[0:36] Ready? All right.
[0:37] good afternoon everyone. Welcome to today's hearing,
[0:40] monday, july 27th. Welcome.
[0:42] I hope you all had a great weekend.
[0:45] we're going to go ahead and get started with roll call, please.
[0:53] >> clerk: good afternoon. Commissioner biehle.
[1:02] >> m. Biehle: here. >> clerk: commissioner lind.
[1:07] commissioner sandoval. >> r. Sandoval: here.
[1:11] >> clerk: commissioner muralles.
[1:35] >> c. Muralles: . >> g. Stepanicich: if anyone
[1:38] has any questions or comments or would like those minutes to the
[1:41] meeting be approved. I guess I can --
[1:47] >> I'll move to approve. >> g. Stepanicich: I'll second
[1:51] that motion. Commissioner bielhe moves.
[1:56] I seconded the motion. Sorry.
[1:58] thank you. All right.
[1:59] we're going to go ahead, are there any communications?
[2:06] oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
[2:08] we need to vote. Thank you.
[2:11] no. All those in favor say aye and
[2:18] commissioner commissioner [indiscernible] is sustained.
[2:22] are there any communications from the commissioners that we'd
[2:24] like to share at this moment? I just want to remind everybody
[2:29] has on their packets a flyer for the training that will be
[2:33] happening on september 30th. If you can go ahead and make
[2:36] sure you can sign up in the next couple of weeks for the
[2:39] logistics of that training, please.
[2:42] thank you. Then we're going to go ahead
[2:44] into item two which is the director's report, go ahead,
[2:49] manny, thank you. >> good afternoon,
[2:51] commissioners. And thank you so much.
[2:54] kate stafford has joined us. She will be our planning
[2:57] commission and cda legal council.
[3:02] >> hi. My name is kate stanford, I've
[3:05] been with the county since 2019 and have been working with the
[3:08] variety of departments and working with some divisions of
[3:11] cda back in january and with brandon's promotion, I'm taking
[3:16] over most of his work at this time.
[3:18] I'm looking forward to working with you all and meeting your
[3:31] >> next planning commission will
[3:35] be august 24th, 2026. At that time, the new planning
[3:38] director will be here and there will be no meeting on
[3:42] august 10th. It's too soon.
[3:43] we want to give her some time and room and familiarize with
[3:48] what's going on. At that.
[4:03] on. >> withwill have our new
[4:05] planning director in place. Her name is julia crog and we'll
[4:10] do a proper introduction when she is here and the other item
[4:22] will be the set of code amendments to respond to
[4:28] essentially notifying our adu ordinance, so we need to adopt
[4:32] an adu ordinance. Our sb9 ordinance.
[4:39] ab20 ordinance. As well as our sb35 in order to
[4:46] be a very narrow scope of updates to respond to hcd.
[4:52] and there will be no workshop. It will be.
[5:19] >> g. Stepanicich: I would like to open up.
[5:26] >> r. Lind: I'd like to can questions.
[5:29] to prepare for those changes, could you recirculate that very.
[5:48] >> we will also circulate the draft amendments well ahead of
[5:57] time for many of us it's hard to distinguish the nuances of the
[6:06] different distinguishes. >> g. Stepanicich: we'll also
[6:30] have manny here to give us a presentation on that?
[6:34] >> we'll have two agenda items before you -- one of them is a
[6:37] workshop which is item four related to off side objective
[6:41] design standards. We have members of the bpws.
[6:47] we have bob brown as well as consultants and present.
[7:06] the planning is not to make any positions or.
[7:24] >> as you know, we're in the process of updating the public
[7:30] works infrastructure that are entitled 24.
[7:33] both are objective, but also to update them since many of these
[7:37] were adopted back in the 1980s and 90s.
[7:40] and since this is a large undertaking, we have started
[7:44] first with developing new street standards we would very much
[7:58] like to share these with you, get your feedback and we can
[8:01] relay that feedback to the board of.
[8:12] >> in terms of today's agenda item, we will talk briefly about
[8:16] the process we've been through, then we will have a technical
[8:22] review of the street standards and we will update you from the
[8:28] may 11th workshop. We'll talk about the exemptions
[8:30] to the standards. Focus on the minimum safety
[8:33] standards that have been refined since may 11th and the
[8:38] documentation for those. Title 24 that will also go
[8:43] through. In terms of the process, we
[8:48] started back in the plan is to bring these and we hope for
[9:12] adoption before the board in september.
[9:23] I'm going to turn this over to my colleague, and we have one of
[9:28] her associates amalia laten cody online that will answer
[9:37] questions. >> before angela speaks, I wand
[9:39] to recognize robin from dpw is here as well as cpa director,
[9:46] sara jones. >> all right.
[9:49] so, yeah, we are going to go through with the six street
[9:54] types that we're proposing as part of title 24 updates
[9:58] starting with residential road. So this is the street section
[10:03] you saw previously at that may 11th meeting.
[10:05] and I want to show you the updates we've made since then.
[10:10] one of the primary updates was actually based from -- based on
[10:16] feedback from staff working on ada compliance and some concerns
[10:20] brought up in our stakeholder conversation about the 7'
[10:25] parking lanes that we previously showed feeling a little tight.
[10:29] so we've updated the residential road from 7 foot parking lanes
[10:35] to 8 feet. That extra foot gives us a
[10:38] little bit more room within the curb to curb radon and it also
[10:43] happies address ada and also addressing some concerns about
[11:11] the seven foot p and here's an example image of
[11:22] residential road just to represent the street type.
[11:25] okay. This is main street.
[11:26] this is, again, the previous section we showed in may.
[11:33] as we discussed last time. This is a slow wouldn't justify
[12:01] that amount of space. I do also want to point out a
[12:04] 
[12:08] code zones allow for a 0 to 10' setback.
[12:12] so in practice, that means there might be situations where the
[12:16] sidewalk directly abuts the front of the building.
[12:21] when that happens, any frontage related activity like indoor
[12:26] seating, displays, pet circulation would need to occur
[12:31] within the sidewalk area. We would still want to maintain
[12:34] a generous sidewalk space given that the setback is loud in some
[12:41] cases. >> may I ask a question?
[12:43] >> g. Stepanicich: yes, go ahead, commissioner.
[12:51] >> just is there a way to compensate that and make that
[13:00] happen as long as it's subjective?
[13:01] >> I think no matter what, we'd still like to have a 10' clear.
[13:32] >> rather than a ministerial review if there were such a
[13:37] request received. >> it would only be -- the idea
[13:41] is to move away from any kind of discretionary review process and
[13:46] make it as objective as possible.
[13:48] I think what I understood commissioner peggy kerr is
[13:55] saying if there was a decision to happen, can we write a policy
[14:05] saying. >> it wouldn't be done as a
[14:09] request for variance or waiver. I just wanted to clarify that.
[14:15] >> thank you. >> let's move on to.
[14:23] I did want to point out here. Also the planter zone has been
[14:27] increased from 4.5' to 5' and that's, again, to get that 13'
[14:36] minimum width to minimum standard parking spaces.
[14:40] okay. And here's another example image
[14:42] of a main street. >> could I ask a question
[14:46] generally about these images. So the images you're showing,
[14:49] they are actually the same as the standard being proposed?
[14:53] >> not all of them are 1 to 1. >> I see.
[14:56] how close are they? I mean so we can understand the
[15:02] street feel. >> right.
[15:04] the character. >> and character of this
[15:06] particular standard. >> exactly.
[15:09] so maybe exact dimensions aren't 1:1 but generally the street
[15:14] layout with the street tree next to sidewalk, you know.
[15:19] >> what about the travel lane and the sidewalk standard?
[15:21] >> are you talking about for ada compliance?
[15:25] >> no, for just a normal case. >> yeah, I mean, I think these
[15:29] are pretty standard. It should be very close from the
[15:38] example image. >> g. Stepanicich: commissioner
[15:40] lind, can you speak to your mic. >> r. Lind: I'm sorry.
[15:44] this is two travel lanes? >> I don't want to say
[15:49] definitively yes. >> g. Stepanicich: I think
[15:51] we're going to go ahead and let you -- I don't think we're going
[15:56] to let you continue with your presentation and we'll save the
[15:58] questions for the end of the presentation, okay.
[16:01] thank you. >> okay.
[16:02] >> thank you. >> this is collector street
[16:06] type. This is what we had shown
[16:08] previously. 8' parking lanes to 11' travel
[16:12] lanes, 6' planter zone, and an 8' walkway.
[16:16] so one of the key up dates we've made here based on kind of key
[16:22] feedback we've received from the marin county bicycle coalition
[16:26] is the desire to require bicycle facilities at sidewalk level.
[16:34] so that is a bikeway that is vertically separated from the
[16:37] radon and you can see that here integrated as a 12' class one
[16:43] shared use path, so that would be two directional lanes,
[16:48] favored to one side and that would include users that are
[16:52] both walking and biking. So that is a key update here for
[16:59] collector. And then the other big change or
[17:05] relatively big change. So we would include a note here
[17:14] is that if the collector is on a designated truck route, 11'
[17:19] would be required. The thinking here is that the
[17:23] 10' lanes could help support lower operating speeds while
[17:27] still allowing wider lanes and locations where tra
[17:44] okay. So moving to arterials, again,
[17:49] cross section as we showed at our last meeting.
[17:52] just some minor changes here. One is we've reduced the
[17:57] affective median width from 11' to 8' here.
[18:01] this allows us to provide a 1.5' buffer on either side of the
[18:08] he'd ymedian to better accommodate fire access.
[18:13] the better trade is there's a narrow median which would
[18:18] require a street tree selection, probably something with less
[18:23] horizontal root systems and ones that would thrive well and be
[18:31] healthy. Also importantly similar to
[18:36] collector street type, and the expectation bike way consistent
[18:48] with here is that example image again
[19:00] as an arterial and then industrial commercial.
[19:04] there have been no changes made to industrial commercial since
[19:09] we last met. It maintains at 12' travel
[19:13] lanes, 8' parking lanes, 6' okay.
[19:25] and now for the last street type, we want to look at an
[19:30] alley. This is the standard we showed
[19:31] last time and the feedback was that it felt, yeah, it felt a
[19:36] little bit too wide at the 30' total and we've been working
[19:44] alongside standards in the form base code to actually um, date
[19:49] this to a 20' total width. Now we are including that 5'
[19:58] kind of set backspace where there could be driveway lamps
[20:01] and landscaping as a requirement in the form base code which
[20:05] would require a minimum 5' setback.
[20:08] so the effective with the alley would remain the same at 30',
[20:12] but the paved width is going to be established in tit
[20:22] and here's an example of how that would look.
[20:36] >> can we just talk about context real quick before we
[20:39] move on to the exceptions. >> yes, please, go ahead.
[20:42] >> yes, good morning, commissioners.
[20:45] sara jones, community development director.
[20:48] really appreciate getting your thoughts and guidance around
[20:53] what these standards ought to be.
[20:54] I just wanted to kind of bring it back to the kinds of
[20:59] development that we see here in marin in unincorporated marin
[21:04] county. Of course, as you know, this
[21:07] would be standards for really the more urbanized portions of
[21:11] the county and looking at the more rural areas is the next
[21:15] phase. Some of these street typologies
[21:18] that we that we've presented here today are ones that while
[21:25] we need to codify what the standards would be, in the event
[21:31] that we see proposals that would merit, you know, these types of
[21:41] streets, as planned right now, we are not expecting that we're
[21:45] going to see a lot of say the main street treatment or the
[21:51] industrial corridor treatment, I just thought it would be maybe a
[21:57] little bit useful to kind of connect these to the types of
[22:02] projects that we're seeing now. So the residential street types
[22:06] which are ones that would be serving the development on the
[22:12] larger sites that we have mapped out on the housing element or
[22:15] that we have proposals on. Those are the ones that we
[22:20] expect to see most frequently here and now we're going to move
[22:23] on to talking about how they might, how we would go
[22:31] >> okay. So also in terms of providing
[22:34] some context, the new street standards that we just
[22:38] presenting I think are largely intended to apply to new streets
[22:42] in new developments, but we have a large network of existing
[22:47] streets throughout the county very few of which have developed
[22:50] these standards that we've presented.
[22:52] most don't have sidewalks. Most don't have bike facilities
[22:56] that are defined. So how do we deal with infill
[23:03] developments that have street frontage on currently sub
[23:06] standards streets. So we propose to offer an
[23:11] exemption in situations where there's an existing sub the
[24:47] additional -- the addition of off street parking so we allow a
[24:54] narrower radon lift and it's only available where's accessing
[25:00] six or fewer parcels as is the current definition for
[25:05] residential road. And here is an example of a
[25:08] limite we also proposed an exception
[25:16] for what we've termed connector streets.
[25:19] these are streets that would connect an existing arterial or
[25:25] collector street but which would have no development along this
[25:30] frontage. An example might be an extension
[25:33] of the parkway as a secondary access to a future development.
[25:38] again, that frontage along the property would not have
[25:47] development at this point shows the mat
[26:24] and lastly we've added an exception to allow an offstreet
[26:30] class one bike path that would be parallel to the street right
[26:34] of way to allow it to substitute for the type of design that we
[26:43] showed previously. There are a few additional code
[26:48] as the title 24 that I wanted to highlight that don't necessarily
[26:52] apply to the street standards we've discussed.
[26:55] in the roads chapter, there are a number -- one would be to
[27:01] require that bulb outs be added to intersections so that the
[27:09] sidewalk crossing distance is narrowed and also to require
[27:16] that that there would be a pedestrian in the center.
[27:25] we were supposed to change the maximum block link so it would
[27:29] match what's in the form base code for the properties in the
[27:35] city centered and corridors. We would propose to the turn
[27:44] around standards and they would make the determination as to
[28:17] whether or not the street name proposed is in conflict orient
[28:22] cal to an existing street name, so, again, there would be no
[28:28] confusion created. And that would be incentive to
[29:03] penalize the on street parking and not be penalized for that
[29:07] and in the sidewalk chapter, chapter 4, we would delete some
[29:10] of this subjective language and we would reference the state and
[29:15] federal accessibility standards there.
[29:17] and lastly, we discussed may 11th, the intention to
[29:22] develop minimum safety standards as part of this process.
[29:26] as you're aware, we are getting a number of requests from
[29:32] developers for bonus law and that law includes provisions
[29:37] that would allow jurisdictions to deny those waivers if they
[29:42] would create the health and safety impacts.
[29:46] so we have had tool and requiring that there be a buffer
[30:08] between the sidewalk and the traveling that would be
[30:18] landscaping. Minimum and then also minimum
[30:22] radon with a traveling width and those relate more to the fire
[30:27] codes. And these minimum safety
[30:29] standards are in some cases less than are ideal and desired
[30:34] standards we would put in the code, but, again, they would be
[30:38] the minimum standards below which developers could not wave
[30:41] below those limits. And the intention is to have the
[30:45] board as part of their adoption ordinance make findings to this
[30:50] effect and also incorporate in that adoption ordinance the
[30:54] justification memo, are the tool design that's produced which you
[31:02] had in your packet. And this is it other than our
[31:07] intention is to go to the board in august and then it's
[31:11] september for adoption. And with that, we would be happy
[31:14] to answer your questions. >> g. Stepanicich: thank you.
[31:18] questions from our commi commissioners.
[31:32] >> m. Curran: thank you for that.
[31:33] overall this is good stuff. I just have a couple questions I
[31:35] want to make sure I understand. Where there's no parking on the
[31:39] street, so you talked about that situation where there were six
[31:42] or fewer units, it is the assumption that there's adequate
[31:51] parking on the various homesites or building sites because people
[31:56] have guests. People have parties.
[31:59] people have deliveries, people have all kinds of stuff.
[32:01] what happens with all of that traffic?
[32:12] >> g. Stepanicich: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[32:15] commissioner cur ran, can you turn off your microphone please?
[32:19] >> I would mention that the current code allows developers
[32:24] to utilize that standard so through their own discretion,
[32:32] they can put a limited residential road as long as it's
[32:35] for six or fewer lots. Added it as an exception instead
[32:39] of an allowance. And, again, the intention is
[32:42] that you may have a parking port that serves very few homes and
[32:47] those are intended to be narrower.
[32:50] typically kids play in them. They're not intended for through
[32:54] traffic and so you don't have the same traffic volumes.
[32:57] so the idea is that in those situation that is are single
[33:00] family, you know, there would be typically parking on the
[33:04] driveway apron or in the garage, so I don't know, manny, if you
[33:09] have any additional thoughts along those lines, but that was
[33:12] the intent in terms of sort of moving that over from the
[33:15] current regulations where it's an allowance to in this case an
[33:20] exception. >> the projects that we see
[33:22] where you have developments, we typically see is two parking
[33:34] spaces again, as bob said, the hope is to min nays this
[33:39] application as making it an exception while also keeping it
[33:48] on file. >> m. Curran: I'm trying to
[33:55] think about the practical implications.
[33:58] I'm a narrow street myself so I don't have that general bias
[34:02] against something like that, but it is -- and I guess perhaps the
[34:07] developer has an incentive to have the spaces be livable and
[34:10] have that not be a problem. Anyway, it strikes me as it
[34:15] might be. There may be days when it's a
[34:20] problem. And I had a question, another
[34:24] parking question. When you said the that's in
[34:29] certain circumstances, the provision of street parking can
[34:33] be counted toward the number of required spaces for a
[34:38] development, I presume that does not entitle them in any way to
[34:42] privatize those spaces. They can't be, you know, space
[34:45] number one, two, three for tenant number one, two, three,
[34:50] they're really public spaces? >> they would still be the
[34:52] public right of way. So the developer doesn't own the
[34:55] land and can't control it in that way.
[34:58] >> even though, so they're providing that but they don't
[35:00] have any other rights to it? >> no.
[35:03] they can count the spaces towards their total parking
[35:07] requirement but they can't designate them.
[35:10] >> m. Curran: okay. I think I had one more thing but
[35:13] I'll stop now. >> g. Stepanicich: thank you,
[35:17] commissioner curran, can you turn off your microphone.
[35:23] >> g. Stepanicich: thank you. I question on the shared use
[35:27] pathways. I think the idea of creating
[35:30] class one bikeways is a great idea and sometimes I think we
[35:34] need to do more of. But my only concern here is the
[35:38] shared use and residential on collector streets and also on
[35:43] arterial streets, to what extent do we have conflicts between the
[35:47] pedestrians and cyclists and therefore what should be the
[35:52] size of that shareded use pathway.
[35:54] and my question is number one does 12', is that a standard now
[35:59] that's being used for this type of facility.
[36:01] and in a 12' pathway, would there be sufficient space for
[36:05] pedestrians to move to the side to allow the cyclists to safely
[36:16] maneuver through pedestrians and the walkway?
[36:19] >> that's a great question. On our materials, pedestrian
[36:23] activity is likely lower than that of a main street
[36:27] residential. 12' is pretty generous.
[36:30] it would allow for bidirectional travel.
[36:36] 10' again is what we're listing as our minimum safety standards,
[36:39] so 12 is a nice generous amount of room.
[36:42] also, we are including in the code language that if an
[36:45] arterial or collector has a posted speed of 30 miles per
[36:50] hour or less, that it can also be added into the ra
[37:07] >> g. Stepanicich: great. Thank you.
[37:13] >> c. Muralles: commissioner biehle was next.
[37:17] >> m. Biehle: thank you. I keep getting kicked off.
[37:23] okay. It sounds a little bit wonky,
[37:29] but the main street with 8' parking lanes on both sides,
[37:34] that leaves, you know, 20' of width, but and so which is
[37:44] minimum for fire access, right. But main street is also
[37:51] considered one of our mixed use sites which could go up.
[38:00] which we need -- there's a -- hang on a second.
[38:04] I wrote this down. Right.
[38:06] the developer stakeholder told us in may that these buildings
[38:12] might be three plus stories which would require an arial
[38:16] fire access which is 26' wide, so
[38:24] . >> so in the title 24 mark-up,
[38:28] underneath kind of our dimensional standards for each
[38:34] roadway's classification, we have notes or sort of exceptions
[38:37] to the foundational rule, so there's a note 5 I believe
[38:41] that's included that says, you know, where that happens that it
[38:50] would -- >> it may be required.
[38:52] >> right. >> but then that's a
[38:55] discretionary standard. >> like if it's a fire code, it
[38:58] would prevail, it wouldn't be an option.
[39:02] >> okay. >> m. Biehle: okay.
[39:03] so then, wait, I've got another question.
[39:10] the 8' for parking is was noted as like a safety floor for main
[39:18] streets for sure, but then in residential, it's only 7'.
[39:23] so how are we justifying that? Because I think the developer in
[39:28] may not the developer, but the presenter in may said that the
[39:35] 7' parking is a sideswipe hazard and maybe that's just for main
[39:38] street streets, but there was a disconnect there between
[39:44] residential streets and main streets that I'm curious about.
[39:50] >> so the standard for residential street has been
[39:51] increased to 8' parking lanes. So our minimum safety standard
[40:00] for residential streets is 7', but the foundational standard is
[40:04] 8' which is the same as main street
[40:15] I guess my next question is of the -- sorry, am I taking too
[40:23] much time? How many of the submittals that
[40:26] we've had to date would thi >> I'd say all of them.
[40:42] we've held firm that sidewalks are public health and safety and
[40:47] we've compelled in every single case that they provide parking
[40:51] sidewalks on each side of the street.
[40:54] where it has been an issue is the street width.
[40:57] there's a conflict between the pw code and the fire code.
[41:00] the fire code is the minimum public health and safety.
[41:03] so if you apply the public code, the fire code which is 10', it
[41:09] requires a narrower path of travel where dpw.
[41:18] so most that would have come in have been terms of the fire
[41:25] code. To comply in most cases.
[41:27] there's maybe one or two that we've reached back and forth.
[41:31] >> okay. And then I think to further
[41:36] respond to commissioner biehle, what we're seeing with the
[41:41] applications that have come in is that locations that we had
[41:45] basically envisioned would be multi-family buildings are
[41:51] coming in as small lot single family.
[41:55] and so they basically look more like your standard single-family
[42:00] subdivision and so they do have more internal streets involved.
[42:06] so I think we're seeing that these standards are, um,, more
[42:12] necessary than we might have envisioned at the time of the
[42:19] >> m. Biehle: okay. So would we be -- I mean, have
[42:23] they been deemed complete. -- would we employ applying
[42:27] these standards if the supervisors ultimately adopt
[42:30] them? Are we applying them to these
[42:33] standards or do they get in before the --
[42:39] >> oh, we can't apply new standards to applications that
[42:44] are already on file. So they would be applied to
[42:48] applications that come in going forward after the standards are
[42:56] adopted. >>.
[42:56] >> m. Biehle: okay. I think that's all I have.
[43:00] >> c. Muralles: thank you, commissioner biehle.
[43:05] commissioner lind. >> r. Lind: I have a little
[43:09] list of questions. So, first of all, the bowl belts
[43:14] that you discussed at the intersection, so they would be
[43:20] basically in the sidewalk, the portion of the right of way that
[43:24] the sidewalk with continuation of the sidewalk.
[43:27] would it be the 13'? >> they would be connected to
[43:32] the sidewalk but they would be within the space allocated to
[43:34] the parking lane. >> r. Lind: so it would be
[43:38] within the travel lane? >> within the parking lane.
[43:41] >> r. Lind: within the portion of it.
[43:44] >> right. Within the parking portion
[43:46] within the curb to curb. >> r. Lind: within the 8'.
[43:50] okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
[43:52] >> yep. >> r. Lind: and then I have a
[43:55] question about the pedestrian and bike shared configuration.
[44:02] how would e-bikes be regulated in the shared use situation with
[44:08] the category 3 e-bikes be allowed on those walkways?
[44:19] >> that's not something we talked about but they would
[44:23] likely be allowed with some rules and regulations and
[44:29] enforcement would be needed on speeds.
[44:32] >> r. Lind: I'm an e-bike rider and I have a class 3 and they
[44:36] can get up to 30 miles an hour if it's flat.
[44:40] and, you know,, I think that if we're -- if we don't have a
[44:46] dedicated path, that can be difficult for pedestrians.
[44:50] it's already an issue on the path that goes from the valley
[44:58] to but I've been on that road in instances where people can
[45:04] barely get out of the way particularly when people have
[45:07] dogs on leashes and other constraints.
[45:10] that's just something to think about.
[45:13] it's not part of our regulations, but it would be an
[45:16] administrative ruling probably. >> right.
[45:17] and maybe that's something we can follow up separately with
[45:21] traffic about and kind of finish the discussion as well.
[45:24] >> r. Lind: yeah. It's a difficult enforcement
[45:27] problem, for sure, but at any rate, it's potentially
[45:32] dangerous. Then we haven't discussed the
[45:35] alleys at all. I -- I'm encouraged by the
[45:39] changes you've made in most of the standards, but I'm not
[45:42] satisfied with the alley standards.
[45:45] I don't see any need for two-way traffic in an alley since our
[45:49] last meeting. I visited a number of alleys,
[45:52] I've majored them. One of them involved a project
[45:56] that myself was involved in up in washington state 20 years
[45:59] ago. I went to see how it has
[46:02] involved and how it was used and it doesn't -- it's more like a
[46:09] 16' to 20' width. There's always the 24' back out
[46:14] requirement, but you're allowed to use your across the street
[46:19] property owner's driveway to accomplish that.
[46:22] so I have some questions about that.
[46:25] I'm afraid that particularly the configuration that you showed us
[46:28] in the illustration, it looks pretty much like a residential
[46:31] road, it just doesn't have the parking.
[46:34] and my experience is when those people drive too quickly on
[46:41] them. And then a related question that
[46:44] applies to all of these areas of accommodations, are you road
[46:50] widths, counted towards density? Are we doing this on gross
[46:54] density or net? So do the roads come out and in
[46:58] particular the alleys. Do the alleys come out for
[47:02] density calculations? >> they -- the alleys in the
[47:08] street areas dedicated streets, alleys and so forth do not count
[47:18] towards density. >> r. Lind: they don't count
[47:19] towards density, so on that situation, I don't think we're
[47:22] going to get anyone doing alleys particularly.
[47:26] if the right of way is as wide as you're showing it, we won't
[47:29] get any alleys because it won't be cost effective.
[47:33] they have to be allowed to have a density transferred off of
[47:37] them if you really want them and I don't think you need to see
[47:40] traffic on them. I see no reason for two-way
[47:45] traffic. They're usually quite short
[47:46] blocks. These are people who are going
[47:48] to their homes and that's the way they function traditionally.
[47:58] 16' total pavement standard for alleys.
[48:00] with the stipulation that you can't park on them.
[48:02] and some of the ones I visited actually did have red curbs
[48:08] which is unfortunate graphically but probably the most effective
[48:13] way instead of signage. Anyway, it's a tradeoff that I
[48:17] think is important. I'd rather see red curbs than
[48:22] additional impervious service. >> you're absolutely right that
[48:27] probably the driving factor in the design and based on the
[48:30] current regulations is you need at at least 24' to back out and
[48:36] turn. The proposal we have is 30', so
[48:39] that additional 6', you know, provides the opportunity for
[48:43] little driveway aprons into the parking, also for landscaping
[48:47] between the driveways which a lot of developers choose to put
[48:53] in just to break up that row of garage doors down the alley.
[49:01] I think what we see is a lot of townhouse development do use
[49:05] alleys and like to because, again, it provides vehicular
[49:11] access but it separates it from the main pedestrian access to
[49:12] the unit which is are on the streets.
[49:15] again, the difference we're talking about here is six feet
[49:19] from the required minimum 24' for backup.
[49:23] >> r. Lind: yeah. I appreciate they're really
[49:24] valuable in terms of design and I was pleased to see the ones I
[49:28] was involved with years ago actually looked really nice and
[49:33] are green, very green, you know. And we didn't have developer
[49:38] planting, just homeowner planting.
[49:40] but at any rate, it's very effective but I don't think
[49:45] you're going to get alleys if you do the density transfer.
[49:49] the alleys were allowed to count for density if you write that
[49:55] into the code. If you want alleys, I would
[49:58] strongly suggest that. I still don't like the width of
[50:04] them and no they're at least 24' backup space.
[50:09] >> can I put this in context? We have two proposals, one of
[50:14] which got approved is now under review, they actually include a
[50:21] 20' dry valve for alleys and we're basing this code based on
[50:25] that project. And those are not single family
[50:28] homes. Those are typically townhouses
[50:31] or they have pedestrian entrances from main street and
[50:34] then they're isolating the vehicular access from the shared
[50:39] driveway. The reason you want the width is
[50:42] because if you keep it narrow, you can almost make it
[50:49] impossible to turn around and come out.
[50:50] otherwise you will be forcing people to back out for the
[50:53] length of four or five homes towards main street.
[50:57] the intention is just to avoid that because we experienced it
[51:00] with one project that we recently approved.
[51:04] >> r. Lind: I could see the difference if you're thinking of
[51:07] this as a townhouse kind of standard, I was thinking of it
[51:10] more of a single family standard with plotted lots and I could
[51:16] see that difference and you would have more driveways.
[51:20] >> oh, I agree with you. I don't think we will see alleys
[51:23] in a single family home subdivision.
[51:26] a proposal is because it is inefficient use of land and it's
[51:31] very costly. >> r. Lind: right.
[51:33] >> I do see form based alleys and projects that follow the
[51:38] form base or multi-family housing setups and I think you
[51:42] do need the width. Just playing devil's advocate.
[51:47] >> one more point of information.
[51:49] >> r. Lind: okay. I just had another question, but
[51:52] go ahead. >> your land development
[51:57] division mentions it requires a minimum of 20' in the travm
[52:03] lane, that establishes a minimum width of 20'.
[52:07] >> r. Lind: okay. But doing a design that creates
[52:10] a kind of two lane, it really elevates the road more toward a
[52:15] regular residential road and I think people will speed on them.
[52:18] I mean, I really -- I think that will happen.
[52:25] I want to go on to the adu question.
[52:29] so I'm not clear on all of the parking requirements for adu's
[52:32] but I can tell you from my personal experience on the road
[52:38] where I live which has six houses on it and 50% rental and
[52:47] one third have short term rentals and one has an adu and
[52:54] so there are cars all over the street and people are storing
[53:00] stuff in their garages and so I think it's good intentions.
[53:04] I mean, I'm always in favor of not having more parking, but the
[53:11] reality is that people use these properties the way they're
[53:15] accustomed to used them and they will park on the street unless
[53:21] there's a lot of enforcement. And people who have adus and/or
[53:28] maybe illegal adus, they're not providing on site parking for
[53:34] their tenants and they're using their personal garages for
[53:37] storage and their tenants are parking maybe one car in the
[53:41] driveway and a car on the street.
[53:43] so that's just the practical reality that we have and I know
[53:46] when you review the adu plans, they have to account for the
[53:51] uncovered parking space some place and it's probably usually
[53:54] in the driveway apron. But in terms of practicality,
[53:57] it's going to be on the street. So with this restricted
[54:02] residential option which I actually like, it's a creative
[54:06] approach, what would the enforcement br and how would --
[54:09] what would you do about those cars that are going to end up
[54:15] out there? >> adus are very complicated
[54:21] proposals. They're hard to be controlled
[54:23] through the state laws and the county cannot in many cases we
[54:27] cannot require parking spaces for adus.
[54:32] for example, if an applicant converts their spots to an aqu,
[54:37] the state law clearly states the county or any jurisdiction
[54:44] cannot require eye placement. It would be but almost in every
[54:56] circumstance, they come under state law.
[54:59] they're placing parking spaces for the surface or parking
[55:03] structure to create adus. I'm afraid the control of and
[55:16] that's very limited but even in those instance, under the law,
[55:31] you can have your adu legalized. >> r. Lind: right.
[55:34] so I'm aware. It is going to happen.
[55:36] we're not going to say you can't do adus along residential
[55:41] streets. Just in terms of reality,
[55:43] there's going to have to be a parking enforcement program if
[55:46] you expect to not see cars out there on those restricted
[55:50] residential streets and if it's an option for people, they will
[55:55] probably apply for I so at any rate, and there's also
[56:01] the matter of the short-term rentals.
[56:04] like I said, on my street their property.
[56:21] >> let's be sure. The county strictly short term
[56:28] rental and adu unless prior to the ordinance was adopted.
[56:33] what you probably conceived as the main house has become a
[56:37] short term rental and the owner has moved to an adu.
[56:41] >> r. Lind: one of them is like that and the other is there's no
[56:44] adu that I know of. One short term rental and one
[56:49] it's just a short term rental. At any rate, my point being that
[56:56] parking is going to be very hard to deal with in real time and I
[57:00] think we need to be aware of that when we create options for
[57:06] something like this restricted residential street that even
[57:11] though it's a really good. >> excuse me, commissioner lind,
[57:23] I think that's a very fair and accurate that parking is a
[57:28] growing challenge as state laws go towards not, you know, sort
[57:33] of limiting the ability to require on site parking, people
[57:39] do still have cars. We do not have a transit system
[57:45] that really supports the ability to get around, there's still
[57:56] going to be a need for parking. It is very challenging to manage
[58:01] for that and I think that being sort of understanding how this
[58:07] might change our operational requirements as a county is an
[58:11] important part of this that we will be sure to highlight with
[58:15] the board. We also have that condition that
[58:24] mr. Brown referenced around the waivers under density bonus and
[58:30] really kind of have limitations on what it is that we can
[58:35] require and what it is that we can allow, so where sidewalks
[58:41] are something where there is a, you know, strong and clear
[58:48] safety effect of not having sidewalks for people to walk on,
[58:52] with parking, it's more nuanced because you really only reach
[58:59] that point where there's a safety impact if you have people
[59:05] blocking emergency vehicle access and that is a line that
[59:09] we can hold but it's difficult to keep in place in reality so
[59:15] this is something that we will I am sure be working with and
[59:21] struggling with. What we -- what is, you know,
[59:25] something that we are hoping to move away from in marin county
[59:28] is the conditions that we have on a lot of the streets and the
[59:34] unincorporated area which is that there aren't safe places to
[59:37] walk. So the streets have been
[59:40] developed in favor of having the parking but not having the
[59:43] sidewalks. And, you know, we're hoping to
[59:49] preserve that ability for people to get around on foot safely and
[59:55] also are just going to have that ongoing discussion and that --
[59:59] those are the kinds of things that we are looking at very
[1:00:03] closely as we review development applications is, you know, what
[1:00:09] is the condition being created here.
[1:00:11] but I really -- I went on for a while, but I really appreciate
[1:00:15] your raising these points and I think we are going to need to be
[1:00:19] doing further thought and working within the county on
[1:00:24] what is really implementable. >> r. Lind: yeah.
[1:00:30] it's not going to be easy. I do have one more question
[1:00:33] which is just a technical kind of question.
[1:00:36] >> c. Muralles: go ahead. >> r. Lind: you talked about
[1:00:37] the block length. So is there a curb cut
[1:00:42] separation standard? So --
[1:00:44] >> there is a maximum block length between the
[1:00:47] intersections, that's in the code.
[1:00:51] >> r. Lind: so but between driveway entrances, there's no
[1:00:57] standard -- >> there's no standard for
[1:01:13] that. >> the form code does have
[1:01:15] maximum driveway width, but I don't believe it's separation.
[1:01:19] >> r. Lind: okay. That's interesting.
[1:01:21] something to think about for the future.
[1:01:25] >> c. Muralles: thank you, commissioner lind.
[1:01:28] I think commissioner sandoval had a question as well.
[1:01:31] >> r. Sandoval: I do chair. My question is on this concept
[1:01:35] of maintaining a right of way, is that something new that we're
[1:01:37] -- is that like a new addition that isn't already in the
[1:01:42] development standards and is that indefinite or is there some
[1:01:47] sort of time limit on the right of way that the county would be
[1:01:49] giving itself? >> I'm not entirely sure of the
[1:01:58] question. If it relates to currently sub
[1:02:03] standard streets when that improves that frontage.
[1:02:07] your question was in those cases --
[1:02:11] >> r. Sandoval: is there like an indefinite right of way.
[1:02:16] >> -- as part of that development entitlement, so the
[1:02:19] county would have that right of way indefinitely.
[1:02:29] >> r. Sandoval: got it. I'll say I support class one I
[1:02:34] think it's safe alternatives involving bikes in the roadways,
[1:02:38] so I support that. Thanks.
[1:02:41] >> c. Muralles: thank you. I would like to go ahead and
[1:02:43] open up for comments or if there are any comments relate today
[1:02:46] this manner. Go ahead, manny.
[1:02:48] >> I actually found -- I have the form-base code in front of
[1:02:52] me and it does say a minimum of 30' between drive
[1:03:05] please turn on your mic, commissioner lind.
[1:03:10] >> r. Lind: I did want to comment on this dedication of
[1:03:14] right of way issue. So in that instance, manny, is
[1:03:19] the land that would be included in the dedication subject to
[1:03:21] density? .
[1:03:28] >> it would be dedicated for purposes of roadway.
[1:03:32] >> r. Lind: so it's a net calculation.
[1:03:35] I think that is problematic we're allowing people to
[1:03:48] retrograde a role extending older standards but we're taking
[1:03:51] the right of way, but we're not giving credit for density for
[1:03:55] the right of way. So.
[1:04:07] >> c. Muralles: kate, do you have an opinion on that?
[1:04:11] sorry, the question is your concern about dedicating the
[1:04:15] right of way and the sub -- like the road not meeting current
[1:04:21] standards? >> r. Lind: right.
[1:04:23] so we're basically asking the developer to dedicate the road
[1:04:28] standard right of way although we will approve a development at
[1:04:33] a lesser road standard. So there will be a hunk of land
[1:04:39] that will be in a county right of way status not available for
[1:04:43] development or amenities for the project and there's no density
[1:04:51] compensation for not having the use of that land.
[1:04:54] so it would -- so the rationale that was given in the
[1:04:58] presentation was at some point in the future, then the county
[1:05:01] would already have that abortion of the right of way if it were
[1:05:05] to ever go back and redesign the entire street, but I think quite
[1:05:10] frankly being practical, that's a rather unlikely situation,
[1:05:14] because there's going to be all sorts of existing development
[1:05:19] within that theoretical right of way and I just don't -- I have
[1:05:27] it seems to add to the cost of development to phrase it in the
[1:05:31] way we are required to look at housing these days.
[1:05:34] it seems to me that that wou >> did you want to speak?
[1:05:41] >> I would just mention that, again, under the state density
[1:05:44] bonus law, applicants have a great deal of leeway in terms of
[1:05:51] increasing beyond your density calculation limitation.
[1:05:54] again, if a developer wants more density to make up for what
[1:05:58] they've lost in counting the right of way, they certainly
[1:06:02] have options under state law. >> r. Lind: that is of course
[1:06:05] true, but the density starts at a baseline and if the baseline
[1:06:08] is higher, they get even more density.
[1:06:12] so I don't think that argument eliminates the issue of it being
[1:06:18] an additional -- it could be a regulatory barrier or it could
[1:06:24] be cost. I think we've seen that it's
[1:06:27] difficult to predict how developers are going to approach
[1:06:31] density. We have not been seeing
[1:06:37] development above the base dense it's.
[1:06:39] in fact, they have been using waivers to reduce the density
[1:06:43] relative to what is in the zoning on the property.
[1:06:46] >> r. Lind: that's really interesting.
[1:06:48] so the market isn't at those higher densities at the present
[1:06:53] time. >> in some cases, not for what
[1:07:01] the type of development that we're seeing in the
[1:07:11] unincorporated area. >> m. Biehle: you're allowing
[1:07:12] the development to proceed at a reduced standard, but with the
[1:07:17] caveat that the right of way is being dedicated so it's a
[1:07:20] tradeoff I assume. So I don't see the legal risk
[1:07:26] there. >> and not only the tradeoff but
[1:07:28] it's also a deferred maintenance for the county frankly.
[1:07:31] we are not making the applicants make the improvements.
[1:07:40] instead they're providing the right of way.
[1:07:43] you can look at it from that perspective and argue that
[1:07:46] actually saves the applicant's money.
[1:07:50] >> r. Lind: so then who maintains that area?
[1:07:57] >> c. Muralles: can someone say that into the microphone.
[1:07:59] >> the developer's required to maintain the right of way.
[1:08:10] >> c. Muralles: before we move on -- let me finish.
[1:08:14] can you state your name and who you are.
[1:08:17] >> land development division manager and also the principal
[1:08:22] engineer. And there is a benefit to the
[1:08:25] developer that they save money by not paying for those
[1:08:30] improvements at this time. To the developer u
[1:08:38] >> c. Muralles: thank you. So this is a time for other
[1:08:43] comments if anybody else has some other comments, feel free
[1:08:44] to come to the podium. We're good?
[1:08:47] so I'm going to go ahead and close public comment for this
[1:08:49] item and we can go ahead and continue with the conversations.
[1:08:56] commissioner curran. >> m. Curran: thank you.
[1:08:59] I think the requirement to dedicate the right of way to
[1:09:04] have that more optimal standard is absolutely an important thing
[1:09:09] to do. It's in my experience which is
[1:09:13] I've spent most of my career in local government, that right of
[1:09:17] way, you have one shot at it a roadway system.
[1:09:43] also, it's not like it can't be landscaped.
[1:09:52] it can be utilized in a variety of way, not with a building, not
[1:09:55] with that kind of improvement, but it absolutely can be made
[1:09:59] beautiful. It can have a bench on it.
[1:10:02] it can be made useful. And I mean if anything people
[1:10:06] over do it and kind of forget that they don't have all the
[1:10:11] entitlements to it that they might wish.
[1:10:14] but I for one think that that's a really important thing.
[1:10:16] I was glad to see that in there and I was going to inquire about
[1:10:21] it. Earlier when I was reading this.
[1:10:24] that's just my two cents. I just have a separate question
[1:10:29] that may or may not be jermaine to this conversation, but do we
[1:10:32] currently allow e-bikes, and even those little scooters that
[1:10:38] young people terrify the rest of us with?
[1:10:42] on bike paths? >> can I ask stuart to speak to
[1:10:48] this? My understanding is it falls
[1:10:50] under a different set of regulations.
[1:11:00] >> c. Muralles: turn it on again please, thank you.
[1:11:03] >> we'll have to check with the traffic division to see if there
[1:11:06] are any requirements as far as e-bikes.
[1:11:08] I'm not sure what the policies are in place that the county's
[1:11:12] currently adopted. We'll have to get back to you
[1:11:15] with a response. Thank you.
[1:11:21] >> thank you. >> c. Muralles: commissioner
[1:11:24] stepanicich I was wondering if you can put backslide 28.
[1:11:28] I would like to read and process them a little bit better.
[1:11:31] also, robert I believe it's your name.
[1:11:34] robert, right. You mentioned something about
[1:11:36] reports from safety agencies. Have you received those are
[1:11:44] either going to the board of supervisors in the next.
[1:11:46] >> I'm sorry I mentioned. >> c. Muralles: you mentioned
[1:11:51] something about other safety agency reports coming along the
[1:11:54] way. Are they just going to the board
[1:11:56] of supervisors or have they been submitted or is that something
[1:11:59] we're expecting to view or get in the future?
[1:12:01] >> I think you're referring to the fact that the document and
[1:12:07] justify the minimum safety standards.
[1:12:11] tool design has prepared a justification memo that will be
[1:12:15] appended to the county's adoption around, so it will be
[1:12:18] part of the public record because it provides the
[1:12:21] justification for their findings that will be in the ordinance.
[1:12:23] >> right. So there's nothing else coming
[1:12:31] in regards to safety. And if you have slide 28, 29,
[1:12:34] thank you very much. And commissioner stepanicich, if
[1:12:39] you can keep those rides up for a minute.
[1:12:43] I think it's 29 and 30, it talks about the conceptions.
[1:12:51] go back. Hmm.
[1:12:58] there. The one after that.
[1:13:00] can you keep this one up for a minute.
[1:13:04] thank you. >> g. Stepanicich: to follow up
[1:13:06] with the e-bikes and I think it's great to have the class
[1:13:10] pass but I do think from an administrative point of view,
[1:13:14] there's an issue with respect to e-bikes and e-bikes with
[1:13:18] throttles and there's been a big issue with younger kids using
[1:13:21] these but I think it's also true with respect to mixing
[1:13:25] pedestrians and bicycles together, how we deal with those
[1:13:29] that can go very past and that's something again not to deal with
[1:13:33] as these part of regulations, I think it's an important issue
[1:13:36] for the county to deal with. >> and we looked it up on the
[1:13:42] fly and the requirements in marin county are the class one
[1:13:50] and class two e-bikes can be used on multiuse pathways.
[1:13:58] but the speed is 10 miles an hour.
[1:14:00] class two are the ones with the throttle and then class three
[1:14:05] e-bikes cannot be ridden on bike paths.
[1:14:09] so these -- so, you know, the new bike facilities that are
[1:14:14] created would be subject to the same rules as bike facilities
[1:14:17] existing in marin and those, you know, if warranted, of course
[1:14:33] those might be subject to change.
[1:14:37] >> c. Muralles: thank you. Can you
[1:14:44] thank you, I just needed to see those again.
[1:14:47] so my understanding is that there's no action from our
[1:14:51] commissioner on this subject. But, not on this one?
[1:15:01] >> this is a workshop. >> there's no action.
[1:15:05] okay. So are there any questions or
[1:15:06] feedback that the commission would like to provide for that
[1:15:10] need to be answered by the staff or the department of public
[1:15:13] works? >> I just have one comment.
[1:15:17] >> c. Muralles: mm-hmm, go ahead.
[1:15:20] >> m. Biehle: this isn't jermaine to this particular
[1:15:22] hearing but one of the things that I was looking at reviewing
[1:15:29] the documents for today. I wanted to know what the list
[1:15:33] of comments was from our may meeting so I could see, you
[1:15:37] know, were they responded to, what were they?
[1:15:40] I don't want to raise the same things but, you know, our
[1:15:45] minutes are so sparse, you know. The planning staff made a
[1:15:52] presentation commissioners ask questions you know, public spoke
[1:16:01] or didn't speak I know it's a pain in the minutes to do more
[1:16:06] substantially. But where we have stuff like
[1:16:07] this where it's coming back again and we're trying to see if
[1:16:11] staff is responding to your questions or if the applicant is
[1:16:14] responding to our questions, it might be helpful to maintain a
[1:16:18] list that we put into the minutes I don't know how we do
[1:16:25] that or if that's like a time and money kind of a situation,
[1:16:31] but that frame of reference would be really helpful for
[1:16:34] meetings that are continued or that come back to workshops that
[1:16:39] come back to us etc. >> comment noted.
[1:16:43] will do going forward typically we would have issues raised memo
[1:16:54] employ this is just a timing issue.
[1:16:59] >> c. Muralles: commissioner lind.
[1:17:01] >> r. Lind: I was curious when you call these standards.
[1:17:05] what is that process? How is that different from the
[1:17:09] regular standard. >> can you repeat the question.
[1:17:12] >> r. Lind: so the list of exceptions, so how does one get
[1:17:18] an exception? Is it part of the application.
[1:17:22] do they say I want an exception to this standard.
[1:17:24] I want to do this other standard instead of the normal standard?
[1:17:28] >> these are actually titled as exemptions.
[1:17:32] so they're exemptions from the previous code.
[1:17:34] there is a pro vision in title 24, chapter 15 that is an
[1:17:39] exception process and so there is the ability for public works
[1:17:43] to grant exceptions upon application and their findings
[1:17:46] and that process. >> r. Lind: that would be like
[1:17:48] a variance and that's a public works director or staff.
[1:17:52] I'm sorry, I asked the wrong question, but I'm happy to have
[1:17:57] the answer that you gave because that's also so the exemptions.
[1:18:05] >> are just available. >> yeah.
[1:18:08] >> r. Lind: so why have the two standards?
[1:18:11] >> just calling out that essentially we have a set of
[1:18:16] standards that are typical and required but they're in a few
[1:18:21] cases exceptions to those. You know, if these circumstances
[1:18:25] applied then the general standards don't.
[1:18:30] >> r. Lind: I see. So is the -- so I think it would
[1:18:32] be useful if the drafting of the code could explicitly say that
[1:18:40] because as other which one is subject to future waiver?
[1:19:00] >> c. Muralles: thank you. Commissioner lind.
[1:19:04] is there other feedback on this item?
[1:19:16] we're good. No comment.
[1:19:23] okay. Um, yeah.
[1:19:25] no comments. I think if we're going to close
[1:19:28] this item by others that want to be shared by the commissioners.
[1:19:32] thank you, sara. We'll formally close this item,
[1:19:36] item 4. >> to be clear, though, were
[1:19:38] there any take-aways that you would like us to report to the
[1:19:46] board? >> let me start because I
[1:19:48] haven't said anything. I think it's really important to
[1:19:51] take into account the e-bikes that we're describing earlier
[1:19:55] that is a safety issue for both pedestrians and riders.
[1:20:19] the children grow and there's more parking needed, this will
[1:20:22] forever be an issue in our county.
[1:20:24] I think it's also important to note that the partnership with
[1:20:28] the other agencies like the transportation agency and
[1:20:32] community agency in regards I was speaking to the
[1:20:39] transportation a few months ago, and they barely have any
[1:20:42] knowledge about the projects that come to our hearings or to
[1:20:45] our table that have to do with transportation.
[1:20:47] so it would be really great to partnership with them.
[1:21:06] I think that's great. And commissioner biehle.
[1:21:12] no? Thank you.
[1:21:16] all right. So and you're sticking around
[1:21:20] for item five as well. So it's been brought to my
[1:21:23] attention that the title on item five of the agenda, it's wrong.
[1:21:31] it should be which is title 22. If you can go ahead and get us
[1:21:50] started on that. And we also have a presentation
[1:21:52] for that, so thank you. >> that really emerged from our
[1:22:14] title 24 street standards right now.
[1:22:39] just at a high level and then going to some of the specific
[1:22:43] edits to title 22, there's just really a couple few hand fulls.
[1:22:48] next steps, these are go to the board in august and september.
[1:22:54] so very quickly. Again, the form-based code, this
[1:22:57] diagram shows over in the left applies to projects with five or
[1:23:04] more new developing developers can elect to redesignate the
[1:23:18] properties to the form-based district so it applies and gives
[1:23:21] them a ministerial pathway and then it also applies to the new
[1:23:28] state law also the form-based code which is really intended as
[1:23:49] a stand alone code document, it does not include the rest of the
[1:23:52] municipal code. The form-based code specifically
[1:23:56] calls out title 24 chapter 1 the form-based code is intended to
[1:24:28] be a stand alone code. It did not site other sections
[1:24:32] of title 24. At the time it was adopted, the
[1:24:35] feeling that many of these title 24 standards had subjective
[1:24:39] language and hadn't been updated in many years.
[1:24:41] so, again, the intent was to adopt the form-based code
[1:24:45] quickly, as quickly as possible and then come back later and
[1:24:48] look at the rest of title 24 and eventually make it applicable
[1:24:52] through the form-based code. So there's and it's our
[1:25:13] intention to update those regulations going forward in
[1:25:16] different phases of our work. In terms of the actual proposed
[1:25:24] amendments to title 24 in the form-based code.
[1:25:27] again, one is up dataing the definitions of alley and
[1:25:32] driveway which we discussed previously so they align with
[1:25:37] title 24. Another is to modify the
[1:25:40] requirements for the housing compliance review so that that
[1:25:45] application process and review process would apply to anything
[1:25:51] under the development code so that it's internally consistent.
[1:25:54] so any of the projects that require ministerial processing
[1:25:59] would also require a housing compliance review.
[1:26:03] in terms of specific edits to the form-based code, one would
[1:26:07] move the rules of construction, those are rules of the code
[1:26:13] construction from the applicability section in chapter
[1:26:16] one down to chapter ten, but really no subs substantiative
[1:26:20] change there. The big change is deleting the
[1:26:23] public frontage standards. They're added to title 24 and
[1:26:31] the form-based code will simply reference those.
[1:26:37] the driveway widths that are sited in the form-based code may
[1:26:40] not entirely be in compliance with changes to the fire code,
[1:26:44] so there will be a reference added to the fire code within
[1:26:47] those sections. And also as we mentioned earlier
[1:26:51] in terms of the new alley standards, there would be a
[1:26:55] reduced rear setback for building faces that are adjacent
[1:26:59] to the alley. Parking dimensional standards
[1:27:06] are not included in the form-based code, so, again,
[1:27:10] right now they don't exist to be applied to projects.
[1:27:13] so the intent is to have the form-based code reference those
[1:27:17] sections of title 24 that established, you know, parking
[1:27:21] length widths, and backup distances and all those
[1:27:25] dimensional requirements. And then the last change is to
[1:27:29] the adjustment section in cha
[1:27:33] chapter 9 and there it's simply increasing and relocating the
[1:27:37] list of the site conditions that would qualify for an adjustment.
[1:27:42] so, again, it's really pretty much nonsubstantive it's
[1:27:47] formatting change. And probably another big change
[1:27:49] is the addition of a stacked flats building type.
[1:27:59] previously because currently family building type.
[1:28:04] so this would be a multi-family building type that does not
[1:28:10] include ground floor commercial. And, again, going to the board
[1:28:16] of supervisors in both august and september for their
[1:28:19] consideration of the title 24 and title 22 changes.
[1:28:23] and with that I'm happy to answer any questions and cecilia
[1:28:30] kim is available online. >> c. Muralles: thank you.
[1:28:34] any questions from the staff to start us off.
[1:28:36] do I have a few questions. So I wanted to ask actually why
[1:28:40] on the definitions list on the back you are like removing some
[1:28:54] and there's no and I'm specifically interested on the
[1:28:58] open to ysment spaces, like those things seem to be general
[1:29:02] and that they should be included, so I -- you can
[1:29:05] further explain that, that would be great.
[1:29:09] >> I was just passing this one along to ms. Kim if she's online
[1:29:13] if you can bring her in. >> sure.
[1:29:15] I can respond to that. So the definitions chapter in
[1:29:19] the odds are for terms that are used specifically in the odds.
[1:29:23] any other terms or anything that's silent and not in the
[1:29:28] definitions and the odds are to be drawn from the code itself
[1:29:32] and that said, there were several terms that we found that
[1:29:34] are not used in the odds but were included in the definitions
[1:29:38] and that's where most of the
[1:29:45] >> thank you. Also, I noticed and as you
[1:29:49] mentioned in your presentation, bob, the site condition.
[1:29:53] that is a definition that I don't see in the definitions, so
[1:29:56] I'm not sure where is that defined in the document?
[1:30:02] >> again, cecilia, if you're listening.
[1:30:06] >> yes. I can take that one.
[1:30:08] site condition is a term in the definition section.
[1:30:11] the site condition is further explained on page 248, section
[1:30:18] 9, 9.030 where it pretty much just lists the existing site
[1:30:22] conditions. But what I'm understanding from
[1:30:24] your comment is that you would like to see the terms site
[1:30:28] condition actually defined and we can definitely add that into
[1:30:31] the definitions chapter. >> c. Muralles: I think that
[1:30:35] would be a good idea to >> c. Muralles: I also had a
[1:30:48] question -- yes, please, go ahead.
[1:30:51] >> when you say site conditions, are you referencing existing
[1:30:55] site conditions or at what point site condition?
[1:30:58] >> yeah. So basically how it's defined in
[1:31:01] the use of this context. I think it was crossed off in
[1:31:04] some sections if you give me a minute I can find them as to
[1:31:10] rather than for the explanation, it just says site condition.
[1:31:13] >> we currently have a definition of existing site
[1:31:19] condition in the development code.
[1:31:22] there's a definition of existing site condition and that
[1:31:25] definition is problematic because existing site condition
[1:31:31] is specific term in ceqa and it has created a problem in the
[1:31:35] past and applying that condition.
[1:31:44] the site development the site condition that was created
[1:31:47] illegally or is it existing because someone did something
[1:31:51] unlawfully that would get a review.
[1:31:54] I think we need to thread do ha. On page 4.
[1:32:29] page 6, the recommended change there is to go from natural and
[1:32:35] rural to walkable context. So omitting basically natural or
[1:32:43] rural and just having walkable context which to me seemed to be
[1:32:49] two very different environments and I wanted to see if you have
[1:33:14] . >> we noticed that the diagram
[1:33:17] which shows a natural urban transit uses the terms natural
[1:33:24] to urban whereas so we found that it may cause confusion to
[1:33:43] say which is why we removed the natural or rural and words and
[1:33:50] left it walkable but the natural rural terms still come to play
[1:33:55] when we are describing the transact diagram and how marin
[1:34:00] county context applies to some of those transacts in that.
[1:34:09] >> c. Muralles: thank you. Are there any comments or
[1:34:11] questions from commissioners? Commissioner lind.
[1:34:16] >> r. Lind: I just have one point of clarification.
[1:34:18] so this set of amendments are for the -- are different from
[1:34:22] the set of amendments for -- to the form-based code that we'll
[1:34:26] be looking at for the coastal area.
[1:34:30] >> right. This is for the interior code.
[1:34:33] >> r. Lind: right. This is for everything else.
[1:34:35] I just want to make sure my memory's correct.
[1:34:38] we talked about some changes in the coastal zone, but that's
[1:34:50] not. >> thank you, commissioner lind.
[1:34:53] anyone else? Okay.
[1:34:58] >> c. Muralles: we need to make a -- we need to take action in
[1:35:02] this item. I believe that the accommodation
[1:35:05] is that the board of supervisors adopt a --
[1:35:07] >> eye procedural issue. Can you open it for public.
[1:35:12] >> c. Muralles: thank you. I'd like to open for public
[1:35:14] comment or any other comment in regards to this item.
[1:35:18] okay. There's no comment so we'll go
[1:35:20] ahead and close public comment. Thank you, manny.
[1:35:22] we do need to take action in this.
[1:35:27] so the recommendation I'm sorry. We need a motion first.
[1:35:41] anyone would like to move for a motion?
[1:35:53] >>. >> c. Muralles: commissioner
[1:35:58] biehle would like to second that motion and if we can have roll
[1:36:04] call, thank you. >> clerk: commissioner biehle.
[1:36:12] >> m. Biehle: yes. >> clerk: commissioner lind.
[1:36:17] >> r. Lind: yes. >> clerk: commissioner
[1:36:21] sandoval. >> r. Sandoval: yes.
[1:36:22] >> c. Muralles: we are all good?
[1:36:24] okay. Perfect.
[1:36:25] I think that's it for our meeting today.
[1:36:27] thank you very much for your time and everything that you do
[1:36:30] for our co