1
00:00:36,436 --> 00:00:37,103
Ready? All right.

2
00:00:37,103 --> 00:00:40,974
good afternoon everyone. Welcome to today's hearing,

3
00:00:40,974 --> 00:00:42,909
monday, july 27th. Welcome.

4
00:00:42,909 --> 00:00:45,378
I hope you all had a great weekend.

5
00:00:45,378 --> 00:00:52,578
we're going to go ahead and get started with roll call, please.

6
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:56,720
>> clerk: good afternoon. Commissioner biehle.

7
00:01:02,728 --> 00:01:06,328
>> m. Biehle: here. >> clerk: commissioner lind.

8
00:01:07,600 --> 00:01:10,600
commissioner sandoval. >> r. Sandoval: here.

9
00:01:11,471 --> 00:01:13,471
>> clerk: commissioner muralles.

10
00:01:35,295 --> 00:01:38,970
>> c. Muralles: . >> g. Stepanicich: if anyone

11
00:01:38,970 --> 00:01:41,834
has any questions or comments or would like those minutes to the

12
00:01:41,834 --> 00:01:46,634
meeting be approved. I guess I can --

13
00:01:47,306 --> 00:01:51,577
>> I'll move to approve. >> g. Stepanicich: I'll second

14
00:01:51,577 --> 00:01:54,577
that motion. Commissioner bielhe moves.

15
00:01:56,582 --> 00:01:58,918
I seconded the motion. Sorry.

16
00:01:58,918 --> 00:01:59,919
thank you. All right.

17
00:01:59,919 --> 00:02:05,319
we're going to go ahead, are there any communications?

18
00:02:06,859 --> 00:02:08,194
oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

19
00:02:08,194 --> 00:02:11,531
we need to vote. Thank you.

20
00:02:11,531 --> 00:02:16,331
no. All those in favor say aye and

21
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:21,400
commissioner commissioner [indiscernible] is sustained.

22
00:02:22,700 --> 00:02:24,344
are there any communications from the commissioners that we'd

23
00:02:24,344 --> 00:02:29,482
like to share at this moment? I just want to remind everybody

24
00:02:29,482 --> 00:02:33,619
has on their packets a flyer for the training that will be

25
00:02:33,619 --> 00:02:36,220
happening on september 30th. If you can go ahead and make

26
00:02:36,220 --> 00:02:39,158
sure you can sign up in the next couple of weeks for the

27
00:02:39,158 --> 00:02:42,280
logistics of that training, please.

28
00:02:42,280 --> 00:02:44,430
thank you. Then we're going to go ahead

29
00:02:44,430 --> 00:02:49,635
into item two which is the director's report, go ahead,

30
00:02:49,635 --> 00:02:51,370
manny, thank you. >> good afternoon,

31
00:02:51,370 --> 00:02:54,106
commissioners. And thank you so much.

32
00:02:54,106 --> 00:02:57,376
kate stafford has joined us. She will be our planning

33
00:02:57,376 --> 00:03:00,376
commission and cda legal council.

34
00:03:02,915 --> 00:03:05,584
>> hi. My name is kate stanford, I've

35
00:03:05,584 --> 00:03:08,921
been with the county since 2019 and have been working with the

36
00:03:08,921 --> 00:03:11,857
variety of departments and working with some divisions of

37
00:03:11,857 --> 00:03:16,462
cda back in january and with brandon's promotion, I'm taking

38
00:03:16,462 --> 00:03:18,264
over most of his work at this time.

39
00:03:18,264 --> 00:03:24,864
I'm looking forward to working with you all and meeting your

40
00:03:31,244 --> 00:03:33,644
>> next planning commission will

41
00:03:35,348 --> 00:03:38,618
be august 24th, 2026. At that time, the new planning

42
00:03:38,618 --> 00:03:42,155
director will be here and there will be no meeting on

43
00:03:42,155 --> 00:03:43,155
august 10th. It's too soon.

44
00:03:43,155 --> 00:03:48,494
we want to give her some time and room and familiarize with

45
00:03:48,494 --> 00:03:51,494
what's going on. At that.

46
00:04:03,642 --> 00:04:05,644
on. >> withwill have our new

47
00:04:05,644 --> 00:04:10,516
planning director in place. Her name is julia crog and we'll

48
00:04:10,516 --> 00:04:17,716
do a proper introduction when she is here and the other item

49
00:04:22,795 --> 00:04:28,534
will be the set of code amendments to respond to

50
00:04:28,534 --> 00:04:32,472
essentially notifying our adu ordinance, so we need to adopt

51
00:04:32,472 --> 00:04:36,720
an adu ordinance. Our sb9 ordinance.

52
00:04:39,110 --> 00:04:45,110
ab20 ordinance. As well as our sb35 in order to

53
00:04:46,752 --> 00:04:52,492
be a very narrow scope of updates to respond to hcd.

54
00:04:52,492 --> 00:04:57,892
and there will be no workshop. It will be.

55
00:05:19,919 --> 00:05:24,719
>> g. Stepanicich: I would like to open up.

56
00:05:26,859 --> 00:05:29,128
>> r. Lind: I'd like to can questions.

57
00:05:29,128 --> 00:05:35,128
to prepare for those changes, could you recirculate that very.

58
00:05:48,280 --> 00:05:54,280
>> we will also circulate the draft amendments well ahead of

59
00:05:57,556 --> 00:06:05,356
time for many of us it's hard to distinguish the nuances of the

60
00:06:06,899 --> 00:06:10,499
different distinguishes. >> g. Stepanicich: we'll also

61
00:06:30,260 --> 00:06:34,640
have manny here to give us a presentation on that?

62
00:06:34,640 --> 00:06:37,601
>> we'll have two agenda items before you -- one of them is a

63
00:06:37,601 --> 00:06:41,405
workshop which is item four related to off side objective

64
00:06:41,405 --> 00:06:46,205
design standards. We have members of the bpws.

65
00:06:47,544 --> 00:06:53,544
we have bob brown as well as consultants and present.

66
00:07:06,563 --> 00:07:11,963
the planning is not to make any positions or.

67
00:07:24,715 --> 00:07:30,320
>> as you know, we're in the process of updating the public

68
00:07:30,320 --> 00:07:33,320
works infrastructure that are entitled 24.

69
00:07:33,991 --> 00:07:37,461
both are objective, but also to update them since many of these

70
00:07:37,461 --> 00:07:40,597
were adopted back in the 1980s and 90s.

71
00:07:40,597 --> 00:07:44,670
and since this is a large undertaking, we have started

72
00:07:44,670 --> 00:07:50,670
first with developing new street standards we would very much

73
00:07:58,140 --> 00:08:01,284
like to share these with you, get your feedback and we can

74
00:08:01,284 --> 00:08:05,484
relay that feedback to the board of.

75
00:08:12,763 --> 00:08:16,700
>> in terms of today's agenda item, we will talk briefly about

76
00:08:16,700 --> 00:08:22,772
the process we've been through, then we will have a technical

77
00:08:22,772 --> 00:08:28,245
review of the street standards and we will update you from the

78
00:08:28,245 --> 00:08:30,513
may 11th workshop. We'll talk about the exemptions

79
00:08:30,513 --> 00:08:33,316
to the standards. Focus on the minimum safety

80
00:08:33,316 --> 00:08:38,540
standards that have been refined since may 11th and the

81
00:08:38,540 --> 00:08:42,854
documentation for those. Title 24 that will also go

82
00:08:43,192 --> 00:08:47,392
through. In terms of the process, we

83
00:08:48,598 --> 00:08:56,398
started back in the plan is to bring these and we hope for

84
00:09:12,689 --> 00:09:16,289
adoption before the board in september.

85
00:09:23,900 --> 00:09:28,171
I'm going to turn this over to my colleague, and we have one of

86
00:09:28,171 --> 00:09:33,571
her associates amalia laten cody online that will answer

87
00:09:37,180 --> 00:09:39,649
questions. >> before angela speaks, I wand

88
00:09:39,649 --> 00:09:46,523
to recognize robin from dpw is here as well as cpa director,

89
00:09:46,523 --> 00:09:48,923
sara jones. >> all right.

90
00:09:49,192 --> 00:09:54,798
so, yeah, we are going to go through with the six street

91
00:09:54,798 --> 00:09:58,802
types that we're proposing as part of title 24 updates

92
00:09:58,802 --> 00:10:03,730
starting with residential road. So this is the street section

93
00:10:03,730 --> 00:10:05,676
you saw previously at that may 11th meeting.

94
00:10:05,676 --> 00:10:10,747
and I want to show you the updates we've made since then.

95
00:10:10,747 --> 00:10:16,753
one of the primary updates was actually based from -- based on

96
00:10:16,753 --> 00:10:20,490
feedback from staff working on ada compliance and some concerns

97
00:10:20,490 --> 00:10:25,629
brought up in our stakeholder conversation about the 7'

98
00:10:25,629 --> 00:10:29,699
parking lanes that we previously showed feeling a little tight.

99
00:10:29,699 --> 00:10:35,372
so we've updated the residential road from 7 foot parking lanes

100
00:10:35,372 --> 00:10:38,174
to 8 feet. That extra foot gives us a

101
00:10:38,174 --> 00:10:43,450
little bit more room within the curb to curb radon and it also

102
00:10:43,450 --> 00:10:48,445
happies address ada and also addressing some concerns about

103
00:11:11,340 --> 00:11:17,340
the seven foot p and here's an example image of

104
00:11:22,886 --> 00:11:25,422
residential road just to represent the street type.

105
00:11:25,422 --> 00:11:26,756
okay. This is main street.

106
00:11:26,756 --> 00:11:32,756
this is, again, the previous section we showed in may.

107
00:11:33,830 --> 00:11:40,430
as we discussed last time. This is a slow wouldn't justify

108
00:12:01,858 --> 00:12:04,594
that amount of space. I do also want to point out a

109
00:12:04,594 --> 00:12:08,532


110
00:12:08,532 --> 00:12:12,335
code zones allow for a 0 to 10' setback.

111
00:12:12,335 --> 00:12:16,139
so in practice, that means there might be situations where the

112
00:12:16,139 --> 00:12:20,939
sidewalk directly abuts the front of the building.

113
00:12:21,682 --> 00:12:26,553
when that happens, any frontage related activity like indoor

114
00:12:26,553 --> 00:12:31,910
seating, displays, pet circulation would need to occur

115
00:12:31,910 --> 00:12:34,894
within the sidewalk area. We would still want to maintain

116
00:12:34,894 --> 00:12:41,234
a generous sidewalk space given that the setback is loud in some

117
00:12:41,234 --> 00:12:43,503
cases. >> may I ask a question?

118
00:12:43,503 --> 00:12:47,103
>> g. Stepanicich: yes, go ahead, commissioner.

119
00:12:51,978 --> 00:12:58,578
>> just is there a way to compensate that and make that

120
00:13:00,530 --> 00:13:01,921
happen as long as it's subjective?

121
00:13:01,921 --> 00:13:09,721
>> I think no matter what, we'd still like to have a 10' clear.

122
00:13:32,819 --> 00:13:37,758
>> rather than a ministerial review if there were such a

123
00:13:37,758 --> 00:13:41,761
request received. >> it would only be -- the idea

124
00:13:41,761 --> 00:13:46,900
is to move away from any kind of discretionary review process and

125
00:13:46,900 --> 00:13:48,902
make it as objective as possible.

126
00:13:48,902 --> 00:13:54,302
I think what I understood commissioner peggy kerr is

127
00:13:55,441 --> 00:14:03,241
saying if there was a decision to happen, can we write a policy

128
00:14:05,117 --> 00:14:09,317
saying. >> it wouldn't be done as a

129
00:14:09,856 --> 00:14:15,928
request for variance or waiver. I just wanted to clarify that.

130
00:14:15,928 --> 00:14:19,528
>> thank you. >> let's move on to.

131
00:14:23,690 --> 00:14:27,273
I did want to point out here. Also the planter zone has been

132
00:14:27,273 --> 00:14:34,473
increased from 4.5' to 5' and that's, again, to get that 13'

133
00:14:36,348 --> 00:14:40,860
minimum width to minimum standard parking spaces.

134
00:14:40,860 --> 00:14:42,354
okay. And here's another example image

135
00:14:42,354 --> 00:14:46,426
of a main street. >> could I ask a question

136
00:14:46,426 --> 00:14:49,162
generally about these images. So the images you're showing,

137
00:14:49,162 --> 00:14:53,299
they are actually the same as the standard being proposed?

138
00:14:53,299 --> 00:14:56,836
>> not all of them are 1 to 1. >> I see.

139
00:14:56,836 --> 00:15:02,908
how close are they? I mean so we can understand the

140
00:15:02,908 --> 00:15:04,777
street feel. >> right.

141
00:15:04,777 --> 00:15:06,780
the character. >> and character of this

142
00:15:06,780 --> 00:15:08,780
particular standard. >> exactly.

143
00:15:09,480 --> 00:15:14,448
so maybe exact dimensions aren't 1:1 but generally the street

144
00:15:14,921 --> 00:15:19,325
layout with the street tree next to sidewalk, you know.

145
00:15:19,325 --> 00:15:21,394
>> what about the travel lane and the sidewalk standard?

146
00:15:21,394 --> 00:15:25,197
>> are you talking about for ada compliance?

147
00:15:25,197 --> 00:15:29,469
>> no, for just a normal case. >> yeah, I mean, I think these

148
00:15:29,469 --> 00:15:35,469
are pretty standard. It should be very close from the

149
00:15:38,611 --> 00:15:40,813
example image. >> g. Stepanicich: commissioner

150
00:15:40,813 --> 00:15:44,951
lind, can you speak to your mic. >> r. Lind: I'm sorry.

151
00:15:44,951 --> 00:15:49,555
this is two travel lanes? >> I don't want to say

152
00:15:49,555 --> 00:15:51,424
definitively yes. >> g. Stepanicich: I think

153
00:15:51,424 --> 00:15:56,950
we're going to go ahead and let you -- I don't think we're going

154
00:15:56,950 --> 00:15:58,231
to let you continue with your presentation and we'll save the

155
00:15:58,231 --> 00:16:01,501
questions for the end of the presentation, okay.

156
00:16:01,501 --> 00:16:02,702
thank you. >> okay.

157
00:16:02,702 --> 00:16:06,105
>> thank you. >> this is collector street

158
00:16:06,105 --> 00:16:08,508
type. This is what we had shown

159
00:16:08,508 --> 00:16:12,111
previously. 8' parking lanes to 11' travel

160
00:16:12,111 --> 00:16:16,583
lanes, 6' planter zone, and an 8' walkway.

161
00:16:16,583 --> 00:16:22,855
so one of the key up dates we've made here based on kind of key

162
00:16:22,855 --> 00:16:26,326
feedback we've received from the marin county bicycle coalition

163
00:16:26,326 --> 00:16:32,326
is the desire to require bicycle facilities at sidewalk level.

164
00:16:34,667 --> 00:16:37,137
so that is a bikeway that is vertically separated from the

165
00:16:37,137 --> 00:16:43,209
radon and you can see that here integrated as a 12' class one

166
00:16:43,209 --> 00:16:48,347
shared use path, so that would be two directional lanes,

167
00:16:48,347 --> 00:16:52,485
favored to one side and that would include users that are

168
00:16:52,485 --> 00:16:59,291
both walking and biking. So that is a key update here for

169
00:16:59,291 --> 00:17:04,910
collector. And then the other big change or

170
00:17:05,231 --> 00:17:11,231
relatively big change. So we would include a note here

171
00:17:14,974 --> 00:17:19,979
is that if the collector is on a designated truck route, 11'

172
00:17:19,979 --> 00:17:23,116
would be required. The thinking here is that the

173
00:17:23,116 --> 00:17:27,520
10' lanes could help support lower operating speeds while

174
00:17:27,520 --> 00:17:31,852
still allowing wider lanes and locations where tra

175
00:17:44,670 --> 00:17:48,270
okay. So moving to arterials, again,

176
00:17:49,809 --> 00:17:52,679
cross section as we showed at our last meeting.

177
00:17:52,679 --> 00:17:57,884
just some minor changes here. One is we've reduced the

178
00:17:57,884 --> 00:18:01,221
affective median width from 11' to 8' here.

179
00:18:01,221 --> 00:18:08,361
this allows us to provide a 1.5' buffer on either side of the

180
00:18:08,361 --> 00:18:12,561
he'd ymedian to better accommodate fire access.

181
00:18:13,299 --> 00:18:18,370
the better trade is there's a narrow median which would

182
00:18:18,370 --> 00:18:23,420
require a street tree selection, probably something with less

183
00:18:23,420 --> 00:18:29,642
horizontal root systems and ones that would thrive well and be

184
00:18:31,386 --> 00:18:34,386
healthy. Also importantly similar to

185
00:18:36,859 --> 00:18:42,259
collector street type, and the expectation bike way consistent

186
00:18:48,300 --> 00:18:52,203
with here is that example image again

187
00:19:00,549 --> 00:19:04,860
as an arterial and then industrial commercial.

188
00:19:04,860 --> 00:19:09,291
there have been no changes made to industrial commercial since

189
00:19:09,291 --> 00:19:13,280
we last met. It maintains at 12' travel

190
00:19:13,280 --> 00:19:16,628
lanes, 8' parking lanes, 6' okay.

191
00:19:25,641 --> 00:19:30,378
and now for the last street type, we want to look at an

192
00:19:30,378 --> 00:19:31,914
alley. This is the standard we showed

193
00:19:31,914 --> 00:19:36,185
last time and the feedback was that it felt, yeah, it felt a

194
00:19:36,185 --> 00:19:43,385
little bit too wide at the 30' total and we've been working

195
00:19:44,993 --> 00:19:49,398
alongside standards in the form base code to actually um, date

196
00:19:49,398 --> 00:19:56,598
this to a 20' total width. Now we are including that 5'

197
00:19:58,273 --> 00:20:01,610
kind of set backspace where there could be driveway lamps

198
00:20:01,610 --> 00:20:05,948
and landscaping as a requirement in the form base code which

199
00:20:05,948 --> 00:20:08,830
would require a minimum 5' setback.

200
00:20:08,830 --> 00:20:12,354
so the effective with the alley would remain the same at 30',

201
00:20:12,354 --> 00:20:18,954
but the paved width is going to be established in tit

202
00:20:22,297 --> 00:20:27,697
and here's an example of how that would look.

203
00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:39,782
>> can we just talk about context real quick before we

204
00:20:39,782 --> 00:20:42,718
move on to the exceptions. >> yes, please, go ahead.

205
00:20:42,718 --> 00:20:45,530
>> yes, good morning, commissioners.

206
00:20:45,530 --> 00:20:48,530
sara jones, community development director.

207
00:20:48,924 --> 00:20:53,724
really appreciate getting your thoughts and guidance around

208
00:20:53,729 --> 00:20:54,796
what these standards ought to be.

209
00:20:54,796 --> 00:20:59,601
I just wanted to kind of bring it back to the kinds of

210
00:20:59,601 --> 00:21:04,673
development that we see here in marin in unincorporated marin

211
00:21:04,673 --> 00:21:07,542
county. Of course, as you know, this

212
00:21:07,542 --> 00:21:11,213
would be standards for really the more urbanized portions of

213
00:21:11,213 --> 00:21:15,160
the county and looking at the more rural areas is the next

214
00:21:15,160 --> 00:21:18,616
phase. Some of these street typologies

215
00:21:18,753 --> 00:21:25,270
that we that we've presented here today are ones that while

216
00:21:25,270 --> 00:21:31,633
we need to codify what the standards would be, in the event

217
00:21:31,633 --> 00:21:38,833
that we see proposals that would merit, you know, these types of

218
00:21:41,376 --> 00:21:45,713
streets, as planned right now, we are not expecting that we're

219
00:21:45,713 --> 00:21:51,120
going to see a lot of say the main street treatment or the

220
00:21:51,120 --> 00:21:57,580
industrial corridor treatment, I just thought it would be maybe a

221
00:21:57,580 --> 00:22:02,197
little bit useful to kind of connect these to the types of

222
00:22:02,197 --> 00:22:06,869
projects that we're seeing now. So the residential street types

223
00:22:06,869 --> 00:22:12,140
which are ones that would be serving the development on the

224
00:22:12,140 --> 00:22:15,944
larger sites that we have mapped out on the housing element or

225
00:22:15,944 --> 00:22:20,148
that we have proposals on. Those are the ones that we

226
00:22:20,148 --> 00:22:23,552
expect to see most frequently here and now we're going to move

227
00:22:23,552 --> 00:22:30,152
on to talking about how they might, how we would go

228
00:22:31,827 --> 00:22:34,163
>> okay. So also in terms of providing

229
00:22:34,163 --> 00:22:38,367
some context, the new street standards that we just

230
00:22:38,367 --> 00:22:42,371
presenting I think are largely intended to apply to new streets

231
00:22:42,371 --> 00:22:47,642
in new developments, but we have a large network of existing

232
00:22:47,642 --> 00:22:50,979
streets throughout the county very few of which have developed

233
00:22:50,979 --> 00:22:52,981
these standards that we've presented.

234
00:22:52,981 --> 00:22:56,718
most don't have sidewalks. Most don't have bike facilities

235
00:22:56,718 --> 00:23:02,718
that are defined. So how do we deal with infill

236
00:23:03,926 --> 00:23:06,528
developments that have street frontage on currently sub

237
00:23:06,528 --> 00:23:11,266
standards streets. So we propose to offer an

238
00:23:11,266 --> 00:23:16,666
exemption in situations where there's an existing sub the

239
00:24:47,764 --> 00:24:54,571
additional -- the addition of off street parking so we allow a

240
00:24:54,571 --> 00:24:59,971
narrower radon lift and it's only available where's accessing

241
00:25:00,510 --> 00:25:05,582
six or fewer parcels as is the current definition for

242
00:25:05,582 --> 00:25:08,451
residential road. And here is an example of a

243
00:25:08,451 --> 00:25:12,510
limite we also proposed an exception

244
00:25:16,526 --> 00:25:19,262
for what we've termed connector streets.

245
00:25:19,262 --> 00:25:25,262
these are streets that would connect an existing arterial or

246
00:25:25,268 --> 00:25:30,730
collector street but which would have no development along this

247
00:25:30,730 --> 00:25:33,209
frontage. An example might be an extension

248
00:25:33,209 --> 00:25:38,681
of the parkway as a secondary access to a future development.

249
00:25:38,681 --> 00:25:44,810
again, that frontage along the property would not have

250
00:25:47,900 --> 00:25:51,290
development at this point shows the mat

251
00:26:24,661 --> 00:26:30,400
and lastly we've added an exception to allow an offstreet

252
00:26:30,400 --> 00:26:34,471
class one bike path that would be parallel to the street right

253
00:26:34,471 --> 00:26:42,871
of way to allow it to substitute for the type of design that we

254
00:26:43,747 --> 00:26:48,218
showed previously. There are a few additional code

255
00:26:48,218 --> 00:26:52,880
as the title 24 that I wanted to highlight that don't necessarily

256
00:26:52,880 --> 00:26:55,358
apply to the street standards we've discussed.

257
00:26:55,358 --> 00:27:01,898
in the roads chapter, there are a number -- one would be to

258
00:27:01,898 --> 00:27:08,498
require that bulb outs be added to intersections so that the

259
00:27:09,572 --> 00:27:14,972
sidewalk crossing distance is narrowed and also to require

260
00:27:16,246 --> 00:27:22,246
that that there would be a pedestrian in the center.

261
00:27:25,588 --> 00:27:29,792
we were supposed to change the maximum block link so it would

262
00:27:29,792 --> 00:27:35,732
match what's in the form base code for the properties in the

263
00:27:35,732 --> 00:27:41,732
city centered and corridors. We would propose to the turn

264
00:27:44,407 --> 00:27:50,407
around standards and they would make the determination as to

265
00:28:17,507 --> 00:28:22,450
whether or not the street name proposed is in conflict orient

266
00:28:22,450 --> 00:28:28,385
cal to an existing street name, so, again, there would be no

267
00:28:28,385 --> 00:28:33,185
confusion created. And that would be incentive to

268
00:29:03,220 --> 00:29:07,690
penalize the on street parking and not be penalized for that

269
00:29:07,690 --> 00:29:10,894
and in the sidewalk chapter, chapter 4, we would delete some

270
00:29:10,894 --> 00:29:15,980
of this subjective language and we would reference the state and

271
00:29:15,980 --> 00:29:17,167
federal accessibility standards there.

272
00:29:17,167 --> 00:29:22,567
and lastly, we discussed may 11th, the intention to

273
00:29:22,572 --> 00:29:26,420
develop minimum safety standards as part of this process.

274
00:29:26,420 --> 00:29:32,642
as you're aware, we are getting a number of requests from

275
00:29:32,983 --> 00:29:37,587
developers for bonus law and that law includes provisions

276
00:29:37,587 --> 00:29:42,859
that would allow jurisdictions to deny those waivers if they

277
00:29:42,859 --> 00:29:46,596
would create the health and safety impacts.

278
00:29:46,596 --> 00:29:53,796
so we have had tool and requiring that there be a buffer

279
00:30:08,952 --> 00:30:14,352
between the sidewalk and the traveling that would be

280
00:30:18,495 --> 00:30:22,950
landscaping. Minimum and then also minimum

281
00:30:22,766 --> 00:30:27,370
radon with a traveling width and those relate more to the fire

282
00:30:27,370 --> 00:30:29,390
codes. And these minimum safety

283
00:30:29,390 --> 00:30:34,244
standards are in some cases less than are ideal and desired

284
00:30:34,244 --> 00:30:38,181
standards we would put in the code, but, again, they would be

285
00:30:38,181 --> 00:30:41,451
the minimum standards below which developers could not wave

286
00:30:41,451 --> 00:30:45,188
below those limits. And the intention is to have the

287
00:30:45,188 --> 00:30:50,393
board as part of their adoption ordinance make findings to this

288
00:30:50,393 --> 00:30:54,464
effect and also incorporate in that adoption ordinance the

289
00:30:54,464 --> 00:31:00,464
justification memo, are the tool design that's produced which you

290
00:31:02,539 --> 00:31:07,611
had in your packet. And this is it other than our

291
00:31:07,611 --> 00:31:11,214
intention is to go to the board in august and then it's

292
00:31:11,214 --> 00:31:14,160
september for adoption. And with that, we would be happy

293
00:31:14,160 --> 00:31:18,200
to answer your questions. >> g. Stepanicich: thank you.

294
00:31:18,200 --> 00:31:21,200
questions from our commi commissioners.

295
00:31:32,102 --> 00:31:33,170
>> m. Curran: thank you for that.

296
00:31:33,170 --> 00:31:35,972
overall this is good stuff. I just have a couple questions I

297
00:31:35,972 --> 00:31:39,175
want to make sure I understand. Where there's no parking on the

298
00:31:39,175 --> 00:31:42,245
street, so you talked about that situation where there were six

299
00:31:42,245 --> 00:31:48,245
or fewer units, it is the assumption that there's adequate

300
00:31:51,454 --> 00:31:56,859
parking on the various homesites or building sites because people

301
00:31:56,859 --> 00:31:59,463
have guests. People have parties.

302
00:31:59,463 --> 00:32:01,798
people have deliveries, people have all kinds of stuff.

303
00:32:01,798 --> 00:32:05,998
what happens with all of that traffic?

304
00:32:12,275 --> 00:32:15,612
>> g. Stepanicich: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

305
00:32:15,612 --> 00:32:19,616
commissioner cur ran, can you turn off your microphone please?

306
00:32:19,616 --> 00:32:24,200
>> I would mention that the current code allows developers

307
00:32:24,200 --> 00:32:29,420
to utilize that standard so through their own discretion,

308
00:32:32,295 --> 00:32:35,431
they can put a limited residential road as long as it's

309
00:32:35,431 --> 00:32:39,502
for six or fewer lots. Added it as an exception instead

310
00:32:39,502 --> 00:32:42,380
of an allowance. And, again, the intention is

311
00:32:42,380 --> 00:32:47,310
that you may have a parking port that serves very few homes and

312
00:32:47,310 --> 00:32:50,313
those are intended to be narrower.

313
00:32:50,313 --> 00:32:54,451
typically kids play in them. They're not intended for through

314
00:32:54,451 --> 00:32:57,120
traffic and so you don't have the same traffic volumes.

315
00:32:57,120 --> 00:33:00,323
so the idea is that in those situation that is are single

316
00:33:00,323 --> 00:33:04,795
family, you know, there would be typically parking on the

317
00:33:04,795 --> 00:33:09,532
driveway apron or in the garage, so I don't know, manny, if you

318
00:33:09,532 --> 00:33:12,469
have any additional thoughts along those lines, but that was

319
00:33:12,469 --> 00:33:15,472
the intent in terms of sort of moving that over from the

320
00:33:15,472 --> 00:33:20,210
current regulations where it's an allowance to in this case an

321
00:33:20,210 --> 00:33:22,879
exception. >> the projects that we see

322
00:33:22,879 --> 00:33:28,879
where you have developments, we typically see is two parking

323
00:33:34,691 --> 00:33:39,562
spaces again, as bob said, the hope is to min nays this

324
00:33:39,562 --> 00:33:45,562
application as making it an exception while also keeping it

325
00:33:48,171 --> 00:33:52,371
on file. >> m. Curran: I'm trying to

326
00:33:55,245 --> 00:33:58,245
think about the practical implications.

327
00:33:58,581 --> 00:34:02,585
I'm a narrow street myself so I don't have that general bias

328
00:34:02,585 --> 00:34:07,724
against something like that, but it is -- and I guess perhaps the

329
00:34:07,724 --> 00:34:10,660
developer has an incentive to have the spaces be livable and

330
00:34:10,660 --> 00:34:15,665
have that not be a problem. Anyway, it strikes me as it

331
00:34:15,665 --> 00:34:20,937
might be. There may be days when it's a

332
00:34:20,937 --> 00:34:24,541
problem. And I had a question, another

333
00:34:24,541 --> 00:34:29,341
parking question. When you said the that's in

334
00:34:29,413 --> 00:34:33,483
certain circumstances, the provision of street parking can

335
00:34:33,483 --> 00:34:38,755
be counted toward the number of required spaces for a

336
00:34:38,755 --> 00:34:42,959
development, I presume that does not entitle them in any way to

337
00:34:42,959 --> 00:34:45,962
privatize those spaces. They can't be, you know, space

338
00:34:45,962 --> 00:34:50,300
number one, two, three for tenant number one, two, three,

339
00:34:50,300 --> 00:34:52,969
they're really public spaces? >> they would still be the

340
00:34:52,969 --> 00:34:55,906
public right of way. So the developer doesn't own the

341
00:34:55,906 --> 00:34:58,308
land and can't control it in that way.

342
00:34:58,308 --> 00:35:00,911
>> even though, so they're providing that but they don't

343
00:35:00,911 --> 00:35:03,913
have any other rights to it? >> no.

344
00:35:03,913 --> 00:35:07,184
they can count the spaces towards their total parking

345
00:35:07,184 --> 00:35:10,186
requirement but they can't designate them.

346
00:35:10,186 --> 00:35:13,390
>> m. Curran: okay. I think I had one more thing but

347
00:35:13,390 --> 00:35:17,590
I'll stop now. >> g. Stepanicich: thank you,

348
00:35:17,927 --> 00:35:22,727
commissioner curran, can you turn off your microphone.

349
00:35:23,600 --> 00:35:27,700
>> g. Stepanicich: thank you. I question on the shared use

350
00:35:27,700 --> 00:35:30,600
pathways. I think the idea of creating

351
00:35:30,600 --> 00:35:34,477
class one bikeways is a great idea and sometimes I think we

352
00:35:34,477 --> 00:35:38,482
need to do more of. But my only concern here is the

353
00:35:38,482 --> 00:35:43,153
shared use and residential on collector streets and also on

354
00:35:43,153 --> 00:35:47,690
arterial streets, to what extent do we have conflicts between the

355
00:35:47,690 --> 00:35:52,762
pedestrians and cyclists and therefore what should be the

356
00:35:52,762 --> 00:35:54,764
size of that shareded use pathway.

357
00:35:54,764 --> 00:35:59,102
and my question is number one does 12', is that a standard now

358
00:35:59,102 --> 00:36:01,705
that's being used for this type of facility.

359
00:36:01,705 --> 00:36:05,975
and in a 12' pathway, would there be sufficient space for

360
00:36:05,975 --> 00:36:13,175
pedestrians to move to the side to allow the cyclists to safely

361
00:36:16,319 --> 00:36:19,722
maneuver through pedestrians and the walkway?

362
00:36:19,722 --> 00:36:23,460
>> that's a great question. On our materials, pedestrian

363
00:36:23,460 --> 00:36:27,630
activity is likely lower than that of a main street

364
00:36:27,630 --> 00:36:30,630
residential. 12' is pretty generous.

365
00:36:30,133 --> 00:36:33,733
it would allow for bidirectional travel.

366
00:36:36,500 --> 00:36:39,542
10' again is what we're listing as our minimum safety standards,

367
00:36:39,542 --> 00:36:42,145
so 12 is a nice generous amount of room.

368
00:36:42,145 --> 00:36:45,948
also, we are including in the code language that if an

369
00:36:45,948 --> 00:36:50,153
arterial or collector has a posted speed of 30 miles per

370
00:36:50,153 --> 00:36:57,353
hour or less, that it can also be added into the ra

371
00:37:07,524 --> 00:37:10,524
>> g. Stepanicich: great. Thank you.

372
00:37:13,596 --> 00:37:17,196
>> c. Muralles: commissioner biehle was next.

373
00:37:17,534 --> 00:37:22,934
>> m. Biehle: thank you. I keep getting kicked off.

374
00:37:23,140 --> 00:37:27,340
okay. It sounds a little bit wonky,

375
00:37:29,880 --> 00:37:34,150
but the main street with 8' parking lanes on both sides,

376
00:37:34,150 --> 00:37:41,350
that leaves, you know, 20' of width, but and so which is

377
00:37:44,561 --> 00:37:50,561
minimum for fire access, right. But main street is also

378
00:37:51,835 --> 00:37:58,435
considered one of our mixed use sites which could go up.

379
00:38:00,777 --> 00:38:04,581
which we need -- there's a -- hang on a second.

380
00:38:04,581 --> 00:38:06,850
I wrote this down. Right.

381
00:38:06,850 --> 00:38:12,188
the developer stakeholder told us in may that these buildings

382
00:38:12,188 --> 00:38:16,794
might be three plus stories which would require an arial

383
00:38:16,794 --> 00:38:20,994
fire access which is 26' wide, so

384
00:38:24,534 --> 00:38:27,534
. >> so in the title 24 mark-up,

385
00:38:28,738 --> 00:38:33,538
underneath kind of our dimensional standards for each

386
00:38:34,478 --> 00:38:37,748
roadway's classification, we have notes or sort of exceptions

387
00:38:37,748 --> 00:38:41,418
to the foundational rule, so there's a note 5 I believe

388
00:38:41,418 --> 00:38:48,180
that's included that says, you know, where that happens that it

389
00:38:50,427 --> 00:38:52,830
would -- >> it may be required.

390
00:38:52,830 --> 00:38:55,830
>> right. >> but then that's a

391
00:38:55,966 --> 00:38:58,369
discretionary standard. >> like if it's a fire code, it

392
00:38:58,369 --> 00:39:02,569
would prevail, it wouldn't be an option.

393
00:39:02,906 --> 00:39:03,974
>> okay. >> m. Biehle: okay.

394
00:39:03,974 --> 00:39:08,174
so then, wait, I've got another question.

395
00:39:10,513 --> 00:39:18,913
the 8' for parking is was noted as like a safety floor for main

396
00:39:18,989 --> 00:39:23,393
streets for sure, but then in residential, it's only 7'.

397
00:39:23,393 --> 00:39:28,398
so how are we justifying that? Because I think the developer in

398
00:39:28,398 --> 00:39:35,338
may not the developer, but the presenter in may said that the

399
00:39:35,338 --> 00:39:38,475
7' parking is a sideswipe hazard and maybe that's just for main

400
00:39:38,475 --> 00:39:43,875
street streets, but there was a disconnect there between

401
00:39:44,130 --> 00:39:49,413
residential streets and main streets that I'm curious about.

402
00:39:50,154 --> 00:39:51,889
>> so the standard for residential street has been

403
00:39:51,889 --> 00:39:57,889
increased to 8' parking lanes. So our minimum safety standard

404
00:40:00,164 --> 00:40:04,168
for residential streets is 7', but the foundational standard is

405
00:40:04,168 --> 00:40:08,968
8' which is the same as main street

406
00:40:15,111 --> 00:40:23,387
I guess my next question is of the -- sorry, am I taking too

407
00:40:23,387 --> 00:40:26,990
much time? How many of the submittals that

408
00:40:26,990 --> 00:40:33,590
we've had to date would thi >> I'd say all of them.

409
00:40:42,806 --> 00:40:47,811
we've held firm that sidewalks are public health and safety and

410
00:40:47,811 --> 00:40:51,748
we've compelled in every single case that they provide parking

411
00:40:51,748 --> 00:40:54,485
sidewalks on each side of the street.

412
00:40:54,485 --> 00:40:57,287
where it has been an issue is the street width.

413
00:40:57,287 --> 00:41:00,900
there's a conflict between the pw code and the fire code.

414
00:41:00,900 --> 00:41:03,694
the fire code is the minimum public health and safety.

415
00:41:03,694 --> 00:41:09,566
so if you apply the public code, the fire code which is 10', it

416
00:41:09,566 --> 00:41:14,366
requires a narrower path of travel where dpw.

417
00:41:18,776 --> 00:41:25,715
so most that would have come in have been terms of the fire

418
00:41:25,715 --> 00:41:27,985
code. To comply in most cases.

419
00:41:27,985 --> 00:41:31,388
there's maybe one or two that we've reached back and forth.

420
00:41:31,388 --> 00:41:35,588
>> okay. And then I think to further

421
00:41:36,727 --> 00:41:41,331
respond to commissioner biehle, what we're seeing with the

422
00:41:41,331 --> 00:41:45,935
applications that have come in is that locations that we had

423
00:41:45,935 --> 00:41:50,135
basically envisioned would be multi-family buildings are

424
00:41:51,674 --> 00:41:55,478
coming in as small lot single family.

425
00:41:55,478 --> 00:42:00,750
and so they basically look more like your standard single-family

426
00:42:00,750 --> 00:42:06,289
subdivision and so they do have more internal streets involved.

427
00:42:06,289 --> 00:42:12,161
so I think we're seeing that these standards are, um,, more

428
00:42:12,161 --> 00:42:18,761
necessary than we might have envisioned at the time of the

429
00:42:19,569 --> 00:42:23,640
>> m. Biehle: okay. So would we be -- I mean, have

430
00:42:23,640 --> 00:42:27,577
they been deemed complete. -- would we employ applying

431
00:42:27,577 --> 00:42:30,513
these standards if the supervisors ultimately adopt

432
00:42:30,513 --> 00:42:33,517
them? Are we applying them to these

433
00:42:33,517 --> 00:42:38,917
standards or do they get in before the --

434
00:42:39,655 --> 00:42:44,460
>> oh, we can't apply new standards to applications that

435
00:42:44,460 --> 00:42:48,865
are already on file. So they would be applied to

436
00:42:48,865 --> 00:42:54,865
applications that come in going forward after the standards are

437
00:42:56,730 --> 00:42:56,806
adopted. >>.

438
00:42:56,806 --> 00:43:00,477
>> m. Biehle: okay. I think that's all I have.

439
00:43:00,477 --> 00:43:04,770
>> c. Muralles: thank you, commissioner biehle.

440
00:43:05,434 --> 00:43:09,638
commissioner lind. >> r. Lind: I have a little

441
00:43:09,638 --> 00:43:14,644
list of questions. So, first of all, the bowl belts

442
00:43:14,644 --> 00:43:20,182
that you discussed at the intersection, so they would be

443
00:43:20,182 --> 00:43:24,921
basically in the sidewalk, the portion of the right of way that

444
00:43:24,921 --> 00:43:27,790
the sidewalk with continuation of the sidewalk.

445
00:43:27,790 --> 00:43:32,610
would it be the 13'? >> they would be connected to

446
00:43:32,610 --> 00:43:34,797
the sidewalk but they would be within the space allocated to

447
00:43:34,797 --> 00:43:38,801
the parking lane. >> r. Lind: so it would be

448
00:43:38,801 --> 00:43:41,804
within the travel lane? >> within the parking lane.

449
00:43:41,804 --> 00:43:44,407
>> r. Lind: within the portion of it.

450
00:43:44,407 --> 00:43:46,876
>> right. Within the parking portion

451
00:43:46,876 --> 00:43:50,279
within the curb to curb. >> r. Lind: within the 8'.

452
00:43:50,279 --> 00:43:52,948
okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

453
00:43:52,948 --> 00:43:55,818
>> yep. >> r. Lind: and then I have a

454
00:43:55,818 --> 00:44:00,618
question about the pedestrian and bike shared configuration.

455
00:44:02,240 --> 00:44:08,624
how would e-bikes be regulated in the shared use situation with

456
00:44:08,631 --> 00:44:13,431
the category 3 e-bikes be allowed on those walkways?

457
00:44:19,308 --> 00:44:23,246
>> that's not something we talked about but they would

458
00:44:23,246 --> 00:44:28,646
likely be allowed with some rules and regulations and

459
00:44:29,185 --> 00:44:32,785
enforcement would be needed on speeds.

460
00:44:32,855 --> 00:44:36,392
>> r. Lind: I'm an e-bike rider and I have a class 3 and they

461
00:44:36,392 --> 00:44:40,196
can get up to 30 miles an hour if it's flat.

462
00:44:40,196 --> 00:44:46,335
and, you know,, I think that if we're -- if we don't have a

463
00:44:46,335 --> 00:44:50,807
dedicated path, that can be difficult for pedestrians.

464
00:44:50,807 --> 00:44:58,700
it's already an issue on the path that goes from the valley

465
00:44:58,614 --> 00:45:04,153
to but I've been on that road in instances where people can

466
00:45:04,153 --> 00:45:07,757
barely get out of the way particularly when people have

467
00:45:07,757 --> 00:45:10,693
dogs on leashes and other constraints.

468
00:45:10,693 --> 00:45:13,362
that's just something to think about.

469
00:45:13,362 --> 00:45:16,432
it's not part of our regulations, but it would be an

470
00:45:16,432 --> 00:45:17,900
administrative ruling probably. >> right.

471
00:45:17,900 --> 00:45:21,370
and maybe that's something we can follow up separately with

472
00:45:21,370 --> 00:45:24,840
traffic about and kind of finish the discussion as well.

473
00:45:24,840 --> 00:45:27,443
>> r. Lind: yeah. It's a difficult enforcement

474
00:45:27,443 --> 00:45:32,843
problem, for sure, but at any rate, it's potentially

475
00:45:32,915 --> 00:45:35,717
dangerous. Then we haven't discussed the

476
00:45:35,717 --> 00:45:39,188
alleys at all. I -- I'm encouraged by the

477
00:45:39,188 --> 00:45:42,658
changes you've made in most of the standards, but I'm not

478
00:45:42,658 --> 00:45:45,327
satisfied with the alley standards.

479
00:45:45,327 --> 00:45:49,665
I don't see any need for two-way traffic in an alley since our

480
00:45:49,665 --> 00:45:52,802
last meeting. I visited a number of alleys,

481
00:45:52,802 --> 00:45:56,138
I've majored them. One of them involved a project

482
00:45:56,138 --> 00:45:59,341
that myself was involved in up in washington state 20 years

483
00:45:59,341 --> 00:46:02,812
ago. I went to see how it has

484
00:46:02,812 --> 00:46:09,152
involved and how it was used and it doesn't -- it's more like a

485
00:46:09,152 --> 00:46:14,289
16' to 20' width. There's always the 24' back out

486
00:46:14,289 --> 00:46:19,695
requirement, but you're allowed to use your across the street

487
00:46:19,695 --> 00:46:22,631
property owner's driveway to accomplish that.

488
00:46:22,631 --> 00:46:25,434
so I have some questions about that.

489
00:46:25,434 --> 00:46:28,237
I'm afraid that particularly the configuration that you showed us

490
00:46:28,237 --> 00:46:31,907
in the illustration, it looks pretty much like a residential

491
00:46:31,907 --> 00:46:34,643
road, it just doesn't have the parking.

492
00:46:34,643 --> 00:46:41,243
and my experience is when those people drive too quickly on

493
00:46:41,917 --> 00:46:44,520
them. And then a related question that

494
00:46:44,520 --> 00:46:50,652
applies to all of these areas of accommodations, are you road

495
00:46:50,659 --> 00:46:54,530
widths, counted towards density? Are we doing this on gross

496
00:46:54,530 --> 00:46:58,200
density or net? So do the roads come out and in

497
00:46:58,200 --> 00:47:02,672
particular the alleys. Do the alleys come out for

498
00:47:02,672 --> 00:47:07,472
density calculations? >> they -- the alleys in the

499
00:47:08,100 --> 00:47:14,610
street areas dedicated streets, alleys and so forth do not count

500
00:47:18,487 --> 00:47:19,688
towards density. >> r. Lind: they don't count

501
00:47:19,688 --> 00:47:22,758
towards density, so on that situation, I don't think we're

502
00:47:22,758 --> 00:47:26,280
going to get anyone doing alleys particularly.

503
00:47:26,280 --> 00:47:29,765
if the right of way is as wide as you're showing it, we won't

504
00:47:29,765 --> 00:47:33,169
get any alleys because it won't be cost effective.

505
00:47:33,169 --> 00:47:37,172
they have to be allowed to have a density transferred off of

506
00:47:37,172 --> 00:47:40,843
them if you really want them and I don't think you need to see

507
00:47:40,843 --> 00:47:45,460
traffic on them. I see no reason for two-way

508
00:47:45,460 --> 00:47:46,648
traffic. They're usually quite short

509
00:47:46,648 --> 00:47:48,451
blocks. These are people who are going

510
00:47:48,451 --> 00:47:54,451
to their homes and that's the way they function traditionally.

511
00:47:58,394 --> 00:48:00,329
16' total pavement standard for alleys.

512
00:48:00,329 --> 00:48:02,865
with the stipulation that you can't park on them.

513
00:48:02,865 --> 00:48:08,937
and some of the ones I visited actually did have red curbs

514
00:48:08,937 --> 00:48:13,750
which is unfortunate graphically but probably the most effective

515
00:48:13,750 --> 00:48:17,413
way instead of signage. Anyway, it's a tradeoff that I

516
00:48:17,413 --> 00:48:22,484
think is important. I'd rather see red curbs than

517
00:48:22,484 --> 00:48:26,684
additional impervious service. >> you're absolutely right that

518
00:48:27,489 --> 00:48:30,826
probably the driving factor in the design and based on the

519
00:48:30,826 --> 00:48:36,164
current regulations is you need at at least 24' to back out and

520
00:48:36,164 --> 00:48:39,168
turn. The proposal we have is 30', so

521
00:48:39,168 --> 00:48:43,839
that additional 6', you know, provides the opportunity for

522
00:48:43,839 --> 00:48:47,109
little driveway aprons into the parking, also for landscaping

523
00:48:47,109 --> 00:48:53,382
between the driveways which a lot of developers choose to put

524
00:48:53,382 --> 00:49:01,123
in just to break up that row of garage doors down the alley.

525
00:49:01,123 --> 00:49:05,660
I think what we see is a lot of townhouse development do use

526
00:49:05,660 --> 00:49:11,600
alleys and like to because, again, it provides vehicular

527
00:49:11,850 --> 00:49:12,686
access but it separates it from the main pedestrian access to

528
00:49:12,686 --> 00:49:15,356
the unit which is are on the streets.

529
00:49:15,356 --> 00:49:19,930
again, the difference we're talking about here is six feet

530
00:49:19,930 --> 00:49:23,290
from the required minimum 24' for backup.

531
00:49:23,290 --> 00:49:24,832
>> r. Lind: yeah. I appreciate they're really

532
00:49:24,832 --> 00:49:28,836
valuable in terms of design and I was pleased to see the ones I

533
00:49:28,836 --> 00:49:33,107
was involved with years ago actually looked really nice and

534
00:49:33,107 --> 00:49:38,378
are green, very green, you know. And we didn't have developer

535
00:49:38,378 --> 00:49:40,314
planting, just homeowner planting.

536
00:49:40,314 --> 00:49:45,252
but at any rate, it's very effective but I don't think

537
00:49:45,252 --> 00:49:49,123
you're going to get alleys if you do the density transfer.

538
00:49:49,123 --> 00:49:55,396
the alleys were allowed to count for density if you write that

539
00:49:55,396 --> 00:49:58,666
into the code. If you want alleys, I would

540
00:49:58,666 --> 00:50:04,666
strongly suggest that. I still don't like the width of

541
00:50:04,939 --> 00:50:09,477
them and no they're at least 24' backup space.

542
00:50:09,477 --> 00:50:14,281
>> can I put this in context? We have two proposals, one of

543
00:50:14,281 --> 00:50:20,881
which got approved is now under review, they actually include a

544
00:50:21,288 --> 00:50:25,250
20' dry valve for alleys and we're basing this code based on

545
00:50:25,250 --> 00:50:28,362
that project. And those are not single family

546
00:50:28,362 --> 00:50:31,362
homes. Those are typically townhouses

547
00:50:31,365 --> 00:50:34,434
or they have pedestrian entrances from main street and

548
00:50:34,434 --> 00:50:39,173
then they're isolating the vehicular access from the shared

549
00:50:39,173 --> 00:50:42,510
driveway. The reason you want the width is

550
00:50:42,510 --> 00:50:49,110
because if you keep it narrow, you can almost make it

551
00:50:49,183 --> 00:50:50,250
impossible to turn around and come out.

552
00:50:50,250 --> 00:50:53,587
otherwise you will be forcing people to back out for the

553
00:50:53,587 --> 00:50:57,570
length of four or five homes towards main street.

554
00:50:57,570 --> 00:51:00,995
the intention is just to avoid that because we experienced it

555
00:51:00,995 --> 00:51:04,731
with one project that we recently approved.

556
00:51:04,731 --> 00:51:07,334
>> r. Lind: I could see the difference if you're thinking of

557
00:51:07,334 --> 00:51:10,738
this as a townhouse kind of standard, I was thinking of it

558
00:51:10,738 --> 00:51:16,210
more of a single family standard with plotted lots and I could

559
00:51:16,210 --> 00:51:20,414
see that difference and you would have more driveways.

560
00:51:20,414 --> 00:51:23,684
>> oh, I agree with you. I don't think we will see alleys

561
00:51:23,684 --> 00:51:26,220
in a single family home subdivision.

562
00:51:26,220 --> 00:51:31,292
a proposal is because it is inefficient use of land and it's

563
00:51:31,292 --> 00:51:33,761
very costly. >> r. Lind: right.

564
00:51:33,761 --> 00:51:38,310
>> I do see form based alleys and projects that follow the

565
00:51:38,310 --> 00:51:42,569
form base or multi-family housing setups and I think you

566
00:51:42,569 --> 00:51:47,369
do need the width. Just playing devil's advocate.

567
00:51:47,574 --> 00:51:49,176
>> one more point of information.

568
00:51:49,176 --> 00:51:52,980
>> r. Lind: okay. I just had another question, but

569
00:51:52,980 --> 00:51:55,980
go ahead. >> your land development

570
00:51:57,184 --> 00:52:03,784
division mentions it requires a minimum of 20' in the travm

571
00:52:03,924 --> 00:52:07,861
lane, that establishes a minimum width of 20'.

572
00:52:07,861 --> 00:52:10,664
>> r. Lind: okay. But doing a design that creates

573
00:52:10,664 --> 00:52:15,803
a kind of two lane, it really elevates the road more toward a

574
00:52:15,803 --> 00:52:18,872
regular residential road and I think people will speed on them.

575
00:52:18,872 --> 00:52:24,872
I mean, I really -- I think that will happen.

576
00:52:25,790 --> 00:52:29,820
I want to go on to the adu question.

577
00:52:29,820 --> 00:52:32,953
so I'm not clear on all of the parking requirements for adu's

578
00:52:32,953 --> 00:52:38,559
but I can tell you from my personal experience on the road

579
00:52:38,559 --> 00:52:45,759
where I live which has six houses on it and 50% rental and

580
00:52:47,701 --> 00:52:54,708
one third have short term rentals and one has an adu and

581
00:52:54,708 --> 00:53:00,247
so there are cars all over the street and people are storing

582
00:53:00,247 --> 00:53:04,785
stuff in their garages and so I think it's good intentions.

583
00:53:04,785 --> 00:53:11,391
I mean, I'm always in favor of not having more parking, but the

584
00:53:11,391 --> 00:53:15,262
reality is that people use these properties the way they're

585
00:53:15,262 --> 00:53:21,535
accustomed to used them and they will park on the street unless

586
00:53:21,535 --> 00:53:28,408
there's a lot of enforcement. And people who have adus and/or

587
00:53:28,408 --> 00:53:34,348
maybe illegal adus, they're not providing on site parking for

588
00:53:34,348 --> 00:53:37,284
their tenants and they're using their personal garages for

589
00:53:37,284 --> 00:53:41,154
storage and their tenants are parking maybe one car in the

590
00:53:41,154 --> 00:53:43,900
driveway and a car on the street.

591
00:53:43,900 --> 00:53:46,827
so that's just the practical reality that we have and I know

592
00:53:46,827 --> 00:53:51,297
when you review the adu plans, they have to account for the

593
00:53:51,297 --> 00:53:54,435
uncovered parking space some place and it's probably usually

594
00:53:54,435 --> 00:53:57,571
in the driveway apron. But in terms of practicality,

595
00:53:57,571 --> 00:54:02,420
it's going to be on the street. So with this restricted

596
00:54:02,420 --> 00:54:06,180
residential option which I actually like, it's a creative

597
00:54:06,180 --> 00:54:09,649
approach, what would the enforcement br and how would --

598
00:54:09,649 --> 00:54:15,789
what would you do about those cars that are going to end up

599
00:54:15,789 --> 00:54:19,389
out there? >> adus are very complicated

600
00:54:21,528 --> 00:54:23,263
proposals. They're hard to be controlled

601
00:54:23,263 --> 00:54:27,601
through the state laws and the county cannot in many cases we

602
00:54:27,601 --> 00:54:31,201
cannot require parking spaces for adus.

603
00:54:32,500 --> 00:54:37,211
for example, if an applicant converts their spots to an aqu,

604
00:54:37,211 --> 00:54:43,211
the state law clearly states the county or any jurisdiction

605
00:54:44,150 --> 00:54:50,750
cannot require eye placement. It would be but almost in every

606
00:54:56,163 --> 00:54:59,166
circumstance, they come under state law.

607
00:54:59,166 --> 00:55:03,903
they're placing parking spaces for the surface or parking

608
00:55:03,903 --> 00:55:09,903
structure to create adus. I'm afraid the control of and

609
00:55:16,449 --> 00:55:23,490
that's very limited but even in those instance, under the law,

610
00:55:31,215 --> 00:55:34,819
you can have your adu legalized. >> r. Lind: right.

611
00:55:34,819 --> 00:55:36,621
so I'm aware. It is going to happen.

612
00:55:36,621 --> 00:55:41,558
we're not going to say you can't do adus along residential

613
00:55:41,558 --> 00:55:43,628
streets. Just in terms of reality,

614
00:55:43,628 --> 00:55:46,831
there's going to have to be a parking enforcement program if

615
00:55:46,831 --> 00:55:50,100
you expect to not see cars out there on those restricted

616
00:55:50,100 --> 00:55:55,306
residential streets and if it's an option for people, they will

617
00:55:55,306 --> 00:56:01,646
probably apply for I so at any rate, and there's also

618
00:56:01,646 --> 00:56:04,916
the matter of the short-term rentals.

619
00:56:04,916 --> 00:56:09,716
like I said, on my street their property.

620
00:56:21,799 --> 00:56:26,599
>> let's be sure. The county strictly short term

621
00:56:28,272 --> 00:56:33,344
rental and adu unless prior to the ordinance was adopted.

622
00:56:33,344 --> 00:56:37,348
what you probably conceived as the main house has become a

623
00:56:37,348 --> 00:56:41,619
short term rental and the owner has moved to an adu.

624
00:56:41,619 --> 00:56:44,822
>> r. Lind: one of them is like that and the other is there's no

625
00:56:44,822 --> 00:56:49,160
adu that I know of. One short term rental and one

626
00:56:49,160 --> 00:56:56,167
it's just a short term rental. At any rate, my point being that

627
00:56:56,167 --> 00:57:00,371
parking is going to be very hard to deal with in real time and I

628
00:57:00,371 --> 00:57:06,844
think we need to be aware of that when we create options for

629
00:57:06,844 --> 00:57:11,115
something like this restricted residential street that even

630
00:57:11,115 --> 00:57:16,515
though it's a really good. >> excuse me, commissioner lind,

631
00:57:23,600 --> 00:57:28,660
I think that's a very fair and accurate that parking is a

632
00:57:28,660 --> 00:57:33,938
growing challenge as state laws go towards not, you know, sort

633
00:57:33,938 --> 00:57:39,143
of limiting the ability to require on site parking, people

634
00:57:39,143 --> 00:57:45,549
do still have cars. We do not have a transit system

635
00:57:45,549 --> 00:57:51,549
that really supports the ability to get around, there's still

636
00:57:56,828 --> 00:58:01,980
going to be a need for parking. It is very challenging to manage

637
00:58:01,980 --> 00:58:07,905
for that and I think that being sort of understanding how this

638
00:58:07,905 --> 00:58:11,576
might change our operational requirements as a county is an

639
00:58:11,576 --> 00:58:15,846
important part of this that we will be sure to highlight with

640
00:58:15,846 --> 00:58:20,646
the board. We also have that condition that

641
00:58:24,121 --> 00:58:30,600
mr. Brown referenced around the waivers under density bonus and

642
00:58:30,600 --> 00:58:35,666
really kind of have limitations on what it is that we can

643
00:58:35,666 --> 00:58:41,872
require and what it is that we can allow, so where sidewalks

644
00:58:41,872 --> 00:58:48,472
are something where there is a, you know, strong and clear

645
00:58:48,679 --> 00:58:52,416
safety effect of not having sidewalks for people to walk on,

646
00:58:52,416 --> 00:58:58,416
with parking, it's more nuanced because you really only reach

647
00:58:59,156 --> 00:59:05,563
that point where there's a safety impact if you have people

648
00:59:05,563 --> 00:59:09,330
blocking emergency vehicle access and that is a line that

649
00:59:09,330 --> 00:59:15,906
we can hold but it's difficult to keep in place in reality so

650
00:59:15,906 --> 00:59:21,379
this is something that we will I am sure be working with and

651
00:59:21,379 --> 00:59:25,449
struggling with. What we -- what is, you know,

652
00:59:25,449 --> 00:59:28,985
something that we are hoping to move away from in marin county

653
00:59:28,985 --> 00:59:34,724
is the conditions that we have on a lot of the streets and the

654
00:59:34,724 --> 00:59:37,194
unincorporated area which is that there aren't safe places to

655
00:59:37,194 --> 00:59:40,264
walk. So the streets have been

656
00:59:40,264 --> 00:59:43,734
developed in favor of having the parking but not having the

657
00:59:43,734 --> 00:59:47,934
sidewalks. And, you know, we're hoping to

658
00:59:49,607 --> 00:59:55,479
preserve that ability for people to get around on foot safely and

659
00:59:55,479 --> 00:59:59,883
also are just going to have that ongoing discussion and that --

660
00:59:59,883 --> 01:00:03,553
those are the kinds of things that we are looking at very

661
01:00:03,553 --> 01:00:09,359
closely as we review development applications is, you know, what

662
01:00:09,359 --> 01:00:11,561
is the condition being created here.

663
01:00:11,561 --> 01:00:15,565
but I really -- I went on for a while, but I really appreciate

664
01:00:15,565 --> 01:00:19,836
your raising these points and I think we are going to need to be

665
01:00:19,836 --> 01:00:24,908
doing further thought and working within the county on

666
01:00:24,908 --> 01:00:29,108
what is really implementable. >> r. Lind: yeah.

667
01:00:30,181 --> 01:00:33,117
it's not going to be easy. I do have one more question

668
01:00:33,117 --> 01:00:36,454
which is just a technical kind of question.

669
01:00:36,454 --> 01:00:37,788
>> c. Muralles: go ahead. >> r. Lind: you talked about

670
01:00:37,788 --> 01:00:42,993
the block length. So is there a curb cut

671
01:00:42,993 --> 01:00:44,728
separation standard? So --

672
01:00:44,728 --> 01:00:47,998
>> there is a maximum block length between the

673
01:00:47,998 --> 01:00:50,998
intersections, that's in the code.

674
01:00:51,201 --> 01:00:56,601
>> r. Lind: so but between driveway entrances, there's no

675
01:00:57,340 --> 01:01:00,940
standard -- >> there's no standard for

676
01:01:13,424 --> 01:01:15,493
that. >> the form code does have

677
01:01:15,493 --> 01:01:19,497
maximum driveway width, but I don't believe it's separation.

678
01:01:19,497 --> 01:01:21,565
>> r. Lind: okay. That's interesting.

679
01:01:21,565 --> 01:01:25,436
something to think about for the future.

680
01:01:25,436 --> 01:01:28,589
>> c. Muralles: thank you, commissioner lind.

681
01:01:28,589 --> 01:01:31,658
I think commissioner sandoval had a question as well.

682
01:01:31,658 --> 01:01:35,929
>> r. Sandoval: I do chair. My question is on this concept

683
01:01:35,929 --> 01:01:37,731
of maintaining a right of way, is that something new that we're

684
01:01:37,731 --> 01:01:42,680
-- is that like a new addition that isn't already in the

685
01:01:42,680 --> 01:01:47,207
development standards and is that indefinite or is there some

686
01:01:47,207 --> 01:01:49,743
sort of time limit on the right of way that the county would be

687
01:01:49,743 --> 01:01:54,543
giving itself? >> I'm not entirely sure of the

688
01:01:58,685 --> 01:02:02,885
question. If it relates to currently sub

689
01:02:03,957 --> 01:02:07,761
standard streets when that improves that frontage.

690
01:02:07,761 --> 01:02:11,899
your question was in those cases --

691
01:02:11,899 --> 01:02:16,360
>> r. Sandoval: is there like an indefinite right of way.

692
01:02:16,360 --> 01:02:19,440
>> -- as part of that development entitlement, so the

693
01:02:19,440 --> 01:02:24,240
county would have that right of way indefinitely.

694
01:02:29,516 --> 01:02:34,855
>> r. Sandoval: got it. I'll say I support class one I

695
01:02:34,855 --> 01:02:38,392
think it's safe alternatives involving bikes in the roadways,

696
01:02:38,392 --> 01:02:41,392
so I support that. Thanks.

697
01:02:41,461 --> 01:02:43,530
>> c. Muralles: thank you. I would like to go ahead and

698
01:02:43,530 --> 01:02:46,600
open up for comments or if there are any comments relate today

699
01:02:46,600 --> 01:02:48,401
this manner. Go ahead, manny.

700
01:02:48,401 --> 01:02:52,606
>> I actually found -- I have the form-base code in front of

701
01:02:52,606 --> 01:02:59,206
me and it does say a minimum of 30' between drive

702
01:03:05,953 --> 01:03:10,153
please turn on your mic, commissioner lind.

703
01:03:10,624 --> 01:03:14,561
>> r. Lind: I did want to comment on this dedication of

704
01:03:14,561 --> 01:03:19,433
right of way issue. So in that instance, manny, is

705
01:03:19,433 --> 01:03:21,568
the land that would be included in the dedication subject to

706
01:03:21,568 --> 01:03:23,568
density? .

707
01:03:28,708 --> 01:03:32,779
>> it would be dedicated for purposes of roadway.

708
01:03:32,779 --> 01:03:35,249
>> r. Lind: so it's a net calculation.

709
01:03:35,249 --> 01:03:40,649
I think that is problematic we're allowing people to

710
01:03:48,929 --> 01:03:51,799
retrograde a role extending older standards but we're taking

711
01:03:51,799 --> 01:03:55,536
the right of way, but we're not giving credit for density for

712
01:03:55,536 --> 01:03:58,536
the right of way. So.

713
01:04:07,481 --> 01:04:11,885
>> c. Muralles: kate, do you have an opinion on that?

714
01:04:11,885 --> 01:04:15,421
sorry, the question is your concern about dedicating the

715
01:04:15,421 --> 01:04:21,494
right of way and the sub -- like the road not meeting current

716
01:04:21,494 --> 01:04:23,960
standards? >> r. Lind: right.

717
01:04:23,960 --> 01:04:28,634
so we're basically asking the developer to dedicate the road

718
01:04:28,634 --> 01:04:33,106
standard right of way although we will approve a development at

719
01:04:33,106 --> 01:04:39,445
a lesser road standard. So there will be a hunk of land

720
01:04:39,445 --> 01:04:43,516
that will be in a county right of way status not available for

721
01:04:43,516 --> 01:04:49,516
development or amenities for the project and there's no density

722
01:04:51,391 --> 01:04:54,260
compensation for not having the use of that land.

723
01:04:54,260 --> 01:04:58,732
so it would -- so the rationale that was given in the

724
01:04:58,732 --> 01:05:01,601
presentation was at some point in the future, then the county

725
01:05:01,601 --> 01:05:05,500
would already have that abortion of the right of way if it were

726
01:05:05,500 --> 01:05:10,744
to ever go back and redesign the entire street, but I think quite

727
01:05:10,744 --> 01:05:14,140
frankly being practical, that's a rather unlikely situation,

728
01:05:14,140 --> 01:05:19,860
because there's going to be all sorts of existing development

729
01:05:19,860 --> 01:05:26,886
within that theoretical right of way and I just don't -- I have

730
01:05:27,828 --> 01:05:31,898
it seems to add to the cost of development to phrase it in the

731
01:05:31,898 --> 01:05:34,901
way we are required to look at housing these days.

732
01:05:34,901 --> 01:05:41,240
it seems to me that that wou >> did you want to speak?

733
01:05:41,240 --> 01:05:44,711
>> I would just mention that, again, under the state density

734
01:05:44,711 --> 01:05:51,718
bonus law, applicants have a great deal of leeway in terms of

735
01:05:51,718 --> 01:05:54,540
increasing beyond your density calculation limitation.

736
01:05:54,540 --> 01:05:58,324
again, if a developer wants more density to make up for what

737
01:05:58,324 --> 01:06:02,329
they've lost in counting the right of way, they certainly

738
01:06:02,329 --> 01:06:05,732
have options under state law. >> r. Lind: that is of course

739
01:06:05,732 --> 01:06:08,468
true, but the density starts at a baseline and if the baseline

740
01:06:08,468 --> 01:06:12,205
is higher, they get even more density.

741
01:06:12,205 --> 01:06:18,211
so I don't think that argument eliminates the issue of it being

742
01:06:18,211 --> 01:06:24,351
an additional -- it could be a regulatory barrier or it could

743
01:06:24,351 --> 01:06:27,621
be cost. I think we've seen that it's

744
01:06:27,621 --> 01:06:31,824
difficult to predict how developers are going to approach

745
01:06:31,824 --> 01:06:35,424
density. We have not been seeing

746
01:06:37,297 --> 01:06:39,632
development above the base dense it's.

747
01:06:39,632 --> 01:06:43,303
in fact, they have been using waivers to reduce the density

748
01:06:43,303 --> 01:06:46,573
relative to what is in the zoning on the property.

749
01:06:46,573 --> 01:06:48,175
>> r. Lind: that's really interesting.

750
01:06:48,175 --> 01:06:53,713
so the market isn't at those higher densities at the present

751
01:06:53,713 --> 01:06:57,913
time. >> in some cases, not for what

752
01:07:01,587 --> 01:07:06,987
the type of development that we're seeing in the

753
01:07:11,330 --> 01:07:12,999
unincorporated area. >> m. Biehle: you're allowing

754
01:07:12,999 --> 01:07:17,336
the development to proceed at a reduced standard, but with the

755
01:07:17,336 --> 01:07:20,807
caveat that the right of way is being dedicated so it's a

756
01:07:20,807 --> 01:07:26,480
tradeoff I assume. So I don't see the legal risk

757
01:07:26,480 --> 01:07:28,548
there. >> and not only the tradeoff but

758
01:07:28,548 --> 01:07:31,551
it's also a deferred maintenance for the county frankly.

759
01:07:31,551 --> 01:07:36,951
we are not making the applicants make the improvements.

760
01:07:40,442 --> 01:07:43,450
instead they're providing the right of way.

761
01:07:43,450 --> 01:07:46,314
you can look at it from that perspective and argue that

762
01:07:46,314 --> 01:07:49,314
actually saves the applicant's money.

763
01:07:50,252 --> 01:07:55,520
>> r. Lind: so then who maintains that area?

764
01:07:57,192 --> 01:07:59,328
>> c. Muralles: can someone say that into the microphone.

765
01:07:59,328 --> 01:08:04,728
>> the developer's required to maintain the right of way.

766
01:08:10,205 --> 01:08:14,342
>> c. Muralles: before we move on -- let me finish.

767
01:08:14,342 --> 01:08:17,110
can you state your name and who you are.

768
01:08:17,110 --> 01:08:21,811
>> land development division manager and also the principal

769
01:08:22,818 --> 01:08:25,354
engineer. And there is a benefit to the

770
01:08:25,354 --> 01:08:30,425
developer that they save money by not paying for those

771
01:08:30,425 --> 01:08:35,225
improvements at this time. To the developer u

772
01:08:38,300 --> 01:08:43,304
>> c. Muralles: thank you. So this is a time for other

773
01:08:43,304 --> 01:08:44,706
comments if anybody else has some other comments, feel free

774
01:08:44,706 --> 01:08:47,443
to come to the podium. We're good?

775
01:08:47,443 --> 01:08:49,978
so I'm going to go ahead and close public comment for this

776
01:08:49,978 --> 01:08:56,518
item and we can go ahead and continue with the conversations.

777
01:08:56,518 --> 01:08:59,530
commissioner curran. >> m. Curran: thank you.

778
01:08:59,530 --> 01:09:04,590
I think the requirement to dedicate the right of way to

779
01:09:04,590 --> 01:09:09,798
have that more optimal standard is absolutely an important thing

780
01:09:09,798 --> 01:09:13,334
to do. It's in my experience which is

781
01:09:13,334 --> 01:09:17,139
I've spent most of my career in local government, that right of

782
01:09:17,139 --> 01:09:23,139
way, you have one shot at it a roadway system.

783
01:09:43,298 --> 01:09:48,980
also, it's not like it can't be landscaped.

784
01:09:52,907 --> 01:09:55,911
it can be utilized in a variety of way, not with a building, not

785
01:09:55,911 --> 01:09:59,781
with that kind of improvement, but it absolutely can be made

786
01:09:59,781 --> 01:10:02,117
beautiful. It can have a bench on it.

787
01:10:02,117 --> 01:10:06,654
it can be made useful. And I mean if anything people

788
01:10:06,654 --> 01:10:11,726
over do it and kind of forget that they don't have all the

789
01:10:11,726 --> 01:10:14,195
entitlements to it that they might wish.

790
01:10:14,195 --> 01:10:16,998
but I for one think that that's a really important thing.

791
01:10:16,998 --> 01:10:21,536
I was glad to see that in there and I was going to inquire about

792
01:10:21,536 --> 01:10:24,339
it. Earlier when I was reading this.

793
01:10:24,339 --> 01:10:29,110
that's just my two cents. I just have a separate question

794
01:10:29,110 --> 01:10:32,747
that may or may not be jermaine to this conversation, but do we

795
01:10:32,747 --> 01:10:38,147
currently allow e-bikes, and even those little scooters that

796
01:10:38,220 --> 01:10:42,224
young people terrify the rest of us with?

797
01:10:42,224 --> 01:10:48,290
on bike paths? >> can I ask stuart to speak to

798
01:10:48,290 --> 01:10:50,832
this? My understanding is it falls

799
01:10:50,832 --> 01:10:54,432
under a different set of regulations.

800
01:11:00,108 --> 01:11:03,244
>> c. Muralles: turn it on again please, thank you.

801
01:11:03,244 --> 01:11:06,647
>> we'll have to check with the traffic division to see if there

802
01:11:06,647 --> 01:11:08,850
are any requirements as far as e-bikes.

803
01:11:08,850 --> 01:11:12,987
I'm not sure what the policies are in place that the county's

804
01:11:12,987 --> 01:11:15,257
currently adopted. We'll have to get back to you

805
01:11:15,257 --> 01:11:18,257
with a response. Thank you.

806
01:11:21,796 --> 01:11:24,796
>> thank you. >> c. Muralles: commissioner

807
01:11:24,933 --> 01:11:28,669
stepanicich I was wondering if you can put backslide 28.

808
01:11:28,669 --> 01:11:31,940
I would like to read and process them a little bit better.

809
01:11:31,940 --> 01:11:34,142
also, robert I believe it's your name.

810
01:11:34,142 --> 01:11:36,478
robert, right. You mentioned something about

811
01:11:36,478 --> 01:11:41,878
reports from safety agencies. Have you received those are

812
01:11:44,352 --> 01:11:46,221
either going to the board of supervisors in the next.

813
01:11:46,221 --> 01:11:51,210
>> I'm sorry I mentioned. >> c. Muralles: you mentioned

814
01:11:51,560 --> 01:11:54,229
something about other safety agency reports coming along the

815
01:11:54,229 --> 01:11:56,831
way. Are they just going to the board

816
01:11:56,831 --> 01:11:59,501
of supervisors or have they been submitted or is that something

817
01:11:59,501 --> 01:12:01,770
we're expecting to view or get in the future?

818
01:12:01,770 --> 01:12:07,509
>> I think you're referring to the fact that the document and

819
01:12:07,509 --> 01:12:10,509
justify the minimum safety standards.

820
01:12:11,580 --> 01:12:15,316
tool design has prepared a justification memo that will be

821
01:12:15,316 --> 01:12:18,787
appended to the county's adoption around, so it will be

822
01:12:18,787 --> 01:12:21,323
part of the public record because it provides the

823
01:12:21,323 --> 01:12:23,725
justification for their findings that will be in the ordinance.

824
01:12:23,725 --> 01:12:27,325
>> right. So there's nothing else coming

825
01:12:31,132 --> 01:12:34,736
in regards to safety. And if you have slide 28, 29,

826
01:12:34,736 --> 01:12:39,536
thank you very much. And commissioner stepanicich, if

827
01:12:39,808 --> 01:12:43,478
you can keep those rides up for a minute.

828
01:12:43,478 --> 01:12:48,878
I think it's 29 and 30, it talks about the conceptions.

829
01:12:51,486 --> 01:12:53,486
go back. Hmm.

830
01:12:58,360 --> 01:13:00,962
there. The one after that.

831
01:13:00,962 --> 01:13:04,632
can you keep this one up for a minute.

832
01:13:04,632 --> 01:13:06,368
thank you. >> g. Stepanicich: to follow up

833
01:13:06,368 --> 01:13:10,772
with the e-bikes and I think it's great to have the class

834
01:13:10,772 --> 01:13:14,420
pass but I do think from an administrative point of view,

835
01:13:14,420 --> 01:13:18,112
there's an issue with respect to e-bikes and e-bikes with

836
01:13:18,112 --> 01:13:21,582
throttles and there's been a big issue with younger kids using

837
01:13:21,582 --> 01:13:25,854
these but I think it's also true with respect to mixing

838
01:13:25,854 --> 01:13:29,925
pedestrians and bicycles together, how we deal with those

839
01:13:29,925 --> 01:13:33,194
that can go very past and that's something again not to deal with

840
01:13:33,194 --> 01:13:36,932
as these part of regulations, I think it's an important issue

841
01:13:36,932 --> 01:13:42,885
for the county to deal with. >> and we looked it up on the

842
01:13:42,885 --> 01:13:49,485
fly and the requirements in marin county are the class one

843
01:13:50,292 --> 01:13:56,292
and class two e-bikes can be used on multiuse pathways.

844
01:13:58,567 --> 01:14:00,836
but the speed is 10 miles an hour.

845
01:14:00,836 --> 01:14:05,400
class two are the ones with the throttle and then class three

846
01:14:05,400 --> 01:14:09,240
e-bikes cannot be ridden on bike paths.

847
01:14:09,378 --> 01:14:14,316
so these -- so, you know, the new bike facilities that are

848
01:14:14,316 --> 01:14:17,986
created would be subject to the same rules as bike facilities

849
01:14:17,986 --> 01:14:24,586
existing in marin and those, you know, if warranted, of course

850
01:14:33,802 --> 01:14:37,402
those might be subject to change.

851
01:14:37,673 --> 01:14:41,273
>> c. Muralles: thank you. Can you

852
01:14:44,880 --> 01:14:47,950
thank you, I just needed to see those again.

853
01:14:47,950 --> 01:14:51,420
so my understanding is that there's no action from our

854
01:14:51,420 --> 01:14:56,820
commissioner on this subject. But, not on this one?

855
01:15:01,563 --> 01:15:05,340
>> this is a workshop. >> there's no action.

856
01:15:05,340 --> 01:15:06,301
okay. So are there any questions or

857
01:15:06,301 --> 01:15:10,371
feedback that the commission would like to provide for that

858
01:15:10,371 --> 01:15:13,442
need to be answered by the staff or the department of public

859
01:15:13,442 --> 01:15:17,420
works? >> I just have one comment.

860
01:15:17,846 --> 01:15:20,649
>> c. Muralles: mm-hmm, go ahead.

861
01:15:20,649 --> 01:15:22,184
>> m. Biehle: this isn't jermaine to this particular

862
01:15:22,184 --> 01:15:29,384
hearing but one of the things that I was looking at reviewing

863
01:15:29,591 --> 01:15:33,261
the documents for today. I wanted to know what the list

864
01:15:33,261 --> 01:15:37,532
of comments was from our may meeting so I could see, you

865
01:15:37,532 --> 01:15:40,680
know, were they responded to, what were they?

866
01:15:40,680 --> 01:15:45,941
I don't want to raise the same things but, you know, our

867
01:15:45,941 --> 01:15:52,281
minutes are so sparse, you know. The planning staff made a

868
01:15:52,281 --> 01:15:57,810
presentation commissioners ask questions you know, public spoke

869
01:16:01,890 --> 01:16:06,270
or didn't speak I know it's a pain in the minutes to do more

870
01:16:06,270 --> 01:16:07,896
substantially. But where we have stuff like

871
01:16:07,896 --> 01:16:11,299
this where it's coming back again and we're trying to see if

872
01:16:11,299 --> 01:16:14,369
staff is responding to your questions or if the applicant is

873
01:16:14,369 --> 01:16:18,774
responding to our questions, it might be helpful to maintain a

874
01:16:18,774 --> 01:16:25,380
list that we put into the minutes I don't know how we do

875
01:16:25,380 --> 01:16:31,252
that or if that's like a time and money kind of a situation,

876
01:16:31,252 --> 01:16:34,523
but that frame of reference would be really helpful for

877
01:16:34,523 --> 01:16:39,261
meetings that are continued or that come back to workshops that

878
01:16:39,261 --> 01:16:43,461
come back to us etc. >> comment noted.

879
01:16:43,598 --> 01:16:50,198
will do going forward typically we would have issues raised memo

880
01:16:54,209 --> 01:16:58,409
employ this is just a timing issue.

881
01:16:59,415 --> 01:17:01,417
>> c. Muralles: commissioner lind.

882
01:17:01,417 --> 01:17:05,487
>> r. Lind: I was curious when you call these standards.

883
01:17:05,487 --> 01:17:09,892
what is that process? How is that different from the

884
01:17:09,892 --> 01:17:12,270
regular standard. >> can you repeat the question.

885
01:17:12,270 --> 01:17:18,700
>> r. Lind: so the list of exceptions, so how does one get

886
01:17:18,700 --> 01:17:22,370
an exception? Is it part of the application.

887
01:17:22,370 --> 01:17:24,506
do they say I want an exception to this standard.

888
01:17:24,506 --> 01:17:28,110
I want to do this other standard instead of the normal standard?

889
01:17:28,110 --> 01:17:31,710
>> these are actually titled as exemptions.

890
01:17:32,514 --> 01:17:34,916
so they're exemptions from the previous code.

891
01:17:34,916 --> 01:17:39,855
there is a pro vision in title 24, chapter 15 that is an

892
01:17:39,855 --> 01:17:43,258
exception process and so there is the ability for public works

893
01:17:43,258 --> 01:17:46,995
to grant exceptions upon application and their findings

894
01:17:46,995 --> 01:17:48,664
and that process. >> r. Lind: that would be like

895
01:17:48,664 --> 01:17:52,401
a variance and that's a public works director or staff.

896
01:17:52,401 --> 01:17:57,272
I'm sorry, I asked the wrong question, but I'm happy to have

897
01:17:57,272 --> 01:18:03,872
the answer that you gave because that's also so the exemptions.

898
01:18:05,280 --> 01:18:07,680
>> are just available. >> yeah.

899
01:18:08,283 --> 01:18:11,286
>> r. Lind: so why have the two standards?

900
01:18:11,286 --> 01:18:16,491
>> just calling out that essentially we have a set of

901
01:18:16,491 --> 01:18:21,163
standards that are typical and required but they're in a few

902
01:18:21,163 --> 01:18:25,767
cases exceptions to those. You know, if these circumstances

903
01:18:25,767 --> 01:18:29,367
applied then the general standards don't.

904
01:18:30,105 --> 01:18:32,374
>> r. Lind: I see. So is the -- so I think it would

905
01:18:32,374 --> 01:18:39,574
be useful if the drafting of the code could explicitly say that

906
01:18:40,515 --> 01:18:46,515
because as other which one is subject to future waiver?

907
01:19:00,869 --> 01:19:04,500
>> c. Muralles: thank you. Commissioner lind.

908
01:19:04,500 --> 01:19:08,205
is there other feedback on this item?

909
01:19:16,850 --> 01:19:18,485
we're good. No comment.

910
01:19:23,959 --> 01:19:25,494
okay. Um, yeah.

911
01:19:25,494 --> 01:19:28,630
no comments. I think if we're going to close

912
01:19:28,630 --> 01:19:32,701
this item by others that want to be shared by the commissioners.

913
01:19:32,701 --> 01:19:36,104
thank you, sara. We'll formally close this item,

914
01:19:36,104 --> 01:19:38,400
item 4. >> to be clear, though, were

915
01:19:38,400 --> 01:19:45,240
there any take-aways that you would like us to report to the

916
01:19:46,514 --> 01:19:48,116
board? >> let me start because I

917
01:19:48,116 --> 01:19:51,199
haven't said anything. I think it's really important to

918
01:19:51,199 --> 01:19:55,270
take into account the e-bikes that we're describing earlier

919
01:19:55,270 --> 01:20:01,270
that is a safety issue for both pedestrians and riders.

920
01:20:19,427 --> 01:20:22,698
the children grow and there's more parking needed, this will

921
01:20:22,698 --> 01:20:24,832
forever be an issue in our county.

922
01:20:24,832 --> 01:20:28,770
I think it's also important to note that the partnership with

923
01:20:28,770 --> 01:20:32,440
the other agencies like the transportation agency and

924
01:20:32,440 --> 01:20:37,840
community agency in regards I was speaking to the

925
01:20:39,380 --> 01:20:42,183
transportation a few months ago, and they barely have any

926
01:20:42,183 --> 01:20:45,252
knowledge about the projects that come to our hearings or to

927
01:20:45,252 --> 01:20:47,856
our table that have to do with transportation.

928
01:20:47,856 --> 01:20:53,856
so it would be really great to partnership with them.

929
01:21:06,274 --> 01:21:10,474
I think that's great. And commissioner biehle.

930
01:21:12,947 --> 01:21:14,947
no? Thank you.

931
01:21:16,751 --> 01:21:20,288
all right. So and you're sticking around

932
01:21:20,288 --> 01:21:23,157
for item five as well. So it's been brought to my

933
01:21:23,157 --> 01:21:30,357
attention that the title on item five of the agenda, it's wrong.

934
01:21:31,990 --> 01:21:39,499
it should be which is title 22. If you can go ahead and get us

935
01:21:50,718 --> 01:21:52,987
started on that. And we also have a presentation

936
01:21:52,987 --> 01:21:58,987
for that, so thank you. >> that really emerged from our

937
01:22:14,342 --> 01:22:17,342
title 24 street standards right now.

938
01:22:39,767 --> 01:22:43,504
just at a high level and then going to some of the specific

939
01:22:43,504 --> 01:22:48,709
edits to title 22, there's just really a couple few hand fulls.

940
01:22:48,709 --> 01:22:54,248
next steps, these are go to the board in august and september.

941
01:22:54,248 --> 01:22:57,652
so very quickly. Again, the form-based code, this

942
01:22:57,652 --> 01:23:04,325
diagram shows over in the left applies to projects with five or

943
01:23:04,325 --> 01:23:09,725
more new developing developers can elect to redesignate the

944
01:23:18,272 --> 01:23:21,609
properties to the form-based district so it applies and gives

945
01:23:21,609 --> 01:23:28,683
them a ministerial pathway and then it also applies to the new

946
01:23:28,683 --> 01:23:35,283
state law also the form-based code which is really intended as

947
01:23:49,370 --> 01:23:52,774
a stand alone code document, it does not include the rest of the

948
01:23:52,774 --> 01:23:56,374
municipal code. The form-based code specifically

949
01:23:56,845 --> 01:24:02,845
calls out title 24 chapter 1 the form-based code is intended to

950
01:24:28,476 --> 01:24:32,120
be a stand alone code. It did not site other sections

951
01:24:32,120 --> 01:24:35,683
of title 24. At the time it was adopted, the

952
01:24:35,683 --> 01:24:39,287
feeling that many of these title 24 standards had subjective

953
01:24:39,287 --> 01:24:41,689
language and hadn't been updated in many years.

954
01:24:41,689 --> 01:24:45,426
so, again, the intent was to adopt the form-based code

955
01:24:45,426 --> 01:24:48,229
quickly, as quickly as possible and then come back later and

956
01:24:48,229 --> 01:24:52,967
look at the rest of title 24 and eventually make it applicable

957
01:24:52,967 --> 01:24:58,367
through the form-based code. So there's and it's our

958
01:25:13,788 --> 01:25:16,724
intention to update those regulations going forward in

959
01:25:16,724 --> 01:25:23,324
different phases of our work. In terms of the actual proposed

960
01:25:24,399 --> 01:25:27,602
amendments to title 24 in the form-based code.

961
01:25:27,602 --> 01:25:32,407
again, one is up dataing the definitions of alley and

962
01:25:32,407 --> 01:25:37,345
driveway which we discussed previously so they align with

963
01:25:37,345 --> 01:25:40,281
title 24. Another is to modify the

964
01:25:40,281 --> 01:25:45,420
requirements for the housing compliance review so that that

965
01:25:45,420 --> 01:25:50,820
application process and review process would apply to anything

966
01:25:51,920 --> 01:25:54,280
under the development code so that it's internally consistent.

967
01:25:54,280 --> 01:25:59,100
so any of the projects that require ministerial processing

968
01:25:59,100 --> 01:26:03,300
would also require a housing compliance review.

969
01:26:03,583 --> 01:26:07,788
in terms of specific edits to the form-based code, one would

970
01:26:07,788 --> 01:26:13,325
move the rules of construction, those are rules of the code

971
01:26:13,325 --> 01:26:16,796
construction from the applicability section in chapter

972
01:26:16,796 --> 01:26:20,800
one down to chapter ten, but really no subs substantiative

973
01:26:20,800 --> 01:26:23,136
change there. The big change is deleting the

974
01:26:23,136 --> 01:26:27,936
public frontage standards. They're added to title 24 and

975
01:26:31,611 --> 01:26:35,811
the form-based code will simply reference those.

976
01:26:37,616 --> 01:26:40,620
the driveway widths that are sited in the form-based code may

977
01:26:40,620 --> 01:26:44,900
not entirely be in compliance with changes to the fire code,

978
01:26:44,900 --> 01:26:47,694
so there will be a reference added to the fire code within

979
01:26:47,694 --> 01:26:51,970
those sections. And also as we mentioned earlier

980
01:26:51,970 --> 01:26:55,368
in terms of the new alley standards, there would be a

981
01:26:55,368 --> 01:26:59,239
reduced rear setback for building faces that are adjacent

982
01:26:59,239 --> 01:27:02,839
to the alley. Parking dimensional standards

983
01:27:06,512 --> 01:27:10,583
are not included in the form-based code, so, again,

984
01:27:10,583 --> 01:27:13,987
right now they don't exist to be applied to projects.

985
01:27:13,987 --> 01:27:17,657
so the intent is to have the form-based code reference those

986
01:27:17,657 --> 01:27:21,394
sections of title 24 that established, you know, parking

987
01:27:21,394 --> 01:27:25,465
length widths, and backup distances and all those

988
01:27:25,465 --> 01:27:29,602
dimensional requirements. And then the last change is to

989
01:27:29,602 --> 01:27:32,602
the adjustment section in cha

990
01:27:33,806 --> 01:27:37,676
chapter 9 and there it's simply increasing and relocating the

991
01:27:37,676 --> 01:27:42,810
list of the site conditions that would qualify for an adjustment.

992
01:27:42,810 --> 01:27:46,881
so, again, it's really pretty much nonsubstantive it's

993
01:27:47,860 --> 01:27:49,688
formatting change. And probably another big change

994
01:27:49,688 --> 01:27:55,880
is the addition of a stacked flats building type.

995
01:27:59,165 --> 01:28:02,765
previously because currently family building type.

996
01:28:04,770 --> 01:28:10,242
so this would be a multi-family building type that does not

997
01:28:10,242 --> 01:28:16,242
include ground floor commercial. And, again, going to the board

998
01:28:16,916 --> 01:28:19,252
of supervisors in both august and september for their

999
01:28:19,252 --> 01:28:23,122
consideration of the title 24 and title 22 changes.

1000
01:28:23,122 --> 01:28:29,722
and with that I'm happy to answer any questions and cecilia

1001
01:28:30,463 --> 01:28:34,266
kim is available online. >> c. Muralles: thank you.

1002
01:28:34,266 --> 01:28:36,936
any questions from the staff to start us off.

1003
01:28:36,936 --> 01:28:40,673
do I have a few questions. So I wanted to ask actually why

1004
01:28:40,673 --> 01:28:47,873
on the definitions list on the back you are like removing some

1005
01:28:54,621 --> 01:28:58,357
and there's no and I'm specifically interested on the

1006
01:28:58,357 --> 01:29:02,280
open to ysment spaces, like those things seem to be general

1007
01:29:02,280 --> 01:29:05,165
and that they should be included, so I -- you can

1008
01:29:05,165 --> 01:29:09,365
further explain that, that would be great.

1009
01:29:09,836 --> 01:29:13,773
>> I was just passing this one along to ms. Kim if she's online

1010
01:29:13,773 --> 01:29:15,975
if you can bring her in. >> sure.

1011
01:29:15,975 --> 01:29:19,450
I can respond to that. So the definitions chapter in

1012
01:29:19,450 --> 01:29:23,583
the odds are for terms that are used specifically in the odds.

1013
01:29:23,583 --> 01:29:28,254
any other terms or anything that's silent and not in the

1014
01:29:28,254 --> 01:29:32,125
definitions and the odds are to be drawn from the code itself

1015
01:29:32,125 --> 01:29:34,927
and that said, there were several terms that we found that

1016
01:29:34,927 --> 01:29:38,664
are not used in the odds but were included in the definitions

1017
01:29:38,664 --> 01:29:42,264
and that's where most of the

1018
01:29:45,710 --> 01:29:49,141
>> thank you. Also, I noticed and as you

1019
01:29:49,141 --> 01:29:53,212
mentioned in your presentation, bob, the site condition.

1020
01:29:53,212 --> 01:29:56,682
that is a definition that I don't see in the definitions, so

1021
01:29:56,682 --> 01:30:02,288
I'm not sure where is that defined in the document?

1022
01:30:02,288 --> 01:30:05,288
>> again, cecilia, if you're listening.

1023
01:30:06,359 --> 01:30:08,940
>> yes. I can take that one.

1024
01:30:08,940 --> 01:30:11,231
site condition is a term in the definition section.

1025
01:30:11,231 --> 01:30:16,631
the site condition is further explained on page 248, section

1026
01:30:18,905 --> 01:30:22,709
9, 9.030 where it pretty much just lists the existing site

1027
01:30:22,709 --> 01:30:24,244
conditions. But what I'm understanding from

1028
01:30:24,244 --> 01:30:28,114
your comment is that you would like to see the terms site

1029
01:30:28,114 --> 01:30:31,851
condition actually defined and we can definitely add that into

1030
01:30:31,851 --> 01:30:35,588
the definitions chapter. >> c. Muralles: I think that

1031
01:30:35,588 --> 01:30:42,788
would be a good idea to >> c. Muralles: I also had a

1032
01:30:48,601 --> 01:30:51,271
question -- yes, please, go ahead.

1033
01:30:51,271 --> 01:30:55,700
>> when you say site conditions, are you referencing existing

1034
01:30:55,700 --> 01:30:58,944
site conditions or at what point site condition?

1035
01:30:58,944 --> 01:31:01,214
>> yeah. So basically how it's defined in

1036
01:31:01,214 --> 01:31:04,484
the use of this context. I think it was crossed off in

1037
01:31:04,484 --> 01:31:10,356
some sections if you give me a minute I can find them as to

1038
01:31:10,356 --> 01:31:13,827
rather than for the explanation, it just says site condition.

1039
01:31:13,827 --> 01:31:18,627
>> we currently have a definition of existing site

1040
01:31:19,231 --> 01:31:22,350
condition in the development code.

1041
01:31:22,350 --> 01:31:25,380
there's a definition of existing site condition and that

1042
01:31:25,380 --> 01:31:29,238
definition is problematic because existing site condition

1043
01:31:31,578 --> 01:31:35,114
is specific term in ceqa and it has created a problem in the

1044
01:31:35,114 --> 01:31:38,114
past and applying that condition.

1045
01:31:44,190 --> 01:31:47,393
the site development the site condition that was created

1046
01:31:47,393 --> 01:31:51,130
illegally or is it existing because someone did something

1047
01:31:51,130 --> 01:31:54,267
unlawfully that would get a review.

1048
01:31:54,267 --> 01:32:00,267
I think we need to thread do ha. On page 4.

1049
01:32:29,979 --> 01:32:35,786
page 6, the recommended change there is to go from natural and

1050
01:32:35,786 --> 01:32:41,186
rural to walkable context. So omitting basically natural or

1051
01:32:43,193 --> 01:32:49,650
rural and just having walkable context which to me seemed to be

1052
01:32:49,650 --> 01:32:56,265
two very different environments and I wanted to see if you have

1053
01:33:14,357 --> 01:33:17,357
. >> we noticed that the diagram

1054
01:33:17,427 --> 01:33:23,427
which shows a natural urban transit uses the terms natural

1055
01:33:24,768 --> 01:33:31,968
to urban whereas so we found that it may cause confusion to

1056
01:33:43,520 --> 01:33:50,728
say which is why we removed the natural or rural and words and

1057
01:33:50,728 --> 01:33:55,199
left it walkable but the natural rural terms still come to play

1058
01:33:55,199 --> 01:34:00,471
when we are describing the transact diagram and how marin

1059
01:34:00,471 --> 01:34:06,471
county context applies to some of those transacts in that.

1060
01:34:09,480 --> 01:34:11,882
>> c. Muralles: thank you. Are there any comments or

1061
01:34:11,882 --> 01:34:14,882
questions from commissioners? Commissioner lind.

1062
01:34:16,553 --> 01:34:18,355
>> r. Lind: I just have one point of clarification.

1063
01:34:18,355 --> 01:34:22,250
so this set of amendments are for the -- are different from

1064
01:34:22,250 --> 01:34:26,830
the set of amendments for -- to the form-based code that we'll

1065
01:34:26,830 --> 01:34:30,567
be looking at for the coastal area.

1066
01:34:30,567 --> 01:34:33,370
>> right. This is for the interior code.

1067
01:34:33,370 --> 01:34:35,506
>> r. Lind: right. This is for everything else.

1068
01:34:35,506 --> 01:34:38,709
I just want to make sure my memory's correct.

1069
01:34:38,709 --> 01:34:45,309
we talked about some changes in the coastal zone, but that's

1070
01:34:50,120 --> 01:34:53,120
not. >> thank you, commissioner lind.

1071
01:34:53,323 --> 01:34:55,323
anyone else? Okay.

1072
01:34:58,195 --> 01:35:02,398
>> c. Muralles: we need to make a -- we need to take action in

1073
01:35:02,398 --> 01:35:05,269
this item. I believe that the accommodation

1074
01:35:05,269 --> 01:35:07,604
is that the board of supervisors adopt a --

1075
01:35:07,604 --> 01:35:12,476
>> eye procedural issue. Can you open it for public.

1076
01:35:12,476 --> 01:35:14,677
>> c. Muralles: thank you. I'd like to open for public

1077
01:35:14,677 --> 01:35:18,548
comment or any other comment in regards to this item.

1078
01:35:18,548 --> 01:35:20,484
okay. There's no comment so we'll go

1079
01:35:20,484 --> 01:35:22,619
ahead and close public comment. Thank you, manny.

1080
01:35:22,619 --> 01:35:27,419
we do need to take action in this.

1081
01:35:27,958 --> 01:35:33,958
so the recommendation I'm sorry. We need a motion first.

1082
01:35:41,237 --> 01:35:46,370
anyone would like to move for a motion?

1083
01:35:53,650 --> 01:35:55,650
>>. >> c. Muralles: commissioner

1084
01:35:58,988 --> 01:36:04,928
biehle would like to second that motion and if we can have roll

1085
01:36:04,928 --> 01:36:08,528
call, thank you. >> clerk: commissioner biehle.

1086
01:36:12,690 --> 01:36:15,669
>> m. Biehle: yes. >> clerk: commissioner lind.

1087
01:36:17,341 --> 01:36:20,341
>> r. Lind: yes. >> clerk: commissioner

1088
01:36:21,545 --> 01:36:22,946
sandoval. >> r. Sandoval: yes.

1089
01:36:22,946 --> 01:36:24,548
>> c. Muralles: we are all good?

1090
01:36:24,548 --> 01:36:25,349
okay. Perfect.

1091
01:36:25,349 --> 01:36:27,350
I think that's it for our meeting today.

1092
01:36:27,350 --> 01:36:30,687
thank you very much for your time and everything that you do

1093
01:36:30,687 --> 01:36:32,687
for our co