Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears update on development-code rewrite and urban growth boundary ad hoc work; timeline pushed by state bills and COVID-19 uncertainty
Summary
Planning staff and commissioners reported progress on an urban growth boundary ballot measure and a larger rewrite of the city’s development code to comply with state housing laws and to clarify longstanding subjective standards.
Planning staff and commissioners reported progress on two parallel ad hoc efforts: drafting language for a potential urban growth boundary (UGB) ballot measure and a larger development-code update intended to respond to new state housing laws and to clarify the city’s rules.
Staff update and timelines: The planning director reported that city legal counsel and ad hoc members had prepared redlined language for the UGB measure following the January 27 joint meeting with council; the ad hoc expects another draft and plans public outreach. The staff timeline calls for the council to act by late June or early July to place the measure on the November ballot, but city staff said the COVID-19 public-health situation creates uncertainty about outreach and hearing formats.
Development-code rewrite: Commissioners described the development code as large and complex and noted much of it is subjective. Consultants have color-coded the code into objective, quasi-objective and subjective sections. The commission’s near-term priority is to convert subjective and quasi-objective standards required by state law into objective, measurable standards so the city has usable rules for incoming projects; the longer-term work will address broader policy choices (design guidance, planning-area specifics and zoning changes intended to improve housing feasibility and affordability).
State legislation and county actions: Staff warned that new state bills (staff mentioned recently introduced SB 904 and earlier bills such as SB 50) could require more by-right multifamily housing in residential zones. Commissioners also discussed a County of Sonoma rezoning effort that the county plans to scope in an EIR; staff said some parcels the county is studying are inside the city’s UGB but outside city limits, a circumstance that could complicate regional housing goals and annexation decisions.
Public comment and commission direction: Greenbelt Alliance’s regional director urged the commission to treat the UGB measure as largely settled on key principles (20-year boundary, 100% affordable on newly added lands) and to prioritize zoning-code work for housing opportunities. Commissioners agreed the whole planning commission should have substantive input; they asked staff to create a shared repository for commissioner comments and expressed support for a short-term list of “quick fixes” and a longer-term public-engagement program. Staff and the consultants plan to return with a draft code (or a first step) on April 1; commissioners said they will review and provide written suggestions ahead of public workshops.
Ending note: Commissioners and staff noted procedural uncertainty because of the pandemic, but emphasized a two-track approach: accelerate near-term objective-code changes needed to comply with state law and to provide rules for incoming projects, and continue broader policy and design discussions with full commission engagement and public outreach when feasible.
