How much is that?

The commission meeting is now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Commissioner Zon.

Here.

Commissioner Chase.

Here.

Commissioner Lamas.

Here.

Commissioner Buckley.

Absent.

Commissioner Caden.

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Absent.

Commissioner Mossius Reid.

Here.

Commissioner Blunt.

Here.

Commissioner Rishki.

Here.

Commissioner Thompson.

Absent.

Chair Wallace.

Absent.

Vice Chair Young.

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

I'd like to remind members of the public in chambers that if you would like to speak

on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker's slip when the item begins.

You will have three minutes to speak once you are called on.

After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of the Sacramento Indigenous people

and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu Valley and

Plains Miwak, Pat Winn, Wintu peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's

only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walked beside

us today on these ancestral lands by choosing together together today in the active practice

of acknowledgment and appreciation of Sacramento's Indigenous people's history, contributions

and lives.

Thank you.

Please rise for the opening.

This was doubled.

Now for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

All right.

Before we move on with the agenda, I wanted to make an announcement that I'll be leaving

early from the meeting today around six o'clock.

And so I'm going to make a motion to have Kendra, Maseus, Reed, Phil and the role of chair

once I leave.

And so I was hoping to get a second on that.

There's a second from Robert.

All right.

Great.

And then we'll make the roll call.

Thank you chair.

Commissioner Zong.

Aye.

Commissioner Chase.

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas.

Aye.

Commissioner Buckley.

Absent.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Absent.

Commissioner Maseus Reed.

Aye.

Commissioner Rishki.

Aye.

Commissioner Blant.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson.

Absent.

Chair Wallace.

Absent.

And vice chair Young.

Aye.

Great.

All right.

Our first business today is the director's report.

Thank you chair.

One item for you this evening.

I have a planning division staffing update.

And Karetta Sous with our long range planning team has been promoted to senior planner.

She'll be focusing on housing policy.

And this is a new position that was created by City Council in July.

So congratulations to Greta and we'll look forward to seeing here at the commission soon and often.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

We will now move forward with the approval of the consent calendar clerk.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you vice chair.

I have no speaker slips for this item.

All right.

Is there a motion and a second for the consent calendar?

Okay.

Have we?

I move to approve.

Oh, next speaker.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

I move to approve.

Thank you.

I second.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a motion by Commissioner Zhang and Commissioner Macias.

Read.

Will the clerk please call the roll for the vote?

Thank you vice chair.

Commissioner Zhang.

Aye.

Commissioner Chase.

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas.

Aye.

Commissioner Buckley.

Aye.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Absent.

Commissioner Massa III.

Aye.

Commissioner Risky.

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson.

Absent.

Chair Wallace.

Absent.

And vice chair Young.

Aye.

Thank you motion passes.

Great.

We will now proceed to the public hearing calendar item two.

It's a long title so I'm just going to call it item two.

Various ordinance related to the planning and development.

The staff have a presentation.

Great.

Thank you.

Good evening chair and commissioners.

I'm Jimmy Mosler, Associate Planner in the Zoning Administration section.

And I'll be giving tonight's presentation on Title 17 omnivus ordinances.

As an overview of this presentation, first I'll briefly describe what omnivus means.

I'll provide an overview of the categories of amendments and the ordinances tonight.

Then I'll provide an overview of those amendments and conclude by describing what review steps are necessary for the ordinances.

So what does omnivus mean?

You may recall from an ordinance I was presented earlier this spring, but it's essentially a law that covers a variety of topics.

Comes from Latin.

It means two four by width or from everything.

And the ordinance is tonight cover a variety of topics that fall within three main categories.

First is state law consistency.

Maybe where the legislature passes a lot of laws every year.

And so these amendments ensure our code is consistent with state law.

Second category is streamlining.

We often notice things in the code that don't work quite the way we'd like.

So this category of changes allows us to refine existing regulations without establishing a new policy.

And then the last category is administrative cleanup.

Honestly, this is a lot of typos.

And before going into the overview, I wanted to highlight the attachment to in the staff report, the background.

It explains all of the amendments and the rationale for them in a lot more detail.

And it's included in the staff report tonight.

All right.

So the first category is state law consistency.

For 80 years Senate bill 477 was signed earlier this year that reorganized state law, but didn't make any policy changes.

So the proposed ordinance includes amendments to update our government code references in title 17.

There are also recent changes in state law for EV charging and hydrogen fueling stations.

It's been a statewide requirement since 2016 to administratively approve EV charging stations with a building permit or other non-discussionary review.

And recently SB 1291 added that same requirement for hydrogen fueling stations.

So the amendment clarifies that both of these are exempt from discretionary site plan and design review.

In housing, there are several bills.

The first is assembly bill 1490, which makes adoptive reuse projects with 100% units affordable by right.

The second one is Senate bill four.

This is the affordable housing on faith and higher education lands act of 2023.

It allows housing on land owned by religious institution or independent higher education institutions, like SB 35, but different.

And so the ordinance includes new sections in our code for processing applications under either of those.

With density bonus, there are a lot of updates every single year to this.

So we're proposing a new ordinance that really references state law and is more resilient to the constant changes in legislation.

Then also in this category is Senate bill 684.

This requires us to ministerially approve housing developments and subdivisions with 10 or fewer dwelling units.

On 10 or fewer new parcels if they need specific requirements.

Our second category is streamlining.

So there's four amendments in this category that will walk us through.

The first one is setback determinations for lots of peculiar shapes or locations.

So an issue that we noticed is in the code currently, if someone has an odd shaped lot, we need a site plan and design review application to determine what their setbacks are.

You've been if no other an application would not be required otherwise for what they're proposing.

So our amendment is to allow the zoning administrator to make this determination when no other application is required.

And our reasoning for this is to remove a burdensome cost for basic regulatory information.

The next one deals with residential accessory structures.

So there are some confusing standards in our code for trellisism, pergolas and swimming pools.

Also don't have any standards for arbor's.

And so we're proposing to clarify the distinction between what the standards for trellis and a pergola also simplify the wording for swimming pools so that it's consistent with the rest of Title 17 and provide a new definition and standards for arbor's to really increase the accuracy of information and consistency of information provided to the public.

Next one has to do with modifying a site plan and design review application.

So if someone has an approved permit and they want to make changes, this requires an entirely new application regardless of the scope of the change, which could be a large fee for minor change.

And so what we're proposing is establishing a process that mirrors what is done for conditional use permits with a minor and major modification process.

Our reasoning for this is to provide a consistent approach to our two most common entitlement applications and remove burdensome costs.

The last one in this category deals with tentative map time extensions.

So the subdivision review committee reviews tentative maps before the zoning administrator for conformance with standards and provides conditions of approval.

So if someone is nearing the expiration date for their tentative map, they'll submit an extension and those are required in our code to go to this committee, even those there are no changes to the map proposed just extending the life of it.

And so we're proposing to remove the requirement for tentative map time extensions to be considered by this committee.

And our reasoning is to remove an extra step in the tentative map entitlement process.

The last category is administrative cleanup. There's a long list of amendments proposed.

I won't walk you through corrections of every single typo, but I did want to highlight the removal of the ask out avenue and labor intensive overlay zones.

So title 17 was comprehensively updated in 2013. And as part of that, the standards for these zones were removed.

But the title text still remains in title 17 and they still show up on the zoning map, like a dash LI at the end of a property zoning.

And so what we're proposing is to repeal those chapters and resume the parcels to remove the overlays from the official map and rationales to keep the code free from errors and consistent with prior city council decisions.

In terms of review steps, this ordinance or these ordinances are being presented to you all tonight would also need to go to the law and legislation committee along with city council for your own adoption.

And our recommendation tonight is to conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion move the staff recommendation, make this motion, the law and legislation committee would consider this at their November 12 meeting.

That concludes my presentation. Staff is aware of the numerous e-commerce that have come in in the last 24 hours and we're happy to discuss and answer any questions. Thank you.

I would like to speak on this item.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I have two speakers for this item. Our first speaker is Paul.

Thank you. I think so much for the opportunity to speak to the implementation of SB 684, which is a very important piece of the all of the above strategy to help decrease housing costs across the state and increase the number of missing middle and starter homes that are available to the public.

We wanted to call attention to a specific provision of the proposed ordinance that's optional and we believe that it will limit housing production increase cost and will prioritize rental complexes over single family.

We're a single family home ownership opportunities. I'm Paul Stidal, co-owner of Build Cosa. We're a company that's focused on creating these new missing middle opportunities for homeownership.

We also work with existing homeowners who have properties that have extra lot space to be able to identify those and create those wealth opportunities for the existing homeowners in the community.

I'm also a licensed architect and have a background in city and regional planning as well.

I'm a city on numerous projects using SB 9, which is another statewide regulation, which is a streamlined ministerial process for creating new lots and new housing units of this type.

So yeah, I'm here to raise awareness about this provision. It's a little bit technical.

It's a optional provision that conditions the approval of the new lots that are being created for the units of housing on the completion of the building being done first.

This means that all of the homes must be built on the property and completely have certificate occupancy before those new properties can be created.

That causes a problem on the construction financing side because oftentimes most typically you would use the lot that a house sits on to finance the construction and get the construction loan.

And my colleague, Don, of it will speak a little bit more to that.

So this means that I just wanted to emphasize this is an optional provision again.

We work across the state, the city of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose have chosen not to implement this measure because it has the risk of prioritizing the sale of those homes to large developers that could create a complex of the housing.

You know, a complex of rentals rather than individual single family homes, which is our goal as a company.

And I think it's also conducive to the objectives of the city of Sacramento and also consistent with the missing middle provisions that have been passed recently.

These things are meant to be together and one doesn't preclude the other.

For that reason, we oppose the inclusion of this very specific measure and I'm happy to clarify which one if it's unclear.

Thank you for your comment. Your time is now up. Our next speaker is Donovan.

We wanted to call this specific issue that my colleague Paul mentioned, that last item in the 684 implementation.

Essentially, as my back on this construction lender, one of the things a bank and any lender looks for is like what is the collateral, right?

So the issue here is without the recorded lot, there's no collateral for the bank.

And in the same way, if you go and get a car loan, if there's no car, it's tough to get a loan on the car.

And that's essentially what's happening here. So the only way to get financing is essentially to do it yourself.

You have to fund the entire development out of pocket, which means cash.

So for small scale developers, homeowners like myself, it's almost impossible to do that with cost around like $300 a square foot.

We're talking like 500K per project. Whereas with the financing, we're putting like 20% down.

Still difficult, right? But a lot more feasible than putting $500,000.

So just wanted to specifically call out that issue and kind of vehemently oppose this.

Just that line, right? Because it's going to make it super difficult for the small scale developers and again promote kind of that corporate rental housing, which is good in some cases, right?

But also think that there should be an optionality, right? It should be homeownership. It should be option for rentals.

We think we should have both. And this will kind of limit the amount of for sale housing that we'll have, and specifically start our homes.

So thank you and appreciate the time.

Thank you for your comment. Vice Chair, I have no more speakers.

Great. So before we move on, I think we want to see if anyone on the commission has any.

What's the term recusals? Disclosures?

Any disclosures?

Oh.

Bob.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry. What was it? Is this to ask questions of staff?

We are, but we just want to announce before we proceed with discussions. Are there any disclosures or recusals?

Oh, sorry. No disc. Yes, I did receive an email from the percentage of spoke.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah. I received an email and had conversation with staff consistent with this staff report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to any comments or questions from the commissioner.

Would you speak?

Bob.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah. Question of staff regarding the, you know, the letter submitted.

Could you explain how this relates to the existing subdivision act?

I think that's a different way to address the issues that we're talking about.

The current situation is different from what is being questioned here.

Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Chase.

The current provisions for subdivision applications bring a project through a discretionary review process.

And the next slide is the final report that is then, if approved, subject to final map where the legal lots are created.

This law instead provides for a ministerial review process whereby only objective standards may be imposed on projects.

And moreover, those applications are subject to an expedited 60 day review period where it is a approval or a deemed approval if you do not deny in writing within that time frame.

So there's some procedural differences.

There's some, in terms of how the standards are applied, they are different.

Additionally, I would point out that these are state prescribed standards in SB684, which are zoning standards that pertain to lots as well as homes.

So we're talking about area standards for lots, setback standards for buildings, height, density provisions, all getting at the legislature's intent to allow for 10 or fewer units to be built essentially ministerial when they meet all objective standards.

Is that help you understand?

Well, it helps to explain the process, but I think I'm still concerned about the concerns that the speakers had of interfering in any way with financing with the ability to get, you know, use the leverage of the ownership or without having to have something built.

I've never heard of a subdivision having to have things built on it before.

Yeah, so it is novel, it is unique in terms of process. So if we were speaking of a, you know, the conventional approach today, it does flip it on its head would absolutely acknowledge that's a fair statement.

So you would not, you would be required to record your map before you could build a single unit dwelling on a lot.

That's the standard process today.

I think what staff is proposing today is we're suggesting a cautious approach in particular and with reference to our missing middle interim housing ordinance.

We do feel that it is appropriate to encourage that ordinance and ensure that we are applying the standards that were, you know, we debated at this body and up through the through the council that were very important to community members and examples of those include tree planting preservation, open space requirements,

and we're going to have a couple of additional standards, all of which would not be applicable to an SB 684 project.

So we are, and we are maybe not, we say that in the background portion of the staff report that we think that our local standards are in, in the broad picture, we are promoting housing.

So we are doing in ways that go beyond what the state requires of us.

Our ordinance today is consistent with state law in terms of SB 684 and we think that our ADU ordinance, which goes beyond state law, as well as our missing middle housing ordinance, which is not typical statewide is a new model ordinance that we should prioritize.

Those precedent. So the help you understand.

So it doesn't quite answer. I'm still concerned that that whatever we're doing could interfere as is being proposed by the speakers here interfere with actually achieving more housing point missing middle housing.

Can you can you address that how it would address their concerns.

Missing middle housing is possible even on small lots in our interim ordinance. So you can have a lot at 1200 square feet.

This state law would allow a lot of 600 square feet. We have to allow allow a lot of 600 square feet.

We are concerned that SB 684, notwithstanding the good work that the speaker has done through applications that I personally observed and communicated with them on that for our entire community, that this law could be used to entitle paper assets, which result in lots that are very difficult to develop.

So I think that's a lot of concern. That was a concern that was voiced in the legislative process at the state level, which I believe led to the provision being in the law that allows this choice to be made locally.

I'll look forward to hearing other commissioner comments. Thank you, Kevin.

Thank you. And thank you to staff for kind of being willing to dig into the details of implementing some of these bills.

I think I want to start off by just maybe offering a little bit of context on SB 684, which is the small lot subdivision bill we're talking about.

And most of my questions and comments are related to that bill. You know, that bill is is trying to tackle a really specific problem.

And that's more affordable home ownership opportunities. And of course, we've just had this this large conversation, you know, as a city about the missing middle ordinance and just kind of allowing denser housing more generally.

But kind of outside of reducing minimum lot sizes to 1200 square feet, which you referenced, you know, we haven't really specifically gotten to what we can do to try to promote more affordable home ownership specifically.

And I think SB 684 is a really important piece of legislation because it for the first time in decades is trying to actually streamline the subdivision process, which is really held back a lot of home ownership opportunities.

And kind of these starter homes that some of the speakers talking about. So, you know, and through that legislative process for that bill, there were several options that as you reference, we're added into kind of allow for local governments to interpret that bill in inflexible ways.

And on the heels of that bill passing the Cassita coalition, which they do great work at the state level on missing middle and ADU policy, they put out a guidance memo called how to apply new state law allowing ministerial approval of up to 10 unit subdivisions on small lot.

But basically, there's a guidance memo on 684 that outlined, you know, yes, the requirements, but also ways that local governments could implement this bill in a way that you could actually have it be successful, right, where you actually are building lower cost starter homes as a result.

And I guess I'm kind of worried with the ordinance that's under consideration tonight that we're sort of choosing the most kind of strict interpretation of that.

Law or interpreting in such a way that is not is counter to every single one of the Cassita coalition guidance that they put out.

And I think it just would be a huge shame because in the past, this is something that has been something that we've gone beyond, right, usually a state law will come forward.

And then we sort of say, okay, I understand the intent of that, let's see what we can actually do to make this even better.

And that happened with ADUs, right, where we were ahead of the game allowing 280Us on a lot.

That happened with SB 35, the ministerial approval, right, where we said, okay, we support that.

So we're going to take it a step further and we have the city's own ministerial approval process for multi-family projects that basically everyone uses now.

I mean, Greg, you should correct me, but I don't think we see many at all SB 35 projects because that city's own process was better.

And I guess I worry that we aren't doing that here in what to me is a really important topic, excuse me, which is ensuring that that Sacramento remains a place that people can actually buy their first home.

We have a pretty dire situation in the sense that we have a third of the region's residents that can't afford the meeting home.

That used to be over half, about 10 years ago. Millennial home ownership is about 35% in Sacramento.

It's about over 45% I think nationally.

We're getting passed up in Millennial home ownership by Boston and DC, like really high cost cities.

So, and I think that's just really bad for the health of our city, basically, because you have young people who are leaving in search of a place where they can buy home.

So this stuff is really important and I just want to make sure that we're doing whatever we can to kind of turn those numbers around.

That was a long preamble into a few questions that I have, but I guess just to kind of continue the line of questioning, can you dig into that a little bit more with the paper asset thing?

So what is kind of the worry around, you know, allowing for, I guess, a project to be subdivided before it's built, given that it's how it works currently?

I would say my responses intended to be to a little bit a slightly different question, which is what happens if we grand approval to a project and the homes are never built.

So, who does that harm, I guess, is my question?

I don't think it produces housing, which was the intent of the build to start. If we are encouraging speculators to entitle property through this process without building homes, that was one of the concerns for the legislative process.

And like I mentioned at the beginning, the same outcome can be achieved or a very similar outcome through the missing middle process with the main difference being time.

So you mentioned that holding up the subdivision process is an impediment to producing housing. I would say comparatively on a broad comparison of these two processes that we're talking about 60 days versus two or three times that process.

And I think in balance, if you take the standards that we feel we should be encouraging, that would not be able to be imposed, that we are on balance trying to strike a recommendation that gives missing middle a fair chance to show results.

And it is true there may be financing difficulties. That again, on balance, we feel like the community standards are important and we should give deference to those.

I don't know, I'm not in finance, so I don't know if there's another new loan that could be arrived at or a process that could be changed on that side, but we do feel like our priority is in the recommendation place on those standards.

But I guess the community standards are being applied either way, right? We're just talking about when the final map happens, right? Because the objective design standards are still being applied.

What I'm saying is that the objective standards that were derived and put into missing middle housing will not apply to these projects.

Oh, okay. I thought the staff report was saying that for 684 projects, the city would be applying the missing middle interim.

No, we are not allowed to do that under the law. The state has prescribed the standards that must be applied.

Okay. I'll have to look back at the staff for it and come back.

I think just a question of whether or not there's been some engagement with the builders who are interested in using this state law to understand what some of these financing challenges are.

It sounds like this is a provision that's pretty disruptive to the business model that 684 was intended to create. So I'm just wondering what that outreach has been like.

Yes. So we viewed this is presented in an omnibus and we're in our proposal not purple. It's state law compliance. So in an omnibus, we typically don't do outreach because we're writing an ordinance that is intended to be consistent and implement state law.

Nonetheless, this law has been on the books and is in effect today.

We've got inquiries from customers and asking what's this about? Can you help me understand the law? Those have been more informal through the public counter.

And more recently, we have spoken with the speaker earlier from Bill Kass about the law and some questions.

That's been the extent of our outreach. We see there aren't a lot of choices that legislature gave us. So it seemed.

I guess in our opinion that there wasn't a big question asked there, but again, welcome to your feedback.

And then just sort of going through, I think some of the concerns that we've sort of heard from the community on the ADUs side.

So just the decision to interpret 684 such that you wouldn't allow ADUs as part of a 684 project. What's kind of the logic there?

So I think again, is to encourage missing middle and our local ADU regulations and how that would be combined with development conforming to these statewide standards.

Again, we wanted to prioritize the application of our local standards. And if we had a lot at 600 square feet, that seems awful tight to have a development that accommodates both.

That's my.

And then I guess a similar question as it relates to density bonus projects. I was reading the provision in there that says housing development under this chapter is not eligible for density bonus.

I guess I'm interested in like why why would we want to preclude using density bonus in any capacity, right? I mean, I know we don't get too many of them, but it seems like a free deed restricted affordable unit with no public subsidy. So why would we want to preclude that?

Yeah, it's so we do we see a met director hearings probably more than this body. See see bonuses that are proposed.

First, I would observe that this bill did not include language like other state housing laws that are imposing ministerial processes on local governments where there's a clear statement that density bonus does or does not apply.

So there is not a declaration statement in this bill that says it shall apply. And in looking at the provisions of the bill more to the point is that we saw that the legislature intended for 10 units.

And that's a fact and increasing beyond that density was not the intent and there is in fact relief valves that are built into this bill where if you are not able to achieve the 10 units or the density standard per acre that you are provided relief from a standard that the state has imposed or that is an objective local standard.

I think that we're not intentionally trying to preclude in affordable unit, but we're reviewing the statute as a whole as not being consistent with the legislature intended in terms of their statement and the provisions they put in the bill.

Sorry, but again, so if we if we have the flexibility to allow if the bill was silent on whether or not you allow it used or state density bonus law.

It seems like we as a city would have discretion as to how we want to interpret that right and so it seems like we've made a decision in this statute to say state density bonus projects are not eligible under 684. So what why not why not allow for density bonus projects.

I don't see that I don't know that we I didn't mean to imply that we had a choice to do it. I'm giving you the trying to give you a full picture of what the bill does not include.

So if it had said that it does apply we would be having a different conversation and then when we examine the provisions of the statute we notice that it does have its own density sort of relief valve built into that.

So in thinking of what is the intent to both of those laws density bonus intends to allow more units and might otherwise been provided in when affordable housing is is included.

Okay, so I read the city of Los Angeles is memo on 684 that came out yesterday coincidentally laying out how they're there sort of treating the sp 684 projects and you know I think as this speaker noted they're they're not applying many they're they're making different choices on all of these that are a little bit more flexible.

But I'm also just kind of interested in the approach that they took they're not going with an ordinance they're just releasing a memo and maybe that's just about the politics in the city of LA and but I guess I'm interested in that just approach just had a curiosity had staff considered just kind of laying out a memo what what what are the kind of the tradeoffs here for you know going with a permanent ordinance that you have to formally adopt and then potentially amend later versus just kind of going with the guidance.

Right on yeah we generally prefer to put it all in an ordinance so it's very clear it's transparent that's just simply our preference there's no legal requirement to do that.

LA did a memo they don't have to do anything right an application can come in at any moment in the city would need to process in it in accordance with that government code statute so we don't need to do anything and then as far as commissioner Chase's question about the differences between maps Kevin correct me if I'm wrong.

But what I write there are different development paths that a project can go down this sp684 path or are missing middle housing path right so there's different paths and so what I hear from staff is we really want to make our missing middle housing ordinance very attractive and we want people to go down that path and to use those standards that the community has bought into and and all of those things so at this point staff's view is well let's do with the state law.

Tells us to do but we're putting our eggs in this missing middle housing ordinance to enhance do I understand that correctly thank you thank you Courtney.

Okay that's that's helpful and so as I understand it sp1123 was just signed by the governor that makes changes to sp684 and so just to confirm are those are those changes folded in here or is that a no no much more work.

So much more work happens before today many months before and so what I review that bill today and my assessment is that I mean the laws and effect now so the ordinance would comply with the laws is an effect today and we will be preparing we're analyzing all the bills that have been signed by the governor now and so I expect it will be be we'll be back before you in the spring.

So I think that's why first is when that particular subsequent bill would be applicable so we hope to be back before you to explain the things that were changed the provision that's been under discussion about whether to require construction before a map or not has not changed but we've got it.

That's good but I guess like well so correct me if I'm wrong even so even if this 684 local ordinance language is adopted tonight it would it would technically be out of date with state law the moment that 1123 comes into effect right so we'd have to be coming back next year to bring this ordinance into compliance anyways that how to think about it or.

It would not be inconsistent until July 1st of 2025 if we don't return with the ordinance and have it adopted by then but I mean I think that's one of the things that I really appreciate about the city and my position in particular is that we work really hard to keep our implementing regulations consistent with city policy and state law and as evidence by this particular agenda item we we will be back to make it correct or consistent.

And then in the interim if we don't make it in time there were where we have conflicts with our ordinance and state law will apply state law because it's mandatory.

Okay that's all my questions for now thank you.

Okay well I guess next speaker is me so I really you asked a few of the questions I had but I this is more of a technical operations questions I think so SB 684 was signed by the governor October 11th of 23 so I guess what I want to know is what is the timeline because this is is a very complex you know thing that we're dealing with right here I'm I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.

And I also have you know we have some speakers here from build cost my is that correct that you know are saying that you know they are here in Sacramento to because they want to take advantage of some of these housing opportunities they want to build here and I want to ensure that we as a city are are not turning them away right and giving them a

opportunity working with them to try to figure out this out so I guess my question would be is there a time frame from which we have to approve this.

No no not at all again it is it is law today it is unique that there are choices for local agencies to make of Los Angeles apparently didn't require legislative body to make that decision.

I as a zonium administrator I'm agree with our city attorney it's appropriate for our council to make policy choices for its electorate so the downside of not you know acting sooner is that we are not

able to provide a clarity to customers who walk in the door and ask us where can I propose this what you know what is the process what's the application the fee how does that all work so this gives us the clarity sooner.

If we move sure now and I understand that we certainly don't want to make it more confusing for both the customer and staff because I know how frustrating that can be but again I also see people here who are wanting to to move forward right and do this work right and and I don't want to preclude them from doing so so that again that's just a concern of mine.

So obviously it's state law and we're not on any time frame here I understand your point point well taken.

You know I'm just trying to come up with a way that you know if this is a very complex ordinance that we're discussing tonight I know it's going to law on ledge next and there's going to be a discussion there and then city council.

You know I'm all for string lining that's the biggest goal and intent here you know the section 31 the modification terms and conditions I plan to sign review kudos to staff because those are the kinds of string lining processes that we want to see happening and continuing to happen I just a little concern here about this particular issue so I'm

I personally don't feel comfortable and confident tonight moving forward on this.

If I'm confused and I can't grasp and understand what exactly it is that we're accomplishing here I don't feel comfortable and confident in making a decision that's just where I stand so I'm going to move the floor and open it up to other commissioners maybe I'm not asking the right questions so I'll open it up but I think I need more information.

So next speaker we have commissioner rescue.

Thank you so this is maybe a technical question just I'm having a hard time understanding when you have the tentative map if you map it for 10 parcels all of those parcels need to be built up by the same owner before you can get the final map like they couldn't sell one to someone who wants to build a custom home monitor something.

Correct yeah you attended a map is is not a subdivision until the final map.

And is prepared and recorded.

So that same owner would have to build all 10 before they could get the final map.

Is there any mechanism that you guys considered for preventing the paper assets without taking away the collateral like some sort of is there any way to do it where after certain amount of time if it doesn't get built it reverts to a single lot or

something.

The challenge there is that this the state is since essentially prescribed many of the standards that we might otherwise have in our zoning or in our missing middle housing ordinance.

So we have to be very careful in determining what we could create as a new standard.

So yeah absent a specific idea I'd have to that's just my general response as we tend to do it as it's written and take carry deliberate careful steps to add to your supplement.

Okay thank you.

Okay next speaker is commissioner Chase.

I played commissioner blot was before me.

Oh commissioner Blot excuse me.

Thank you.

Thank you for all the work that's in this.

I really appreciate it.

I have a different question.

A different subject.

I have a different question.

I have a different question.

I have a different question.

So I look at this and I think back to all the really great work that staff has done in reaching out to communities regarding ADUs as well as engaging with the community regarding the missing middle having like all these sort of meetings and stuff.

So I'm just wondering whether staff has a plan to do similar stuff that you did with ADUs and stuff to reach out to the higher education institutions and churches.

So I think that's a good idea.

So I think that's a good idea.

So I think that's a good idea.

So I think that's a good idea.

So we don't have a campaign developed so far but what I can share I was invited as a zoning administrator to sit on the panel with from council member maple.

So I think that's a very knowledgeable folks in the governmental sphere, in the housing sphere to talk to folks who are from churches in town.

And so we certainly could think of other creative ways to get the word out.

So I think that's a great idea.

I think that's a great idea.

Yeah, I mean, it's interesting.

There's a lot of opportunity and a lot of capacity building to do.

It's kind of what I took away from that particular meeting.

So thanks for your help there.

Great.

You have here your encouragement.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

And so we've got the speaker is commissioner Chase.

Thank you, chair.

Kevin, I think I heard you say earlier on when we were talking that one of the goals here was to kind of limit or.

That's the common scenario that we have right now pretty much.

Not sure.

it's terrible. There are land developers, land entitlement developers quite often, they

don't necessarily build. And then there are the builders, the BIA group, they don't necessarily

entitlement. I mean, they may. So I think the way it's written here, it would require

a kind of a partnership of an entitlement firm, if you will, and a builder to come together,

which perhaps our speakers have that capability, it sounds like. But we're changing up what

is kind of the accepted approach there. And I'm not sure what's wrong with the speculation.

If somebody can come along and entitle a project that is going to provide the smaller lots,

and then turn around and sell them to somebody else to build them, we kind of end up with

the same net gain. So if you could help me understand that better.

I understand. I've been in planning for 25 years now, and done a lot of work on the permitting

side. I'm very familiar with what you're describing in my experience. So I may be give

observation. So this question about speculation is addressed in a separate bill, which is

similar but different SB 9. So the duplex urban lot split law. So there are speculation

provisions in there that are intended to discourage that. So their ownership requirements.

And that's handled through partnerships where expertise is brought to the table through

organizations like Bill Costa to assist with the entitlement process. That's coupled

with a very, I mean, a ministerial and now in the new year will be a 60 day review,

either a prover deny timeframe. And so I think what we're, as staff, I don't think

that speculation is inherently bad, but speculation that is very low cost and is very fast and

it leads to development that's not reflective of our community standards is a concern.

And I mean, that's just our perspective. So I will come here, but we're not, we're

not anti-development. That's, I hope you see that in our legislation tonight.

I think I share some of the concerns of my colleagues here. I just, I don't want to see any kind of a roadblock

to the housing that we're trying to achieve here. And right now I'm hesitant. So anyway, thank you, Chair.

Next speaker is commissioners. Okay, but both. Okay, so we'll, we'll start with,

with Commissioner Caden. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I would echo that sentiment I was having the

same feelings of just, you know, what, what's really the harm here? And, and I, you know, I think about

when I built an ADU in my backyard and that was me speculating. And, and I did that fast,

cheap, and not compliant with local standards. Right? That was a state preemption bill that was,

made possible through, through a state bill, not, not a local process. And, and I think we have come

around to the idea of that being a good thing, societally, that people are taking advantage of ADUs,

and, and now we're, we have a lot of cheaper rental housing in people's backyard and, and the city,

which is great. So I guess just to kind of outline the, the high level concerns and, and what I would,

what I would be, I guess, worried about. And, and maybe I, I think slightly disagree with,

with kind of the approach we're taking. I think I am really worried about the, you can't record

the final map until the project is under construction. I think it sounds like that is, is a huge

impediment to the intended business model, and, and we have folks who actually want to take advantage

of this, and wouldn't be able to, because of that decision that we're making as a city. So that,

to me, seems like a problem. I, I would like to see ADUs be allowed as part of the six 84 projects

that, that to me, feels consistent with what we want to do as a city. I would like to see us allow

for density bonus projects as part of this. That seems like we're getting, you know, potentially free

affordable housing. And, I don't know why we would stay, stay in the way of that.

So I think those are the key concerns that I have. And, you know, I think, I think to be on,

I'm, I'm sort of in the same space that you are, chair, let me see, to read with, you know, the,

the implementation of six 84 feels a little bit rushed, I think, you know, making small changes

to make sure that we're compliant with state laws is one thing, but I think we're having a policy

conversation right now, right? This is not compliant with state law. So I think, you know, I'd love

to pull that part out, I guess, of the omnibus for tonight just to give us a little bit,

a little bit more time for that conversation so we can kind of work with stakeholders and kind of

have more of a policy debate. So I think I'd like to make a motion, but I'd love to hear what

other commissioners have to say, but my motion will be to move items one through four of the staff

recommendation and then direct staff to further develop item five and bring it back at a later

day to allow for more of this kind of policy discussion to happen. Is that motion clear, council?

Yes. Or permissible.

Yes, and almost. So yes, you can make a motion that you to approve the, there's five total of the

first four ordinances and it sounds like the motion would be to work further on the other one.

Unlike when you, when the commission looks at development projects and you approve or deny a

project within ordinance, we record the votes taken. So you will, you will vote in favor of the

ordinance or not in favor of the ordinance, but the ordinance will go forward in our legislative

process to the law and legislation committee with a note of the votes taken. It won't stop here if

that makes sense. Okay, is it possible to split out votes to move one through four, have a vote

and then have a vote on five? Yes. Absolutely. I think that's my motion then. Okay, so to be,

to for clarification, we have a motion on the table by Commissioner Caden to remove, to vote on

items one through four and an item public hearing item number two and we will have a separate vote

to pull item number five until later date.

The vote would be, yes, I guess you could make a motion to,

I don't think you could, the ordinance is going forward. So you're voting for it or against it right

now. That ordinance will move through our legislative process. So if it does not meet your

requirements, say, say that. If it does not meet your items, so your, it sounds like your motion

might be to deny the SB 684 ordinance to not, actually, you would be making a recommendation to

counsel to not adopt this ordinance absent further staff investigation and potentially amendments.

On the topics of density bonus, ADU and construction before map recordation.

So again, because this is an omnibus ordinance and it's taken as a package, is there a way that

when we are making this vote, we are saying we are approving items one through four to move forward

and we are requesting to pull the fifth ordinance to be heard at another time.

So they are, there are multiple ordinances. So those are already set up. They're already separate.

So you don't, you can just vote on the first four separately. The fifth ordinance, you can,

and if we can come back, that would be great. Okay. Okay. Yes. I hear there's more info that's desired.

So we do have a motion on the table council. How do we move forward if we're just going to request

the continuance on the item? So your motion is to approve four ordinances and continue the fifth

ordinance with staff coming back on those topics. Is that that's what you're requesting in from? Yes.

That's your motion and then do you have a second?

I also want to ensure that I'm addressing Kevin's concerns, which is, you know,

is that complicated for you? Because I think that's what with the motion that we have on the table.

And if that's permissible, I think that's what we're wanting to move forward on.

I understand the motion. I, um, it's your progative. If you want more time to review it, and

we have the legal means to continue consideration, that's your progative. So I understand and

we'll get through. Okay. So we have a motion on the table. And we still have a few commissioners

who wish to speak. So I'm going to move through the queue. And then we can come back to the motion.

So I have commissioner Buckley. Thank you. And thank you staff for your presentation and answering

questions. And thank you. That was really clarifying the way you phrased it earlier in response

to the questions. And thank you for the speakers are coming out. I'm having a hard time tracking all

this. And so I'm going to characterize it. And you can tell me where I've gone wrong or if I'm on

the right track. So one concern is speculation, but outside of that concern, it sounds like there's

a concern that we've done a bunch of work as a city through the missing middle ordinance, through

the ADU ordinance that addresses much of what would happen to 684 type properties. And 684

doesn't require any of the things that we sat here and discussed that the staff considered

as components of all those other ordinances. So in fact, 684 may fork some of the work that we've

done in those areas. Is that fair? Yeah, I think it's a fair characterization. And it is a statewide

statute. So it is, you know, it may have a different effect in another community that has not done

the work that Sacramento has. That was my next question. And you may not be able to answer this.

It may not be a fair question for staff. But it sounds like you've thought a little bit about the

legislative intent and history. Do you think that maybe SB 684 was created in contemplation

of jurisdictions that haven't done the type of work that we've done in considering missing

middle housing types?

I'm not, it's not explicitly a point of debate if you look at the legislative history and

through the legislature and what they were considering. I mean, it's a theme for sure.

Yeah, and it's pretty well. It's been documented in the legislature's declarations when

passing laws housing accountability act. There's a reason for that. And in the greater emphasis on

objective standards rather than discretion. Okay. That's helpful. And it makes sense because it

seems like a little bit of an oddity to give jurisdictions the kind of discretion that you're

exercising tonight. If you're not thinking about if the legislature isn't considering

the different natures of jurisdictions and what they might be implementing around this issue.

And then my last question is,

the requirement that we've put on 684 applications. Did you consider any other alternatives to

right size the 684 process with other ordinances that you are concerned about their interaction?

Because this one does at least based on the description by the folks who came to speak tonight,

there's a sense that it sort of forts the 684 approach that application that streamlining

approach. Did you consider any other alternatives to making these all these policies jive?

If there could be harmony across the board, that will be wonderful. The challenge here is that

the state has prescribed specific standards for only this class of projects that's been created.

So yeah, we did look for how could we harmonize things so no parking requirement.

We, that is carried through in this ordinance. The general plan is clear. We can do that.

But you get into the weeds in the setbacks and a lot of standards, no hands off.

City, your hands are off there. So yeah, I'd say it's, we would strive for that. However, it's just simply not

not possible to do so literally. Okay. I'll just say that I'm sympathetic to what staff was

contending with here. I just being part of those discussions. I feel like we had robust and thoughtful

discussions about what should go into all those ordinances. And if this overlay of the state

streamlining undermines that, I think it's worth interrogating and considering as we try to

implement 6A4, that's all. Thank you, Commissioner Buckley. Our next speaker is Commissioner Lemus.

Thank you. You asked my question and framed it very well there. Commissioner Buckley.

Council, thank you for kind of helping me visualize that it's basically two paths that can go,

right, the 684 or the Missy Middle Ordinance Path that we worked on providing feedback as a commission.

And so just wanted to mention that I'm also mindful of this needle. You're trying to

thread here and trying to take any consideration all the work and effort going through the

Missy Middle Ordinance. So, I'll go in my time. Okay, our next speaker is Commissioner Chase.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I also want to commend staff for the work you've done on this. I mean,

it's a thorny issue and I think you've dug into it very, very well. That said, I would like to

second the motion that is on the table at this time. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Kaden

and a second by Commissioner Chase. I'm going to go ahead. So, commissioners, if you could please

unmute your mics. We're going to go ahead and have the clerk. Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me.

We have one more speaker. Is that Commissioner Kaden? Yeah, sorry. This will just be really quick.

I just wanted to make a quick point. So, I think we're getting hung up right. I'm like, oh,

like this is undermining completely the Missy Middle Ordinance. They're trying to solve different

things, right? Missy Middle Ordinance is about the product types that we're allowing, right? It's

agnostic to rental or for sale. Six-city for sale is trying to solve a very specific problem

about providing for more affordable for sale opportunities and it's trying to streamline the

subdivision process related to that. That's a good thing. These things can work together.

The provision that allows, I follow this bill really closely as it went through the legislature

and the provision that allows us as a city to kind of add this condition that we can't record

the final map until the projects under construction. That was added for rural counties,

like in situations where we're converting like ag and farmland and creating paper assets.

And that's like genuinely a bad thing. I'm just much less worried about a paper asset situation

in the city of Sacramento in an urban environment. And then the last thing I would just note is

it doesn't preclude us from applying any objective standards, right? There are some things,

and actually I think the city of LA, 684 memo does a really good job of laying this out. And so

maybe this could be an approach that we try to incorporate where they go through local objective

standards that cannot be applied, local objective standards that will be applied, and then local

objective standards that may be applied. And they kind of walk through each one of those. And so

we're not throwing the baby out with the bath water here. Like we can apply some local standards,

our height standards, our flora ratio, like all of that stuff that we negotiated through the

missing middle ordinance is possible to apply here. So I think there is a middle ground that can

be struck. But I think again that can be part of this conversation hopefully that we have over the

next few weeks on this. So thank you. Thank you Commissioner Caden. It looks like I have no more

speakers on this item. Excuse me, clerk, I came in halfway through the item. Did we do public comment?

We did. Okay. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion on the table by Commissioner Caden,

second by Commissioner Chase. Commissioners, please unmute your mics and clerk, please call the roll.

Yes. Okay. We would we've been requested to repeat the motion. Council, I am going to ask you to

help me with this one. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. As I understood at Commissioner Caden,

your motion is to move the first three ordinances in the staff recommendation and to continue the

fourth ordinance for future discussion. So I think there's there's this issue in the summary

of the ordering. So in the actual motion, I think it's one through four is what I'd like to move. And

five is the 684 ordinance that I'm asking to bring back at a later date. Look, can we get clarification?

I'm looking at recommendation now. Am I just not? It looks like one ordinance two three four. There's

a total of four four. Okay. So there is four on this ordinance, the rezone of ASCOT, and then finally the

SB 684 ordinance. Thank you. Yes. Okay. So I'm sorry. I was looking at the recommendation. So

there's a difference between the summary up top and then the recommendation. So whatever is

whatever is correct. I think everyone understands what I'm trying to do. Yes. Move the first four

points of staff's recommendation, which includes three ordinances and a motion to determine the

ordinances are exempt from Sequa and continue the fifth item of the recommendation, the fourth

ordinance, which is the SB 684 ordinance for staff to come back at a later time with follow-up on

the topics mentioned. Perfect. Thank you. A clarification. And then one last clarification before we

called a role is that coming back to commission. To commission. Okay. Thank you. All right. I think

yes. One more clarification needed. Well, then not go forward until it comes back to commission.

It will not. Your motion is it will come back here right now. Okay. Commissioners. I don't see any.

Okay. I have. Okay. Thank you. We're clear on our on our motion. So clerk, please call the role.

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Zon. Aye. Commissioner Chase. Aye. Commissioner Lamas. Aye.

Commissioner Bikley. Aye. Commissioner Kaden. Aye. Commissioner Hernandez. Absent. Commissioner

Rishki. Aye. Commissioner Blunt. Aye. Commissioner Thompson. Absent. Vice Chair Young. Absent. Chair

Wallace. Absent. And Commissioner Masta Sree. Aye. Thank you. The motion passes.

Okay. Thank you so much. Everyone for working together. I know that was a little confusing.

So we will move on to public hearing item number three.

In ordinance amending various provisions of chapter of title 17, long-winded title there, M24-011.

We have so commissioners, do we have any disclosures or recusals on this item?

Seeing none, I will give it over to Jamie. Hello again. Jamie Mosler, Associate Planner

in the zoning administration section. I'll also be giving tonight's presentation on an ordinance

for housing element program each 15, which is titled permitting requirements for special needs housing.

As an overview of this presentation, I'll first give you some background of the housing element

where this work originates. I'll then give you an overview of the ordinance and the amendments

and then conclude with the review steps necessary. So awesome background as you probably know,

state law requires every city and county in California to adopt a housing element as part of its

general plan. Our current housing element was adopted by City Council in 2021. This document sets

forth policies and programs to address the housing needs in Sacramento, one of those programs being

age 15. This directs the city to ensure compliance with state law and encourage special needs housing

through actions pertaining to the five housing types listed on the slide and we'll walk through

the direction for each of these types one by one. So the first one being low barrier navigation centers.

This is defined in state law as a housing first low barrier service in which shelter that's focused on

moving people into permanent housing provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect

individuals to services. State law defines low barrier as meaning best practices to reduce barriers

to entries such as allowing pets, storage of possessions, or presence of partners if it's on a

population specific site. So what the direction is in this program is state law changed a few years ago

and requires all cities and counties to allow these centers by right and mixed use in non-residential

zones that permit multi-unit dwellings. So the direction from the program was to amend the

zoning code to allow low barrier navigation centers where required by state law or assembly bill 101

from a few years ago. So what the ordinance does is it implements the housing element directive and

complies with state law requirements by adding low barrier navigation centers to the zoning code,

adding a definition for them and allowing them by right in the zones where allowed by state law

will also be creating an application form specific to these to provide guidance for staff and

the public on what requirements are necessary. The next housing type are temporary residential

shelters. These provide short term temporary housing to individuals or families for free or

substantially below cost. Services may be provided such as the ones listed on the slide and they're

also known as an emergency shelter in state law. You might be wondering what the differences

between this and the centers that we just talked about, they're defined differently in state law

with different requirements but practically speaking the low barrier navigation centers are

really service enriched while services may be more minimal at a temporary residential shelter.

The direction for this one there's three points of direction so

Dr. Situ revises zoning code to first comply with the requirements allowed under state law

second to establish a higher number of beds allowed by right and lastly to ensure that the zones

where we allow the shelters by right provides sufficient capacity.

And so what the ordinance does is it revises the standards to comply with state law,

state law sets parameters for what development standards local agencies can apply to shelters

so we removed any standards that conflicted with state law.

Second right now 24 beds is what is the size of a shelter that is allowed by right

and we're proposing to increase that to 100 individuals which is consistent with how Sacramento

County is zoning regulates these and then lastly there's a detailed analysis in the background

of the staff report but we mapped out where all the zones and those vacant sites are that allow

shelters by right and looked at what state law requirements are and made sure they were near transit

and the amenities that state law requires and we did find that we had sufficient capacity.

Additionally this ordinance includes lowering the review level for the shelters that do require

a conditional use permit from the planning and design commission level to a zoning administrator level.

A CUP is identified in the housing element as a potential constraint for larger

shelters generally and so this would reduce time and cost for processing applications while still

allowing a public hearing process. The next housing type are single room occupancy hotels or SROs.

This is a land use with six or more guest rooms and it's a primary residence of the guests it's

similar to a dormitory where there might be shared bathroom or shared kitchens. It's also known

as a residential hotel in our local zoning code and there used to be a lot of these in downtown

Sacramento which is discussed in the staff report background. The direction from the housing

element here was to update the zoning code to allow SROs by right and commercial and multi-unit

dwelling zones. So what the ordinance does is it implements this direction by changing the review

level these typically require a planning and design commission level conditional use permit lowers

that down to by right or ministerial and commercial and multi-unit dwelling zones with an administrative

permit to review compliance with the standards that we revised and we visited a couple of SROs and

the standards in our code were added 30 years ago and just needed to be clarified so that's what

the ordinance does for that. Next we have supportive housing. So this is defined in state law as

housing with no limit on the length of stay that's linked to on-site or offsite services. It's

occupied by the target population. State law requires local jurisdictions to treat this the same as

a dwelling so meaning if there was supportive housing and an apartment building for zoning purposes

we would have to treat that apartment building the same as any other apartment building regardless of

if there's supportive housing. So the direction here is there is a law passed few years ago that

requires cities to allow 100% of portable projects with supportive housing units by right

where multi-unit and mixed use development is permitted. So program age 15 directs the city to

develop a processing procedure to comply with state law. And so what the ordinance does is

implement this direction by adding a chapter to the zoning code that clarifies how will process

the supportive housing that's eligible for streamlining and then similarly we'll also be creating

an application form specific to this that educates customers and our staff.

The last one is group homes. So there's no official definition of group home but there's several

land uses in title 17 that could fall within this that are listed on the slide. And the primary

activity of these is to dwell with folks that are not related. These homes may or may not provide

services to residents and residents may share cooking dining living areas. So the direction here

was to review and amend the zoning code as necessary to ensure requirements for group homes with

seven or more persons are consistent with state law and fair housing requirements. To expand on

that many of the group home uses that were listed on that slide with more than six persons require

conditional use permit which state law does allow a CUP requirement for state licensed residential

care facilities with more than six persons. But additionally it also requires us as mentioned to

treat supportive housing and then also transitional housing the same as dwellings.

So taking that all into consideration what this ordinance does is revises the definition of

residential care facilities to specify that the CUP is required it's because there's state

license services there. And then we also revise the definitions of several of the group home uses

to clarify that they are separate from supportive and transitional housing and that will follow state

law protections for that type of housing. In the future though we if you think all these different

housing types are confusing so do we. And so subsequently as part of work to bring title 17 into

compliance and not compliance into consistency with our general plan we want to evaluate a new land

use classification of dwelling and really align with our policy goals for a broader array of housing

types in neighborhoods including group homes. In terms of review steps this ordinance is being

presented to you tonight would also need to go to the law and legislation committee and then to

city council. Our recommendation is to conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion move staff's

recommendation. That concludes my presentation we're available for any questions thank you.

Jamie okay so clerk do we have any members of the public who wish to speak on the side?

Thank you chair I have no speakers list for this item. Thank you are there any commissioners who

wish to speak on this item. I have commissioner Chase. Thank you chair thank you staff Jamie Kevin

I've been involved in trying to try to address homelessness for the last three and a half four

years of the city and the county so to me this is just a superb program that you're bringing forward

here and I'm totally supportive of it. It reminded me of shortly after I was appointed Chief

Building Official to the city many years ago we had an extreme heat wave and the fire marshal and

I were directed by city council to visit every SRO license in the city and I think at that time

there are about ten downtown to determine how they were set up to you know to address you know

extreme heat for their residents one or two I think as we found it were air conditions the rest

were not but it was quite an experience to go through and visit every one of those some of them

were just run extremely well some of them are I'm reminded of the comment that was made about the

brown acid of woodstock not specifically good and the changes were made though the city came down

strong and required things so that at the very least you know rooms down on the ground floor

enough space was provided for all the residents to come down into a cooled area so I think this

proposed ordinance that would address all of those you know marginal types of housing if you will

it's just critical to what we're facing these days and so I you know I move approval of moving

this forward I'm just extremely supportive of it thank you very much for your work here.

Thank you commissioner Chase was that emotion

you clarify commissioner chase if that was emotion okay all right thank you so much I have a

motion on the table from commissioner Chase for item number three do I have a second

okay I have commissioner blunt okay thank you for the second we have a motion and a second

commissioners please unmute your mic and clerk please call to roll.

Oh thank you chair commissioner Zong hi commissioner Chase hi commissioner Lamas

I I Commissioner Buckley I Commissioner Caden I Commissioner Hernandez absent

Commissioner Rishki I Commissioner Blunt I Commissioner Thompson absent vice-chair

young absent chair Wallace absent and commissioner Mazda's read I thank you motion passes

okay thank you all right moving on to the discussion calendar this evening it's item number four

I just wanted to remind commissioners that this item is a receive and file and no motion is needed

so we have item number four overview of the Ralph M Browned Act and Fair Hearing Requirements

I believe I am passing this over to oh to Wendy Covey hello

well good evening this presentation is designed to provide a general overview of the Brown

Act and requirements for around fair hearings I'm co-presenting this with your fabulous city attorney

Miss Burtick I'm going to talk about the Brown Act and she's going to talk about fair hearings

we promise to be very brief but try to cover a lot of material so welcome to today's presentation

of the Ralph M Brown Act oftentimes referred to the Brown Act I'll give you a little bit of background

I'm Mindy Covey Miss City Clerk I'm pleased to be here this evening so good evening commissioners

staff city attorney and Madam Clerk so what is the Brown Act so Michael Harris was a reporter from

the San Francisco Chronicle he learned that local public agencies were routinely barring

your porges and citizens from supposedly open meetings and this was occurring in city and

county government school boards and irrigation districts so in 1952 Harris wrote an award-winning

series called your secret government which caught attention of legislature and the result was

the open meetings law of 1953 authored by Assemblyman Ralph M Brown that's the Brown Act

so the Brown Act states that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of people's business and

should conduct deliberations and take actions publicly so everything the idea is really everything

should be conducted in public the right of access is broad the information and processes need to

be open and transparent and then the act emphasizes the importance of the people and the role

invalidating the government as opposed to the government's role in having power of the people

so this act applies to all meetings regardless of if action is taken so what is a legislative body

so city council there's subcommittees and bodies created by the city council such as yourselves

one tidbit newly elected officials so council member elect a commissioner elect is subject to

the Brown Act so this comes up on occasion so appointed bodies all city boards commissions and

committees including this one standing committees so all of the state the city's law and legislation

committee the personnel and public employees and so forth okay so meetings what is a meeting a meeting

is any gathering of a quorum of the legislative body an a quorum is one more than half basically

and in 2008 there was a legislation that gave us a broad definition so it's really prior definition

focused on collective concern concurrence with the city manager meeting individually council members

to create a collective concurrence so that is a brown act violation council members could argue

that no we didn't receive collective concurrence see next week's meeting for us to vote but really

they talked about it behind closed doors so that is not acceptable under the brown act and a meeting

can take many forms it can be an email it can be text it can be a voicemail and retreats and workshops

those are also meetings a lot of times people say well let's just do some goal setting that is a

meeting of a quorum of the legislative body is meeting okay so there are lots of activities that

could constitute an improper meeting so as I mentioned the quorum of the legislative body

shall not meet outside the meeting so a meeting could be like I said a text message an email

and the example above you've got five members so green lantern talks to but Batman

Batman talks to Superman Superman talks to Wonder Woman Wonder Woman talks to the flash five people

have now had a conversation or a meeting under the brown act and then in the bottom example one

person talks to many people and so these are things we should not do okay again it can be done

in virtually by text by email okay exceptions to the meeting rules the RFU exceptions purely social

ceremonial conferences as long as the conference is open to the public so you could all attend a

planning conference I always point out though that think about perception sometimes perception

as reality if you saw the council the full council at Starbucks sitting around a table chit chat

and quietly you'd probably think they're talking about city business right they probably aren't

but think about that if you attend the conference sit at different tables I think I'm too fast

sorry I'm using on the other side of the dius so the dangers of email and texting so again an

email between a majority of the commissioners can violate the brown act so you'll understand why

we bcc all email communication to you so that you can't inadvertently reply all and say oh I'll

be there I can't wait to talk about item three it sounds like a great project that would be a

brown act violation because you are communicating with your colleagues about that okay social media

this is another sticky one and miss birdie did you want to cover social media

sorry our stylist can tag team off each other so I hope that's okay for you guys

yes new law related to social media it's up here this really is the bullet points and it says you

can use social media to provide information to the public answer questions and solicit information

before this law it was there was a question right if you posted on your twitter account or

posted on your instagram something and other members of the commission are looking at it does that

create a brown act violation and so this law made clear no it's not a brown act violation you

can read each other's posts but you cannot reply do not communicate through those yeah so it was a

helpful clarification thank you miss birdie so no thumbs up because then you've said yes I agree

with you right so types of meeting regular meetings basically one is a regular meeting is one

that's on your adopted calendar okay a special meeting is a meeting in addition to those regular

meetings when there's something urgent it needs to if the commission needs to take action on an item

and we don't have a regularly scheduled meeting we work with staff to create a special meeting

on your behalf and then a special meeting is typically for one topic and there's not an

opportunity for members of the public to make comments for matters not on the agenda because it's

typically used for one agenda item oftentimes they'll ask okay why don't we get to do that that

might not the the reason is your special meeting supposed to be singular topic so notice an agenda

so regular meetings annually commission calendars are adopted that state your time and place for

holding meetings you should have already gotten your calendar for the next year so regular meetings

per the brown act are posted 72 hours in advance but the city has a sunshine ordinance which requires

additional transparency so we post our agenda is 120 hours in advance so special meetings as I

mentioned can always be called if it's necessary to conduct the city's business and those need to be

posted 24 hours in advance okay and I always tend to say anything rather than other than a regular

meeting is a special meeting so agendas must state location and brief description of each item

and the commission can't take action on anything not on the agenda I always think the purpose of an

agenda is really for members of the public to decide do they want to drive down here and they

want to participate in that action that you're taking so there has to be enough information on that

agenda itself for them to make the decision so agenda categories you guys are familiar with this you've

been doing this for a while consent public hearing discussion council comments ideas and questions

and then public comment for matters not on the agenda and if you notice your agenda is also

followed the same format the city council agendas do that the animal care commission does the disability

advisory commission and really the purpose of that is to the members of the public know how to

participate and when you guys are council members you're already be familiar right and again

you as you know upcoming meetings are always listed on our website and archive meetings past

meeting girl and video are also online so public place on the agenda as I mentioned members of

the public can participate on any agenda item so and I'll go into council rules so public we

cannot require them to identify themselves no actions by secret ballot you know that all

all the agenda items you have and any information you have in your agenda packet the members of

the public also get that at the same very same time you don't get it ahead of time neither just

council member for for any other agenda items let's see members of the public cannot be required

to pay or register their names okay but the legislative body does have the ability to remove someone

who's willfully interrupting or disrupting the meeting so you cannot conduct your meeting so

e-commerce I think you're all familiar with these so these are available to commissioners to read

ahead of time members of the public can make comments I think it's really helpful to see if there's

a lot of activity on an agenda item prior to so once an agenda is posted that link is live

and then if you notice the comment bubble and one thing that always comes up with commissions is

why don't we read these out loud at commission meetings okay so the reason being is that our system

does not verify who you are so you could go on to the system stasha could and create a fake

account under Mindy Cuppie make obscene comments and we would then read that on there's no

way to verify that it was truly Mindy Cuppie that made those comments and if they use profanity

for two minutes we would need to read that for two minutes so I don't want to do that

so Commissioner comments ideas and questions this is to make an ability to make brief comments

announcements on what you've done in in the community and so forth oftentimes this is a time

for people to request future agenda items of staff it doesn't mean that you're going to that

staff is going to do that for the commission but it's an opportunity for you to ask questions

for information or a future agenda item for I always use the example if the parks commission

wants to ask staff to do a presentation on the police department budget staff is probably going

to respectfully say no thank you that doesn't fall under the purview of your commission but you

should maybe attend one of those meetings and get that presentation or they'll share information

with you I mentioned public comments from matters not on the agenda the public can speak about any

item that's under the this body's jurisdiction so again you guys are pretty broad but if they wanted

to talk about something so at the disability advisory commission if they wanted to talk about police

that's not under the purview of that body so that's not appropriate we can't prevent criticism

I know if you've been to a council meeting you've probably seen some criticism of speakers

we do have people that sing to us and all of that is allowed they can use profanity

as long as they're not disrupting the meeting so that the meeting cannot continue okay let's see

so council rules of procedure state that each speaker gets two minutes per item consent

calendars considered one item and may speak on to four items per meeting I do have one gentleman

who likes to pick up four speakers slips and then pick which items to speak on and that's absolutely

allowed speaker time can be extended or limited as long as it's consistently applied so during the

budget we had 106 speakers they didn't get two minutes each they got one minute each during

redistricting that commission it was a really complex topic so they decided that each speaker gets

five minutes and as long as that's consistently applied that's absolutely acceptable you

non-English speakers get twice that that for translation you probably have seen council meetings

we cut people off at two minutes and that's intentional it's the least favorite part of my job

to be honest but I treat you for each person the same so and to be honest I did during COVID when

we were zooming cut a council members wife off at two minutes so everybody gets treated the same

and that's the reason okay disruptive attendees as I mentioned you you have to allow for negative

public comment either opinions or bake a being offensive as long as they're not disrupting the

conduct of the meeting okay and so not that there's ever yelling at this commission meeting but I

think this quote resonates with me regarding council meetings on occasion okay closed sessions

this body doesn't typically meet in closed session but here's some closed session examples so

litigation public employment labor negotiations there's agenda requirements so and typically

the reason being so let's talk about real estate negotiations it would be detrimental for the council

to in open sessions say you know Mindy Cuppie you may have up to two million dollars to purchase

this property because the seller then knows what my limit is right and so that's the reasoning

behind closed sessions okay same thing with public employment labor negotiations so forth

okay now it's onto fair hearings and I'm going to turn the presentation over to Miss Birk

hello everyone chair commission my name is Courtney Birk with the city attorney's office my

colleague Leslie Walker and I staff these meetings on behalf of the city attorney we've been

asked about our schedule Leslie typically handles the first meeting of the month and I'm here the

second meeting of the month but you can contact either of us both of us at any time we're here to

serve you when an item is continued from one meeting to the next meeting we talk have no fear we

can handle it and actually if you're curious in the background there are four of us land use

attorneys in the city attorney's office that advise planning on land use issues all aspects

current planning long range environmental all the things we are not short of work so okay so

we're going to talk about fair hearings we get a number of questions Leslie and I do on fair hearings

so Wendy did you leave the paper oh it's right here sorry thank you

oops let's go back okay but before we get into it I just want to take a pause and say

make sure we have our bearings right there's a number of laws that apply to use commissioners

when you're sitting on the day as these are the big kickers today we're going to talk about fair

hearings and what that means but these other ones are pretty big too Wendy talked about the brown

act there's a political reform act which prohibits financial interests and government decisions

officials cannot have a financial interest in decisions they're making those are the questions

we get where you call us I live 600 feet from the property or my employer is the applicant

those are generally political reform act questions there's also common law conflicts and those are

conflicts that are recognized by the courts there's no specific statute on point but it could create

a conflict of interest right so there's no statute on point that says your sister can't be

an applicant before the commission but it's probably going to create a conflict of interest

for you and you should recuse yourself so that's what common law conflicts are about and now we'll

get into fair hearings so when we talk about the law of fair hearings so the law is developed

from a number of sources the law of fair hearings and what fair hearings requires is every applicant

in this context every land use applicant it's entitled to a fair hearing and that's based on

federal due process rights state constitutional rights there's statutes about fair hearings and

then there's this body of case law that's developed that says what commissioners council need to do

and what they can't do so first up we need to distinguish when the law of fair hearings applies

and that's in the quasi judicial context so we have legislative acts and quasi judicial acts so

legislative acts establish public policy and rules that are applicable to large groups of

property or people so examples of that are amendments to the planning and development code so you

you are all so good and before the before the commission consider all those ordinances this evening

you did your recusals I've talked to someone and you said that you don't actually need to do that

right that's a legislative determination you have much more latitude to have an opinion in the

legislative context and to express those opinions so planning and development code amendments amendments

to the general plan specific plans all of those are big policy based decisions and you can have

opinions on those the law fair hearings kicks into play when we're looking at quasi judicial acts

and a quasi judicial act also referred to as a quasi judicial hearing or quasi adjudicatory act

quasi adjudicatory hearing administrative hearing there's all kinds of words but it basically captures

what you're doing when you make decisions on land use entitlements right you're applying a ruler

standard say the zoning code to an individual person project or circumstance you take evidence

you render a written decision including findings and your decision is based on the evidence you hear

at the hearing so CUP site plan and design review tenative maps those are all quasi adjudicatory

decisions and involve people's property rights and so those applicants are entitled to a fair hearing

so what a fair hearing means is an applicant is entitled to a fair and impartial tribunal that's

what it comes down to and it's three basic things so to give a fair hearing a commissioner may not

be biased for or against any party you may not prejudge any facts or conclusions and you must

base your decision on the evidence presented at the hearing so your job as commissioners is to

review all the materials review the staff report come to the hearing right for all of it you can't

I put the graphic of the courtroom up it's not quite we're not we're not full judicial acts right

we're quasi judicial acts but it's what you're doing when you're deciding on land use matters

is closer to a courtroom than it is to a general policy discussion right so it would be weird

if the judge came in halfway through and said hey let's vote so you got to be there for the whole hearing

so you come you hear all the testimony and you make decisions based on that testimony

so what is generally acceptable these are all from cases right again fair hearing law is a

is comprised of a bunch of case law so we have these data points we know this this is consistent

with fair hearing principles we know this set of facts isn't right we have all these decisions

so we're trying to figure out moving forward what conduct fits where so these are all from from

cases right you're allowed to express opinions on the community right you can say this area of

the city needs investment I think we should encourage denser development here I think we should

strive to have walkable communities all of those are fair things to say and also consistent with

our distinction between legislative and adjudicative decisions right that's really legislative policy

decisions you can have prior knowledge and a factual background you all live in the city you know

it that's okay you can bring that to the to the hearing you can attend community meetings on matters

of interest you can go to the neighborhood association meeting you can listen theoretically you

could speak I start to get sweaty and nervous but theoretically you could speak as long as you're

neutral right and maintaining an open mind and in your heart of hearts and what you are verbally

saying you're maintaining an open mind and not making any commitments on a project and you're

allowed to talk to constituents there's all the cases that deal with this site the same

sentence over and over they say a council member has not only a right but a duty to talk to their

constituents about what's going on so we get a lot of those questions Leslie and I oh so and so

wants to meet with me can I go can I not you can you can talk you can talk to constituents the press

the developer you just have to maintain an open mind and do not make any project commitments

what's generally not acceptable oh and at the risk of belaboring this point

the lawyer and me underlined generally because right all of these could go south right we could all

start to drift into problem areas but theoretically this all works okay oops

okay what's not acceptable again these are all from cases showing personal animosity towards a

party right do not send a text message that says I dislike this developer right we're not going

to do any of that no emails none that writing a newsletter article attacking a project prior to

hearing see this all seems very obvious but it is not it's gone up high courts have adjudicated

this people fight about this in this case a council member sent was a council member commissioner

sent out you know a blast an email blast and notice saying hey everyone come tonight let your

voices be heard on this project this project is a threat to the wildlife corridor that does not

sound neutral right if you're in a courtroom and you know the judge is sent out a notice saying I

don't care for this the day before that's going to be a problem becoming personally embroiled in a

project advocating to colleagues before before the hearing right in addition to creating a brown

act violation you could also violate applicants fair hearing rights advising proponents are

opponents on pre hearing presentations to other members hey when you talk to this member make

sure you tell them this lay it out this way that's all a problem okay x-part a discussions we've

kind of talked about this the whole time so the idea when you make your disclosures at the start of

every adjudicatory matter every land use matter is to make sure everyone in the hearing has the

same information all the commissioners are making the decision based on the same information the

applicant hears it the public hears it and everyone has a right to respond so that's why you do it

first before public comment so people can respond and it just make sure we have all the all the

information so you disclose them we've talked about you can have these discussions just avoid

making any project commitments and that's really it theoretically if if you've run a foul of

this maybe at some point in your distant past you said I'm never going to approve another drive

through restaurant right and the applicant says fair hearing problem they they are biased

theoretically it is possible to rehabilitate they the term used in the law is rehabilitate you

disclose the communications and if it's actually true that you are not biased you would make a

statement that you haven't prejudged the matter and you intend to judge the matter based on the

evidence presented we don't like to get anywhere near this right so we hope you are circumspect in your

discussions if there is a fair hearing violation the remedy is a do over we have another hearing

without the conflicted council member and with that that's it and we're here to answer any questions

you might have on either topic okay thank you Courtney and thank you Mindy we appreciate the

reminders okay so Madam Clerk do we have any members of the public who wishes speak on this item

thank you chair I have no speaker slopes for this item I think you are there any commissioners

who wish to speak on this item I am seeing none okay so again this item is receiving foul so no

vote is required we'll move on to the next item we have commissioner comments ideas in questions

seeing none we will move on to our final item public comments matters not on the agenda

Madam Clerk do we have any members of the public who wishes speak on this item thank you chair

I have no speaker slopes for this item okay thank you so much it looks like our meeting is adjourned

this evening so thank you everyone adjourned excuse me at 7 20 p.m.