Commissioner Sayasane asked about the pending court decision on SB 9 in the Los Angeles Superior Court and whether the City’s decision on the ordinance should be postponed until after that ruling has further played out. Director Swiecki responded, noting that Brisbane’s legal counsel had reviewed this matter and indicated that the decision is from a trial court in southern California and is only applicable to those specific charter cities. It would not be applicable to Brisbane which is a general law city. In response to an inquiry as to what would happen if SB9 was repealed or invalidated, Mr. Swiecki responded the City could amend its zoning regulations accordingly.
Commissioner Patel asked about whether there were notification procedures included in the draft ordinance. Staff responded that there were not, since lot splits and two-unit developments are to be ministerial, per SB 9. Mr Swiecki noted an informational notification could be provided.
Chairperson Lau opened the public hearing.
With no one wishing to address the Commission, a motion was made by Commissioner Patel and seconded by Commissioner Funke to close the public hearing. The motion was approved 4-0.
After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Patel and seconded by Commissioner Funke to approve the application, including an informational notification provision to adjacent property owners, via adoption of Resolution 2024-RZ-1. The motion was approved 4-0.
Chairperson Lau read the appeal procedure.
B. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Text Amendment 2024-RZ-2, City-wide; recommendation to City Council on omnibus zoning amendments to modify the development standards for multifamily and residential mixed use zoning districts consistent with California Senate Bill SB 478 (“housing opportunity act”) and as provided in the 2023-2031 Housing Element for building heights, lot coverage and floor area ratios, and related amendments, including, but not limited to, organizational amendments and amendments to development regulation exceptions and Zoning Administrator procedures; and finding that this project is exempt from environment review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), Section 15183; City of Brisbane, applicant.
Senior Planner Johnson presented staff report to the Commission.
Senior Planner Johnson responded to the Commission’s questions regarding the balance between lot coverage and the floor area ratio for multifamily developments that would have a 1.25 floor area ratio maximum, the process for Planning Commission appeals on Zoning Administrator items, the rationale for increasing the height limit to 36 feet, the difference between minor versus and major modifications, and the neighbor notification process for Zoning Administrator applications.
Chairperson Lau opened the public hearing.
91 248
R.
237
N.
DRAFT
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2024
With no one wishing to address the Commission, a motion was made by Commissioner Patel and seconded by Commissioner Funke to close the public hearing. The motion was approved 4-0.
A motion was made by Commissioner Patel and seconded by Commissioner Sayasane to approve the application via adoption of Resolution 2024-RZ-2. The motion was approved 4-0.
Chairperson Lau read the appeal procedure.
ITEMS INITIATED BY STAFF
Director Swiecki noted the following:
1. County-wide planning commissioner training will be held at the end of May,
2. The City Council authorized staff to initiate the Bank of America planning process.
3. Jeremy Dennis was hired as the new City Manager.
ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Sayasane announced she registered for the commissioner training and invited the other members to join.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Lau adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:44 p.m. to the next regular meeting of May 23, 2024.
Attest:
___________________________________
John A. Swiecki, Community Development Director
NOTE: A full video record of this meeting can be found on the City’s YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/BrisbaneCA, on the City’s website at http://www.brisbaneca.org/meetings, or on DVD (by request only) at City Hall.
92 249
R.
238
N.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: 5/9/2024
From: Ken Johnson, Senior Planner
Subject: Zoning Text Amendments to Title 17 – Omnibus Zoning Amendments to modify the development standards for multifamily and residential mixed use zoning districts consistent with California Senate Bill SB 478 (“housing opportunity act”) and as provided in the 2023-2031 Housing Element for building heights, lot coverage and floor area ratios, and related amendments, including, but not limited to, organizational amendments and amendments to development regulation exceptions and Zoning Administrator procedures; and finding that this project is exempt from environment review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), Section 15183; City of Brisbane, applicant.
REQUEST: To amend the zoning text provisions in a number of Chapters in the Brisbane Municipal Code (BMC), as outlined in the Applicable Codes Section of this report. This includes updates to the residential and mixed use development standards consistent with California Senate Bill SB 478 (“housing opportunity act”) and as provided in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. It also includes reorganization of the development standards in the residential district zoning for clarity and updates to the procedures for planning permit approvals and appeals.
RECOMMENDATION: Via Resolution 2024-RZ-2, recommend that City Council adopt Zoning Text Amendment 2024-RZ-2, as provided in Exhibit A of Attachment A.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Government Code Section 15061(b)(3), Section 15183 relating to the implementation of the Housing Element. The exception requiring further review as might be necessary to examine a project specific significant effects does not apply.
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for zoning amendments are provided in BMC Chapter
17.50. The following BMC chapters or sections contained within Title 17 – Zoning are applicable to this amendment, with the proposed action indicated for each:
• Section 17.02.065 - Outside Wall definition – delete and include in Wall definition. • Section 17.02.785 - Wall definition – new, but amended from Outside Wall definition. • Section 17.06.040 - R-1 Development Regulations - amended. • Section 17.08.040 - R-2 Development Regulations - amended. • Section 17.10.040 - R-3 Development Regulations - amended. 93 250
R.
239
N.
2024-RZ-2
May 9, 2024 Meeting
• Section 17.12.040 - R-BA Development Regulations - amended. • Section 17.12.045 - Ridgeline Development – new section, relocated from Section
17.12.040.
• Section 17.14.060 - NCRO-2 Development Regulations - amended. • Section 17.16.040 - SCRO-1 Development Regulations - amended. • Section 17.27.040 - POAZ-1 Development Regulations - amended. • Section 17.27.050 - POAZ-2 Development Regulations - amended. • Sections 17.032.050 to 17.32.080 - various exceptions to district development regulations – relocated to new Chapter 17.47 and amended.
• Section 17.42.070 - Amendment of Design Permits – Minor Modifications - amended. • Chapter 17.46 - Variances – amended.
• Chapter 17.47 - Exceptions to District Development Regulations – new chapter from relocated sections 17.32.050 to 17.32.080.
• Chapter 17.52 - Appeals – amended.
• Chapter 17.56 - Administration – retitled to Zoning Administrator and amended.
Note that the provisions of this ordinance would not supersede the provisions of the ordinance proposed for adoption via application number 2024-RZ-1, which would establish an R-TUO Residential Two Unit Overlay district, provided separately.
BACKGROUND: California Senate Bill SB 478 (2021) was codified as Government Code Section 65913.11. This law became effective on January 1, 2022 and requires that a local agency allow minimum floor area ratios (FARs) of at least 1.0 for 3 to 7 unit developments and 1.25 for 8 to 10 unit developments. A local agency may not impose a lot coverage requirement that would physically preclude a housing development project that would meet the FAR requirements for 3 to 10 units. Also, a local agency may not deny a housing development project in the range of 3 to 10 units on an existing lot solely on the basis that it doesn’t meet the minimum lot size. For Brisbane, this is applicable to the R-2 and R-3 residential Districts and the NCRO-1 and SCRO-1 mixed use districts. The R-2 and R-3 districts currently have FAR limits of 0.72 and the NCRO-2 and SCRO-1 do not have FAR maximums.
On May 18, 2023, City Council adopted the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element) and it was subsequently certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It includes a program for Brisbane to update its zoning ordinance to increase the height in the multifamily districts to 36 feet to more reasonably allow for 3 story developments. Additionally, other goals, policies and programs are provided to encourage development of housing, prevent displacement, provide for accessibility and to remove unreasonable government constraints to the provision of housing, as follows:
Goal 2: Facilitate and support the production of housing at all income levels, but especially affordable housing.
94 251
R.
240
N.
2024-RZ-2
May 9, 2024 Meeting
Policy 2.A: Provide zoning for a balance of housing types, sizes (bedrooms), tenure and the inclusion of affordable, senior and special needs dwelling units in multi-family developments consistent with the RHNA.
• Program 2.A.12: Amend the zoning ordinance for all districts that allow multifamily residential uses, to allow for building heights of at least 36 feet, to be able to accommodate 3-story development.
Goal 7:Avoid unreasonable government constraints to the provision of housing.
Policy 7.A: Improve the development review and approval process. • Program 7.A.1: Continue to evaluate and implement changes to the zoning ordinance and permitting process to simplify and streamline approval of projects that meet the City’s housing goals.
• Program 7.A.3: Continue to allow ministerial approval by the Community Development Director, subject to a minimal fee, of exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance for reasonable accommodation for housing for persons with disabilities per Government Code Section 65583(c)(3).
Following adoption of the Housing Element, the Planning Commission held workshops on June 8, 2023 and February 22, 2024, during their regularly scheduled public meetings, to discuss the provisions of a draft ordinance addressing SB 478 along with proposed amendments to address these other items. The links to the workshop reports and minutes are provided with the links in the Attachments section of this report.
During the workshops, the Planning Commission indicated a desire to provide for equity in terms of height across the various residential districts as well as consistent floor area ratio standards for 3 unit developments and larger.
Also, since this ordinance touches on the development standards for all of the residential and mixed use districts, with the exception of the POAZ-1 and POAZ-2 districts which are addressed through the Parkside Precise Plan, as well as the related exceptions to development standards, a comprehensive zoning amendment has been proposed.
DISCUSSION: The ordinance updates the residential zoning regulations as provided in the Housing Element programs, provides for reorganization of certain sections, and updates and clarifies procedural requirements for planning permits. The draft ordinance is provided as Exhibit A of Attachment A and a redlined version is provided as Attachment B. The redlined version 95 252
R.
241
N.
2024-RZ-2
May 9, 2024 Meeting
shows only proposed substantive amendments and does not show redlines for edits that were made for reorganizational purposes.
The key amendments provided in the draft ordinance are as follows:
Sections 17.02.065 and 17.02.785 Definitions: The definitions provided in Chapter 17.02 apply to any district within the City. The definition in Section 17.02.785 - Outside Wall is updated to provide the definition under the broader definition of Wall and to further clarify the types of outside walls, such as “interior to a lot” or “exterior”. This definition is only for clarity, without substantive changes, and is tied to building articulation provisions later in the ordinance.
Section 17.06.040 - Development Regulations (R-1 Residential District): This section of the R-1 Residential zoning district regulations has been reformatted to a table for clarity. The only substantive amendment would be to increase the height for dwellings and structures that are not within the standard setback areas to 36 feet, from the current height limit of either 28 feet for lots with less than a 20 percent slope, or 30 feet for lots with a slope of 20 percent or greater.
This is consistent with the requirements established under the Housing Element.
Section 17.08.040 - Development Regulations (R-2 Residential District): This section of the R-2 Residential zoning district regulations has been reformatted to a table for clarity. The substantive amendments would be to increase the height for dwellings and structures that are not within the standard setback areas to 36 feet and for multifamily developments of three units or more, the floor area ratio (FAR) would be amended to 1.25 from 0.72, consistent with SB 478. The lot coverage limit would remain at 50 percent, except that over 50 percent may be approved by the planning director, if required to meet the 1.25 FAR. Also, per SB 478 there would be no requirement for the lot area for a lot of record, for multifamily developments of 3 units or more.
Section 17.10.040 - Development Regulations (R-3 Residential District): This section of the R-3 Residential zoning district regulations has been reformatted to a table for clarity. The substantive amendments are similar to the R-2 district. The height limit for dwellings and structures that are not within the standard setback areas would be increased to 36 feet and for multifamily developments of three units or more, the floor area ratio (FAR) would be amended to 1.25 from
0.72, consistent with SB 478. The lot coverage limit would remain at 60 percent, except that lot coverage exceeding 60 percent may be approved by the planning director, if required to meet the 1.25 FAR for developments of 3 or more units on a lot. Also, per SB 478 there would be no requirement for the lot area for a lot of record, for multifamily developments of 3 units or more.
Section 17.12.040 - Development Regulations (R-BA Brisbane Acres Residential District): This section of the R-BA zoning district regulations has been reformatted to a table for clarity. Similar to the R-1 district, the amendment would increase the height for dwellings and structures that are not within the standard setback areas to 36 feet, from the current height limit of 35 feet. The subsection pertaining to ridgeline development would be relocated to a stand-alone section, but 96 253
R.
242
N.
2024-RZ-2
May 9, 2024 Meeting
no substantive amendments are proposed for this section. This would be similar to the organizational structure for clustered development in the R-BA, since there is a planning permit process for both types of developments.
Section 17.14.060 - Development regulations for the NCRO-2 district: The substantive amendment for this section would be the change in height, from the current maximum of 35 feet, when authorized by a design permit, to 36 feet consistent with the Housing Element program. Note that any principal structure in this district requires design permit review and approval by the Planning Commission. Per SB 478, there would be no requirement for the lot area for an existing lot of record, for multifamily developments of 3 units or more. The fencing requirements would also be amended, primarily for clarity, but would also allow for greater flexibility on the height for screening abutting residential district property, so that 8 feet would no longer be the required minimum, but it would establish a maximum height of 10 feet.
Currently, no maximum height is specified. Fences would be subject to Zoning Administrator approval, unless it is part of a design permit subject to Planning Commission approval.
Section 17.16.040 - Development regulations for the SCRO-1 district: The substantive amendment for this section would be the change in height, from the current maximum of 35 feet, to 36 feet, consistent with the Housing Element program. Also, per SB 478, there would be no requirement for the lot area for an existing lot of record, for multifamily developments of 3 units or more.
Sections 17.27.040 and 17.27.050 - Development regulations for the PAOZ-1 and PAOZ-2 districts: For consistency with procedures for fence and wall exceptions provided for other districts, such permit applications would be by the Zoning Administrator instead of the Planning Commission.
Sections 17.32.050 to 17.32.080 - various exceptions to development regulations: These sections would be removed from Chapter 17.32 - General Use Regulations. The provisions would be relocated and amended as a new “Chapter 17.47 - Exceptions to District Development Regulations”, as described below.
Section 17.42.070 - Amendment of Design Permit – Minor Modifications: This amendment would retitle the section to “Amendment of Design Permit – Modifications" and instead of naming the Planning Commission only as the approving authority, amendments may be approved by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission, as set forth in Section 17.56.090, depending on whether it is a major or minor modification. Proposed amendments to Section
17.56.090 are described below.
Section 17.46 - Variances: This chapter currently names either the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator as the approving authority for “variances from the strict application of the terms of this title”. In practice, variances have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and, 97 254
R.
243
N.
2024-RZ-2
May 9, 2024 Meeting
for clarity and consistency with practice, the reference to the Zoning Administrator would be deleted.
Chapter 17.47 - Exceptions to District Development Regulations: This new chapter would include the following sections:
17.47.010 - Purpose of Chapter
17.47.020 - Applicability
17.47.030 - Exceptions to Lot area, lot dimensions and lot lines
17.47.040 - Height Limit Exceptions
17.47.050 - Setback Exceptions
17.47.060 - Exception Modification Procedures
17.47.070 - Requests for reasonable accommodations.
17.47.080 - Nonconforming Structures and Features.
This is largely a reorganization for clarity to distinguish exceptions as separate from Chapter 17.32 - General Uses, such as conditional uses in all districts, wireless telecommunications facilities, etc.
The reorganization would provide a vehicle to clarify and update the processing procedures for the various exception permits and provide more consistent processing of the various exceptions.
These are outlined as follows:
Exceptions to Lot area, lot dimensions and lot lines: The provisions of this section would remain largely unchanged, except to cross reference and allow that lots may be created by urban lot split, through the new Chapter 17.05.
Height Limit Exceptions: This section has been reformatted to a table for clarity. The height limit exceptions section, at present, names flag poles, church steeples, radio and other towers as part of a class of exceptions having a use permit requirement and these are proposed to be removed from this section. Flag poles would be removed since height limits are included within a new setback exception type. Where a flag pole is proposed interior to a developed lot, not within the setback area, the standard district height provisions would apply. Churches may be conditionally permitted in any district in accordance with BMC Section 17.32.020.B.1 and telecommunications facilities are provided for in Section 17.32.032.
This section also currently includes a procedure for approving accessibility improvements for accommodation of those with a disability. This section has been relocated to a section at the end of this new Chapter 17.47, to allow for administrative permitting through the building permit process. See further discussion below.
Setback Exceptions: This section has been reformatted to tables for clarity. Also, the various procedures for application for a modification to setback exception would be normalized to a single process that’s provided in the draft new Section 17.47.060 - Exception Modification Procedures.
98 255
R.
244
N.
2024-RZ-2
May 9, 2024 Meeting
A few setback exception standards are proposed to be updated, following discussion at the Planning Commission workshops. Subject to certain conditions, including compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), these include: 1) adding an exception for garages and carports on through lots to have a zero setback from the rear lot line, the same as currently exists for the front, subject to City Engineer approval; 2) stairs, ramps and landings to a building entrance may have a zero side setback; 3) decorative water features and decorative artwork would have no side setback requirement which is the same as currently allowed for the front and rear; and 4) a new exception has been added for flag poles and flags.
Fences, hedges and walls would be included in the setback exceptions chapter and the provisions have been updated. That’s largely for clarity, but a few notable amendments are as follows:
The current provisions allow for 8 foot wood fences in the residential districts, side and rear setbacks only, with the top two feet being in lattice. The draft provisions would allow up to 7 feet of solid fence, but if the fence is as high as 8 feet then the top 2 feet must be lattice or a similar open pattern. The 7 footsolid fence height correlates to the threshold for when a building permit would be required per the CBC. Within certain commercial districts that have an public, open campus feel, such as the SP-CRO Sierra Point Commercial District, or are public facing, such as the NCRO-1 and NCRO-2, a fence exception permit would be required for any fence.
Alternatively, fences may be approved as part of a design permit, if the fence is part of a new development project that would already be going to the Planning Commission for design review.
Under other requirements for fences, a non-substantive amendment to the requirement for fences within the HCP has been included in the other requirements section, to provide clearer language that any such fencing must be consistent with the HCP operating program for the site or other required permitting consistent with the HCP requirements. Also, gated driveways are not currently addressed in the code and so these would be subject to planning director approval, to verify that the gate would not create a safety hazard.
For retaining walls, although not a substantive change, the conditions for walls over 6 feet in height have been updated to match the same conditions provided for retaining walls that may be approved through the grading ordinance provisions in BMC Section 15.01.110.B.2.
Exception Modification Procedures: As indicated above, exception modification procedures would be normalized to one process through the Zoning Administrator, as detailed in the proposed new Section 17.47.060. Zoning Administrator decisions are to be reported to the Planning Commission at least 7 days prior to the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Appeals timeframes and procedures are also proposed to be updated in Section 17.52, as described below.
Requests for reasonable accommodations. Consistent with Housing Element Program 7.A.3, requests for reasonable accommodations would be deleted from the height and setback 99 256
R.
245
N.
2024-RZ-2
May 9, 2024 Meeting
exceptions and made a separate subsection within this new chapter. Unlike the other exceptions, which would require a decision by the Zoning Administrator, reasonable accommodations would be subject to a building permit where it has been demonstrated that the current or future accessibility feature cannot be otherwise addressed through the applicable district height or setbacks provisions. As with all of the exceptions, the accessibility improvement will be required to be constructed in compliance with state and local building and fire codes.
Chapter 17.52 - Appeals: Various appeals timeframes are provided in Title 17 for different applications. While this update is not an attempt to address all of these, it would serve to provide more structure and consistency to the time periods and process. Except where specified otherwise in Title 17, decisions of either the Planning Director or the Zoning Administrator would be subject to 10 day appeals periods. Appeal periods are currently 7 days for the Zoning Administrator and 15 days for Planning Director decisions. The Planning Commission appeals are currently 15 days for most applications, except where specified otherwise in the code, and would remain as is. This section would add a procedure for two Planning Commissioners to be able appeal a decision of the Zoning Administrator, to be heard by the Commission, similar to the process for two City Council members to be able to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission.
Chapter 17.56 - Zoning Administrator: Finally, Section 17.56 would be retitled from Administration to Zoning Administrator, to more accurately reflect its contents. The amendment would update the list of application types subject to zoning administrator approval. It also further updates and fleshes out the procedures for evaluating and hearing proposed modifications to planning permits into three types:
➢ Substantial conformance – may be approved through the building permit review process. ➢ Minor modification – generally subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator following the procedure set forth in Chapter 17.56. ➢ Major modification - subject to review and approval by the original decision-making body, whether the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission.
Procedures for public notice of Zoning Administrator applications and hearing procedures are also provided along with a cross reference to the appeals process provided in Chapter 17.52 and requirements for reporting decisions to the Planning Commission.
This draft ordinance was provided to the Public Works Director/City Engineer, Building Department, North County Fire Authority and City’s Legal Counsel and comments have been incorporated into it.
Finally, no correspondence was received from the public prior to publication of this report. Any comments received after publication will be provided to the Commission separately. 100
257
R.
246
N.
2024-RZ-2
May 9, 2024 Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution 2024-RZ-2
Exhibit A -Draft ordinance, zoning text amendment
B. Redlined copy of proposed zoning text amendments
C. Workshop links:
a. February 22, 2024 (Memorandum to PC) (Minutes)
b. June 8, 2023 (Memorandum to PC) (Minutes)
______________________________ _______________________________________ Ken Johnson, Senior Planner John Swiecki, Community Development Director 101
258
R.
247
N.
To the Planning Commission
From: Dana Dillworth
R: Zoning Amendments RZ-2024-1 and RZ-2024- 2
May 9, 2024
Don’t pass these changes without asking for further studies to disclose these plans’ full impacts.
Where is the map? It didn’t print out. I only see text.
Rezone the whole town, with a multiplying, quadrupling effect of housing impacts, including the Brisbane Acres, with no study? No infrastructure studies, no hillside stability studies, no commercial safety set-back rules, no natural rivers assessment, no habitat studies, no nothing? This cannot be in balance with our General Plan because it is not balanced with the other elements and community goals in our General Plan.
Where are the other city commissions and committees weighing in on quadrupling requirements for their areas of concern? Like more open space and mitigations for environmental impacts requiring native plant plantings, net-zero and solar orientation of buildings, stream setbacks, rainwater systems, etc? How about requirements for recreation and community-building opportunities per capita? Pocket gardens. Where is Open Space being mapped or do we accept 1-foot wide planters for Open Space? Where are the safety features like wildfire suppression zoning? Where’s the Art Commission weighing in on 40 square foot walls as an opportunity for art or native plantings vs. fenestration through your ministerial housing-only myopic requirements?
What happened to disclosing known hazards (prior land slides at Kings and Humboldt, Harold, and Old County Road below Tulare) and new conditions of recent slides (Glenn and Buckeye Canyons) that make blanket rezoning unsafe. When do you disclose streets that are unable to handle the quadruple traffic or machinery needed for gouging the hillside? While these documents incorporate the meetings that were presented to the public as study sessions, the impacts of these changes have never been studied by professionals. If it has been studied, please provide the report and its authors. Public comments both at the planning commission and city council level for housing element revisions included requests for studies for sea-level rise, hill and slope stability, rare and endangered species habitat restoration programs, programs to mitigate loss of solar when your neighbor’s project shadows your panels, and review of toxins, should all be incorporated (by reference) into this document, including my recent comments to council about re-zoning Crocker Park and Sierra Point for housing.
Absent full knowledge or disclosure of the safety and environmental issues puts the public at risk. For this reason I object to the use of a Zoning Administrator substituting for an openly, noticed planning meeting process. An assigned regulator cannot know the nuances in this town without you disclosing them at this time. Particularly, the Brisbane Acres requirement of 60% habitat preservation; I don’t see the lands contractually dedicated for Open Space mapped properly.
Your admission is that this is piecemeal. Stop. You have further revisions pending which includes unlimited heights… Can we see/study all of the impacts of all the new California laws? CEQA requires us to evaluate future and potential projects. I see no mention here. You have not provided adequate information nor proper studies to continue this zoning plan. 102
259
R.
248
N.
Some other disturbing facts is that his disallows Air b’n b uses. I know this is a contentious issue and represents an unlawful taking to citizens that have abided by the city’s onerous regulations and if the intent for this passage is to provide for low- and moderate-income housing… it will not. Focus on that, the city’s responsibility to all citizens AND the environment, not undermining the fabric and safety of our town to speculators. 103
260
R.
249
N.
File Attachments for Item:
P. Countywide Assignments and Subcommittee Reports
250
CITY of BRISBANE
Council Subcommittee Update
From September 28th, 2024, to October 11th, 2024
Public Art Advisory Committee 10/8 Cunningham, Davis
The Committee reviewed the 19 proposals received for the Stairway Project and came prepared with their top choices for the space. The Committee utilized the Selection of Public Art Criteria list created by NinedotArt to determine whether the art will fit with Brisbane’s character as well as be unexpected, integrated and diverse. Using a proposal ranking sheet, the Committee decided on two artists to recommend to the City Council on November 7th – Angela Duckett for mosaics on risers and McGrath Arts for lighting and railing. As lighting and railing are part of infrastructure of the project, this will need to be integrated from the beginning and the artist will work closely with Public Works. The mosaics on the risers will be installed after public input and design work later. It was confirmed that grant funds to pay for railings and lighting (say $20k) would be allowed to be used for the artistic railings and lighting that may cost $50K and the remainder would be funded through the Public Art fund.
Upcoming Subcommittees:
Public Art Advisory Committee 10/14 5:15pm Cunningham, Davis 251
P.