a separate question

[1:10:29] that may or may not be jermaine to this conversation, but do we

[1:10:32] currently allow e-bikes, and even those little scooters that

[1:10:38] young people terrify the rest of us with?

[1:10:42] on bike paths? >> can I ask stuart to speak to

[1:10:48] this? My understanding is it falls

[1:10:50] under a different set of regulations.

[1:11:00] >> c. Muralles: turn it on again please, thank you.

[1:11:03] >> we'll have to check with the traffic division to see if there

[1:11:06] are any requirements as far as e-bikes.

[1:11:08] I'm not sure what the policies are in place that the county's

[1:11:12] currently adopted. We'll have to get back to you

[1:11:15] with a response. Thank you.

[1:11:21] >> thank you. >> c. Muralles: commissioner

[1:11:24] stepanicich I was wondering if you can put backslide 28.

[1:11:28] I would like to read and process them a little bit better.

[1:11:31] also, robert I believe it's your name.

[1:11:34] robert, right. You mentioned something about

[1:11:36] reports from safety agencies. Have you received those are

[1:11:44] either going to the board of supervisors in the next.

[1:11:46] >> I'm sorry I mentioned. >> c. Muralles: you mentioned

[1:11:51] something about other safety agency reports coming along the

[1:11:54] way. Are they just going to the board

[1:11:56] of supervisors or have they been submitted or is that something

[1:11:59] we're expecting to view or get in the future?

[1:12:01] >> I think you're referring to the fact that the document and

[1:12:07] justify the minimum safety standards.

[1:12:11] tool design has prepared a justification memo that will be

[1:12:15] appended to the county's adoption around, so it will be

[1:12:18] part of the public record because it provides the

[1:12:21] justification for their findings that will be in the ordinance.

[1:12:23] >> right. So there's nothing else coming

[1:12:31] in regards to safety. And if you have slide 28, 29,

[1:12:34] thank you very much. And commissioner stepanicich, if

[1:12:39] you can keep those rides up for a minute.

[1:12:43] I think it's 29 and 30, it talks about the conceptions.

[1:12:51] go back. Hmm.

[1:12:58] there. The one after that.

[1:13:00] can you keep this one up for a minute.

[1:13:04] thank you. >> g. Stepanicich: to follow up

[1:13:06] with the e-bikes and I think it's great to have the class

[1:13:10] pass but I do think from an administrative point of view,

[1:13:14] there's an issue with respect to e-bikes and e-bikes with

[1:13:18] throttles and there's been a big issue with younger kids using

[1:13:21] these but I think it's also true with respect to mixing

[1:13:25] pedestrians and bicycles together, how we deal with those

[1:13:29] that can go very past and that's something again not to deal with

[1:13:33] as these part of regulations, I think it's an important issue

[1:13:36] for the county to deal with. >> and we looked it up on the

[1:13:42] fly and the requirements in marin county are the class one

[1:13:50] and class two e-bikes can be used on multiuse pathways.

[1:13:58] but the speed is 10 miles an hour.

[1:14:00] class two are the ones with the throttle and then class three

[1:14:05] e-bikes cannot be ridden on bike paths.

[1:14:09] so these -- so, you know, the new bike facilities that are

[1:14:14] created would be subject to the same rules as bike facilities

[1:14:17] existing in marin and those, you know, if warranted, of course

[1:14:33] those might be subject to change.

[1:14:37] >> c. Muralles: thank you. Can you

[1:14:44] thank you, I just needed to see those again.

[1:14:47] so my understanding is that there's no action from our

[1:14:51] commissioner on this subject. But, not on this one?

[1:15:01] >> this is a workshop. >> there's no action.

[1:15:05] okay. So are there any questions or

[1:15:06] feedback that the commission would like to provide for that

[1:15:10] need to be answered by the staff or the department of public

[1:15:13] works? >> I just have one comment.

[1:15:17] >> c. Muralles: mm-hmm, go ahead.

[1:15:20] >> m. Biehle: this isn't jermaine to this particular

[1:15:22] hearing but one of the things that I was looking at reviewing

[1:15:29] the documents for today. I wanted to know what the list

[1:15:33] of comments was from our may meeting so I could see, you

[1:15:37] know, were they responded to, what were they?

[1:15:40] I don't want to raise the same things but, you know, our

[1:15:45] minutes are so sparse, you know. The planning staff made a

[1:15:52] presentation commissioners ask questions you know, public spoke

[1:16:01] or didn't speak I know it's a pain in the minutes to do more

[1:16:06] substantially. But where we have stuff like

[1:16:07] this where it's coming back again and we're trying to see if

[1:16:11] staff is responding to your questions or if the applicant is

[1:16:14] responding to our questions, it might be helpful to maintain a

[1:16:18] list that we put into the minutes I don't know how we do

[1:16:25] that or if that's like a time and money kind of a situation,

[1:16:31] but that frame of reference would be really helpful for

[1:16:34] meetings that are continued or that come back to workshops that

[1:16:39] come back to us etc. >> comment noted.

[1:16:43] will do going forward typically we would have issues raised memo

[1:16:54] employ this is just a timing issue.

[1:16:59] >> c. Muralles: commissioner lind.

[1:17:01] >> r. Lind: I was curious when you call these standards.

[1:17:05] what is that process? How is that different from the

[1:17:09] regular standard. >> can you repeat the question.

[1:17:12] >> r. Lind: so the list of exceptions, so how does one get

[1:17:18] an exception? Is it part of the application.

[1:17:22] do they say I want an exception to this standard.

[1:17:24] I want to do this other standard instead of the normal standard?

[1:17:28] >> these are actually titled as exemptions.

[1:17:32] so they're exemptions from the previous code.

[1:17:34] there is a pro vision in title 24, chapter 15 that is an

[1:17:39] exception process and so there is the ability for public works

[1:17:43] to grant exceptions upon application and their findings

[1:17:46] and that process. >> r. Lind: that would be like

[1:17:48] a variance and that's a public works director or staff.

[1:17:52] I'm sorry, I asked the wrong question, but I'm happy to have

[1:17:57] the answer that you gave because that's also so the exemptions.

[1:18:05] >> are just available. >> yeah.

[1:18:08] >> r. Lind: so why have the two standards?

[1:18:11] >> just calling out that essentially we have a set of

[1:18:16] standards that are typical and required but they're in a few

[1:18:21] cases exceptions to those. You know, if these circumstances

[1:18:25] applied then the general standards don't.

[1:18:30] >> r. Lind: I see. So is the -- so I think it would

[1:18:32] be useful if the drafting of the code could explicitly say that

[1:18:40] because as other which one is subject to future waiver?

[1:19:00] >> c. Muralles: thank you. Commissioner lind.

[1:19:04] is there other feedback on this item?

[1:19:16] we're good. No comment.

[1:19:23] okay. Um, yeah.

[1:19:25] no comments. I think if we're going to close

[1:19:28] this item by others that want to be shared by the commissioners.

[1:19:32] thank you, sara. We'll formally close this item,

[1:19:36] item 4. >> to be clear, though, were

[1:19:38] there any take-aways that you would like us to report to the

[1:19:46] board? >> let me start because I

[1:19:48] haven't said anything. I think it's really important to

[1:19:51] take into account the e-bikes that we're describing earlier

[1:19:55] that is a safety issue for both pedestrians and riders.

[1:20:19] the children grow and there's more parking needed, this will

[1:20:22] forever be an issue in our county.

[1:20:24] I think it's also important to note that the partnership with

[1:20:28] the other agencies like the transportation agency and

[1:20:32] community agency in regards I was speaking to the

[1:20:39] transportation a few months ago, and they barely have any

[1:20:42] knowledge about the projects that come to our hearings or to

[1:20:45] our table that have to do with transportation.

[1:20:47] so it would be really great to partnership with them.

[1:21:06] I think that's great. And commissioner biehle.

[1:21:12] no? Thank you.

[1:21:16] all right. So and you're sticking around

[1:21:20] for item five as well. So it's been brought to my

[1:21:23] attention that the title on item five of the agenda, it's wrong.

[1:21:31] it should be which is title 22. If you can go ahead and get us

[1:21:50] started on that. And we also have a presentation

[1:21:52] for that, so thank you. >> that really emerged from our

[1:22:14] title 24 street standards right now.

[1:22:39] just at a high level and then going to some of the specific

[1:22:43] edits to title 22, there's just really a couple few hand fulls.

[1:22:48] next steps, these are go to the board in august and september.

[1:22:54] so very quickly. Again, the form-based code, this

[1:22:57] diagram shows over in the left applies to projects with five or

[1:23:04] more new developing developers can elect to redesignate the

[1:23:18] properties to the form-based district so it applies and gives

[1:23:21] them a ministerial pathway and then it also applies to the new

[1:23:28] state law also the form-based code which is really intended as

[1:23:49] a stand alone code document, it does not include the rest of the

[1:23:52] municipal code. The form-based code specifically

[1:23:56] calls out title 24 chapter 1 the form-based code is intended to

[1:24:28] be a stand alone code. It did not site other sections

[1:24:32] of title 24. At the time it was adopted, the

[1:24:35] feeling that many of these title 24 standards had subjective

[1:24:39] language and hadn't been updated in many years.

[1:24:41] so, again, the intent was to adopt the form-based code

[1:24:45] quickly, as quickly as possible and then come back later and

[1:24:48] look at the rest of title 24 and eventually make it applicable

[1:24:52] through the form-based code. So there's and it's our

[1:25:13] intention to update those regulations going forward in

[1:25:16] different phases of our work. In terms of the actual proposed

[1:25:24] amendments to title 24 in the form-based code.

[1:25:27] again, one is up dataing the definitions of alley and

[1:25:32] driveway which we discussed previously so they align with

[1:25:37] title 24. Another is to modify the

[1:25:40] requirements for the housing compliance review so that that

[1:25:45] application process and review process would apply to anything

[1:25:51] under the development code so that it's internally consistent.

[1:25:54] so any of the projects that require ministerial processing

[1:25:59] would also require a housing compliance review.

[1:26:03] in terms of specific edits to the form-based code, one would

[1:26:07] move the rules of construction, those are rules of the code

[1:26:13] construction from the applicability section in chapter

[1:26:16] one down to chapter ten, but really no subs substantiative

[1:26:20] change there. The big change is deleting the

[1:26:23] public frontage standards. They're added to title 24 and

[1:26:31] the form-based code will simply reference those.

[1:26:37] the driveway widths that are sited in the form-based code may

[1:26:40] not entirely be in compliance with changes to the fire code,

[1:26:44] so there will be a reference added to the fire code within

[1:26:47] those sections. And also as we mentioned earlier

[1:26:51] in terms of the new alley standards, there would be a

[1:26:55] reduced rear setback for building faces that are adjacent

[1:26:59] to the alley. Parking dimensional standards

[1:27:06] are not included in the form-based code, so, again,

[1:27:10] right now they don't exist to be applied to projects.

[1:27:13] so the intent is to have the form-based code reference those

[1:27:17] sections of title 24 that established, you know, parking

[1:27:21] length widths, and backup distances and all those

[1:27:25] dimensional requirements. And then the last change is to

[1:27:29] the adjustment section in cha

[1:27:33] chapter 9 and there it's simply increasing and relocating the

[1:27:37] list of the site conditions that would qualify for an adjustment.

[1:27:42] so, again, it's really pretty much nonsubstantive it's

[1:27:47] formatting change. And probably another big change

[1:27:49] is the addition of a stacked flats building type.

[1:27:59] previously because currently family building type.

[1:28:04] so this would be a multi-family building type that does not

[1:28:10] include ground floor commercial. And, again, going to the board

[1:28:16] of supervisors in both august and september for their

[1:28:19] consideration of the title 24 and title 22 changes.

[1:28:23] and with that I'm happy to answer any questions and cecilia

[1:28:30] kim is available online. >> c. Muralles: thank you.

[1:28:34] any questions from the staff to start us off.

[1:28:36] do I have a few questions. So I wanted to ask actually why

[1:28:40] on the definitions list on the back you are like removing some

[1:28:54] and there's no and I'm specifically interested on the

[1:28:58] open to ysment spaces, like those things seem to be general

[1:29:02] and that they should be included, so I -- you can

[1:29:05] further explain that, that would be great.

[1:29:09] >> I was just passing this one along to ms. Kim if she's online

[1:29:13] if you can bring her in. >> sure.

[1:29:15] I can respond to that. So the definitions chapter in

[1:29:19] the odds are for terms that are used specifically in the odds.

[1:29:23] any other terms or anything that's silent and not in the

[1:29:28] definitions and the odds are to be drawn from the code itself

[1:29:32] and that said, there were several terms that we found that

[1:29:34] are not used in the odds but were included in the definitions

[1:29:38] and that's where most of the

[1:29:45] >> thank you. Also, I noticed and as you

[1:29:49] mentioned in your presentation, bob, the site condition.

[1:29:53] that is a definition that I don't see in the definitions, so

[1:29:56] I'm not sure where is that defined in the document?

[1:30:02] >> again, cecilia, if you're listening.

[1:30:06] >> yes. I can take that one.

[1:30:08] site condition is a term in the definition section.

[1:30:11] the site condition is further explained on page 248, section

[1:30:18] 9, 9.030 where it pretty much just lists the existing site

[1:30:22] conditions. But what I'm understanding from

[1:30:24] your comment is that you would like to see the terms site

[1:30:28] condition actually defined and we can definitely add that into

[1:30:31] the definitions chapter. >> c. Muralles: I think that

[1:30:35] would be a good idea to >> c. Muralles: I also had a

[1:30:48] question -- yes, please, go ahead.

[1:30:51] >> when you say site conditions, are you referencing existing

[1:30:55] site conditions or at what point site condition?

[1:30:58] >> yeah. So basically how it's defined in

[1:31:01] the use of this context. I think it was crossed off in

[1:31:04] some sections if you give me a minute I can find them as to

[1:31:10] rather than for the explanation, it just says site condition.

[1:31:13] >> we currently have a definition of existing site

[1:31:19] condition in the development code.

[1:31:22] there's a definition of existing site condition and that

[1:31:25] definition is problematic because existing site condition

[1:31:31] is specific term in ceqa and it has created a problem in the

[1:31:35] past and applying that condition.

[1:31:44] the site development the site condition that was created

[1:31:47] illegally or is it existing because someone did something

[1:31:51] unlawfully that would get a review.

[1:31:54] I think we need to thread do ha. On page 4.

[1:32:29] page 6, the recommended change there is to go from natural and

[1:32:35] rural to walkable context. So omitting basically natural or

[1:32:43] rural and just having walkable context which to me seemed to be

[1:32:49] two very different environments and I wanted to see if you have

[1:33:14] . >> we noticed that the diagram

[1:33:17] which shows a natural urban transit uses the terms natural

[1:33:24] to urban whereas so we found that it may cause confusion to

[1:33:43] say which is why we removed the natural or rural and words and

[1:33:50] left it walkable but the natural rural terms still come to play

[1:33:55] when we are describing the transact diagram and how marin

[1:34:00] county context applies to some of those transacts in that.

[1:34:09] >> c. Muralles: thank you. Are there any comments or

[1:34:11] questions from commissioners? Commissioner lind.

[1:34:16] >> r. Lind: I just have one point of clarification.

[1:34:18] so this set of amendments are for the -- are different from

[1:34:22] the set of amendments for -- to the form-based code that we'll

[1:34:26] be looking at for the coastal area.

[1:34:30] >> right. This is for the interior code.

[1:34:33] >> r. Lind: right. This is for everything else.

[1:34:35] I just want to make sure my memory's correct.

[1:34:38] we talked about some changes in the coastal zone, but that's

[1:34:50] not. >> thank you, commissioner lind.

[1:34:53] anyone else? Okay.

[1:34:58] >> c. Muralles: we need to make a -- we need to take action in

[1:35:02] this item. I believe that the accommodation

[1:35:05] is that the board of supervisors adopt a --

[1:35:07] >> eye procedural issue. Can you open it for public.

[1:35:12] >> c. Muralles: thank you. I'd like to open for public

[1:35:14] comment or any other comment in regards to this item.

[1:35:18] okay. There's no comment so we'll go

[1:35:20] ahead and close public comment. Thank you, manny.

[1:35:22] we do need to take action in this.

[1:35:27] so the recommendation I'm sorry. We need a motion first.

[1:35:41] anyone would like to move for a motion?

[1:35:53] >>. >> c. Muralles: commissioner

[1:35:58] biehle would like to second that motion and if we can have roll

[1:36:04] call, thank you. >> clerk: commissioner biehle.

[1:36:12] >> m. Biehle: yes. >> clerk: commissioner lind.

[1:36:17] >> r. Lind: yes. >> clerk: commissioner

[1:36:21] sandoval. >> r. Sandoval: yes.

[1:36:22] >> c. Muralles: we are all good?

[1:36:24] okay. Perfect.

[1:36:25] I think that's it for our meeting today.

[1:36:27] thank you very much for your time and everything that you do

[1:36:30] for our co

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript