Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I think that was pretty good. All right, thanks.

Thank you, John. Yeah, no, I think it's good. Thank you, John. Good, that's all great. Yeah, and then we're finished, right? So the last thing we have to do Christina, are you ready?

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

David. Yeah.

Do I need to do anything? Show me the option.

Okay. Recording in progress.

There's that voice.

So welcome to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 27th, 2026. This meeting is called to order. Margaret, can you please call the roll?

Yes, Madam Chair. Commissioner Saade? Here. Commissioner Haveman?

Here.

Commissioner Alvarez? Here. Commissioner Summers?

Here.

Commissioner Salvamini? Here. Commissioner Mercado? Present. Chair Rodby. Here. Full quorum, Madam Chair.

Thank you. So next we'll... Oh, note to the agenda. Does anybody want to change the order of the agenda? No. Thank you. Next we'll move to the meeting procedures. The City of San Rafael has committed... for all to participate in our public meetings. I want to welcome everyone that are making the time this evening to participate. Margaret, can you tell us how public comment will work this evening? Yes, Madam Chair.

Tonight's meeting is being recorded and streamed live on YouTube. Viewers can also watch it directly through Zoom using the link on the agenda or by dialing 669-444-9171 and entering the meeting ID number, which is also found on the agenda, but it's 826-8602-8480. We're offering closed captioning for this evening's meeting on Zoom. Select the Live Transcript button on the Zoom screen to enable the feature. If you have any technical difficulties while doing that, please feel free to email me at margaretcavenaugh at cityofsanderville.org or Planning Manager, which is a lot easier to spell and found on the website. In order to provide oral testimony, speakers must be present. Displayed on the podium is a timer to help you stay within the allotted time frame. You are invited, though not required, to introduce yourself and say what part of San Rafael you reside in or if you live outside the city. For future meetings, if you'd like to request an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide public comments virtually, please submit your request to me at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting using that email that I just identified.

Thank you, Margaret. So next on the agenda is oral communications from the public. Remarks on items not on the agenda are welcome at this time and may be on anything within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. You may have up to two minutes. Please know that any remarks on the agenda item need to be heard at the time the item is discussed. So anyone that wishes to speak. Seeing none, we'll move on. We have no items on the consent calendar this evening, so we'll move to our action item. The action item for this evening is a public hearing to consider a vesting tentative map, environmental design review, and a state density bonus request to redevelop an existing office complex into a multifamily residential project. with two buildings containing 238 residential units located at 4040 Civic Center Drive. We have the staff report, please.

Good evening, Madam Chair. I'd like to introduce Janie Elsep, our contract planner, who has been the project planner all along, and she's here this evening to preside the report.

Thank you.

Let's scoot up here a little bit.

Good evening, Chair Rodby and members of the commission. I'm pleased to present the project at 4040 Civic Center Drive this evening. As mentioned, there are two entitlements. One is a major environmental design review. The site itself is located east of 101 and just north of the Marydale Overcrossing. Just to orient you, it looks like in the Looks like the graphic didn't load. Pardon that. So for the environmental design review permit, the project is comprised of two buildings. Building one is a new apartment building that is proposed in the location of the existing north parking structure. And I apologize for not having a graphic here, but I know that the project applicant has a... a PowerPoint presentation that does include many of the different graphics. The new apartment building is seven stories. It would be two stories of parking with five residential stories above. There would be landscape space, including private decks, a pool, and amenity spaces indoors, including A CLUBHOUSE WITH BATHROOMS AND THE TOTAL UNIT COUNT FOR BUILDING ONE, THE NEW BUILDING, IS 130 UNITS INCLUDING 13 BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS. BUILDING TWO IS THE CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 4040 CIVIC CENTER The first floor of the building would be a lobby and amenities, and the second through fifth floors would be retrofitted to accommodate residential rental apartments. Total unit count for building two is 108 apartment units, including 11 below market rate units. And the below market rate units are all affordable for low incomes. Building three, let's stay on that one for just one second. Building three is an existing parking structure that will remain. It will serve the both, provide parking for both of the residential buildings. Can this get scooted over to the other one? Can this get scooted over? So a portion of the first and third levels would be re-striped to meet the current zoning requirements for residential parking in both buildings and the remaining spaces are designated as overflow parking. Total of 278 vehicle parking spaces are proposed, again, with the 96 additional spaces for overflow parking. The project is located within a quarter mile of the Civic Center Smart Train Station, just a quarter mile south of the project site. So the requirement for parking is very limited, but they are providing a number of spaces based on what is allowed under the state density bonus law for a reduced parking ratio. In addition, there are 16 short-term bicycle parking spaces proposed, where 15 is required, and 76 long-term bicycle storage spaces proposed. Common amenities, again, are the 24-7 accessible lobby, mail and package area, clubhouse with restrooms, and outdoor spaces, including the pool and the decks. So this project has been filed under AB 130, which is a piece of new legislation that I believe you're familiar with. This is the second project in the city that is being processed under AB 130. So I'm going to go through quickly a little bit of background and the timeline for the project. There was a preliminary SB 330 application submitted back in October of 2024, and the formal application was submitted for the project in April of last year, 2025. I'm not going to go through each and every one of these because it's outlined in the staff report. But it did follow a fairly quick timeline based on the applicant's invocation of AB 130 that occurred in August of 2025. As is required with the AB 130 projects, there is a consultation with Native American tribes under AB 130. And that consultation was initiated in October of last year. An extension was requested by the Federated Indians of Great and Rancheria. And the applicant said, excuse me, I'm sorry, the AB 130 tribal consultation ended without an enforceable agreement. So there is a condition of approval that addresses this, and we can get into that as we go over some of the key conditions of approval. Normally, this project would have been required to be acted on by the city before January 11th of this year. However, late last year in December, the applicant and the city did agree to a time extension that allowed for the project to be presented at tonight's meeting. You've heard about this with other projects that have come through the city. The Housing Accountability Act is a California state law that promotes infill development. It does limit the review to objective design standards, and we'll talk briefly about that. It limits the ability of local governments to deny reduced density or make infeasible housing development projects that comply with objective standards. And there are limits it limits the review to objective design standards. With regard to what is objective versus subjective, the example here, the objective standard on the left where it describes bicycle parking requirements and specifies that 30 buildings having 30 or more parking spaces for all public or quasi public uses. A subjective standard, on the other hand, would not provide for measurable standards such as just more descriptive and something that would be more subjective as as outlined here in this slide. State density bonus law is also a state law that was enacted back in 1979 to encourage construction of housing units. It allows developers to increase density in a residential or mixed-use project above the maximum allowed in the city's general plan. It does allow for incentives, concessions, and waivers. And we'll talk about that more in the moment. This project is not, although it's eligible for one concession, it is not requested any concessions. And five waivers have been requested as part of the project. This slide outlines, well, four of the five, and then there's another slide. The first is for the height of the structure. So the height of building one is 80 feet, not including the parapet and other features that are allowed by code. I believe in the staff report, there may be reference to 84 feet, but it is 80 feet based on the definition in our code. So that would exceed the 36 foot height limit that typically applies in the office zoning district. The second waiver is for lot coverage. It would allow for the 40% lot coverage to be exceeded where 47.9% lot coverage is proposed. there's also a waiver requested for the front setback for building two, which is the existing building that is about a half foot from what is considered the front property line. And there is a waiver requested to allow development of a structure within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline. So this is part of the code that talks about ridgeline development. And the last is a waiver of the objective design standard that requires for plane breaks on buildings. And so this would only apply to building one where there's an alternative breaks and just an alternative approach to providing the breaks in the plane for the buildings. So as mentioned, this project is in the O office zoning district. There's the existing five-story office building that would be converted to apartments. There is the north parking garage that would be demolished to make way for the new building one and the south parking garage would remain. The total unit count is 238 units, 11 studios are proposed, 106 one bedrooms are proposed. There are 42 units that are a one bedroom with den and 69 two-bedroom units and 10 three-bedroom units. So we talked a little bit about the state density bonus law. It does require the city to ensure that proposed units for low-income households remain affordable for a period of at least 55 years. In this case, it's for the low-income units that the applicant is proposing. And the city complies with the state density bonus law by waiving city height standards and other standards that the developer must comply with. And they must also enter into an affordable housing agreement, which is a condition of approval, which ensures the affordability for 55 years, even if the property transfers ownership. THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION IS MIXED USE OFFICE. THIS CATEGORY CORRESPONDS TO AREAS WHERE OFFICE IS THE PREVAILING LAND USE. TYPICAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDE GENERAL OFFICE, MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND ADMINISTRATIVE OR HEADQUARTER OFFICES. RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ALLOWED IN THESE AREAS SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC ZONING STANDARDS AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS POLICIES IN THE GENERAL PLAN. And a maximum net density of 43.6 units per acre applies to projects that include residential uses. So this just runs through the fact that the 10% of the base units are designated for low income households. And the project therefore qualifies for a 20% density bonus. And as I mentioned before, one concession and unlimited waivers, no concessions have been requested. The total allowed unit count would be 238 units. That's 214 as a base and 14 bonus units. The 238 units that are proposed represent this 24-unit bonus, which is within the permitted 20% bonus according to the state density bonus law. The architecture and design for new building one has been thoughtfully considered to given the hillside nature of the project. The roof line is diminished at the edges with tapered patios to reflect the undulating hillside. I know that the project architect is here and we'll have some slides to walk you through more of the architectural details. But there are elevations and articulations in architectural elements, such as balconies with glass and metal railings that further break up the building facade. And the palette that is proposed provides for neutral tone colors that provides for some varied interest along the building elevations. This is the west elevation of Building 1, which faces US 101. And this is the existing Building 2, which is the south elevation. All projects... With all projects, we need to consider the California Environmental Quality Act that was enacted in 1970. It's a statewide policy for environmental protection, and it requires state and local agencies to follow a process for analysis and public disclosure of environmental effects. It's mandatory of every California state and local agency in the decision-making process. As mentioned earlier, AB 130 is new legislation that was approved just this year. It took effect in July 1st of this year. This project has been deemed eligible for the AB 130 process. Basically, it provides for statutory exemptions for projects that are eligible and all of the 19 applicable exemption criteria for AB 130 can be met and you will see that both in attachment two of the staff report as well as in the draft resolution. These are the findings that I believe you're familiar with for environmental and design review approval. These are discussed in the staff report and they are reflected in the draft resolution. Staff is able to make all of the findings we believe for the approval of the environmental and design review permit. There is also a vesting tentative map that is associated with this project. It would create lot one and lot two and a remainder parcel. All of the proposed development, including the existing structures, would be on lot two. And the remainder parcel is the uphill area of the site where no development is proposed. At this time, and there are conditions of approval specifically that address how the remainder parcel is to be treated with a deed restriction and also the timing of when the parcel map needs to be filed with the city and with the county. Staff is able to make all of the required findings for approval of the vesting tentative map again reflected in the draft resolution.

These are the other two findings.

The conditions of approval, which are in attachment one of your staff report, it includes the affordable housing agreement, which is also attached in draft form. It includes specific conditions of approval related to cultural resources. as required by AB 130. And it also includes conditions of approval that address compliance with other standards and requirements found in our zoning code and with building and fire codes as well. We have received two public comments, one from the Sierra Club and one from the organization called Marin Home. Both letters I believe you've been provided with and both support the project as adding needed housing for San Rafael. The Planning Commission options this evening are to approve the applications as presented and subject to the conditions of approval, which is staff's recommendation. The other option is to approve the application with certain modifications, changes, additions related to conditions of approval. Or the other option is to deny the project and provide findings to support that action. That concludes the staff presentation. I'd be happy to answer questions now or after the applicant's presentation.

Thank you, Janie. Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff? Okay, so we will move now to the public hearing. And does the applicant wish to come forward and make a presentation? Should be limited to 10 minutes. HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. HEARD A LITTLE SPEECH. MY NAME IS DAVID PERSONS. I REPRESENT THE OWNERSHIP FOR 4040 CIVIC CENTER PROJECT. I wanna thank the board of commissioners and the county staff for being really helpful, guiding us through this process and for being here this evening. Also, we pursue real estate development projects across the United States and this city has been amazing, professional, collaborative, and it's one of the best experiences we've had. And just want to say, you know, Janie and Mike and the entire city has just, it's been a phenomenal experience. And we share this with other municipalities using you guys as an example. Additionally, about this project. I'd like to hand this over to our architect, Studio T. I just wanted to highlight that this project is a very special project for us. And Many people talk about adaptive reuse of office buildings, but in reality, these possibilities rarely work as well as this. This building is 72 feet wide by 300 feet long, which gives you a double-loaded corridor, the apartments, and on top of that, you've got the beautiful rolling hills of Marin County, which adds to the value and the beauty of this project. It's somewhat of a unicorn building. And then we have the opportunity to go ahead and redevelop the south parking garage, which is an added value, adds a lot more space. Yeah, that's a lot more to the project. So this project on Corridor 101 is a project that we're really proud of. And I would like to turn this over to Chris Lee, our architect.

Thank you. My name is Chris Lee, architect of Studio T-Square. It's my honor to represent the team to introduce, commission the project. Next, please. Next slide, please. Yeah, the project site is very close to Marine County Civic Center, Northgate, mixed use, and very close to the Smart Train, bus stop just relocate to the Civic Center to the project front entry, and very close to the school, open space network. So it's great residential, high resource site. Next, please. When we start a project, it's very important to really understand the site. So several of the urban design concepts want to react to the sensitive hillside and reduce the impact. So we replaced the new building at the existing footprint and also tapered the building to reflect the hillside, to pay respect to the hillside, preserve the view. And also the connection between building with bended some of the unnecessary driveway to create more bikeable, pedestrian-friendly path. Next, please. From the side, you can see on the upper right is the designated remainder parcel on the hillside, and there's a lot one and lot two. Our development will focus on the lot two area with three buildings, one, two, three, and only the number one is a brand new building. Next, please. The picture shows the existing condition. There's one office building in the middle, and there's a north garage and south garage. With the north garage being identified as the most underutilized structure with a lot of surface parking. So we decided to take down the north garage, build a new development only on the north garage and reuse the office building comfort into a residential component and use the existing parking to support the adaptive reuse. Next, please. The ground level plan shows the intent. Once you pass the garage entry to the north new building, the hillside of the pedestrian walkway, we're taking out the vehicular circulation and create a very walkable pedestrian walkway and amenity area. So the ground level amenity can build out the activity from indoor to outdoor. and connecting these three buildings from the ground level. Next, please. In the upper level, this office building is perfect module for converting into residential. You can see we lay out the building very efficient, very sustainable in the very compact size for both buildings. Next, please. The elevation, the project is seeded into an existing commercial, relatively contemporary setting, but we'd like to bring more timeless residential scale to this project, so we use a little bit richer a welcoming warm color in the color palette to contrast with some siding and then we envision the ground level could have some rustic stone tile so bring the residential flavor and break out the messing of this building and particularly we have a lot of taper terrace roof deck. So follow the hillside and also preserve the view from the lower level looking up to the hill. Next, please. And also, I want to highlight the elevation on the top. We have It intentionally put in the top, middle, and bottom, the kind of residential flavor to represent a timeless aesthetic to the new building. Next, please. The color palette is pretty neutral, but with the contrast of the siding to the smooth straw plaster and some glass railing and large storefront in the stone base. Next, please. The perspective really showed the roof garden. With the terrace massing, we not only reduced the massing toward the hillside, but also create a serious open space from the courtyard connecting vertically to each level have some public amenities so residents can come out to enjoy the fresh air.

Next, please.

The office building will remain the existing condition, but replacing all the glazing system and air conditioning and the heating system to the most update code standards. Next, please. This section shows, interestingly, even the new building, seven-story, but because the store-to-store height is shorter, so it's pretty similar to the five-story office building. So I think the comparison of the message shows the new building has not created more impact to the existing community feel. Next, please. The aerial view shows, I think the most important consideration is really environmental concern to minimize the cut and fill. So the new building completely sit on the existing parking structure. And also the taper form really modestly show the building respect the hill and preserve the hill and also open up the view for itself to look out to different direction. Next, please. Integration of landscape is really important too. So the ground level, that emergency fire road on the north side, landscape architect should pave it with a road curb. So we'd like to envision that stretch of area. Actually, no car can go in. It's just only the loading contemporary part there. So that... street will be more pedestrian friendly and connect to the breezeway to the south garage. I think the whole ground plan we would like to highlight and also we preserve most of the trees whenever it's possible and use low water maintenance plans for the community.

Next please.

Some vignettes show on the right-hand side, those are the color paving for the emergency fire road. So it feels like you can comfortably walk between buildings. And the left side of some amenities on the courtyard pool.

Next, please.

I think one very important design element for the project is really open up indoor and outdoor boundary. So outdoor, we use elements such as terrace, furniture, and color paving to really encourage people to come out from the indoor amenity, come in to outside, enjoy the nice weather, and promote a healthy outdoor lifestyle. I think those are the highlight of the project. I'm here to take some questions and suggestions. Thank you.

Thank you. So taking it back to commissioners, do you have any questions? Yeah, thank you.

A couple of quick questions. The affordable units, are those going to be spread out throughout the building? Yeah. Yes, it follows the guideline. It will spread out between both buildings and every level. Gotcha. And then is there a plan with a lot one and the designated remainder at this time?

I think that...

Nothing that can be shared? Okay. Yeah. That's it. Thank you.

Commissioner Alvarez, do you have any questions? Go ahead.

Thank you. Another question. If you could tell me more about the ridgeline or the additional building that might come later. I thought Janie talked about a hundred foot that might be proposed later. Did I mishear that?

No, well, yeah, I think there might have been a misunderstanding. The reference to the 100 feet was related to the waiver that's been requested to allow new development within 100 feet of a significant ridge. Okay, got it. So that's what the 100 feet was referring to.

Okay. And currently, my doctor's office is up there, so I'm up there a lot. I love the way this looks. But currently, you drive under Building 2 to get to the doctor's office. Is that going to stay that way? And is that managed the same way that the parking, the way to get into the parking garage to get to MarinHealth?

There are two underpasses for that building. We keep the south one. So if you want to go to the medical office, you pass through the south one. It's still like right now. But we abandoned the north one. So the north one will become a breezeway for pedestrian-only passageway. I think it's a great improvement to connect these three buildings together.

So will there be, because right now the road's closed because they're doing road work. So you're coming up, what used to be a one-way going, leaving now is a two-way. So will that continue to be a two-way on the south side?

It's continued to be one-way and two-way. One-way and two-way, okay. We'd like to change it, but it's too much involvement with culture. So I hope that's a future consideration.

Okay. Great. And that is it for me. Thank you.

Thank you. I have just a couple of clarification points, please. This is for my clarification. You have 15% charge or provide for the electric vehicle spaces and 85% EV ready. What is the difference? What does that mean?

The 15% is when the project constructed, the charger would be there ready. So it's available. You can plug into charge. And 85% is we would design the transformer or the conduit will be ready for the capacity in the future. I think if they're more EV needed, then the development can always add charger to it. And then the transformer is a big component we need to design in advance in order to get the capacity in place.

Okay, thank you. And then one last question. I noticed in the AB 130 report from you guys that you mentioned that there was still, wasn't clear if the balconies on Building 2 were 500 feet from the freeway. Has that been settled? It looked like it was a little bit up in the air when that was being looked at.

I didn't. there's technically no balcony on the second floor. There are existing roof deck. So I think that's It's not something we designed to add to the building. So that existing roof deck, from my understanding, it's okay. I think we're open to other suggestions. We get to the building permit. That can be enclosed and can be shielded to avoid any interruption.

Thank you. No questions? Okay. So I'll open this up now for members of the public. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this item? And each of you will have two minutes. I don't see any, so I will close the public comment section and take it back for deliberation. So I'll start with...

Start on the end. Okay. First of all, thank you for not bringing your attorney here to tell us what we're allowed to talk about and what we're not allowed to talk about. Second, thanks for not designing a 17-story building, which you probably could have. But I think of all the applications we've looked at with these kinds of projects, that this is really well executed. I like the thoughtful placement on the site. It seems like it's an appropriate scale with the other buildings, the location. You were definitely... the recipients of a great site for something like this, but you know, it could have been proposed even denser and bigger and the things you've said and that you tried to embrace that hillside, you know, you have a wonderful design team that helped you do that as well. I think it's a well-designed project for one of these. And I'm, you know, I'm a lot happier about this one than some of the other ones we've seen. So I just wanted to commend you guys. I think you did a good job giving the exercise.

And I will only second that. I like this project. Of the projects that have come before us, I haven't said that about a lot of them. But this one I do like. I think it's really well designed. It's efficient. It's going to be a very pleasant place to live. Everybody knows I'm a little cranky about traffic. And my only concern is that you're putting 238 units Sort of across the street from 1,400 that are going in, and they'll all be vying for the same entry ramp to 101. So it gives me a little bit of pause, but that's not your responsibility. I think you've taken your responsibility seriously and done something really nice here. So thank you.

Thanks. Yeah. Good comments. Yeah. Good job. I mean, good submittal, good use of the foot plant for sure. I was a little surprised with the Ridgeline setback waiver. I didn't know we could do that. So I mean, I think it's impressive use of it. I'm always concerned with sort of those setbacks with the health and safety issues or the fire risk issues being so close to that Ridgeline. So just a little bit of always concern on that. Yeah. I think the traffic and again, not an issue on your project, but just To reiterate, we've lost the ability to consider that, but I think traffic is going to be brutal. It was super brutal tonight. It's going to be even worse. So this will unfortunately probably expand on that. But I do like that setback. I think aesthetically, it's a great building. So good job. And I like how you put the two visuals of the height to show that. That was really helpful. Those are always really good for projects. So we can kind of see that because the scenic component is so important. So being mindful of that was really helpful. Thank you.

Hello. So I like the projects and I see agribuilding and also the landscaping integration, what I see is great and what I review and I think this is an example of how a project can repeat the context and the great conceptualizations of the elements. And as well, using actual structures is good, especially when it's for housing. So I really like the project. Thank you.

All right. Same. I echo so far what everyone said. This is really nice. I live at that exit. I've driven past it the last few days, and I thought, you know what, that's going to blend in really nicely. I think it fits with the geography and the topography of the area. I think it's well done. I do thank you guys for having all your ducks in a row, and it seems like it's been great. A lot of times we don't know how much work the staff has done to get us to this point, but they made it seem like it's been great. So I always want to thank the staff for getting us to this point. They do an amazing job. But I, too, love the project, and I'm looking forward to seeing it complete.

I'll go ahead and thank staff and as well as the applicant. Again, I think you guys did an amazing job getting this done quickly and well. I think unlike a lot of other applications, the requested waivers are really not working against the site, but they're all for the most part compatible. The height is compatible, lot coverage. We're not really changing the lot coverage because building one is on an existing parking structure area. The setback is really not actually, in reality, there's a lot of landscape in front of it. I'm building one and it is tucked under the ridgeline. So I think we're not really getting, you know, impeding the view of the existing ridgeline. And it seems that there's a lot of plane breaks. I think even though that is a waiver, I feel like we're that this project is meeting that. And I think it's a great addition to this area. It's a, the housing element has really identified this area around the civic center as a place for dense housing, especially with the smart train and the walkability to the farmer's market and the new Northgate development. So I really support this project. I will say that I think it's incumbent upon public works and environmental and economic development departments to get together and Trying to figure out the traffic with the housing element. I know that Caltrans is doing work there, and we have been told about the combination of Caltrans and the city and the county. But I agree that we do need to solve some, you know, we have to mitigate some of the traffic issues that are happening around these developments. But all in all, I support it.

I too like the project. I think it's going to be wonderful. And I also like the idea of recycling office buildings. That's really great to see. So congratulations. You presented a great project. Is there any more discussion from commissioners?

Are there any modifications to the conditions that we had to do? No, right?

No. Can I get a motion?

I'll tackle it. I haven't done one of these yet. I move that we approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit ED26001 and Vesting Tentative Map TS26001 to construct a 238-unit multifamily residential development project in two buildings located at 4040 Civic Center Drive and determining that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.

Thank you, Commissioner Summers. Can I get a second?

Well done. I'll second the motion.

Margaret, can you have the roll call, please?

Absolutely.

Commissioner Sade? Yes.

Commissioner Haven? Yes. Commissioner Alvarez?

Yes.

Commissioner Summers?

Yes.

Commissioner Salvamini?

Yes.

Commissioner Mercado?

Yes.

Chair Rodby? Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

ANY INTERESTED PARTY CAN APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS BY FILING A COVER LETTER, A LETTER STATING THE REASON FOR THE APPEAL AND THE CORRESPONDING FEE FOUND ON OUR MASTER FEE SHEET AT THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC COUNTER LOCATED ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF CITY HALL. PLEASE NOTE OUR BUSINESS HOURS ARE 830-4 MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND FRIDAY 830-1230. please contact the planning manager if you have any questions. So next we'll move into the director's report.

So for this director's report, I'm actually going to turn it over to assistant director Greg Miner. Hey there, good evening. I always feel like I have to lean to get to the microphone here.

I have three updates. I'll start with probably the least exciting, which is I believe there are packets in front of you from the clerk's office that we've been asked to ask you all if you could, I believe, review and sign and return. Is that correct, Margaret?

Yeah, there's an acknowledgement of receipt, one pager, and then there's a little 70 pager to curl up with.

So I believe it's a background on the Brown Act, the state of California's transparency laws around public meetings. So I really started off with a bang starting off with that item. The second update was referenced on the agenda packet, which is we're holding, the city council rather, will be holding a study session around housing development before their next city council meeting this coming Monday, February 2nd at 4 o'clock. and it's we've been asked in light of the new regulatory landscape for housing development as this body is extremely aware the the rules have shifted dramatically and so we've been asked as a department to provide a forum for conversations about that and what policy and process adjustments might be needed and so we want to encourage the planning commission members if you're able to attend or observe remotely and the larger development community to attend and observe. And one of the items that we want to raise to the city council and receive direction on is whether or not to adjust the role of the planning commission when it comes to housing development projects. I think the last meeting in particular kind of the rubber met the road, if you will, literally and figuratively in terms of what's the role of the commission or what should it be when it comes to these housing development applications in light of these new laws. So definitely want to encourage you all, if you're able to participate or observe, THE PURPOSE OF THAT MEETING IS TO ESTABLISH A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEW LANDSCAPE AS WELL AS RECEIVE DIRECTION. SO NO IMMEDIATE ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF YOU'RE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT IF WE GET DIRECTION, THE INTENT IS TO RETURN AT THE SECOND STUDY RETURN AT THE SECOND STUDY SESSION WHICH WILL BE FOCUSED SESSION WHICH WILL BE FOCUSED ON THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE ON THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS ANY FOLLOW-UP FROM THE FIRST ANY FOLLOW-UP FROM THE FIRST SESSION SO IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO SESSION SO IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE FIRST SESSION IT'S ATTEND THE FIRST SESSION IT'S YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE AN YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THE DIRECTION PROVIDED BUT WE JUST DIRECTION PROVIDED BUT WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE The larger public aware, if anyone's observing remotely, but specifically the Planning Commission, aware of this meeting. The packet, I believe, will be available online this Thursday. We'll send a link to you all, and we'll send it to others.

When is the meeting?

It'll be before the regular council meeting, so it's going to be at 4 p.m. Same day as the council meeting? Same day.

Next week?

Correct. So it'll be from 4 to 5.30 p.m. here.

Monday?

Monday, the February 2nd.

I will not be able to attend. Which is a shame because I think I'd have a lot to say.

Well, you're able to provide comment in advance. I think I'll do that. I'll have a chat with Micah. So that's the second update.

I have a question on that. When do you guys think the second study session will happen? Like within a few weeks or do you have a date set for that?

Yeah, we're targeting April 9th, so it won't be for a couple months.

Oh, good. So you'll be able to get some stuff done. Yeah.

And so we'll have an opportunity to circle back with the commission maybe at a February meeting for those that were unable to attend. Great. If there are no comments on that, I can pivot to the last update or open it up for comments.

So it's a study session with a couple of council members? Is there an ad hoc of the council?

No, it's a full council. Oh, a full council.

It'll be a... According to the pamphlet, it'll be a Brown Act meeting. Yep, yep.

Old Brown Act meeting.

Excellent job, Fisher Mercado. It's all star.

Okay, cool. And then the materials going out, you said they'll go out Friday?

Thursday, I mean, our target, it's mostly kind of, it's an overview document, it's not going to be a full staff report. And then we're going to present a power, Margaret will be leading the PowerPoint presentation, and then for about 20 minutes, and it'll be like about an hour of space for the public and the council members to provide comments and questions and direction.

Yeah, I'm most concerned about, you know, you're saying there might be a change on the role of the PC. You know, I think our role is probably important on a couple items is, you know, we're maybe a little more equipped to look at design issues. And I know we need to talk and hone in the objective design standards. But I mean, just for the sake of the council, if we're the first touch from the public, at least we take a whole bunch of the body blows, right? in our meeting and it gets a lot of that stuff aired out, you know, by the time it gets to the council. And I think we're doing the council a favor, aren't we?

I don't know. Well, there's a certain part, too, where the commission actually is the deciding body for these outside of an appeal. So that really is. And that's based on our current ordinance and structure, not to say there isn't options to modify that. So I think that's really is part of that discussion topic for council to at least weigh in on it from a policy perspective of like, how would they like to see these?

Yeah, I mean, it gives a little bit of check and balance to these things.

Yeah, there's a real like equity question, right? If I have to file an appeal to get to my elected officials every time a housing project, because the advisory agency that's reviewing it really can only rubber stamp it. So it's a real tension that's created that I think puts staff in a weird spot, right? Because we check the boxes. But so much of what we're doing up here is educating the public. Yeah, I hear you, but here's why I can't. So I hope the study session highlights that tension and what that answer is. I don't know, but I would say if we can bring it back, maybe follow it with the planning commission because a lot of us probably can't go. 4.30, I'm at work still. But it'd be great to give you feedback if you guys have bullet points as a follow-up.

THAT'S REALLY THE ANTICIPATION FOR THAT IS REALLY FOR US EVEN THOUGH WHAT IT IS WE'RE AFTER IS REALLY TRYING TO OPEN IT UP TO AT LEAST THE ELECTED CITY COUNCIL TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE COUNCIL'S PREFERENCE ON THIS IN TERMS OF DIRECTION FOR STAFF AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE KIND OF THE FEEDBACK PROVIDED AND ALSO GIVE THEM OPTIONS. I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE A MANY OF OPTIONS, BUT THEN ALSO TO THAT POINT, I'D LOVE TO, IF THERE'S ANY MODIFICATION CHANGES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT IT, GET THAT FEEDBACK. I'M SURE COUNCIL WILL BE LOOKING FOR THAT FROM YOU ALSO. Very early in this, but it's kind of an important discussion topic, particularly for the projects we've been seeing, the approach, the state modification to the development review regulations. It is kind of that nature. But then also, as Greg kind of alluded to, there's a second part of this, too, is some of the housing policies, like inclusionary housing or... affordability requirements, some of these things that are really drivers to kind of the what, why, and where. Another factor that, you know, we're also evaluating is development impact fees because those are also, like we talked about the different levers associated with what does local jurisdictional control and process, right, policy, you know, those fees. So really, you know, what is the approach for that for the council and what direction would they like to go with it?

It's a meaty one. Yeah, so definitely if anyone's able to attend or if you want to share comments in advance, that'd be appreciated. If not, I think we'll have opportunities back at the Planning Commission to circle back based on what direction we receive. And the last update is with respect to appeals. So for 700 Irwin, you might have heard of it. It was a project a couple weeks ago. We received three appeals from members of the public, and we anticipate they'll be heard at the City Council's February 17th meeting. We've also received an appeal from the property owner of 900 A Street or 1030 3rd Street. That was a project that the Planning Commission approved in, was it November or December? December. December. But that. The appellant has requested a meeting with the city attorney's office and we're meeting with them tomorrow. So that might get resolved short of an appeal. If not, we anticipate that'll be heard on the 17th as well. I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, that's a report.

I have a quick question.

Sorry. Did we approve last meeting's minutes and all that? I don't remember doing that.

No. Through this year. We've been having so much fun getting these projects to you. We have to catch up on the minutes.

No problem.

Thank you.

I think, does any member of the Planning Commission have any communications they'd like to disclose? I did take a call from Ross about this project. It was very brief. Thank you. Okay. Okay. And yes, meeting is adjourned. Stay in the club.