| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:01:18.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:22.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:22.36 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 00:01:22.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:22.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:22.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:22.97 | Kristina Feller | you Thank you. Would you like to? identify the next item on our agenda |
| 00:01:31.07 | Lily Whalen | Sure, so our next item is item number three, which is public comments on items not on the agenda. This is the time to hear from citizen on matters that are not on your agenda, except in very limited circumstances. Straight law precludes the planning commission from taking action on. or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on your agenda. However, the commission may agendize That matters not in the agenda to city direct matters, not in the agenda to city staff or agendas them for a future meeting. and video or audio public. Comment participation right now is limited to 30 minutes per speaker. three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application and we'll call you when it is your time to speak. If you're on a phone you press star nine to raise your hand. And if you could please state your name for the record before beginning your comments it would be appreciated. |
| 00:02:20.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director Whalen. uh do we see any raised hands at this time for public comment for items not on the window. |
| 00:02:31.72 | Lily Whalen | I do not see any raised hands. |
| 00:02:35.37 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. With that, I will close public comment at this time. Director Allen, can you... Please identify the next item on our agenda. |
| 00:02:43.26 | Lily Whalen | So next item is item four, which is our public hearing items. We have three items and before we begin, Now is the time for any commissioners to provide any declarations regarding expertise. |
| 00:02:57.81 | Kristina Feller | I have nothing to Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:03:04.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I visited the site for the first item on the agenda, but did not talk to anybody. |
| 00:03:12.10 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Assad. I don't have anything. Commissioner Pierce? |
| 00:03:17.40 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:03:17.42 | Richard Graef | Nothing to declare. Thank you. |
| 00:03:19.10 | Kristina Feller | Spice in the ground. |
| 00:03:20.74 | Richard Graef | Um, No communications. |
| 00:03:24.29 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:03:27.56 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. Great perfect so moving softly along to item 4A which is a true removal permit for 811 Spring Street and we have our assistant planner Larissa Altschuk here to give the presentation Larissa is filling in while Elena is on maternity leave I'm happy to report that Elena had a healthy baby girl at the beginning mid And I think now of December, so easy when it's not yours to forget. But so we wish her well with her new baby and Larissa's here filling in for her. So she'll give the presentation. |
| 00:03:57.34 | Unknown | yours. |
| 00:04:06.90 | Larissa Altschuk | Right. Hello, everyone. Let me get my presentation up. Share my screen. |
| 00:04:15.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:25.24 | Larissa Altschuk | Can everyone see my screen right now? |
| 00:04:29.02 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:04:29.14 | Morgan Pierce | Yes. |
| 00:04:29.37 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:04:29.63 | Larissa Altschuk | Yes. Okay. So I'm here to present the true removal permit for 811 Spring. um, The tree is located in the R16 single family residential zone. It is located in the front entry of the property. left of the driveway and right of the front stairs. The tree is located within a small above grade. tree well. within about one to two feet of the retaining wall. And the foundation of the house. The project description is for a tree removal of a 28 inch diameter at breast height cedar tree. The cedar trees contained within an area that is too small for this type of tree and is causing some damage. to the retaining wall. around it. the removal request is for the abatement of property damage. to the retaining law and foundation. I'm not sure. There is also an arborist report for those removal permit, the arborist, James Lescott. found that this type of tree was too small for the uh, planting area. Um, There's visible evidence of some cracking in the retaining wall. on the northeast side of the tree. The Arborist Report recommended removal of the subject tree for the abatement of property damage and the reasonable enjoyment of the property. the removal of the tree should not, affect any surrounding vegetation, soil stability, or excessive runoff during storm events. And the cedar tree was also considered a flammable species. |
| 00:06:24.76 | Larissa Altschuk | The arborist is also recommending a true replacement of a non-native ornamental purple leaf plum. which is a smaller type tree at maturity. |
| 00:06:37.44 | Larissa Altschuk | and staff recommends approval of the tree permit. application to allow the removal of that tree. And that is the end of my presentation. I believe the property owner is also here and Henry Escobar who is works for the tree company that will be doing the work is also, I believe, present at the meeting. So if you have any questions for me or either of them, just let me know. |
| 00:07:05.47 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Larissa, thank you so much for your report here. I'd like to open this up to the commissioners if you have any questions for staff. Uh, commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:07:17.94 | Morgan Pierce | I had one question on the staff report, the applicant is identified as both Bill and as Brian. And it was, to make sure it is correct. |
| 00:07:25.26 | Larissa Altschuk | Oh, it is Brian. It's Brian Sharp. |
| 00:07:27.13 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. Great, thank you. The only question I have. |
| 00:07:29.55 | Larissa Altschuk | You'll be questioned after that. |
| 00:07:32.94 | Kristina Feller | Any other commissioner have any questions for staff at this time? |
| 00:07:39.82 | Kristina Feller | I do have one for you, Larissa, and I'll ask you, and perhaps this might be part of the applicant's presentation, but, What What is staff's thought about the replacement tree species with the plum tree? Do you find that to be... in line with Southern Marine Fire. |
| 00:08:00.28 | Larissa Altschuk | That was just what was offered by the arborist. in the ARBURST report, that was what was suggested. So that's. That's what we're going to do. |
| 00:08:09.41 | Morgan Pierce | I'll offer to Chair Feller. I was going to ask the same of the applicant. That is not a species on the FireSafe Marin. |
| 00:08:11.01 | Larissa Altschuk | I'll see you next time. |
| 00:08:15.68 | Morgan Pierce | list. |
| 00:08:16.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:08:17.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:18.62 | Lily Whalen | If I can just jump in here to chair Feller, we actually crafted a condition that's in your staff report and in the draft resolution so that it does not, so it leaves open the arborist to select the appropriate species on the site with some criteria that the commission informally established last year through review of other tree removal permits. So I took some of that language and conditions. We took some of that language and conditions that you approved other permits for replacement trees for selecting species that are good for stability of the slope as attractors for our our flying friends in the world as well and some other conditions. So if you want to take a look at that and see if that needs to be tightened up or restricted somehow. But that's there for you to look at. |
| 00:09:15.47 | Kristina Feller | Yes, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:09:18.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Larissa, do you know what the hype is anticipated, if it is the plum tree at full time? |
| 00:09:26.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | grow. |
| 00:09:28.58 | Larissa Altschuk | I do not have that information, possibly a question for Henry Esquhar. it. or the homeowner. |
| 00:09:37.38 | Lily Whalen | I can also just jump in there. I think if I'm correct, if I'm wrong, Larissa, I thought that I saw maybe the maximum height indicated, but let me take a look through the materials again and the arborist would definitely be able to weigh in on that. |
| 00:09:53.96 | Kristina Feller | One last question I have, and this is just for clarification of the record here and our live video and that is Larissa we I believe we only received one late male correspondence from a neighbor regarding this property in this application and it was in favor and support of this. Was there any other late mail that we, as the commissioners here might have missed |
| 00:10:21.81 | Brian Sharp | you Yes. Can you hear me? |
| 00:10:27.22 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:10:28.47 | Brian Sharp | Thank you. |
| 00:10:29.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:29.55 | Lily Whalen | Mr. Sharp, we're going to just ask questions right now. So let's. Larissa, do you want to go over the mail that came in regarding this project? |
| 00:10:41.01 | Larissa Altschuk | There is attached mail, emails from earlier that were included and then the late mail. So, I think that's a great question. Planning Commission received an email from Brian Sharp earlier today. the homeowner. |
| 00:10:58.83 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you, Larissa. |
| 00:11:02.59 | Larissa Altschuk | You're welcome. |
| 00:11:03.62 | Kristina Feller | Do commissioners have any other questions for staff? |
| 00:11:10.15 | Kristina Feller | Okay, seeing none, if we could open up the chat. this opportunity to the applicant to provide their presentation and of their application. |
| 00:11:29.97 | Kristina Feller | We are. |
| 00:11:33.68 | Brian Sharp | Yes. |
| 00:11:34.50 | Kristina Feller | There we go. Thank you. |
| 00:11:37.68 | Brian Sharp | Thank you. Are you able to put up JPEGs or photos that I sent in my email as part of the demonstration? help explain my points that I'm trying to make? |
| 00:11:50.40 | Kristina Feller | Staff, do you have those available? If not, Mr. Sharp, we can allow you to share your screen and you can put them up. |
| 00:12:03.53 | Kristina Feller | Staff, do you have those available? |
| 00:12:05.94 | Larissa Altschuk | I think I have them. Yeah, it'll take me one second to find them in the email. |
| 00:12:13.05 | Kristina Feller | Okay. just give a moment for staff to pull that up and share And Larissa to share her screen. I believe we also have a comment timer. Uh, the applicant has 15 minutes for. their presentation. any time that goes towards Q&A with the commissioners does not count against that 15 minutes. |
| 00:12:41.43 | Lily Whalen | Karen Hollweg, i'm chair Feller if I can just take this opportunity to answer one of the questions from the Commissioners earlier on there, I just took a quick look at the arborist report, it looks like the arborist report indicates that the. Karen Hollweg, This species suggested. The inference is that it would not grow to a height greater than 30 feet. That's the inference in the Arborist Report, and it's on page two of the Arborist Report under the Recommendations section. Thank you. |
| 00:13:11.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Louis. |
| 00:13:11.40 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:13:11.49 | Larissa Altschuk | Thank you. |
| 00:13:15.82 | Larissa Altschuk | Okay, I am going to share my screen again. |
| 00:13:23.75 | Larissa Altschuk | And I believe these are just pictures of the property, correct? |
| 00:13:26.22 | Brian Sharp | Yeah. Yes, if you can leave that up for a second. That to me, I would like to use this picture to demonstrate that if the tree were to fall, it would damage the home. Do you see the blue home to the right of the tree? |
| 00:13:48.02 | Brian Sharp | To the right of the tree, there's a home right there. That's my home. |
| 00:13:52.61 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:13:54.13 | Brian Sharp | You can see now how if the tree were to fall, it would crush the home. |
| 00:14:02.97 | Brian Sharp | Can you see that? |
| 00:14:04.05 | Kristina Feller | You can see that. |
| 00:14:06.26 | Brian Sharp | Okay, that was the first point I'd like to make. That was the first hazard. that this poses to my property. The second one, I'd like you to put up is the Spring Street tree hazard to foundation photo. which is the second one in my email. |
| 00:14:37.16 | Larissa Altschuk | All right, let me see if I can find it. |
| 00:14:58.59 | Kristina Feller | you can feel free to provide the rest of your presentation as Larissa's trying to find each of these JPEGs. |
| 00:15:06.40 | Brian Sharp | This is actually another, the third one, This is the second hazard I'd like to point out. You can see if this tree were to fall, it would land on this power line and these utility cables. to the left. |
| 00:15:24.58 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:15:26.03 | Brian Sharp | That's the second hazard I'd like to point out. but I would like to go back to the second JPEG on the email, which is called 811 Spring Street, tree hazard to foundation. Can you put that one up? please. |
| 00:15:48.98 | Larissa Altschuk | Yeah just give me one second. go through each one. |
| 00:16:18.70 | Brian Sharp | 811 Spring Street, Tree Hazard to Foundation. one in |
| 00:16:31.86 | Larissa Altschuk | All right, let me see if this is the right one. There's quite a few. different images of the foundation or the |
| 00:16:38.63 | Brian Sharp | for the remaining one. image on the email, no? |
| 00:17:07.82 | Larissa Altschuk | Sorry, if you can, I can't find it in my email, if that's which one you're looking for. Do you have it on you? We can have you share your screen. |
| 00:17:17.10 | Brian Sharp | Apparently I can't do that. basically what, uh, The photograph is As you can see, that |
| 00:17:30.13 | Unknown | Brian, you should be able to screen share your screen now. |
| 00:17:30.57 | Brian Sharp | the retaining wall. |
| 00:17:36.29 | Brian Sharp | Oh. |
| 00:17:40.52 | Brian Sharp | Where can I find my I don't know how to do that. I don't know how to find the The JPEGs on my computer to share. |
| 00:17:52.57 | Kristina Feller | You can go ahead and continue your So, |
| 00:17:54.66 | Brian Sharp | So, basically what the image shows that I've been trying to get you guys to put up there is that there's a retaining wall around the roots of the tree And there's also a garage to the right THE FEDERAL. tree with a concrete wall. The retaining wall. made out of concrete and the wall of the garage made out of concrete restrict the roots of the tree. which makes it less stable. If the roots were free to roam underground, it could be more stable, but because of the concrete retaining wall and because of the concrete garage wall right next to it, both within five feet. of the base of the tree, the tree is less stable. So the first image you saw was... that the tree could fall in the house. And if it's less stable because the roots aren't able to go where they need to go, that would make it more likely to fall in the house. The second image you saw was the chance that tree could fall on the power lines as well as other utility cables. And because the roots are less stable, that makes it even more likely that that would happen. |
| 00:19:15.34 | Brian Sharp | The third... So that's, The next one I'd like to do is the Spring Street Hazard to 809 Spring Street Photoshop. Can you put that one up? |
| 00:19:32.98 | Kristina Feller | I think, Mr. Sharp, if you have those images and are able to put those up, we've given you the ability to share your screen. If not, please feel free to keep discussing your application. |
| 00:19:47.41 | Brian Sharp | Okay. |
| 00:19:51.24 | Brian Sharp | the next image that you guys have Apparently we can't put up there. is an image where you can see that if the tree were to fall downhill. which is to the north. that it would land on my neighbor's house. Gloria Walshweiger. And it's plenty tall and you can see in the image that apparently we can't get up there. that if it were to fall, it would land on my neighbor's house. And she has a glass awning in the front. And it would clearly destroy the glass awning and it would put damage to her house. Gloria is a widow of Norman Walschlager, who was an employee of the city of Sausalito for 30 years. She wrote an email. with her concern about the size of this tree and the danger that it poses to her her health, her life, her property, et cetera. So the first one was the hazard to my house. The second one was the hazard to the power lines, and the utility cables. And an interesting synchronicity was that on Wednesday of January 6th, The city of Sausalito paid slope tree service to clear trees. just 100 feet away from these very power lines. and utility cables. So clearly the city was interested in clearing trees and branches away from this power line and away from the utility cable for the safety of the community. This tree is even less stable than the trees that they were trimming back. And it's even bigger than those trees. So, The city is clearly interested in keeping trees away from this cable And this tree is even more of a hazard to those cables. So you've got the hazard to my house, you've got the hazard to my neighbor's house, to the power lines. The fourth hazard is, that the water main, To my home. runs within six inches of the roots of this tree. Several years ago, we rerouted this water main to get further away from the roots. because the roots are so big. that it was encroaching upon this water main. and that was years ago And the roots have expanded even further. So I think the risk and the threat to the water main is occurring again. which is a problem for my home as well as the community water supply. So we've got the The threat to my home, the threat to my neighbor's home, the threat to the power lines and the utility cables, the threat to the water main as well. |
| 00:23:21.62 | Brian Sharp | The fifth. threat. that this, tree poses. would be if it were to fall on any pedestrians are trees that were, cars that were passing by are cars that were parked. because it's less stable, because the roots are constricted, And because it's so big and you saw a picture of it, It's been trimmed back several times over the 28 years that I've lived there. And so it's much thicker than it would appear the tree would be at least 10, 15, 20 feet taller. if we hadn't trimmed it back. So the girth of the tree is very big. and yet the roots have not been able to expand to accommodate the size of this tree. And because People regularly pass right below this to come in and out of my home. And it's within well within reach of my neighbor, Gloria Walsh Lager's home and her, path to her front tour It poses a risk to me, my wife, anyone who visits my home. My neighbor, Gloria. who's an elderly woman his husband, worked for the city for 30 years. Her health and her life is also at risk. The sixth thing I would like to point out is something that you saw a picture of earlier. is that There's a retaining wall. There's cracks in the retaining wall. There's two of them. So there's already been damage to my property in the retaining wall. And on January 6th, I tried to get an emergency permit. to remove this tree because that, County code says that if there's an imminent or probable damage to property. that you can get an emergency permit to remove the tree And I feel like Those circumstances were already met. There was already damaged to my property. in the retaining wall as well as The Stone Walkway. And you saw that. photo earlier. I don't know if you remember. there was a crack in the walkway And the, The walkway had lifted up more than a quarter inch above the roots, creating a tripping hazard. for anyone that walks on that walkway So that's... damage to my retaining wall in two spots, damage to my stone walkway going to the front door of my home from the street which creates a tripping hazard for anybody that passes through there. So a danger to my house, my wife's house, anyone that, I think it's a great place. Any contractor or delivery person. are at risk of tripping over that crack because of the trees. |
| 00:26:56.08 | Brian Sharp | Thank you. |
| 00:26:56.10 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:26:56.29 | Brian Sharp | Thank you. |
| 00:27:01.92 | Brian Sharp | And so we've had myself in this email and all these attachments, which unfortunately we couldn't see them all, but seven other neighbors. also emailed the city and Larissa to recommend the removal of this tree one of those neighbors is a landscaped architect by profession. He agreed with the professional arborist, James Lascott, that the cedar tree is too big. for that space. I'm seeing here on the internet... that cedar trees can grow to over 200 feet tall. The type of tree that's there in that limited space with the restricted roots can grow over 200 feet tall. We wanna replace it with a plum tree that only grows to 30 feet at its very tallest. This is a much more appropriate tree to have there. It takes away the risk. to my house, my neighbor's house, the power lines, the utility lines. The human beings that go nearby, it would stop the current damage that's happening to my property and my retaining wall and my walk away And so. the professional landscape architect that's my neighbor and the arborist pointed that out, that that's this new tree that we're hoping to replace it with is much more appropriate. Instead of 200 feet tall, it can only go to 30. |
| 00:28:57.09 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mr. Sharpe. Thank you for your presentation. um, stay close here because I'd like to open this up to questions that the commissioners might have of the applicant. So I'd like to start Commissioner Saad, do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 00:29:19.16 | Nastassya Saad | I only have one question if I heard you correctly about the water Um, Maine earlier. Did you apply for a permit at the time to remove it? at that time versus doing the work for the for the water main. |
| 00:29:37.20 | Brian Sharp | At the time, we had a permit open to do that work, yes. And, uh, the name of the sewer guy is Paul something. Are you guys familiar? the guy in charge of the sewer in Sausalito. |
| 00:29:58.37 | Nastassya Saad | I personally am not. I was just, it's just more, I was just more curious to know perhaps why that work would, take precedent over a tree removal at an earlier time if it was denied for any reason if you had a tree removal permit it just seems |
| 00:30:13.55 | Brian Sharp | I never had for a tree removal before this time. I very much love this tree and I don't want to remove it. But I feel like I am forced to remove it because it's damaging my property and it's creating all these hazards. Okay. |
| 00:30:34.93 | Unknown | Me too. |
| 00:30:36.32 | Brian Sharp | the water main, the homes, the property, the neighbors, the pedestrians, all these things. So I feel like I had no choice. I reluctantly... did this permit because I feel like I have to do it. for the safety of everybody. And I didn't really want to do that. That's why I never did it up until it's the very last minute here. We've got to do it now. |
| 00:31:03.61 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, thank you for clarifying. That's all. |
| 00:31:06.25 | Kristina Feller | Did you have any more questions for the applicants? |
| 00:31:09.28 | Nastassya Saad | No, thank you. Chair Feller. |
| 00:31:11.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, any questions for the board? |
| 00:31:14.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. Yes, I just have one. I mean, it's a beautiful tree. It's obviously not in the best location relative to the house. Well, Brian, will the replacement tree at 30 plus feet, I think that'll be taller than the house. And are you just creating another situation that in five or 10 years is growing into the house, it's growing over the house? Is that tree also possibly too large for the area of that tree well? |
| 00:31:44.49 | Brian Sharp | not according to the professional arborist, that we hired to do the work. Or the tree service that's doing it, they also agreed. The 30 feet is the maximum height. that the species could possibly get to we're gonna put in a tree that's much smaller than that, maybe 15, 20 feet. So it'll just kind of barely pop up above the house. It won't be as much of a sail for the wind to catch it because most of it will be protected by the house. The 30 feet is only the maximum height that that species could reach. It will not be that tall. when we put it in. |
| 00:32:35.81 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Luxenberg questions. for the application. |
| 00:32:39.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 00:32:43.59 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:32:44.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:44.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:32:44.99 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller. Mr. Sharp, thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. I think most of my questions have been answered. I think I had two additional ones. The Arbiter's Report identifies the stump may be ground for future planting. Is your planned replacement tree destined for the same location or for a different location? Thank you. |
| 00:33:05.80 | Brian Sharp | same location, they will grind the roots away below the level of the ground to create room for the new tree to be placed in the exact same spot. |
| 00:33:20.70 | Morgan Pierce | Understood. And then my other question was, did you consider native species identified on FireSafe Marin's website or the National Arbor Day Foundation's website in lieu of this non-native species? that you're proposing? Mr. Sharp, thank you so much for |
| 00:33:37.32 | Brian Sharp | I did not do that. I went with the recommendation of the professional arborist James Lascott. who said that this because it doesn't grow that tall. And it's a good looking tree and my neighbors, I sent them pictures of this tree and they thought it was an attractive tree. I think it's an attractive tree. It was chosen because it doesn't grow that big. and it's a good looking tree. |
| 00:34:09.65 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:34:09.67 | Brian Sharp | Thank you. |
| 00:34:09.68 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:34:09.70 | Brian Sharp | And we went along. |
| 00:34:09.77 | Morgan Pierce | Do you know what the water requirements are for that species versus some of the fire safe and other recommended native species? I'm sorry, can you repeat that question? You know what the water requirements are for that |
| 00:34:22.59 | Brian Sharp | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:34:22.88 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:34:23.03 | Brian Sharp | particular tree versus some of the native species? I don't know. Is Henry on here who's from All Star Tree Service? |
| 00:34:33.46 | Kristina Feller | Um, |
| 00:34:34.36 | Brian Sharp | He might know. |
| 00:34:35.37 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Hold on just a moment, Steph. It appears that there's a Henry's iPad would end up and this could possibly be the arborist and it would be helpful. if the arborist could weigh in and answer some of these questions if you could make his um |
| 00:34:52.80 | Brian Sharp | He's not an arborist, he's an employee of a tree service. |
| 00:34:52.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:34:59.64 | Henry Escobar | Hello? |
| 00:35:00.34 | Brian Sharp | Yeah. |
| 00:35:00.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:00.73 | Brian Sharp | Thank you. |
| 00:35:00.97 | Henry Escobar | Can you hear me? Yes, I'm actually a certified arborist and I |
| 00:35:07.08 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 00:35:07.74 | Henry Escobar | Sorry about that. |
| 00:35:07.89 | Unknown | Sorry about that. |
| 00:35:09.41 | Henry Escobar | I am the owner of All Stars Tree Service. I am all for the preservation of trees. especially a tree this beautiful and If there was in any other location, say, you know, in an area where their roots can grow properly and it's not a hazard to anybody or anything, you know, I would totally be against the removal of the tree. I'm not sure if I'm But given, I mean, it's pretty obvious that the location where it is, is just way too small for the tree. And from my past experiences as working for in the tree industry, I've seen some very Um... Uh, very bad things about when trees uproot and damaging properties or stuff like that, soaks. the reason why I agree with my client, Mr. Sharp, was that was because it's a hazard to both him and his neighbors and the people that can walk nearby. |
| 00:36:28.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:36:28.74 | Henry Escobar | I agree with the purple leaf of Glamtree, just because... |
| 00:36:32.40 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:36:36.19 | Kristina Feller | Henry, we've had the presentation from the applicant, we're sort of in a Q&A at the moment. help. help us understand a little bit more about the recommendation of the plumb and commissioner Pierce's question about the non-native species and perhaps the irrigation requirements for such a species. |
| 00:37:00.58 | Henry Escobar | Sure, sure. Yeah. So the purple leaf plum, it's the best for the area for three main reasons. The tree is not going to grow too big. The roots, you know, are not going to be as big. Second, the tree, it's a deciduous tree, so it's going to drop its leaves in during the winter. And in the spring, the flowers will appear and which makes it look very pretty. And then three, it's not a fire hazard at all. So yeah, I do think that the plum tree would be the best. We can go for other trees that are native to the area, which are like redwood trees and oak trees, but same thing would happen. The trees do grow pretty big and tall. So we would be, 10 or 15 years from now, we would be in the same situation. |
| 00:37:52.76 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I just want a little clarification, if I may, Chair Feller. Mr. Escobar, there are other native species that are smaller growing. There are cherry varieties and others. And I'm just curious whether you know the water requirements of those native species versus non-native species, which are typically much more thirsty. |
| 00:38:10.74 | Henry Escobar | You mean like the plum trees take up more water than other trees? |
| 00:38:14.76 | Morgan Pierce | That's what my question is. I'm not an arborist. |
| 00:38:15.32 | Henry Escobar | I'm not. Oh. No, let's see. So plum trees are usually... you have to water them when you first plant them, maybe every other day for about 15 minutes, and that's only for the first. If you had to, you know, if we go through a drought, you had to do it for about two years. And after that, the tree is pretty much established and it would sustain itself. You know, it won't need to be water anymore. They are drought resistant, you know, which means that, you know, the homeowner won't need to be watering it as often. You know, it would just pretty much just get its water from the rain. And, you know, it sets up some water in the tissues in the cambium to last for the summer. and through a drop. |
| 00:39:07.09 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Mm-hmm. You're welcome. |
| 00:39:09.98 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Pierce, any further questions for the applicant? |
| 00:39:12.12 | Morgan Pierce | Not for a moment. Thank you. |
| 00:39:13.37 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:39:13.91 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Vice Chair Graham? |
| 00:39:16.83 | Richard Graef | Um... I have no questions. Everything seems to be pretty clear. However, I agree with Commissioner Pierce's question about looking at alternative native trees that might be an appropriate size. Although I'll just let it go with that. But no further questions. |
| 00:39:45.62 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you, Vice Chair. Um, Commissioners, any further questions for the applicant or the arborist at this time? Okay. Seeing none. It's time to take public comment on this. Director Whelan, will you let the public know how they can comment on this? and let's open it. I would. |
| 00:40:06.03 | Lily Whalen | comment. So now is the time to provide public comment if you'd like to make a comment on this agenda item. Please raise your hand in the Zoom application. or if you're on a phone, you can press star nine. and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak. If you're Um. And please state your name for the record, and you'll have three minutes to speak. We have a timer up on the screen here. We're not seeing any hands at this moment. So this is the time for anyone who'd like to make a comment on this tree removal permit application. Please raise your hand. |
| 00:40:41.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, director Whalen. I am not seeing any raised hands at this time. I just give it another moment. |
| 00:40:51.85 | Kristina Feller | Nope, I do not see any raised hand. Staff, can you just double check for me? That is correct. Okay. So at this time we'll close public comment on this application and we'll bring it back up here to our virtual dias for discussion and direction. Do I see a raised hand by any one of the commissioners who'd like to start off the conversation? |
| 00:41:18.95 | Morgan Pierce | Commissioner Pierce. I'll jump in. Why not? Well, thank you. I mean, I think this could be pretty quickly, pretty quick. You know me, I'm a major tree fan and I hate to see the removal of any tree. over this tree this particular circumstance reminds me of many I've seen in similar circumstances where somebody with good intent 50 60 years ago thought wow this cedar is going to look great in this little spot. And it probably did for the first 20 or 30 years. And then it just got out of hand. Improper placement of a giant growing species is, is a sad thing and we see it all too often. |
| 00:41:54.19 | Unknown | It's a great thing. |
| 00:41:58.59 | Morgan Pierce | So from that standpoint, I can make the findings to support the removal of said tree because it does, it does pose a significant hazard. Um, I guess my questions are relative to the, uh, replacement, uh, tree. And I guess we have some caveats in our condition of approval for this. So that should be satisfactory. So Based on that, I'm able to make the findings for this removal. |
| 00:42:24.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. Mr. Saad. |
| 00:42:30.87 | Nastassya Saad | I agree with my fellow commissioner. I was in the same boat with a cracked retaining wall from tree roots. So I understand the frustration. I did have one question and maybe this is because I'm new. So maybe a process question but on page five of the staff report the think it's number three the replacement tree shall be planted within at least two months. I'm just wondering where the oversight is on that who is the one to see that that takes place. |
| 00:43:01.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. That's a very fair question and Director Whalen can speak to that directly because it is actually the... that does oversee that. |
| 00:43:13.82 | Lily Whalen | Yeah, that's a good question. Thank you. You know, we don't actually have a process for, you know, staff to go out. and double check that. We have a small staff and We don't have that built in to what we're able to do with our small staff. I'm trying to think of a creative idea on the fly here to Um, put a catch in there. but a lot of times When there's a treatmentable permit, that's a lot of times it's related to development, right? So there's a natural catch in there with inspections. And so we can tie it to an inspection schedule or some sort of event. since this is just the removal of a tree in a hazard situation. We haven't. that I can recall we haven't developed some sort of a mechanism that would, you know, force the that will go to provide that double check with the staff to make sure that the replacement tree has been planted. |
| 00:44:14.40 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:44:16.32 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sure there's some good faith and clearly there seems to be a solid effort to want to replace the tree and things identified. I'm not sure. that was my only question. Otherwise I agree with Commissioner Pierce I think it's needed to be removed as well. |
| 00:44:34.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:44:38.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's a beautiful tree. I would concur that it's not really in the best location and needs to be removed. My concerns are I'm not sure that the tree that's being proposed is not going to be a little bit too big for that area, but I leave that to the arborist. To Lily's question or comment and the commissioner's comment, Maybe the applicant has a requirement, we could add a requirement they submit a photo after the tree is installed. So if it doesn't look like it meets the requirements, the community development department could come out then, but if the photograph solves the need, that saves them from making a site visit. But, and I don't think that would be too onerous and for the homeowner to do that. But other than that, I'm in favor of the removal. |
| 00:45:28.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Vice Chair Graf. |
| 00:45:33.78 | Richard Graef | Um, I, yes, I, uh, I can make the findings, uh, easily. Um, It's a shame to lose such a magnificent tree. It's really quite a tree. Um, Bye. it's gotta go. So, um, I think all my questions have been answered. It seems to be... the clearly explained and I would make a motion to approve TRP 2020-00216. for the tree removal. |
| 00:46:18.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. I really appreciate my fellow commissioners questions. You've asked everything that I could have thought of and more and I concur that I can make the findings and I believe that this tree unfortunately should be removed from its location. And I would ask the arborist to reconsider a tree that is in conformance with Southern Marine Fire and their list of approved trees. of consideration that would be appropriate in this location. that is close to a house and at the retaining wall. And I would, I like Commissioner Luxembourg's idea of of submitting photo proof that this has been done. department. Um, So unless any other commissioners have further comment. I believe we're all in agreement on this particular one. So I'd ask for, for emotion. |
| 00:47:18.78 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. I think Vice Chair Graf made one prior to your comments. |
| 00:47:23.64 | Kristina Feller | Right, I just wanted to comment before we made a motion. |
| 00:47:25.48 | Morgan Pierce | you. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:47:29.32 | Kristina Feller | So yeah, we can take Richard, Commissioner Graff, Your motion. And just maybe with a slight modification that we would ask the arborist, I think there is a room in that with what has been drafted by staff that the arborist reconsider or do some due diligence on a species that is on the Southern marine fireproof list. that would be appropriate for the location and ask for some type of photographic evidence of the removal and replanting. No? |
| 00:48:05.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sounds good. |
| 00:48:06.21 | Kristina Feller | Second. |
| 00:48:07.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. |
| 00:48:09.10 | Kristina Feller | Director Whelan, could you call the roll? |
| 00:48:12.02 | Lily Whalen | Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:48:13.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:48:14.90 | Lily Whalen | Mr. Hassan? Yes. Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:48:17.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:48:18.84 | Lily Whalen | Nice progress. |
| 00:48:20.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:48:21.11 | Lily Whalen | And Chair Fowler. Excellent, that carries five zero. We are now. Okay to move on to the next one there? |
| 00:48:32.13 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely, thank you, Director Whelan. Thank you. |
| 00:48:34.24 | Lily Whalen | Great. So our next item here is a 4B, and this is on the... of reviewing the recommendation to the City Council on the certification of the final environmental impact report and the adoption of the final general plan update. share my screen here. I'm going to kick off this presentation. |
| 00:49:11.84 | Lily Whalen | Everyone can see my screen. |
| 00:49:14.72 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:49:15.38 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:49:15.40 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:49:15.60 | Lily Whalen | Perfect. |
| 00:49:15.62 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:49:16.04 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. Okay, so good evening to all the commissioners and all of the members of the public that are here for this item. I am so excited to be here tonight for this item in particular after participating in almost four years of hard work on developing a brand new general plan for Sausalito. And I'd like to thank Especially all the planning commissioners past and present on their hard work and dedication, pushing staff, the consultant and working with the Sausalito community to develop this plan which will be with us here for the next few decades. So it's a pretty big deal. So tonight we'll begin this item with a brief overview of the general plan process up to tonight's hearing. the final general plan overview and key planning commission concerns from your last hearing. and the final environmental impact report overview and key issues and findings. And then finally, we will conclude with staff recommendations and next steps. |
| 00:50:24.52 | Lily Whalen | So as to the objective of the meeting, there are four objectives. The first is to receive the staff and consultant presentations to then also provide a forum for the planning commission to deliberate on a recommendation to the city council the certification of the final EIR. and the adoption of the final general plan. And you'll do that through your questions of staff and the consultants. from opening it up to public comment and hearing from the community, and then finally the deliberation phase of your evening. |
| 00:51:04.04 | Lily Whalen | This slide shows some of the key events since the general plan update began in 2017. in April of 2020, the public review draft, which the Planning Commission and General Plan Working Group reviewed and commented on was released. And then the final general plan, the final draft of the general plan and a recirculated revised draft EIR. was released in October of 2020. The Commission reviewed and commented on those documents in November of 2020. And in January of this year, the final EIR was published. The staff report and this slide show and provide details on the exhaustive and diverse public outreach to the Sausalito community. From the very formal City Council hearings and meetings and planning commission hearings and meetings to over 40 meetings of the general plan advisory committee. community focused workshops, walking tours, pop-up workshops at various events in Sausalito. And also in the age of COVID here, electronic commenting and participation options. |
| 00:52:17.26 | Lily Whalen | So with that, I'm going to now hand it off to M group to provide details on the final general plan. And I think Tom Lauren F. Ford will be presenting here so i'm going to shop stop sharing my screen and invite Tom to pop up his presentation and take over and then we'll have. Lisa with First Carbon. Um, to give her part of the presentation, and then we'll wrap it up with me. |
| 00:52:45.73 | Tom | I'm getting a signal that says the host has disabled me. |
| 00:52:51.37 | Richard Graef | you there. |
| 00:52:53.21 | Tom | Oh, good. You see my screen? You can see it. |
| 00:52:54.07 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I can see you, Tom, and we're just starting to see your screen. There we go. |
| 00:53:00.31 | Tom | Okay. Great. Hi. Good evening. Great to be here. I'll echo what Lily says. It's been a long process and great to get to this point. um |
| 00:53:18.03 | Tom | Lily touched on this, my first slide is just to reiterate. A lot of the things that went into getting us to where we are tonight. If I could just comment on a couple of things here. As someone who's been involved with this for I guess about almost two years now. The 42 general plan advisory committee committee meetings and the general plan working group Those are two very different bodies, and I think it really lent a lot to how the general plan came together. the general plan advisory committee, the GPAC, range through a lot of different issues and subject matter from the 30,000 foot down to getting into the weeds of a program. And then the general plan working group came in after and really rolled up their sleeves and took a hard look at each and every element. And I think that sort of iterative process really helped us get to where we are |
| 00:54:13.11 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:54:15.66 | Tom | And so where we are, this is just a few of the things that are in the draft general plan, for those of you that I hope have had a chance to see it. the final draft that was published October 20th. Um, So down in the non-bold font, I just list all of the elements that we have in the general plan. Housing, I want to come back to in a little bit because the housing element was not a part of this process, but it's really important. There's a couple of optional elements here. The waterfront and marineship element and the sustainability element were both optional elements. So let me just talk a little bit about the housing element. When this process started, as Lily pointed out, back in 2017, your current housing element was only two years old. And so... Um, It was obviously the the element that we used to base all of our growth projections for residential development. It's what the EIR used. I believe it's Table 1-3 and 1-4 in the land use and growth element. that talk about potential build out in the general plan. And so that's what we use to get to the assumptions. Now I'm sure a lot of you have been hearing about the next Reno cycle, the regional housing needs allocation process, but the state requires all jurisdictions to go through. And some of those draft numbers are obviously out there. They're starting to come out and they're being refined. The final numbers won't be out for a while. |
| 00:55:36.76 | Unknown | you know, |
| 00:55:53.33 | Tom | So what that means, is pretty soon the city of Sausalito will be starting that next housing element process using those next RHNA numbers. And when those numbers come into view and you understand how many dwelling units the RHNA numbers, the RHNA allocation is requiring you to come up with, you may be required to look at land use density or land use designation changes. Should you do that, that will require its own SQL process. or require its own public process in a public review process through the planning commission and the city council and that is supposed to be adopted about two years from right now |
| 00:56:39.95 | Tom | So let me just touch on the two elements, the optional elements. The state doesn't require these elements, but in working from general plan advisory committee recommendations through to a January 14th, 2000, 2020. I believe it was. study session with the planning commission and the city council Uh... The decision was made by all of those bodies that we should look at these optional elements as a really good way... Thank you. to help define what Sausalito is and go beyond those state mandated elements and really talk about the waterfront and talk about sustainability. So the waterfront and marineship element focuses on the waterfront, the entire waterfront. from north to south along the city boundary. Its content is drawn from policies and programs in the environmental quality element of 1995, the Marineship-specific plan, |
| 00:57:40.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:57:42.56 | Tom | And then also a lot of work that the general plan advisory committee came up with to focus some of the policy guidance the sustainability, climate change mitigation, and resiliency element was heavily influenced by the city's sustainability commission. Thank you. They took a pretty strong interest in the first draft and actually raised a lot of issues and raised a lot of – requests to help us reframe that. Earlier on in the process, I believe it was May, June and July of 2019, all of the city's boards and commissions came before the GPAC and made a presentation about the issues that were relevant to them. A lot of the issues that the Sustainability Commission brought forward showed up at their presentation. They proceeded to come into the first draft of the sustainability element, but the commission really rolled up its sleeves and helped us reframe and reformat the draft that you see before you in the October 20th final draft. |
| 00:58:59.29 | Tom | So sea level rise, I just want to I'm not putting these numbers out here just to take off the numbers, but. I think it's a really... interesting thing that sea level rise the concept, the discussion of the issue is really interwoven through the general plan. And a lot of that came from the work that the general plan working group did with us to really make elements respond to each other and talk to each other. So a program in the economic element might reference you know, an infrastructure, uh, program in the, uh, in the circulation and parking element. over 210 times Sea level rise is referenced in a lot of the preamble discussions that each element has. And then there's 16 general plan objectives, 29 policies. and 53 programs that specifically All out. Um, programs to address the issue. in terms of sustainability and resiliency, Climate change is referenced 110 times. And again, it's not just in one element. throughout the plan and there was a lot of And actually the term climate crisis, which for me raises a little bit more concern and attention, that's actually addressed five times throughout the general climate. And I think what this gives you both in the required elements and in the optional elements is a pretty thorough discussion of topics that are clearly facing Sausalito as it looks at its future. Thank you. |
| 01:00:46.65 | Tom | I want to just touch on particularly since we have two new planning commission members here. I want to touch on. Some issues that were discussed at previous Planning Commission meetings and then also discussed by the City Council. These are two specific or one policy and one program at which the Planning Commission gave a different recommendation than the council eventually directed. And so I just want to take a little moment to discuss each of those. The first is Land Use Program 1.19.2. Thank you. The zoning overlay is issued. This fits underneath policy LU 1.19, affordable housing and senior housing. And as I think most of you are aware, the policies are basically broad policy guidance statements and the programs. are methods to implement those policies. The second program here in this policy is this zoning overlay program. the planning commission Um, On September 30th, it's recommended that we remove that. completely about program. remove it from the general plan. Um, Because I think there was some concern that it might lead to Um, An overlay being created in the marine ship, which would allow housing to be developed. The program is actually written to be applied citywide, not just in any specific area, but there was that concern. On October 13th at the city council meeting, they directed us to retain that program. |
| 01:02:35.39 | Tom | Before I go on to the other issue, let me just talk a little bit about residential use and density. Um, Any parcel that has a land use designation or any kind of designation in the general plan, it's allowed to be developed at that specified density and for the specified use. And basically that's how we got to building table 1-3 and 1-4, the build out tables in the land use and growth management. element. So the final draft general plan does not change any land use designation, nor does it change any Um, density or development intensity regulation. that was in the 1995 And that decision goes back to that January 14th City Council Planning Commission meeting or study session that decision was made there because we needed to get you know, something sewn up so we knew how the whole environmental review process was |
| 01:03:38.08 | Unknown | So. |
| 01:03:38.81 | Tom | So since that date, we've known that there are no land use changes proposed, nor development intensity changes proposed for this general plan. Now, you'll notice as you look at various policies and programs, that there are a number of policies that talk about residential development. That's residential overlays. affordable housing, things like that. These policies provide future councils, future decision makers, the flexibility to draw on a policy to make a decision should they decide they need to. uh, change or intensify our land use. Most of the policies um that talk about housing opportunities or residential opportunities, generally have a verb like consider or study the feasibility of or such. Like for instance, these two policies that are on the screen right now. These policies do not permit any kind of housing change. So simply having a policy to consider an area for affordable housing does not allow that area to be develop as any kind of residential use under this policy. It just directs that a future study be done at a time that the council directs to study it as a potential solution. The other program that had a difference of opinion between the planning commission and the city council. was land use 2.15. It addresses office use in the marine ship. At the November 4th, 2020 planning commission meeting, the commission, wanted to change the language legal conforming to legal non-conforming. And basically what this means is if you see below where I have policy LU 2.15, that's literally from the 1995 general plan. except for where we've redlined the word non So what the Planning Commission wanted to do was say that those uses are non-conforming And when we went to the city council, On November 17th, they, they directed that we actually rewrite the policy to be a little clearer about office buildings and office uses. So we proposed, we worked with staff taking that council direction. We worked with staff. to rewrite the policy or rewrite the policy As you see here. And what we're trying to do with this policy is basically delineate legal conforming use and legal non-conforming use for office uses and buildings. So therefore any building that existed before the Marineship or any office building, excuse me, that existed before the adoption of the Marineship specific plan And those parcels are identified in, I believe it's figure B in the Marineship specific plan. would be a legal conforming use, meaning that that use is allowed. If it falls out of use for any reason, a vacancy or such, and someone shows up at some future date and wants to continue using it as an office building, because it is a legal conforming use, that would be able to be able to happen. Accessory office use, as many of you may recall, was discussed at length with regard to land use program 3.1.3. Accessory office use. So accessory an accessory office used to a permitted business is also allowed So long as it adheres to the strict space requirements, the FAR requirements that are shown in land use program 3.1.3. So any other use, office use in them, in the Marin ship would be illegal nonconforming. which means that it can continue to operate as it is, but if it falls into disuse for a period of time, it should actually revert to a permitted use in the marine ship. |
| 01:08:34.10 | Tom | And I guess that's the end of my presentation. Lily's gonna touch on the staff recommendation later. I'm going to stop sharing my screen and I'm going to allow Lisa of First Carbon Solutions to talk a little bit about the final EIR Yara. |
| 01:08:59.82 | Lisa | Thank you, Tom. evening. Commissioner? on. share my screen. Can everybody hear me? No. |
| 01:09:10.45 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:09:11.43 | Lisa | All right. |
| 01:09:24.58 | Lisa | Okay, so today, tonight, we're here to discuss the Lydia Sausalito, Revised General Plan Final EIR. I wanted to recap the environmental review timeline for the environmental process. The notice of preparation was published October through December of 2019. The scoping meeting was held on November 4. 2019. And then we prepared a recirculated, revised BRAF DIR. It was released October 28th, 2020. the close of the comment period was December 11, 2020. And as you've heard, the final EIR was published January 8, 2021. and it includes public comments on the revised draft EIR and then the city's responses to those. comments received. And then the final step is the public hearings to certify the final EIR and approve the Fosilito general plan. |
| 01:10:42.27 | Lisa | So we received a number of comment letters on the revised draft EIR. two of them from state agencies. five letters from organizations, Eight letters from individuals. We also received oral comments at the November 4 Planning Commission meeting. the November 17th, City Council meetings. In addition, we are We're in receipt of late communication. It was delivered today at 4 p.m. It was a letter from Cox Castle Nicholson dated December 11, 2020. We have reviewed the letter. I will be back to the raised our address in the final EIR. We did prepare a memo that was distributed this evening by Lily Whalen. kind of summarizing our initial thoughts on, the comment letter. However, we did want to mention that the final EIR will be revised. provide formal written responses to this letter that is dated December 11th. 2020. |
| 01:12:10.07 | Lisa | in our responses to comments. On the revised draft EIR, we prepared a number of master responses. we prepared a master response on program EIR. We also prepared a master response on sea level rise, inundation, and subsidence. Some of the key points in that master response Thank you. are related to sea level rise And our conclusions are that CEQA does not require an analysis of the environment impacts on the project, of the project, |
| 01:12:44.80 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:12:48.95 | Lisa | The project specific effects of sea level rise are speculative. and that's what we're doing. because the exact scope and details of sea level rise cumulative effects of sea level rise and then the secondary effects of sea level rise on the city |
| 01:13:04.31 | Unknown | on the |
| 01:13:05.68 | Lisa | are uncertain. speculative and difficult to predict based on available scientific information. In that master response, we also states. that the project specific development that comes in under the general plan will be subject to the general plan policies regarding sea level rise. So they will be reviewed as they come in. The responses to comments also include some minor revisions to mitigation measures. biological resources. |
| 01:13:44.99 | Lisa | And our conclusion is that the revisions are minor modifications and they do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the revised draft EIR. |
| 01:14:03.12 | Lisa | I wanted to kind of give an overview of what the contents are of the final EIR. It's not just the final EIR. |
| 01:14:09.36 | Unknown | Johnny, |
| 01:14:12.58 | Lisa | responses to comments prepared in January. includes the revised draft EIR published in October. the revised draft EIR appendices |
| 01:14:22.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:23.60 | Lisa | The responses to comments on the revised draft EIR and the errata. It also includes the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. So all of these content makeup and constitute the final EIR. |
| 01:14:42.94 | Lisa | I now wanted to go into our final EIR conclusion. The general plan has been developed. to be largely self-mitigating. the policies and programs in the general plan update designed to protect the environment and environmental resources. Mitigation is included in certain instances, to reinforce and enhance the protections identified in the policies and programs. such. There were no significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR. impacts were reduced to less than significant with mitigation. for air quality. biological resources. noise and transportation. and then all other environmental topical sections were found to have no impact or a less significant impact. |
| 01:15:46.85 | Lisa | And that concludes my presentation, and I'm going to pass it back to Lily. |
| 01:16:01.85 | Lily Whalen | Thanks, Lisa. I'll just pop the presentation back up. Sorry about the clunkiness of this here, everyone. |
| 01:16:15.01 | Mary Wagner | to the little thing. I'm sorry, Lily, while you're doing that, if I may, I apologize for interrupting you. |
| 01:16:16.84 | Lily Whalen | Bye. |
| 01:16:20.41 | Mary Wagner | And Lisa, I may have misheard you, but I wanna make sure that we're clear that all the comments on the final EIR were addressed And even the letter that, came to our attention that was inadvertently not specifically addressed, was addressed as indicated in the memo that you have. So I just wanted to provide that clarification, Lily, and I apologize for interrupting you. |
| 01:16:44.26 | Lisa | Yes, no, thank you. Yes, we did notice some. |
| 01:16:44.75 | Mary Wagner | I'm not. |
| 01:16:48.46 | Lisa | you know, some typographical errors that were identified in the comment letter so I didn't want to say that All of the comments were addressed in the EIR because there were some typographical errors that were identified, nothing that alters the conclusions in the EIR. |
| 01:17:08.37 | Lily Whalen | Thanks, Lisa. So this is just the concluding slide here on staff recommendations. It's in your staff report. We're recommending that the Planning Commission take public comment on the final draft general plan and final environmental impact report. and have a discussion and then adopt the draft resolution we provided to you in attachment one, which is recommending the city council certify the final environmental impact report and adopt the final draft general plan update And then next steps after that, after the council, when the council does certify, the final EIR and the final general plan We're anticipating that hearing will happen on the 9th. Following adoption of the general plan, staff will then begin implementing the policies and programs Starting with the public process that's needed for conducting any zoning ordinance amendments to carry out consistency with the general plan and the zoning ordinance. And that concludes our report and we're all available here to answer your questions. Thank you. |
| 01:18:15.50 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, Director Whalen and Tom and Lisa and Mary. Thank you so much for all your time and effort, not just this evening, but throughout this process that has been quite some time in culminating to this evening. At this time, commissioners, do you have any questions? specific for staff and the city consultants here. on either the general plan, the draft general plan or the draft EIR. Uh, Yes, Commissioner Luxenberg, let's start with you. |
| 01:18:50.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have two questions, I guess, for Tom. I'm new to this process so this is two years in the making and I had to read the entire general plan fresh so I hadn't seen what came before. And so I have a format question. If I understand it correctly, you're going to take the changes that are eventually adopted, some of which you have in a document that has underlines and cross out and eventually produce a final document that will be around for 20 years that people can use. Uh, if I'm assuming that's correct, One of the questions I have, I don't know, I can't share, I can share my screen because I can help, I'll use paper here. So this is, I don't know if it'll show up, but So you have policies and then you have programs that come under policies. And you have programs in all capitals. And it is really frustrating when you read this cold because it looks like the programs, if I can put it up here. It's not really working with the virtual screen. But you have programs in all caps and then you have a policy under it. And the program is actually from the policy above. And my question is, since you have to reprint this anyways with all these changes, can you indent the word programs so it makes it easier? So, yeah, if you can see there, it looks like programs since it's in all caps, then the policy comes under it. And the program is actually for the policy above. So what I'm suggesting is that you indent the word program so that it's under the policy that it's required. Because there were numerous times I kept getting confused. I thought the program was with the policy below it. Do you see what I'm saying? |
| 01:20:40.24 | Tom | Yes, Commissioner Luxenberger, but I'm sorry to interrupt. Yes, definitely. And we also received this comment in writing, you should have seen it in your packet from a GPAC member Van Meter. We will be reformatting the visual appearance of the general plan. It's a minor adjustment, so it's easy to make, and I just didn't mention in my presentations. Yes. Okay. It'll look more like it looked on April 6th, as GPAC member Van Meter suggested. |
| 01:21:04.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It will look more like it. |
| 01:21:10.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I did not see the earlier version. I only saw the final version. |
| 01:21:12.74 | Tom | Sure, I understand. |
| 01:21:13.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | My second question relates to this non-conforming and conforming use that you mentioned in your presentation. If I understand it correctly, when rereading the zoning ordinance tonight and the reference to the marineship plan, whether it's a non-conforming use or a conforming use, offices cannot be expanded. So if there's an existing office use and it's non-conforming or conforming, it doesn't matter. It can be, I understand if there's a six-month gap, I understand that part of your presentation. But if an office use is, whether it's conforming or non-conforming, no office uses can be expanded as explicitly stated in the zoning order. So I wanted to concur if I understand that correctly. |
| 01:22:06.62 | Tom | I'm not as familiar with the zoning ordinance as I am with this plan. I might ask Lily to help me there. but I believe you're correct. |
| 01:22:17.72 | Lily Whalen | That is correct. I saw Jeff pop up here probably to reiterate that that is correct. |
| 01:22:24.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:24.98 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, thank you. |
| 01:22:25.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:25.50 | Lily Whalen | And kind of obathesis. |
| 01:22:27.88 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:22:32.94 | Kristina Feller | I think as it relates to the office use, I think M group had it right. The first way around, which is the legal non-conforming. I don't think that we want to change it to legal conforming. I think that this commission Um, prefer to keep it as a that illegal nonconforming. That is the way that we commented on this before. |
| 01:22:59.47 | Morgan Pierce | it's the Matt Cheerfell you're recommending that we our recommendation to city council that we're going to do. original Recommendation. So may I answer a question that relates to that? I'm curious since council has changed by three bodies, what were the votes for changing it on the body of the council prior to the new members? Who voted for it? |
| 01:23:23.03 | Tom | voted against. I can't recall, but I think one of the planning commissioners who was with you then is now on the council. So that would, I think she wanted it to be nonconforming. Thank you. |
| 01:23:38.86 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, I understand. I imagine she will vote the same way. And so that would obviously give us some guidance relative to reintroducing this as a recommendation. I'm just curious if we have information on the others. |
| 01:23:52.93 | Kristina Feller | You know, Commissioner Pierce, it raises a good point because I think, In fact, with three new members on city council, two of them were members of the, the general plan advisory group |
| 01:24:03.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:03.70 | Kristina Feller | Um, we were pretty consistent with GPAC as well as the general plan working group on this regard. I think we would recommend keeping it legal non-conforming. |
| 01:24:14.99 | Michael Rex | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:24:21.28 | Mary Wagner | Chair Feller, if I may, if that's part of your overall direction, we'd need a majority of the planning commission to weigh in on that. And you can do that either at the end of your deliberations, if you want to take it as one item and make that recommendation. I also just wanted to clarify M group and particularly Jeff Bradley did a lot of work for us on this very issue. I recall the planning commission discussion very well and the council discussion very well. And I think it gets sort of complicated and And I don't want to speak for Jeff, so I'm going to put it in a nutshell and then ask him to provide the color commentary, if I may, if that's okay with the commission. |
| 01:25:07.30 | Mary Wagner | Is that okay, Chairfellers? |
| 01:25:08.67 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely, yes. Thank you, Mary. Thank you. |
| 01:25:10.62 | Mary Wagner | Sure, so... |
| 01:25:10.66 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:25:12.28 | Mary Wagner | Jeff, don't let me put this in too much of a succinct nature because I know you did a lot of work looking into this, Part of the objective, and forgive me if this is going back over old territory, when we talked about rolling up the Marin ship specific plan, is to not make any changes, not to make any policy changes. And that was the intent from the very beginning of the discussion about moving the policies and programs from the Marinship Specific Plan into the General Plan itself. And when we went back, particularly the M group went back and looked at that change, to non-conforming. and the consolidated that or worked through that with the Marinship specific plan. And then the, um, the existing general plan. realized that that was a change. you know, to say that those office buildings that were constructed and established and or established prior to 88, I believe it is. that if you went back and change that to non-conforming, you were making a significant change and that was the basis for that recommendation. And Jeff, let me turn it over to you to see if you'd like to add anything more to that. |
| 01:26:24.18 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you, Mary Wagner. This is Jeff Bradley with M group principal in charge on this project, working with Tom and Asher and the city staff. Thank you, county commissioners for being here again tonight on this important adoption meeting. I do concur with the city attorney's summary. Part of the confusion around this issue, I take responsibility for, because we did put down a policy that we believe was consistent with the specific plan and the zoning ordinance when we made the recommendation. to that change to non-conforming within policy 2.15. Thank you. But then we thought to go back after this issue was flagged by Michael Rex, a local architect with long history in the community. And we also started to take a closer look at the 1995 general plan, which, of course, is the city's highest ranking policy document when it comes to planning matters. And fortunately, the 95 general plan had a very clear policy on this topic that simply says existing office buildings and uses in existing office buildings are considered legal conforming uses if they existed before the specific plan was adopted. So to us, that was a clear signal that the existing planning scheme in terms of how existing office buildings were treated, they should be treated as conforming office uses. That normally wouldn't be a debatable topic or a controversial issue, but the fact of the matter is that the Marinship Specific Plan itself talks about existing office uses being permitted uses. The industrial classification within the zoning code talks about permitted uses allowed to remain, but neither of those documents come up to the point to clearly say in black and white whether the uses are considered conforming or nonconforming, which is a very important point in terms of land use planning. And so consistent with our original charge to do an update to the general plan that preserved existing policy unless there was a really good reason to change it, we felt strongly that we needed to flag this issue again and say we made a mistake. The goal here was really to keep the policy framework in place and keep those existing office buildings within their existing conforming status, which has significant repercussions in terms of financing, leasing, the level of maintenance that property owners are willing to undertake, long-term planning for businesses, so residents know what's going on with those buildings but the clear direction from the the landscape of the of the planning around that issue is clear to us. And to go in this other direction would be a big change. And we, it's not that the city doesn't have the discretion to consider that type of change, but I do believe it'd be in a totally different process with more focused outreach to the to the affected parties. Thank you. |
| 01:29:47.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm totally confused, Jeff, now. The Planning Commission recommended the use of the language, quote unquote, non-conforming in that section. And you're saying that that's not consistent? I think that is consistent with the marineship plan. You're saying that's not consistent? |
| 01:30:05.84 | Jeff Bradley | The Berencia Pacific Clive talks about existing land uses within the industrial zone. being permitted uses. That doesn't specify whether it's conforming or non-conforming. |
| 01:30:17.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 01:30:18.48 | Jeff Bradley | Because even non-conforming uses at one point are permitted uses, and even after they become non-conforming, they're still permitted to remain. unless there's a very aggressive program to Thank you. to you know have a sunset clause for non-conforming uses that really you know need to need to be removed for whatever reason but in this case the the ambiguity within the specific plan and also within the zoning code is resolved in the 1995 general plan where it very simply says existing office uses in existing office buildings are considered legal conforming uses. And we didn't have any basis to recommend a change to that language. |
| 01:31:11.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But I'm reading the zoning right now and it says that a nonconforming use is a use of land that was lawfully established but no longer identified as an allowable use. elsewhere under the marineship it says residential office uses which existed uh are permitted to remain so it seems like it's consistent with the definition of nonconforming use, unless I'm not reading this correctly. Thank you. |
| 01:31:42.94 | John DeRay | Yeah. |
| 01:31:43.51 | Lily Whalen | Would it help for me to pull up the 1985 land use policy? |
| 01:31:43.54 | John DeRay | Thank you. |
| 01:31:50.80 | Lily Whalen | I'll share that on the screen so everyone can see the language. |
| 01:31:54.43 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, that is... To me, that is the the primary Let me just do that. |
| 01:31:59.66 | Lily Whalen | Let me just... |
| 01:32:00.01 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:32:01.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:01.19 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:32:02.04 | Kristina Feller | Director Whalen and Jeff, as you're doing that, I just also want to interject and remind the commission and those in the public here that there was the 1995 general plan, but part of what this general plan update is to also incorporate the Marin ship specific plan into the update. So there are two separate documents. way back, 1988, 1995. that are now being combined into one. And I think what we're talking about is exactly this policy where the lilies cursor is. |
| 01:32:48.49 | Kristina Feller | Jeff or Director Whalen. |
| 01:32:52.76 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, so just for people who may be calling in on their phone, I'll go ahead and read this. This is policy land use dash 2.16 from the 1995 general plan, which was adopted back in 1995. It's been in effect continuously since that time and will be in effect until a new general plan update replaces it. The short title is Existing Marinship Office Uses, period. Recognize all office buildings as office uses in the marinship established prior to the adoption date of the marinship specific plan as legal conforming uses. And then there's a implementation program right underneath it that says, maintain information regarding the location and square footage of office uses in marine ship structures. And this is not a surprising policy because when there's a new planning document on the scene, typically cities are reluctant to make large portions of those land uses legal nonconforming unless there's a very good reason to do that, such as converting, you know, a residential area into a industrial area and you'd have clear incompatibilities. In this case, PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens as conforming uses. However, to Commissioner Luxenberg's point, which was very astute, is that there's also an overlapping policy that doesn't allow any new office space within those marineship specific plan. So even though normally, if you call something conforming, You're also saying, you know, you're allowing it to have whatever the natural build out would be under your zoning rules and general plan policies for that use. In this case, because of the way the marineship policies are set and the way the new general plan carries those forward, you could have a conforming use, like Commissioner Luxembourg said, but even though it's conforming, you still can't do an addition or an expansion because of the prohibition on new office space in the marineship. |
| 01:35:25.25 | Jeff Bradley | I hope that helps. |
| 01:35:27.66 | Kristina Feller | But I think... Commissioner Luxenberg, is that, does that explanation Thank you. |
| 01:35:33.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:35:33.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, it's helpful. I don't know if it's possible, but maybe if somebody can bring up the language that's in the marineship plan, because that, the The marineship plan came, let me just ask this question of Lily, the marineship plan came first. than the general plan came. And then the zoning was amended. |
| 01:35:52.41 | Unknown | And then, |
| 01:35:54.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the zoning is currently on the books, whether or not it's consistent or inconsistent is the ruling, it's the current language. So what's ever in the zoning is the, is the latest version, right? |
| 01:36:10.52 | Lily Whalen | So the order is the Marine ship specific plan was adopted in 88 and then the current general plan 95 and then The last wholesale update of the zoning ordinance was in 2003. There was a... |
| 01:36:26.13 | Vicki Nichols | MS. |
| 01:36:29.93 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. Thank you. update in 89 to update the zoning ordinance to be consistent with the specific plan as well, but the 2003 Super State is that update. |
| 01:36:42.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so we're looking at number three, I guess. Correct. |
| 01:36:46.99 | Tom | That's correct. Goal number three. This is the Marinship specific plan. |
| 01:36:59.02 | Kristina Feller | Forgive me Commissioner Luxenberg for interjecting, but maybe the M group, it would also be helpful |
| 01:37:02.50 | Unknown | Maybe. |
| 01:37:05.85 | Kristina Feller | in looking at the language. conforming is different than permitted. and the general plan update is talking about conforming, but doesn't really talk about permitted uses. Is that correct? |
| 01:37:29.48 | Unknown | Yes, that's correct. |
| 01:37:30.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So I think that's part of, the history, Commissioner Luxembourg, of how and why The commission had previously talked about legal non-conforming. and we thought that the M group had the language right the first time. |
| 01:37:54.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | which was nonconform, the first time was nonconforming or conforming, that's where I'm confused. |
| 01:38:00.28 | Kristina Feller | legal non-conforming. |
| 01:38:02.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Legal nonconformance. Okay, and going back to the language that's in the Marinship Plan, where does it say that you can't expand the uses? It's in the zoning, but where did that come from? Maybe Lily? |
| 01:38:18.94 | Lily Whalen | I'm sorry, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:38:21.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So in the zoning, it says you can't expand office uses in the Marinship. And I saw where it said that they were permitted uses, but I didn't see where it said you couldn't expand them. But I was just looking at it quickly there. Oh, no. |
| 01:38:39.43 | Bob Silvestri | Thank you. |
| 01:38:39.76 | Jeff Bradley | Commissioner Luxembourg, this is Jeff Radegan. To answer your question about where is it written that no new office development can be in the friendship. You'll see that both at the policy level within the specific plan here on the screen number three first first sentence no new commercial office development will be allowed in the friendship period. That's a pretty pretty clear policy statement and then you will you also see similar language in the zoning code and you'll also see similar language in the proposed new. 2021 general plan. that you're looking at tonight? And we're not here to say that the commission can't have a strong recommendation on this to the council. We took that recommendation to the council last time, as Tom mentioned, and council gave us their direction. We take that direction as the body, as the city council. A majority of council members telling us that we don't really split it down. Obviously, we've had some changes at the council, and this issue could get a fresh look. I'm not here to try to push or pressure you on this issue at all but I just want to be clear. Sorry, that was my cat. I just want a clear discussion around how we got to this point and what would typically be best practices around an issue issue like this according to my records we were consistently recommending a policy that was basically verbatim to the 1995 general plan all the way through the 42 general general plan advisory group meetings this this was not a an issue for discussion on may 18th we wrote a memo may 18th last year 2020 we we wrote an issue for discussion. On May 18th, we wrote a memo, May 18th last year, 2020, we wrote an issue for the working group where trying to really get our heads around this issue, we recommended non-conforming. we recommended that it be made non-conforming because that seemed to be tracking with the specific plan and the zoning code more closely the way we were interpreting it and trying to trying to make sure we have clarity on that issue. But then, you know, looking at the 1995 general plan, we realized we really had it right the first time. So I know it's confusing. It's gone back and forth a lot. But the. To say that we're changing it now, in my view, it doesn't feel accurate because really the change has to be measured versus what's in the 1995 general plan, not what we recommended at different points throughout this process. And I apologize for that again. But the change at this point would be to make it nonconforming. |
| 01:41:32.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Again, I'm still confused. When you look at number three, it says no new commercial development. In my mind, a development means come in and build an office building. that is different than what I read in zoning, which came later, which says no expansion can occur. So if you have an existing office building and you put a small addition on it, I don't think that number three covers that in the Marineship plan. But I'm asking historically, was there something in the marineship plan that is where the zoning language came from? Because the zoning came later. That's what I'm asking. |
| 01:42:09.67 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, I can't, I can't speak with any detail about the timing of the zoning code updates versus the, the Marin shift specific plan. But it is important to remember that the zoning seeks to implement the policy documents, whether it's the specific plan or the general plan. And if it says no new commercial development in the zoning, that would be consistent because the Windship Specific Plan says new commercial office is no longer of permitted use. |
| 01:42:42.38 | Kristina Feller | And I'm going to... |
| 01:42:42.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But the zoning is what it is. I mean, the zoning has been, was vetted and approved and is now law. The general plan is a guide, zoning is law, or statute. So I guess I'm confused. But the zoning has been established, so it is what it is. I'm just hoping we make it all consistent in the end. |
| 01:42:55.59 | Michael Rex | Right. |
| 01:43:03.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's all I'm asking. |
| 01:43:03.23 | Jeff Bradley | Sure. Sure, I don't disagree with you. The zoning ordinance is a powerful tool. It's adopted by ordinance and it is the law of land. but it is an implementation tool of the general plan and the general plan can be updated only four times a year the ordinance can be updated as many times as as the city decides is appropriate but it is important that the the tail not wag the dog we wouldn't want to try to force the policy to match the zoning code because the zoning code has been in place for a long time the if if for example this policy were to change then the city would then update its ordinance to be to be reflective of the policies |
| 01:43:48.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, but we also are doing a general plan update and if the 1995 language wasn't as clear as it needed to be, we can improve on it by doing the general plan now. Thank you. |
| 01:43:58.72 | Brian Sharp | Absolutely. |
| 01:43:58.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Absolutely. That's part of doing this plan. |
| 01:44:01.00 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:44:01.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Absolutely. Again, I'm new to the plan, so I'm just trying to understand. I won't belabor it anymore. |
| 01:44:01.08 | Jeff Bradley | Absolutely. |
| 01:44:03.46 | Brian Sharp | a, |
| 01:44:03.68 | Morgan Pierce | I'm gonna do it. |
| 01:44:03.92 | Brian Sharp | I'm not. |
| 01:44:03.97 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 01:44:10.02 | Morgan Pierce | David Miller, Well, no, I don't want to I don't want to abandon this yet because I am a curious of the catalyst that we identified in November planning Commission meeting that. helped drive this decision and the recommendation. And then coupled with that, Jeff, you mentioned the keeping it conforming, legal conforming was beneficial to the property owners and to essentially commercial real estate entities. Well, what's more beneficial to the community and to the waterfront? Is that legal non-conforming? I'm curious. I don't understand what the nuances between the two. And maybe you could present some hypotheticals or something so we can understand the implications a little bit more clearly. That would be helpful for us making that decision. |
| 01:44:54.76 | Jeff Bradley | The where the rubber really meets the road on this, Commissioner Pierce, is when you have a nonconforming building, take an office building, for example, if a property owner has a vacancy in that building for six months or more, that space needs to revert to the conforming use. So instead of leasing to uh to the universe of office tenants you would now be looking to lease that same space to industrial tenants within this industrial zone and and i'm not i'm not saying that this the planning commission should base their recommendation on what's best for the for the property owners or the or the affected businesses but that but that if the city were intent on making that change, it would, in my opinion, involve a more focused effort of outreach to those affected parties to explain exactly what was being proposed. Because this whole process has been very transparent. In talking about the entire general plan update efforts, it's efforts been very transparent there's been lots of meetings and lots of outreach lots of communication kind of a no surprises type of approach um and so for this for this change to take place um you you would want to do some focused um outreach around that and and get the perspectives of the interested parties because it is um it would be from a planning perspective it would be a big big big change |
| 01:46:23.71 | John DeRay | Thank you. |
| 01:46:23.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:23.76 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:46:27.57 | Kristina Feller | Jeff and Tom, there was also, There was also a portion of what we went over under land use that talked about the ancillary space. spaces. And I think that that's a good discussion. this legal non-conforming, conforming what have you discussion because my understanding, from all the presentations and meetings that are sat through is that the marineship specific plan was primarily promoting or pushing for better or for worse, more industrial uses. And so there were certain, and the reason that the language said permitted |
| 01:47:11.26 | Unknown | I did it. |
| 01:47:12.36 | Kristina Feller | in that 1988 was because that marineship specific plan, there was office space permitted to support industrial uses, but it didn't necessarily intend to have just straight office development permitted in that marineship area. Is that is that correct? |
| 01:47:40.34 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, the focus really was, if you look at all the history of the Marinship Pacific There was an acknowledgement there was quite a bit of office space out there already. There were concerns about traffic. So you had the fair traffic limits initiative to put strict controls on land use changes, intensification changes. you know, require the highest level of approval possible, which is citywide voter approval. to change those things. but it very specifically said, which is a common thing to do, existing office spaces, existing office buildings are are permitted in the language of the specific plan. And then, so that was in 88, 89. And then five, six years later, The city did their general plan in 95. And, My theory is the language about permitted uses was a little confusing about whether it was conforming or nonconforming, which is just like a threshold question, right, when you're looking at a property. Like I want to buy this house on this piece of property. Is this a conforming use? Or not. It's like black or white. And so. In my, just looking at the documents, it looks like, you know, six years later, they said, okay, we need to add some clarity around this and just make a black and white statement that these are legal conforming uses. Because if you have an office building of, you know, 100,000 square feet, and you make it non-conforming all of a sudden, Typically, probably owners are going to challenge that in the most forceful way you know possible you know legally um So that's a typical kind of. to manage change within an area. is allow for certain things to remain nonconforming or excuse me, remain conforming, Um, and and kind of focus on, okay, what's the new stuff going to be? What are we going to encourage more of? |
| 01:49:39.69 | Kristina Feller | So let's try to use a hypothetical here, maybe to help. I think to make this less confusing. Thank you. |
| 01:49:49.53 | Jeff Bradley | Commissioner? Chair Feller? |
| 01:49:49.57 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner? |
| 01:49:52.25 | Jeff Bradley | I'm sorry, I have my volume turned all the way up, but I can't. I'm having trouble hearing you a little bit. |
| 01:49:57.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Let me get closer to the computer. Can you sort of offer a hypothetical to maybe help explain this to the rest of the commission. for any avoidance of doubt of what we are reading and looking at and the unintended consequences of it. So for instance, if there is currently An existing office building. in the marine ship. Um, And that that office building is not full. And you're saying after six months, if it still remains vacant or part of it vacant, then it either has to revert back to industrial. Is that correct? |
| 01:50:43.99 | Jeff Bradley | Right. The not the this whole issue around conforming and nonconforming has its own chapter or section within the zoning code. like the commissioner Luxembourg was referring to. And that chapter sort of controls what can happen with these land uses or buildings that are non-conforming. And so if you have a non-conforming building and you're in that situation and you start getting these longer term vacancies, Um, then you lose your ability to continue with that non-conforming use. And you have to, you You have to conform, you have to follow the rules for the regular zoning, which would be industrial land uses where you know, standalone office is not allowed. |
| 01:51:35.05 | Kristina Feller | Bishop Todd. |
| 01:51:36.98 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:51:36.99 | Nastassya Saad | I was. I think thank you. Thank you Jeff. I think it's becoming a lot more clear as we go. I just am wondering, I know it's obviously a unique situation with COVID and I I know this has been written over the last few years, there's been a lot of work going into this, I'm just not sure how it's been taken into account because would there be any exceptions to and non-conforming in a situation where I'm sure There may be vacancies just due to the pandemic. Is there any room for... like an addendum of sorts. uh, for special circumstances or is it black or white? Thank you. |
| 01:52:21.97 | Jeff Bradley | I think that's a fair question. And looking at the city's non-conforming ordinance, there is a provision, there are a section of provisions for what's called non-conforming approval of permits, essentially, where the city can look at non-conforming situations on a case by case basis and either allow them or not allow them. So there is that kind of that type of process within the non-conforming uses section. |
| 01:52:54.26 | Nastassya Saad | So even if it was legal non-conforming, there could be some conditional permit still. |
| 01:53:02.24 | Michael Rex | Correct. |
| 01:53:06.36 | Unknown | Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 01:53:07.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Any additional questions on this specific, yes, Vice Chair, graph? |
| 01:53:17.30 | Richard Graef | Thank you. I'm still confused. Um, and a lot of it seems to be the language. and I'm getting a little bit more clarity in the discussion. really not clear in the bigger picture of what are the consequences of of something being conforming or non-conforming. and And also, what's permitted and what's not permitted All the language. is a little difficult to follow. my cup of tea, obviously. So, I just... want to get up. better understanding. Oh, examples of what happens in whatever circumstances might arise Uh, under the two different concepts, conforming and non-conforming. I'm getting a little bit of that. but I still don't. have enough of an understanding to really be able to say which one I'm more comfortable with at this point, although we did. as a group. the side on nonconforming. Um, back in the day. |
| 01:54:46.30 | Jeff Bradley | Sure. Thank you. Um, So we talked about the sort of the use implication, right? In terms of having like six month vacancy, that's one thing. The other thing is what happens if my building is, you know, struck by lightning and burns to the ground and it's just destroyed, right? If it's a conforming building, there's, |
| 01:55:08.74 | John DeRay | Thank you. |
| 01:55:08.98 | Unknown | I'm. |
| 01:55:14.56 | Jeff Bradley | there's an understanding or there's an allowance that that building can be rebuilt to the way it was before, right? So it's conforming. Like just like if your house burned down |
| 01:55:22.27 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:55:22.29 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:55:22.34 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:55:22.38 | Jeff Bradley | You get to rebuild it again. |
| 01:55:22.39 | Tom | I don't know. |
| 01:55:25.65 | Jeff Bradley | you know, conforming property. If it's not informing, the assumption is you don't get to rebuild that building. But as, as commissioner saw pointed out under heavy questioning, there is the provision within the, um, the zoning code where the city could say, Oh, well, uh, you know, make a, make a, uh, make an application for rebuilding and we can look at it on a case by case basis. So there's opportunity for, you know, hardships to be heard. or practical considerations about you know, just how nonconforming is it? Maybe we could allow this to be rebuilt again. But it's a question mark, right? The property owner doesn't know whether they're going to get to rebuild the building. back to normal. until after they go through this process. Um, And so those are the two big things. |
| 01:56:23.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I ask where is that provision in the zoning? I'm not seeing it, that's where is that provision? |
| 01:56:29.32 | Jeff Bradley | If you go to, I think I still have it open on my screen. |
| 01:56:32.39 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:56:32.42 | Unknown | 1062. |
| 01:56:33.37 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. 1052. |
| 01:56:35.11 | Unknown | 62. |
| 01:56:35.78 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:56:36.44 | John DeRay | THE END OF |
| 01:56:36.51 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:56:36.66 | John DeRay | Thank you. |
| 01:56:36.90 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:56:37.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. 1062, I'm sorry, we're in 1062, I'm looking at 1062. |
| 01:56:43.97 | Jeff Bradley | The last section is called nonconformity permits. 10.62.070. |
| 01:56:59.02 | Jeff Bradley | I lost you guys. |
| 01:57:00.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:02.43 | Jeff Bradley | There you go. And then the other normal thing that is implicated in this issue is if you have a non-conforming building, typically that means you cannot do anything resembling an expansion. So if it's an office building, you can't add any more square feet. If it's a house, you can't add another bedroom. And this is usually in the zoning code again, implementing this concept. that if you have a non-conforming situation, you don't allow that non-informing situation to get bigger or increase. |
| 01:57:36.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But I asked that question earlier, Jeff, and time answered. The zoning is clear that even if it's nonconforming or conforming, it doesn't matter. It's in the marincin, it's in office, it can't be expanded. |
| 01:57:48.43 | Jeff Bradley | Right. |
| 01:57:48.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's what the zoning says. Thank you. |
| 01:57:50.62 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:57:50.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:57:50.66 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:57:50.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So it seems to go back to this six month, more than anything and rebuild the |
| 01:57:56.06 | Jeff Bradley | And rebuilding is a big deal too. |
| 01:57:59.70 | Richard Graef | Okay. And so conforming and non-conforming, conforming to They... Um, uh, through the zoning and through the to the rules. Is that right? |
| 01:58:17.96 | Michael Rex | Exactly. Exactly. |
| 01:58:21.93 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 01:58:23.85 | Kristina Feller | So, So I'd like to... maybe expand this a little bit because I think it's important to get our heads around the conforming and non-conforming, but there's Another element here. that PB Sarah Silver, That impacts this discussion, and that is. this overlay for land-based housing So, Thank you. this commission had voted unanimously 5-0. I'm going to do it. for no No overlay. and no land-based housing in the Marinship. in the event you have Thank you. legal conforming or legal non-conforming, and then you have a residential, or then you have this housing overlay then theoretically, if something stays vacant for six months, can you, Can you build residential? |
| 01:59:23.00 | Jeff Bradley | I'm sorry. |
| 01:59:23.98 | Kristina Feller | Does that then become a permitted use? |
| 01:59:26.30 | Jeff Bradley | I'm sorry, Chair Feldman, I missed something in there. |
| 01:59:29.31 | Mary Wagner | you Can I try and jump in there Jeff, if I may. So it sounds like we're merging chair Feller, if I may, the two issues on the land use policy on consider an overlay throughout the city on housing and no |
| 01:59:42.69 | Kristina Feller | I don't know that we are, that's the question I'm trying to to ask them. |
| 01:59:46.06 | Mary Wagner | THE END OF THE END OF THE Just to be clear, the program, and I'll look to Jeff and Tom to confirm, but the program you have Regarding the overlay, is just a policy program to consider the adoption of a housing overlay citywide. It's not specific to any particular zoning district. And it would not... that the existence of that programs. wouldn't create by right housing in the Marinship. |
| 02:00:17.50 | Kristina Feller | Well, again, that's the question I'm trying to ask. I know these are different things, but if there is an overlay for housing, and we're talking about the Marin ships specifically here, So that's part of the city so that overlay would would be would apply to the marineship. I'm just trying to figure out if, when we're talking about legal non-conforming versus for me. Does that leave the opportunity for or residential or green light that residential development in the friendship. Okay. |
| 02:00:52.53 | Jeff Bradley | Okay. |
| 02:00:52.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:52.97 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:00:52.99 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I don't, I'm trying to connect the dots because I don't know if they're dots to be connected. That's the question. |
| 02:00:59.81 | Jeff Bradley | Okay, thank you, Chair Feller. I understand now. And in my view, this goes back to the discussion about how the zoning always implements the general plan. So if the city had a zoning overlay, |
| 02:01:12.09 | Unknown | So |
| 02:01:16.38 | Jeff Bradley | a tool available within the zoning code, but it wasn't actually on the map anywhere. Someone came in and said, I want to put that zoning overlay on this property. And then you look underneath that property and you see it's, it's still general plan industrial, right. It's still within the Marineship area with all the policies about You know, no new office, no new land-based residential. You could not put that zoning overlay on that property without also changing the underlying general plan designation because it would still be industrial. The zoning overlay in and of itself cannot force a change in the general plan land use designation. Because again, the general plan is the primary policy document for the city and any project has to be consistent with not just the zoning, which is the law and the ordinance, but also more importantly with the general plan, because that is the, That is the guiding blueprint for development in California. presented to state law. And so, It wouldn't be impossible if the city decided well, we changed our mind, we want to do I don't know. housing, they could change the general plan. This general plan does not do that. This general plan does not allow housing anywhere in the marineship. And even having a, even if this policy for the zoning overlay were realized, even though it's a pretty soft policy, it says consider, as part of the housing element update, even if that goes all the way through to fruition and the city develops a housing overlay tool a zoning tool that does not trump or override the general plan land use designation. That still is fixed by the general plan. |
| 02:03:08.19 | Kristina Feller | So, If there is a housing overlay across all of Sausalito you |
| 02:03:17.02 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:03:17.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. the zone. Sorry, go ahead, Jeff. |
| 02:03:20.31 | Jeff Bradley | I know the city attorney expressed it that way as a citywide thing, but But my understanding of that is it would be applicable citywide BUT IT WOULDN'T. It wouldn't cover the entire city. |
| 02:03:35.46 | Kristina Feller | So if I'm standing here, I'm not sure. the zoning in the Marin ship area of Sausalito that the current zoning would still prevail as the industrial irrespective of a housing overlay in Sausalito. Is that correct? |
| 02:03:57.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:57.74 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. |
| 02:04:02.55 | Jeff Bradley | And I say that just typically a zoning overlay is applied on a parcel by parcel basis. You know, it usually a city would develop it, you know, with, with standards and goals and objectives. You know, if you build this, you will get this from the city, usually, you know, some type of incentive to build affordable housing. That would go into the zoning code. |
| 02:04:25.06 | Unknown | as a |
| 02:04:25.13 | Jeff Bradley | as a tool. PB, Lupita D Montoya- But the the Apple him would have to request it to be applied to a particular property, you would never apply something like that on an entire. PB, Lupita D Montoya- On an entire city or even a large portion of the city, it would sort of sit there and be available for consideration for usage on a project basis. |
| 02:04:43.00 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 02:04:44.85 | Jeff Bradley | but it wouldn't be rolled out, you know, over a large area of planning means. |
| 02:04:50.52 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and if I may, Chair Feller, what I was trying to impart there, Jeff, was that the city council didn't limit the consideration of an overlay zone to any particular zoning district. the concept was to look citywide at areas where an overlay may be a useful tool. That was my point. |
| 02:05:11.50 | Lily Whalen | Sarah Fulcher, Chair Fulcher, if I could just add in there as well. There's an example of an overlay that the city has right now for senior housing. And so that's in our overlay section of the zoning ordinance and you can see on the zoning map that that overlay has been applied. to the rotary housing on Aleema and I think about the early 2000s that project was constructed and that there was a senior housing overlay put over that property that allowed a bump in density for affordable units. |
| 02:05:41.54 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I appreciate that. the clarification and it does still go back to the conforming versus nonconforming that I think we still need a little bit more clarification on here. as to the potential the residual impact of that. But I guess part of this conversation that we can maybe get to next is then what is the purpose of the overlay? you know, why bother with the overlay? I just, you know, if it's applied parcel by parcel, You do have situations where Again, back to this conforming, non-conforming that Commissioner Luxembourg started us off on which is really important for all of us to understand, is can that can this get slightly more complicated if you have that overlay and it can be applied to any any potential parcels or properties within the Marin ship. depending on if it's legal conforming or legal non-conforming, and I think we still need an answer to that. |
| 02:06:53.61 | Jeff Bradley | I would. I would say the, The question with the residential affordable housing overlay would have no effect on the discussion about conforming versus non-conforming. Where those two things interact is the fact that the properties we're talking about in the marinship on this non-conforming issue are all have a general plan designation of industrial. And they all have a zoning designation of industrial. And so you can't put a housing overlay on a, industrial property unless you also change the underlying general plan designation to something that would support residential use. And that's a totally different. and I think that's a more the, uh, the non-conforming status. What can I? |
| 02:07:45.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just ask a question on that? |
| 02:07:46.48 | Jeff Bradley | Can I just ask a question on |
| 02:07:48.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mary? that means that if there was an underlying, if you had a housing overlay district and they did put it for a parcel in the Marin ship, you would have to amend the general plan Even if it was zoned that way, you still have to amend the general plan? Is that what you're saying? |
| 02:08:10.12 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:08:10.22 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:08:10.34 | Jeff Bradley | Absolutely. |
| 02:08:10.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:08:11.00 | Jeff Bradley | Yes. |
| 02:08:11.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:08:13.46 | Mary Wagner | I THINK THAT'S A Chair Feller, the direct answer to your question is whether it's conforming or non-conforming office, Does it make a difference with respect to a housing overlay. |
| 02:08:32.36 | Kristina Feller | What exactly is the difference between legal non-conforming and legal conforming? moving forward in this update. |
| 02:08:42.67 | Mary Wagner | I think it's the distinction that Jeff and Tom discussed at the beginning, which are the provisions of the zoning ordinance about nonconforming uses and structures. |
| 02:08:57.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If I could ask another question through the chair on that, because I'm looking at the nonconforming statute, and it says, I see where you need a non-conforming permit, but I see in 1062.040, E number two that it specifically says that you cannot get one if that six month goes in. And so it would seem to me that even if the Planning Commission wanted to grant a permit since there's language that says you can't grant a permit. Because that's key to this discussion. If this six month is really can't be overwritten on a case by case basis, it matters whether we add the word or not. If it can be overwritten on a case by case basis, then it's less critical. |
| 02:09:50.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, Jeff, you said you can override it on a case-by-case basis. I don't see where that language allows for that, but I just was reading it quickly while we were talking. |
| 02:10:09.98 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. So I can address that a little bit too. Commissioner Luxembourg, if I may, you know, we do look at things on a case by case basis. There have been situations in the past that have come forward. One project specifically comes to mind. where an applicant was actively marketing the property for the particular use, but due to various issues, They weren't able to get the tenant in, in a particular period of time. So it is, you know, six months is a relatively hard and fast rule, but then we looked at the particular facts, excuse me, particular facts scenario surrounding that use and adjusted accordingly, you know, with the input from. the Planning Commission being the ultimate determination on that project. It somewhat answered your question, but it somewhat depends on the facts scenario. |
| 02:11:02.21 | Lily Whalen | I can actually, if I can jump in here to Commissioner Luxembourg. So the section that you're looking at, I'm sorry it took me a while to get there, this section. I have to always jump up and down. But if you look at the permitting section, |
| 02:11:22.33 | Jeff Bradley | THAT'S THE END. |
| 02:11:23.54 | Lily Whalen | Yeah, I just had it, I'm sorry. |
| 02:11:27.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 1062-072. |
| 02:11:30.17 | Lily Whalen | that |
| 02:11:35.20 | Lily Whalen | Sorry, I just had it and then I jumped back to unmute myself and then I lost it. |
| 02:11:39.52 | Unknown | Second here. |
| 02:11:50.98 | Lily Whalen | So 1062.070, so that's the nonconformity permit section and the applicability section A. And then. Hey. 4. So you can use a nonconformity permit to reinstate a nonconforming use located within any zoning district if the nonconforming use was ceased involuntarily for more than one year. |
| 02:12:22.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and that overrides 1062043E number one, nonconforming use has been voluntarily vacated for six months, where it says just specifically, It would not be allowed under those conditions. |
| 02:12:38.25 | Lily Whalen | Yeah, I think what this section is saying is that, |
| 02:12:44.24 | Jeff Bradley | Been going to. |
| 02:12:44.73 | Lily Whalen | Yeah, the difference is voluntary versus involuntary. |
| 02:12:48.62 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:12:48.64 | Jeff Bradley | Great. |
| 02:12:49.35 | Lily Whalen | I think someone could make definitely an argument, especially during COVID, that the The vacancy was involuntary and not voluntary. Yeah. |
| 02:13:02.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. OK. Thank you. |
| 02:13:16.91 | Kristina Feller | Do the Kutcher's have any additional questions for staff or the end group? on this particular topic regarding Thank you. |
| 02:13:35.50 | Jeff Bradley | Heather? |
| 02:13:39.22 | Kristina Feller | Did someone have a question? So just one more time for clarity for. But in the as part of combining the Marin ship specific plan into the general plan. |
| 02:13:59.80 | Morgan Pierce | Very difficulty time hearing you, Chair Feller. |
| 02:14:02.45 | Kristina Feller | Sorry about that. So in the event that there is a, legal, non-conforming, office use in the Marin ship. |
| 02:14:12.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:12.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:12.43 | Unknown | the |
| 02:14:12.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:12.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:14.65 | Kristina Feller | And that is no longer being used for office use It can only be used for industrial use. It could not be used for any other Yes. even with an overlay. |
| 02:14:33.50 | Unknown | with the- |
| 02:14:33.62 | Lily Whalen | So if I'm understanding the question correctly, if there is an office use that is legal nonconforming, so established prior to the emergency specific plan has historically turned over with office use, so they've continually maintained the nonconformity. and the office use goes, the question I think is, what is a permitted use that can go in that tenant space. So in the Marinship specific plan, you have to look at the land use table that that goes on a parcel by parcel basis in terms of what is allowed on that parcel. And so there's the industrialized zone parcels allow a variety of uses, general industrial and then others are uses. But it really depends on what parcel we're talking about as far as what the base zoning allows. |
| 02:14:57.65 | Vicki Nichols | So, |
| 02:15:22.74 | Kristina Feller | And how does that not work? |
| 02:15:23.18 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. Not housing. |
| 02:15:25.14 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, so that's what I'm asking. How does the overlay does the overlay affect the use of any of those properties or parcels. |
| 02:15:38.20 | Jeff Bradley | They don't. |
| 02:15:41.49 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:15:43.20 | Jeff Bradley | Right, Lily? Like right now, like Lily said, right now on the books, we have a senior housing overlay that's on maybe two or three parcels in the whole city, right? |
| 02:15:53.15 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:15:53.46 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. And if I came in as a property owner and said, hey, I want the senior housing overlay on my industrial property, What would those? the Community Development Director say to that. |
| 02:16:05.66 | Lily Whalen | The overlay we'd have to look at the overlay to see if the underlying zoning allows housing and that type of use. |
| 02:16:17.13 | Jeff Bradley | which in this case it's industrial, so it wouldn't. |
| 02:16:19.72 | Lily Whalen | doesn't allow housing. Thank you. |
| 02:16:20.91 | Jeff Bradley | I'm going to go. |
| 02:16:21.81 | Lily Whalen | So there would have to be a general plan update to the land use element to allow that type of use and then a subsequent zoning ordinance update. |
| 02:16:34.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:36.62 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And, and for office use, like a, a non illegal, nonconforming office use. Um, What impact If that's no longer being used for office, not non-industrial, but office, if there's a housing overlay. Could that be applied in the Marin Tia? |
| 02:17:03.39 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 02:17:03.40 | Lily Whalen | Oh. |
| 02:17:07.03 | Lily Whalen | Not unless the underlying zoning was modified, and to do that, you would have to modify the general plan first. |
| 02:17:14.58 | Mary Wagner | Okay. |
| 02:17:16.21 | Lily Whalen | Okay. So, and... Mary's on mute. |
| 02:17:19.76 | Mary Wagner | Yep, sorry, Chair Feller, not to belabor this anymore, but if you wanted to look at the senior housing overlay that the community development director brought up You look at 1028.070. It specifically says the senior housing overlay district may be applied to those areas which are designated as high density residential and zoned R3. So you'd have to look at that underlining zoning just as Mr. Bradley and Community Development Director indicated. So it would depend on the parameters of the overlay itself. And as Lily indicated, you know, if somebody came in and asked for that to apply somewhere that wasn't zoned appropriately, it wasn't either R3 or whatever else the designation might be, you'd actually have to go through an amendment to the general plan and the zoning ordinance. So it's not an automatic. I think is the answer. |
| 02:18:14.92 | Kristina Feller | Right. I appreciate that. And thank you for the clarification. I didn't, I wasn't specifically thinking about senior housing. I just, I was thinking about this housing overlay in general And part of the question is also in my own mind. What is the purpose of the overlay? you know, use it or apply it or you have to go back to zoning anyway. So it just, I'm not... Not clear on that. That we can talk about that too. |
| 02:18:41.99 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and I was just trying to give you an example of how an existing overlay works, right? So the policy and program that you have in your general plan right now related to an overlay is very broad. And so all those details would have to be worked out. So inclusion of that policy and program doesn't trigger really, any overlay at all. there'd have to be a lot more discussion about it. So thank you for letting me belabor that a little bit. I appreciate it. |
| 02:19:07.22 | Kristina Feller | No, I appreciate it. Any clarification is very helpful, so thank you for that. Um, So I'll turn it back to the... commissioners here any any other questions specific |
| 02:19:18.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:21.32 | Kristina Feller | to the illegal non-conforming versus conforming for staff at this time. |
| 02:19:28.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Nope. |
| 02:19:29.09 | Kristina Feller | It doesn't look like that. Okay, so Tom, you had a couple other items that you wanted to cover with us specific to some of the comments back and forth from city council on our recommendations to them. |
| 02:19:50.32 | Tom | No, I already covered those in my presentation. |
| 02:19:54.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Any comments then on the draft or final draft environmental impact report? from any commissioners. or anything related to the mitigation measures? |
| 02:20:12.98 | Kristina Feller | Yes, Vice Chair Graff. |
| 02:20:15.51 | Richard Graef | Um, yeah, I, uh, just had a question uh it's kind of a procedural and and policy but the mitigation measures that are are described. How are those implemented. in such a way that We're having a while of the EIR to to stand. uh, a stand. |
| 02:20:50.84 | Lisa | pizza. Yes, I can start this off. we've prepared a mitigation monitoring and reporting program That is also a part of the final EIR. It identifies all the mitigation measures the parties responsible for implementing them, |
| 02:21:10.96 | Unknown | implement. |
| 02:21:12.60 | Lisa | the timing of when they're implemented and then a way for the lead agency, the city of Sausalito, to then verify compliance. And I can also let um, Lily. chime in about that and how the MMRP gets implemented on the day and day basis. |
| 02:21:39.16 | Richard Graef | Thank you. That would be helpful. I don't know if I can look at that chart I want to understand a little bit more about the process and how how a mitigation measure would be on that, right? |
| 02:22:02.09 | Kristina Feller | Director Whelan, did you want to comment on that? |
| 02:22:09.60 | Mary Wagner | Hey, Jeff, are you able to kind of weigh in on that from a planning perspective, how you take a mitigation monitoring program for a a general plan and then implement it through the process as projects come forward or other triggers come up. |
| 02:22:24.65 | Jeff Bradley | Sure. Um, So typically... mitigation measures are implemented on a project by project basis. So if the city had a development application files, um, subjected that to the required SQL review, that SQL review may generate its own mitigation measures Um, Thank you. And then the mitigation measures required by the general plan EIR would also be applied as appropriate. and supported by the evidence. And then those would go into the entitlement, the city approval for the project. So you'd have, you'd have conditions of approval. You have mitigation measures. And both of those things would be enforced both during construction, for operational impacts from construction And then, um, Things had to be built into the project. special studies that would be required So, we have a as well as going forward mitigation measures |
| 02:23:28.42 | Unknown | committee. |
| 02:23:29.89 | Jeff Bradley | such as maintenance of storm drains or protecting species with fencing or uh, clear areas, no build areas, et cetera. And so those things all go into the documentation for that project. and become enforceable. for the life of the the development. |
| 02:23:54.07 | Mary Wagner | So if I could just add to that, um, the Vice Chair Graff, if I may. So what your planners will do is as they get projects that come in that trigger any of these mitigation measures, they will look at the project, they'll review those measures with respect to the general plan, and then apply them as, as necessary. a succinct way to kind of put it. Jeff. |
| 02:24:16.58 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, absolutely. |
| 02:24:17.26 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. Yeah, we could walk through a specific example if that would be helpful. |
| 02:24:23.00 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:24:23.01 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. A quick one. Sure, let me pick one. So nesting bird protection, right? So all discretionary projects, And Lisa, you know, jump in here if you'd like, since you're more familiar with the actual mitigation measures themselves. But. So any project that was going to be doing work would have a condition imposed on it that prior to ground disturbance during nesting season, they would have to take particular steps. as projects come in the door, I think what you'll see Vice Chair Graff moving forward Is your planners reviewing the project, reviewing the mitigation measures, and then applying them as necessary to specific development projects, just as Jeff indicated? |
| 02:25:10.23 | John DeRay | Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:25:16.32 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. All right. Any other questions from commissioners? to Lisa or that's a little stuff. |
| 02:25:32.66 | Kristina Feller | I'm not. I think at this time it's time to take public comment. on these items. So Director Whalen, let's open this up for public comment. And if you could. again, help the public here understand how to raise their hand in the Zoom application. |
| 02:26:03.59 | Lily Whalen | Thank you, Chair Feller. I'm back here, sorry. I'm here. So now is the time to take public comment from the members of the community you'd like to make a public comment on this item which is both the environmental impact report item and the final general plan item, please raise your hand in the Zoom application and we'll call you when it's your time to speak. You'll have three minutes for your public comment. There's a timer on the screen here. Please indicate your... name before your comments. And if you're calling on a phone, you can press star nine and that will raise your hand on your phone application. So I see a number of hands raising here. I'll leave it off to the chair to call the names. |
| 02:26:52.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director Whelan. Let's see, let's start with Bob Silvestri. You have three minutes. for your comment. |
| 02:27:05.32 | Bob Silvestri | Okay, can you all hear me? |
| 02:27:07.50 | Kristina Feller | Yes, and if you could just speak for the record, since this is being recorded. |
| 02:27:13.66 | Bob Silvestri | Yeah, my name is Bob Silvestri, Community Venture Partners. I'll talk really fast. I wanna comment on this whole conforming use, non-conforming use. Unfortunately, with all respect, most of what you've been told by Mr. Bradley is completely incorrect. And I'm speaking as somebody who has both litigated this for 40 years, both as a developer and a community activist. The reality is that as it stands now, the whole non-conforming use code that has been talked about does not apply to the Marin ship. The Marin ship specific plan is the code that applies there. When you have Mr. Luxenberg is absolutely correct in his interpretation. What you're being asked to do is determine If, the new general plan will conform with the Marin specific plan, not the 1995 plan. And the reason for that is that specific plans have priority over general plans on specificity. I've been arguing this for five years now on the seminary project, in strawberry. And now the developer wants to get rid of the specific plan, the community plan, because it governs. And that's the same thing as here. So in the pledge, if you wanna have horizontal and vertical consistency, a legal requirement under state law, If you want, to conform this new general plan to the specific plan, which will be absorbed in it, and is pledged to be absorbed in it, then you have to look at the intent and the spirit of the specific plan, which Mr. Luxenberg explained exactly correctly. which is to say, You know, that there's not supposed to be any new office buildings. Now, the problem you have is that as it stands now, the specific plan does not use the term nonconforming use. It uses a term called existing permitted uses. What you have to do is to now translate that into whether existing permitted uses as it is defined in the specific plan is either If you want to use this existing code about non-conforming and conforming, you have to decide which one it is. And Mr. Luxenberg is absolutely correct. It is the non-conforming one. And the reason for that, in a letter I wrote, which apparently nobody read yet, is that there are many complications that are very similar to the Marinship Specific Plan If you have a non-conforming use and you want to change it or expand it, you have to go get a new permit. That's in the code, that's in chapter 10.62 of the zoning code. So if you turn the Marin ship the office areas into you now define them as non-conforming uses, they will have a new process to go through, which is exactly the intent of the Marinship Specific Plan. So if you call them conforming uses, then really you have problems with not just the conformity and consistency of the general plan, but with the FEIR, because because conforming uses have rights. And if they change it in a policy, to have rights, your zoning code is inconsistent and the general plan is inconsistent and people can do things including an ancillary housing appurtenant to their uses. So you absolutely can't call it a conforming use. You can't adopt that language and attach that code. That would be a violation of the whole idea of preserving the spirit and intent of the specific plan. So I'm sorry, Mr. Bradley, but you are just not right on state law about what governs. And that's the most critical thing here is how that works. And so I want to |
| 02:31:14.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, Mr. Silvestri. Please just finish your sentence. I didn't mean to interrupt your sentence. |
| 02:31:23.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:25.57 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Let's open up for our next public speaker, Peter Van Meter. We have three minutes. |
| 02:31:36.72 | Peter Van Meter | Okay, thank you. Sorry, I'm not a computer that has no video, my corporate computer here tonight. The fact is that the office buildings built before April 5th, 1988, have always been legal conforming uses. And it was pointed on your screen earlier tonight, that was on page seven of your Marinship specific plan as being permitted uses. You go back to your 1995 general plan, that policy LU 2.16 that you also saw on your screen with our legal conforming uses. This has been true through all the the next drafting process of our general plan update up until as Jeff Bradley pointed out in May 1920, 2020, when the, M group recommended to the working group that they become non-conforming and then they recognize their error And that was corrected in November 17th City Council meeting. The problem was your November 4th meeting took place between that May and November 17th date, And that's when you endorse nonconforming. Now, in Jeff's comments about the impact of this, They're extremely significant to the property owners of these buildings. and to the tenants that exist within those buildings. It's not just the leasing, the time of vacancy in the building, but, It's a demolition of the building. I should say destruction of a building. if there's a fire or something of that sort, the ability to rebuild. major impact upon the property and also in a more practical sense refinancing. they want to get a new loan on the property. If it's a legal non-conforming use, they're gonna have extreme difficulty in getting financing on that building. So there are dramatic economic impacts to those properties. So the intent of the fair traffic initiative, the intent of the specific plan, the intent of the zoning ordinance 1995, was to retain Those buildings. in the 1988 and earlier as office buildings. And that's why you need to continue to designate them as they always have been is legal. nonconforming uses. Thank you. |
| 02:33:45.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Vicki Nichols. We have three minutes for public comments. |
| 02:33:57.47 | Vicki Nichols | Hi, good evening, commissioners. I just wanted to thank you for this discussion. I wanted to suggest that this conversation has been generated a lot of discussion as it should, but particularly not so much the legal and non-legal conforming um on the housing overlay issue as a planning commissioner i did vote for uh i voted against adding that And I think that there's nothing to prevent this from being added later. We know we're going to be doing the housing element. As Jeff has explained to you and I was going to add, there's an opportunity to change the general plan By putting this in here now, I think this just opens up that it is going to happen. and an overlay district in my understanding is not parcel by parcel the way the Marin ship is, but it's more an area. So once you have an area designated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a um, you know, expert on housing, but my rudimentary understanding of this with the state laws that are coming out. is that if you have this area designated for housing, that is what you're gonna get. And we have seen yearly are, THE FAMILY. Discretionary controls being eliminated. The state is serious. So I think that's a slippery slope. I'd also like to take exception with the fact that we don't have any good data on sea level rise. The county has done Bay Wave and it's done some other studies. And the county is using that to help cities in the 11 jurisdictions plan their Um, plans for dealing with sea level rise. So I would say that We could either accept that or not, but to say that there's nothing that is speculative I think is not correct. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT and this EIR was done on the basis, I believe, when I was on planning for the addition, I think it's 304 units. We're hearing now that our RHNA numbers are projected at 700, which I believe we can correctly litigate down and make the case that that's not correct. But if that is a number that is higher than 300, then does that mean then this analysis needs to be redone, it can't possibly be just that it's on an individual case by case basis. as projects come, but it really affects the entire city. Those are just questions I have, and and joined to hear the rest of your discussion. I know these aren't easy issues, but appreciate your being so thorough. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:36:50.16 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vicki. Michael Rex. You have three minutes for public comments. |
| 02:36:57.46 | Michael Rex | I am Michael Racks, local architect. I have two topics I want to discuss. I'll do the simple one first. It has to do with the policy LU sorry, policy EQ-9 On page 236. of the general plan regarding considering acquisitions for open space on several I'm going to go ahead and get Uh, uh, Thank you. KC Peterson have asked that you remove Number five, which suggests that the city consider acquiring their spit at the end of Harbor Drive. They never were asked about this, and when they learned about it, they asked it to be removed. It's still there, I ask that you remove it. I want to shift gears to the office use discussion. legal non-conforming reuses that are no longer permitted. they're given that designation because the city's intent is, to encourage property owners to bring them into conformity. And so they put severe restrictions on them, just as Peter said, and just as Jeff explained correctly to you, it is a mistake to now make these legal non-conforming. Not only does it, get involved with problems with financing, And it hurts their value, creates uncertainty. It doesn't just have to do with the vacancy And it's not just about a building burning down and not being able to replace it. If you read the code carefully, a legal nonconforming use cannot have any structural modifications whatsoever. You can't move a window, you can't move a bearing wall, you can't change a roof shape unless you get a nonconformity permit. That creates uncertainty. It's a hearing before the Planning Commission. And the findings are very difficult to make. You have to show an overriding public benefit and that you're bringing portions of the building in a conformity in order to get a non-conformity permit. This is all being done at the last minute. No review with the property owners who are impacted. No idea how many properties are being impacted. There's nothing transparent about it because it's never been discussed in an open forum. except during these last hearings that have few participants And the impacts were never considered in the IR. So if you do this, it's flaunt for challenges and lawsuits. property owners find out about it, they're going to be furious. And we're talking about buildings like SWA, of portions of Schoonmaker. This has serious draconian impacts on these properties. And it's not right. I asked you to remove this. I've requested this before, and I continue to do so. Thank you. |
| 02:39:57.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:57.53 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Carlo Burke, you have three minutes for public comment. |
| 02:40:07.73 | Carlo Berg | Hey there, everybody. It's nice to see everyone. Thanks for the spirit of discussion. And thanks for leading it, Christina. It's nice to... By the way, I'm Carlo Berg. My family owns the... 2310 and 2330, 2320 and 2350 properties in the Marinship known as Marina Plaza We're consistently top three city taxpayers, and we're an office building and a marina. and I just want to take the time to say hello to new commissioner Saad and new commissioner Luxembourg. It's nice to meet you and I look forward to engaging in the future. I'm, I think it's... you know, So there was a comment made by Commissioner Pierce THE CITY IS GOING TO BE They're these you know, commercial I'm not sure. real estate entities that would be negatively affected from it. as if the people behind them haven't been a part of the community, you know, over 20 years and facilitated things on our site, like the Sausalito Art Festival, the building of the Matthew Turner, among a wide variety of other things. And the thing that makes any of our community service possible is and we'd like to do more of it is the economic viability of our properties So just from a high level, I think the comment was made I'm not sure. how do you look at the actual effects of something like this happening? Our property was constructed in 1982. So, it's expressly allowed under the membership specific plan as a permitted use. But if you were to try to convert that property to industrial. And believe me, I've looked at every single use for that property that could possibly be constructed. I'm a former project engineer, I know how to build buildings. you would, if you take 10,000 feet, You think about the difference between industrial and office rent, it's about three bucks. Um, go out 12 months. divide that in half 50% for your operating expense for your NOI. you destroyed about $7.2 million in value at that point. not including the and that's only on a 10,000 foot space. And that's not including on our site, which is three stories, you would need to demolish the middle story somehow, which is not structurally possible in order to get 22 foot clear heights for industrial tenants And then to make matters a little more difficult there's not enough industrial demand to even close in the city or even in the entirety of Southern Marin. to even fill up just our building. let alone all the other office buildings. So I really would hope that folks also would engage with us. I've engaged in pretty much every single discussion that there's been. for the entirety of this planning process and for this to come up at the end um, without significant discussion is kind of a little disheartening. You know, I just. In my view, I just want to have the conversations with you guys. If that's something that you all want to do and you want to make an existing project not economically viable in a pandemic where we have vacancy because of that. Obviously that's your prerogative. That wouldn't seem right to me. THE FAMILY IS A So that's all I'd like to say. Thanks for your time. |
| 02:43:17.40 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Carla. Thank you. John DeRay, you've got three minutes for public comments. |
| 02:43:29.84 | Kristina Feller | Can we unmute John DeRay? There we go. |
| 02:43:32.52 | John DeRay | Can you hear me? Thank you. I apologize. I just got on about 30 seconds ago. on the meeting and I just happened to hear something from the previous commenter that I guess I'm going to have to challenge. Um, industrial demand in Sausalito is actually very strong. In the last couple of months, there were two new industrial companies that came in to the Marine ship. is a underwater technology company and the other one is electronics cooling and Bitcoin cooling company. Now this is happening despite the fact that industrial spaces are being priced at office rates. In other words. Most of the industrial spaces are being charged, are being priced at between three and four dollars a square foot for industrial. And industrial typically is around 150 to 250 a square foot. So you see what's happening. Um, the landlords are trying to drive vacancies so that they can make a particular argument that there is no demand. So this is the kind of thing that we've been up against for a long time. It continues. Um, if industrial price, if industrial properties and zoned areas were priced appropriately, Um, we would see a lot more industrial companies in the marineship Um, The couple that did recently come in you know, we're able to negotiate something a little more reasonable, but It's just something that we really need to be aware of because some of the narratives you're hearing are just absolutely not true. Industrial demand is strong. um and uh i think we've seen that throughout the marine ship as those folks are as busy as they've ever been And by the way, that includes maritime. Thank you so much. |
| 02:45:49.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, John. Let's see, any other public comment? So please raise your hand in the Zoom. application. I am not seeing any additional raised hands. Staff, could you just check me on that to make sure? I'm not missing anybody. |
| 02:46:12.58 | Lily Whalen | I'm confirming no other raised hands right now. |
| 02:46:15.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so let's go ahead and close public comment at this time. and bring the discussion back up to our virtual dais here. Um, Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to start us off? |
| 02:46:34.86 | Kristina Feller | Oh, you're on mute, sorry. Jeff, you're unmuted. |
| 02:46:39.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, fuck. Thank you. I'm not sure where we go from here. It would seem to me that I'm not 100% convinced that the Let me step one step back. So if the goal of the marine ship plan, which is before my time, was to encourage industrial maritime arts uses and you need some way to encourage that, then obviously you need something, you need a policy that sort of goes along those lines, which is why I think the nonconforming language makes sense. What I'm worried about is if it is so restrictive that you can't get a permit because you're overriding on one individual case basis. But given the COVID, and I guess that would not be an involuntary vacancy if we have vacancies due to this pandemic, that would be an overriding condition. But it would seem to me that the non-conforming language, which the Planning Commission had at the last one, makes sense, What the council came up with is sort of a mid-range, which I can see where they were coming from in that. I think the original language that said they were conforming uses does not go to the goal of trying to get the marineship to be what the marineship plan wants it to be. So I think that that would be the last version. So I see where the commission was before. It does make sense to me. I see where the council has, which allows office buildings to stay as permitted uses, but it means that if our offices are occupying buildings that were not built as office, those would have to go through the process. And so that's sort of a middle ground. And then, as I said, making... you know, the other one is sort of not specific about I was always concerned of what an office building is and you'd have to go back to the whatever it was when it was originally permitted. So I don't know. Those are my thoughts. I don't really have a recommendation at this point. New folks were dealing with it before so I leave it to others at this point. |
| 02:49:11.22 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Sarah. And just to fall on that, I know that our discussion this evening has been somewhat focused on on those remaining items that |
| 02:49:20.87 | Unknown | MAIN |
| 02:49:23.61 | Kristina Feller | really needed to get final directive from us. But if there's any other comment that we hadn't discussed in the presentation tonight, about the general plan, of course, this is the time to speak. Um, Let's see, Commissioner Saad, any further thoughts or comments or ideas behind uh, Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, or any other comments you have? |
| 02:49:49.31 | Nastassya Saad | You know, I think it was a healthy discussion. I do think that I am not sold on the concept of moving towards the non-conforming based on the um the m groups um discussion earlier i think your um comments chair Feller I had the same concerns around anything potential with housing and that was definitely my first thought about what are those implications I think we've settled that now but I I'm just feeling like there's some potential other implications here that may not have come to light just yet. I think from the original Marinship plan and the other the 1995 general plan to keep that legal conforming use seems to have served its purpose for all of this time and I'm not sure. I'm not. entirely opposed to the legal non-conforming but not in a place where I'd be comfortable to move 100% to that language. I do think and I think Maybe it was. Mr. Rex that brought it up, but I do think a community type discussion if that has in fact not been um had or the outreach for those property owners hasn't been had would probably uh, be a good next step not to delay this. general plan and FIR any longer. But I think it may be worth taking those steps to have have some more feedback from the public. |
| 02:51:24.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Pierce. |
| 02:51:28.95 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, thank you. This has been very spirited and helpful discussion. It's helped clarify some things for me specifically with regard to the conforming versus non-conforming conundrum, which I don't think I fully understood before, but now the implications of it, I think, are entirely... uh, to Uh. penalizing and onerous to the property owners of those spaces. I think we obviously have concerns about housing and overlays and other planning mechanisms this general plan can be revisited and modified in the future. Obviously we've got a new housing element that we're going to be working on. That's going to obviously shed some light. on other topics and we'll be redoing our zoning ordinance soon. But as Commissioner Sodman suggested, the current language has worked successfully since 1988. I think it is premature for us to change it now without having full public comment and discussion on it. So I would advocate for us approving M group's updated language that returns it back to legal conformed Aside from that, I'm pleased with the updates on the rest of the EIR and the updated general plan. |
| 02:52:49.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. Vice Chair Graham. |
| 02:52:53.40 | Richard Graef | Um, Okay, well, you know, my confusion about conforming and non-conforming, has been mostly satisfied and I think I I'm just going to say, that I'm not going to be agree with the argument that the conforming Um, having, been adequate for all this time and that they're seems to be some real issues with the non-conforming which, our group actually recommended a while back. on the council. didn't trade. And through. I don't know. I've been there closed. um, I think I'm probably leaning towards the legal conforming There seems to be a pretty strong argument. Um, to support that. And the non-conforming seems to, |
| 02:53:56.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:01.25 | Richard Graef | from what I've heard and understand present something. obstacles to you know, it would be difficult to overcome So, That was my biggest concern and my biggest problem and understanding in this whole thing. So I think... I feel a little bit more confident now about understanding the difference. So. Um, Yeah, so I think it sounds like It sounds like leaning towards conforming is what I'm comfortable with. Okay. the rest of the councils or the Commission. It feels about that. |
| 02:54:48.75 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you, Vice Chair. Any other comments on any other topics related to the EIR Any other elements within the general plan? |
| 02:54:58.63 | Richard Graef | Well, there are were a few. Yeah, I could. the risk of making this thing carry on and on and on. But, um, on in the councils, in their revisions and the redline versions. that we got. There was number 10. had to do with I think it's a very, very, very, very some of the residents serving retail on ground level and or upper level on Caledonia and It seemed to me that by remembering. that we have to that Um, I'm not sure. having to have a CUP or whatever the requirements were to Um, have businesses on the second floor seemed excessive and Um, So I'm, there's been very little discussion about that particular thing, but that's one that stood out to me. |
| 02:56:16.30 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:56:16.61 | Richard Graef | I'm not. |
| 02:56:16.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:16.69 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Um, Yeah. |
| 02:56:20.72 | Kristina Feller | Well, are you... |
| 02:56:21.18 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:56:21.79 | Kristina Feller | Are you making a suggestion one way or the other? We're advocating. |
| 02:56:26.58 | Richard Graef | Well, it seems to me that, um, I now can't remember all of the, there's just so much going on in my brain here with all this. I'm not sure. But Pierre Van Meter made a pretty strong point, I think. Bye. In favor of not having to have CUPs for certain businesses. So I would just saying that what he said made sense to me. Thank you. |
| 02:57:01.09 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:57:01.10 | Richard Graef | There was another one on number 35. It had to do with garages. We've had some discussions with the |
| 02:57:01.31 | Tom | uh, |
| 02:57:08.19 | Richard Graef | planning commission about garages on a number of occasions And I think the Uh, Bye. intent is to require garages to be used as garages for parking cars, which I do agree with. And, um, that the Planning Commission If they're, you know, considering a garage We also could have other requirements depending on the conditions, such as see-through windows or doors or whatever. So I'm just supporting that the Um, |
| 02:58:02.51 | Richard Graef | Again, I don't remember the wording of it. I'd have to look it up. |
| 02:58:06.58 | Kristina Feller | I think what you're saying, if you don't mind, is I think we're in line with the city council. We had put forth this record. They modified the language a little bit, but I think we're in alignment there. |
| 02:58:24.06 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I think so. Thank you. Thank you. Um, There was another one, but I don't think I'm even going to bring it up. For the most part, I think all of the comments and the changes were. You know, I would agree with. Um, And similarly with the mitigations on the on the EIR. |
| 02:58:51.28 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:58:54.25 | Richard Graef | So no further comments. |
| 02:58:56.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Um, I am still, I wanted to reiterate that in my comments that The 1988 Um, marineship specific plans. talked about permitted uses. It does not use the language conforming. the 1995 general plan didn't pick up some of that because at that time, the general plan Um, and the marine ship specific plan were two separate documents. This is the first time that we're merging the two. And I think that that's an important distinction So where we don't want to confuse conforming with the word permitted. Um, I am still very firmly behind nonconforming legal nonconforming use in the language for the general plan update which is one of the items in front of us tonight to discuss. One of the reasons I think that's also so important is entire overlay. And I don't think we can look at these two items separately. We're in isolation of one another. And need opportunity that the overlay potentially provides is part of the consternation I have with the legal non-conforming versus legal conforming. |
| 03:00:26.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:00:26.46 | Kristina Feller | And my recommendation would be to I don't support the overlay in the Marin in the Marinship area of Sausalito. I think that Commissioner Saad had a very good point and recommendation to defer any of that until after we actually you know, do our, and recalculate the RHNA numbers um, and, and wait for that. If we need to modify the general plan, uh, in any substantive way. So I sort of, end where where we almost began as a commission the last time this was in front of us And that is, I don't support the, the overlay in the Marin ship. And I don't see the purpose of it if it's sort of a maybe could have, would have. And as I understand. from the November presentation to the city council by um Barbara. Katz, if I'm pronouncing her name properly, and I apologize if I am not. who was the external legal counsel is that the general plan prevails. The general plan is the So, I think that's a So, it's not to be taken lightly if we, um, approved certain things like overlays, we have to really think through those consequences, whether they're intended or not. So that's really where I, where I land. um and i i know that might be different than some of the other commissioners here but but um I would uphold the decisions that we made before that would be my recommendation tonight. |
| 03:02:18.71 | Morgan Pierce | I'm confused, Chair Feller. Are you suggesting that we rescind the existing marine ship specific plan as an overlay? I understand the overlay commentary of that. |
| 03:02:27.50 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:02:27.96 | Kristina Feller | or, the, |
| 03:02:30.69 | Morgan Pierce | Is it about the existing overlay or is it about a proposed overlay? |
| 03:02:30.71 | Kristina Feller | about We So, the planning commission unanimously. Um, rejected the idea of a housing overlap. at any overlay. in Sausalito. We voted. |
| 03:02:49.71 | Unknown | New Overlake. Right. |
| 03:02:50.77 | Kristina Feller | Right. Five zero on that. Thank you. |
| 03:02:53.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:53.96 | Kristina Feller | The general... |
| 03:02:53.98 | Unknown | New over. |
| 03:02:55.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. the general plan working group voted four to one, no overlays. the general plan advisory committee, the GPAC voted no. on that too. but the city council based on the memo here Um, as part of our packet approved it. So, The overlay to me is still an issue and hasn't, you know, there are, applications that it could potentially have in this marine ship area. I'm not saying rescind anything about the marine ship specific plan. But what I'm trying to point out is that in 1988, the language that we used was permitted uses, not conforming issues. And although that sounds semantical, they're actually really quite different words. And now that we're combining both documents together in the general plan update, there are consequences to sort of thinking through how some of this language works and what an overlay on top of that means. And that's what I'm looking at. And that's why I still land back where we had voted before on using legal nonconforming language. |
| 03:04:15.28 | Morgan Pierce | Well, so based on that argument, since legal non-conforming wasn't used before either, should we suggest that we continue with the word, the language of permitted uses? to be consistent with the partnership specific plan? |
| 03:04:32.61 | Kristina Feller | I would need legal to- |
| 03:04:34.69 | Morgan Pierce | Because I feel like changing it to nonconforming is not in the spirit of what was intended by either the partnership specific plan nor the original general plan. And it's highly punitive to the property owners as defined. So I'm really reluctant to do anything that harms the property owners. I'm reluctant to do anything that's inconsistent with both of the precedent documents. |
| 03:04:56.36 | Tom | I'm sorry. |
| 03:05:04.03 | Morgan Pierce | Perhaps the argument is that we just make consistency and continue the language that's already been in place. Originally. |
| 03:05:12.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:15.97 | Morgan Pierce | I don't know what the implications of that are, Mary or Lily, from the city and community development department perspective. |
| 03:05:18.14 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:05:25.47 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think that's a really good point, Commissioner Pierce. And I would want the city to weigh in on that, staff to weigh in on that to make sure that |
| 03:05:33.87 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:05:36.05 | Kristina Feller | I mean, I agree, I think it's critical to remain consistent with the ruinship specific plan. And if that means you know, permitted with exceptions or just permitted, as the original language said, um, I just want to understand what those implications and consequences are. So I don't know if. Director Whalen can weigh in on that or possibly Tom or Mary. if we can have staff waiting on that. |
| 03:06:06.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can Director Wayland bring back up that language that we had for, from the marineship plan, as opposed to what was in the general plan? |
| 03:06:17.88 | Lily Whalen | Jeff, did you have that up on your screen ready to go? I think you shared your screen. |
| 03:06:22.40 | Jeff Bradley | I think Tom or Asher had brought that up. |
| 03:06:23.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:25.42 | Lily Whalen | Tom, do you mind bringing up the MSP? |
| 03:06:31.95 | Tom | There you go. Can you see it? |
| 03:06:34.97 | Unknown | . |
| 03:06:38.62 | Jeff Bradley | So I'll take a stab at this. This is Jeff Bradley with M Group. So if we, If we think of this language of permitted uses Um, I do agree with Mr. Celestri to some point that the specific plan has a unique place in planning law. It can be both the general plan level document for a specific area of a city, and it can also contain the zoning ordinance requirements for that same area. And. In that way, it makes sense of the term specific plan. It's more specific than a general plan. However, different specific plans take that burden differently. This specific plan focused more on the policy and had less of the zoning implications, less of the zoning regulations built into it. And you can see the result of that of the the parallel effort to develop the zoning chapters within the municipal code that support the industrial land use district with its own zoning chapter. the waterfront. um, lands with its own zoning chapter. on top of that. There's a special marine ship overlay a zoning chapter that regulates this area and so i i submit and i argue that this the city zoning code does have a strong history of implementing the the friendship specific plan and it is appropriate to talk about the non-conforming use provisions of the code so when we talk about permitted uses relative to to zoning questions permitted uses by definition is a conforming use. There's basically a table in each of these chapters that lists dozens and dozens of land uses and they're either permitted for their require a minor permit or they require a conditional use permit. or they're prohibited. Those are really the four. Um, Mm-hmm. really only the only four options for bringing use you could think of. And so when we see permitted uses, we have to remind ourselves that, OK, this is the zoning. These are the list of permitted uses. And if I if I have a permitted use on this property, by definition, it's a conforming use. |
| 03:09:10.31 | Nastassya Saad | DIRECTOR HARRISON So does does that mean the word wards are somewhat interchangeable. But it doesn't, yeah, I agree with you. saying that the permitted use is a conforming use. I just thought that there was a difference between |
| 03:09:29.29 | Jeff Bradley | It is possible that over time you could have a permitted use that's conforming and then the city changes the land use designation from industrial to something different. And so you had a permitted use established there as a conforming use, but because of a land use change on the city's part, it becomes a nonconforming use. |
| 03:10:00.29 | Kristina Feller | I don't agree that permitting and performing are necessarily the thing. I'm not sure. Thank you. |
| 03:10:05.71 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:10:05.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:10:05.88 | Michael Rex | . |
| 03:10:06.74 | Kristina Feller | That's the hang up. We've participated. And I certainly don't want to take artistic license with words here. And that's not my intent. But when it's a permitted use, it's also, to a certain extent, grandfathered. And again, I'm not trying to take artistic license with that. but I think conforming is |
| 03:10:32.83 | Unknown | informing. |
| 03:10:36.13 | Kristina Feller | to what your current that Zoning might require an SS changes. So again, this speaks to also commissioner Pierce and that we're not trying to unintentionally harm land owners or building property owners here. Thank you. by, you know, we'll permit the use, whether it be conforming at that time or not, |
| 03:11:08.58 | Kristina Feller | So it's permitting the continued activity, I think, of what the intent of that property was. |
| 03:11:16.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think one of the confusing things here is we can take the language out of number three and just put it in general plan as a punting exercise. But the problem is, is if there's an existing office in 1988 and it's an existing office today, then it would continue. theoretically under number three as a permitted use. The problem becomes if six months passes and it's vacant, it's no longer an existing office because it's a vacancy and under the code, it'll become a non-conforming use and it'll have the same problem. Because this number three doesn't really deal with the mechanics of non-conforming uses versus conforming uses. We either make a policy decision one way or the other now, or we don't, and then it's going to come up whenever somebody goes to do anything. It's not going to go away by just changing the language to this, I think. |
| 03:12:16.07 | Unknown | But |
| 03:12:16.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But this would be one way to not change anything, but have lack of clarity in the future. Jeff, do you disagree with that? |
| 03:12:29.25 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, from a planning perspective, lack of clarity is a bad thing on something as fundamental as this. PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens or to yours, Commissioner Feller, Chairperson Feller, that that the legal nonconforming use may be permitted to remain. That's kind of how I read it the first time. But I think what was, what turned me around on this was really the, the general plan policy that was done fairly shortly after the general plan, just very clearly stated, these uses are conforming. And so to me, that was an open and shut case that, the existing policy structure was to treat these as conforming uses. |
| 03:13:34.18 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:13:34.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:36.09 | Kristina Feller | I mean, I guess I would ask, even though the legal opinion is permitted the same as conforming, um, Okay. I don't believe it is, but I am not an attorney. um, |
| 03:13:49.08 | Mary Wagner | Can I jump in there chair Feller Yeah, so the distinction between permitted and conforming somewhat depends on what you want it to mean. I mean, not to be, because we can argue about legal definitions and It's really the intent. and how it's been applied. to date and I think the way that it's been applied to date is that those existing office buildings that were established prior to 88 are considered both permitted and conforming. I think we're kind of using the word in the same mechanism. I think the commission could make that recommendation to the council. that you continue to struggle with this policy, you disagree, or you agree, whatever a majority of the commission thinks, about it. But I do, I think this is very helpful, you know, discussion to keep this moving forward. um, But I think we really are looking for your direction and recommendation on how you would like that to proceed. |
| 03:14:52.70 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate that. Thank you, Mary. Thank you. |
| 03:14:58.86 | Kristina Feller | I mean, I would... I would suggest that that that the direction or the input that we provide back to the city council Beautiful. that part of the consternation over proper language here is that yes, we do not want to inadvertently harm property owners or landowners, But we also need, you know, have committed to |
| 03:15:28.93 | Unknown | committed. |
| 03:15:30.47 | Kristina Feller | Um, maintain the intent of the membership specific plan. And therefore, we're recommending that um, the word permitted in, for the purpose of the general plan since it's a consolidation with the marineship specific plan, is intended to be consistent with the permitted use. as we see her. |
| 03:16:01.33 | Morgan Pierce | I believe that outlines our intent. |
| 03:16:06.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:16:06.36 | Morgan Pierce | And I don't know if we need to just Punt it to... city council to determine what the verbiage is. or rely on M group and staff to figure that out. |
| 03:16:19.96 | Kristina Feller | I think part of this is we want to send it back to city council with our our recommendation. Um, and And... I've just offered you my... one option as that what that recommendation would be. but I definitely want to hear from all other commissioners to see |
| 03:16:41.90 | Unknown | And |
| 03:16:42.69 | Kristina Feller | about this or any other recommendation they have regarding this? |
| 03:16:47.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So wait, so what language are you suggesting, Chair Beller? |
| 03:16:52.53 | Kristina Feller | Well, I'm suggesting that Um, that we maintain. the legal non-conforming. Language. as consistent with the intent of, quote, permitted uses as it was defined in the 1988 Marinship-specific plan. |
| 03:17:19.31 | Morgan Pierce | I guess my interpretation of that is that the term legal non-conforming runs counter to both the Marineship Plan and the 1995 General Plan. |
| 03:17:31.01 | Unknown | That's my understanding as well. |
| 03:17:35.06 | Kristina Feller | Okay, what would you recommend? |
| 03:17:38.43 | Morgan Pierce | Again, I don't know the difference between, and I apologize that maybe I didn't listen as clearly to Jeff's interpretation, but Permitted is the original terminology used in the Marineship specific plan that subsequently evolved into the 99 to 5 general plan as legal conforming. If they're interchangeable, I'm fine with keeping legal conforming as the nomenclature, which seems to, at least in my interpretation, does not penalize the property owners. In any deleterious fashion Um, and maintain some consistency with the language that we've used in the past. I'm not interested in changing it to non-conforming, because that seems like that just... opens up a whole can of worms that nobody really wants. or at least I don't understand why anybody wants it at this point. unless somebody can point it out to me. because it seems nothing but punitive. |
| 03:18:40.57 | Kristina Feller | Jeff, any thoughts about that? Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 03:18:44.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, my thought, sort of as a middle ground, would be to take the wording that the council has, change the words, instead of within as legal conforming office uses saying, contained as permitted i would replace legal conforming with permitted And then I would leave the other statement because the The other uses in the marineship, that are not in office buildings. that were not built as office buildings or industrial buildings that are occupied by offices. Those industrial buildings were not for the Marin ship plan. are not covered. It said those built as office buildings. |
| 03:19:27.38 | Michael Rex | That's not true. |
| 03:19:27.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The buildings that are not built as office buildings, that were built as industrial buildings, that they substituted office at some point because they got higher rents or whatever, those are non-conforming, I think, according to the Wrench at Plan, the best I can read. So I would go before I would sort of abandon this totally, I would go with, the council's language, but get rid of legal conforming office uses and use the word permitted because that's what's in the marinship plan. Also, in reading the zoning, The zoning says you non-conforming There are two definitions in the zoning ordinance, use nonconforming and use permitted. There's no use conforming. So that would at least be consistent with the zoning. and won't accomplish what the prior Planning Commission had, but it's a middle ground and we don't give up with the idea that some of the industrial buildings that are supposed to be industrial buildings would go back to being industrial and maritime or arts. That's just a thought. |
| 03:20:34.57 | Kristina Feller | I support that. I support that. |
| 03:20:38.72 | Unknown | I would as well. I think that makes sense. |
| 03:20:44.19 | Richard Graef | Yeah, that makes sense to me too. Basically, I think what we really need to do is be sure that the intent and the spirit of the uh, or in SHIP specific plan is maintained. And and that the language supports that. So That would be okay. The legal non-conforming seems to be now very confusing. and problematic. So I kind of like the simplicity of permitted use. |
| 03:21:21.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:21:21.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:21:23.22 | Richard Graef | So. |
| 03:21:25.85 | Kristina Feller | So director Whalen, um, It sounds like we have consensus here on this. language or recommendation of language back to the city council. regarding this matter. I want to make sure that it's that our direction or choice of language or recommended language is clear. Do you agree? Thank you. |
| 03:21:53.02 | Lily Whalen | Christa, I just pulled up the language here in the policy and Commissioner Luxembourg, if you could just go over again what what you would what your suggestion was. |
| 03:22:03.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I would modify the language that the that the Council has and I'm going to apologize if I cut out on my my earbuds only last for so many hours I think we're going to be on beyond that but I would say office uses contained within as Thank you. or the office uses contained within delete legal conforming and replace it with per word permitted. as permitted office uses. and then leave everything else As is. because I think that is appropriate. The Marinship Plan only talked about office buildings built and established prior, and didn't talk about other buildings. So simply delete those two words and replace it with permitted. |
| 03:23:08.02 | Lily Whalen | and clear on that direction. |
| 03:23:10.02 | Nastassya Saad | Great. |
| 03:23:16.34 | Kristina Feller | Okay, any other comments on Um... housing overlay. I know Commissioner Saad had pointed out that perhaps we could recommend not using an overlay and waiting until after our housing RENA numbers have been updated. Is that correct, Commissioner Saad? |
| 03:23:47.54 | Unknown | Yeah, I think we, I think maybe Commission, |
| 03:23:50.03 | Nastassya Saad | Pierce as well I think that makes sense I think the housing overlay I think we're sharing the same concern here around the the housing overlay. I would say that's correct. |
| 03:24:03.69 | Morgan Pierce | We're two years out, 23 is when we? Cheers. |
| 03:24:09.97 | Lily Whalen | Yeah, we're actually starting the process in the next couple months here. |
| 03:24:17.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're suggesting just deleting that? section completely? Is that the idea? |
| 03:24:22.28 | Morgan Pierce | Can you pull that section up? Yes, that'd be great to see. |
| 03:24:29.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm gonna switch my headset. |
| 03:24:32.04 | Unknown | We're off for a second. |
| 03:24:49.37 | Morgan Pierce | So we're suggesting that they look at it as part of the housing element process, so concurrently. So that doesn't seem to be a problem. |
| 03:25:02.01 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:25:02.02 | Unknown | you |
| 03:25:03.36 | Richard Graef | Yeah, potential. Thank you. The feasibility of a potential, it's Yeah, it was pretty wide open. Um, It doesn't look too dangerous to me. |
| 03:25:21.38 | Kristina Feller | So the only, I would just want to carve out the Marinership for land-based housing we've, we've, already I think This commission previously was very supportive of water-based housing in the friendship |
| 03:25:37.87 | Morgan Pierce | All right. |
| 03:25:39.54 | Kristina Feller | We were not supportive of land-based housing in the because those are. residential use is in the middle of an industrial zone. |
| 03:25:48.25 | Morgan Pierce | But that's right. Wouldn't that be rezoned? I'm not sure an overlay can change an industrial zoning to residential zoning. Maybe. |
| 03:25:57.85 | Richard Graef | God. |
| 03:25:57.93 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:25:58.40 | Richard Graef | I think we got a pretty clear reading on that, that, that, uh, You just can't. over like, one idea on top. of another one. without first changing the other one. So, It's sort of a non-issue. in my mind. |
| 03:26:16.48 | Morgan Pierce | Can you get some clarity from Molly or Mary on that? or someone from Emory. |
| 03:26:23.34 | Kristina Feller | particularly because of so much activity at the state level, I would definitely want to understand this because if our density is looking at double what we thought our numbers were Um, I don't know where else you're going to put people. |
| 03:26:44.00 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Mary or Lily, can you... clarify whether or not they'd actually have to be rezoned and couldn't be housing in the Marineship couldn't be uh, created just through an overlay, it would have to be rezoned first, would it not? Yeah. |
| 03:27:02.58 | Lily Whalen | That's correct. |
| 03:27:03.03 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. So overlays, by their very nature, aren't going to allow housing to occur in the marinship. |
| 03:27:10.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:27:10.53 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:27:10.56 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:27:10.59 | Morgan Pierce | I'm sorry. |
| 03:27:10.63 | Vicki Nichols | All right. |
| 03:27:10.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:27:10.73 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:27:12.28 | Vicki Nichols | Correct. |
| 03:27:13.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is the concern though that the state in as part of this housing process will come in and say you have an overlay zone, you haven't met your goals, therefore you have a mechanism to do it. We're gonna, if you don't do it, we're gonna come in and allow you to do it differently. I think that's the issue. |
| 03:27:36.82 | Kristina Feller | That's exactly right. That's exactly right. Thank you. |
| 03:27:40.43 | Mary Wagner | I think it's really important to look at the language of the program because it's not even recommending adoption |
| 03:27:40.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:27:47.15 | Mary Wagner | of an overlay it's from recommending considering the feasibility And I hear the commission loud and clear The state has been very forceful with respect to, housing and I think those concerns are shared. you know, across the board. But I just think it's important that you really look at what the language says and then provide your recommendation to the council on that language. |
| 03:28:11.95 | Kristina Feller | I see the language and I would recommend that the Marin ship be excluded from the overlay. |
| 03:28:19.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And that would be consistent with the marinship plan anyway. So there would be a logic to that. So I think that's a good suggestion, Chair O'Fell. |
| 03:28:21.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:28:30.09 | Unknown | I would agree with that as well chair Feller I think you articulated that. |
| 03:28:34.02 | Morgan Pierce | I'm just curious, are there examples of the state forcing communities, municipalities to rezone industrial sites for land-based residential uses as a matter of course. I mean, it seems pretty much of a stretch. |
| 03:28:55.54 | Kristina Feller | then it shouldn't be a problem to exclude it. |
| 03:28:59.17 | Morgan Pierce | Well, no, but if it's a tool that helps us out in other locations throughout town that aren't zoned residential, |
| 03:29:04.42 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:29:04.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:29:04.94 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:29:04.97 | Unknown | Well, |
| 03:29:05.31 | Morgan Pierce | All right. |
| 03:29:05.34 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, and I think the exclusion of just the marine ship, sorry, I didn't mean to speak over you, Chair Fallin. |
| 03:29:10.42 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I'm just wondering if that's redundant. |
| 03:29:13.65 | Nastassya Saad | I think as a protective measure, there's no harm in redundancy to make the recommendation. |
| 03:29:22.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I actually don't think it's redundant. I think it's clarity. It's saying we're gonna have a housing overlay except in this zone where you can't use the housing overlay. I don't think that that's redundant. |
| 03:29:38.71 | Kristina Feller | you Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:29:39.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:29:39.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:29:40.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:29:40.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:29:40.14 | Unknown | Puerto. |
| 03:29:40.58 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:29:41.32 | Morgan Pierce | I guess I'm just, again, I'm asking the question because Let's say, again, this isn't exactly a total, but let's say, Um, I guess in my mind, well, you can't put a policy in place that says I can't use CDs in my laptop. Well, my laptop doesn't even take CDs, so that's the point in me even having that rule. So I guess that's why I'm asking. the question. Is there any chance at all that this would happen. If so, yes, then it makes sense. If there's none, then What's the point? It makes us look foolish. |
| 03:30:22.82 | Kristina Feller | I think there is potential. That's why I'm suggesting. |
| 03:30:25.13 | Morgan Pierce | That's why I'm asking the people who might know, like the attorneys. |
| 03:30:31.86 | Morgan Pierce | We could speculate all day long. |
| 03:30:34.58 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean, we just got an answer though, that, that you'd have to change the zoning, but again, you can change the zoning. So I'm just... My recommendation is It's fine if there's an overlay throughout Sausalito, but I would exclude the Marin ship. for avoidance of any doubt. |
| 03:30:58.71 | Richard Graef | Well, I'll put my two cents in. I suppose there's nothing wrong with belt and suspenders, but it still seems to me that that you cannot put a housing overlay over the marineship. Um, without changing the zoning. If you can change the zoning, That would be a big deal. And I would say that that's probably, uh, Not too likely. Um... And then then you would have to, with the overlay, I just, I think it's so unlikely that the way things are in the plan right now. Um, that. been a housing overlay would be at all successful. in the Marantia So it's It seems, It doesn't seem necessary to to and exclusion. I think it's a very important it probably wouldn't hurt. So I'm wondering if |
| 03:32:12.59 | Morgan Pierce | I'm wondering, is it the chicken before the egg? I'm confused by it. If, for example, there was a rezoning of the Marine ship. They'd have to be a pretty strong reason for that. Like it's underwater. Well then yeah, let's have an overlay that says we can have water-based housing in the friendship because it's water now. It's not like somebody's gonna come in tomorrow and asked to be rezoned and it's gonna get approved. |
| 03:32:40.20 | Kristina Feller | I We supported water-based housing. This is land-based housing. That was just an example. |
| 03:32:46.66 | Morgan Pierce | That was just an example I was giving. |
| 03:32:48.74 | Kristina Feller | You took it. |
| 03:32:48.80 | Morgan Pierce | You do it. |
| 03:32:49.46 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. why I'm suggesting that we exclude the marineship from from the overlay. We- |
| 03:32:57.09 | Richard Graef | That's fine. I just don't think it's necessary. |
| 03:32:57.21 | Kristina Feller | Bye. Thank you. I just don't think it's necessary. Thank you. |
| 03:32:59.87 | Richard Graef | Can I jump in? First of all, there is no overlay. All there is is some language that says to consider the possibilities that may be There might be an overlay. as a tool. Um, So that makes it even more remote. I think when we get to the housing element, the upcoming housing element, that's going to be another whole struggle. And the last time around, There was consideration given to certain areas in the Marin ship as possibility for I'm not sure. providing, you know, a potential for housing. Thank you. which, It didn't happen. Um, And so the whole thing about the housing element is that it's really identifying areas in town that are suitable. for housing. and um Even finding areas in residential areas that were suitable was a real push because there was a lot push back. on that from the public. But we finally nailed it by using uh galilee harbor uh water-based housing as part of the uh number. So anyway, I just don't think that that that the friendship is in danger of getting clobbered with them. was a housing. requirement. I think it would take a massive effort for that to happen given the the Um, intent of the plan and the, will of the people. |
| 03:35:00.44 | Kristina Feller | Remember all. 20 year. window on this update. So we have to, this is a public policy document and based on external counsel's comments, you know, if there's the possibility in the general plan, the general plan does prevail And Commissioner Saad, you had a, you've been trying to make a comment here |
| 03:35:24.02 | Nastassya Saad | I was only going to say, I think if I can speak for chair fellow myself and, you know, middle of the road, commissioner luxembourg if you're not entirely opposed my understanding is it's just a recommendation right to put this language in it city council can still reject it um that's fine i'm fine with that yeah so if you're if we're looking for a slight bit of extra protection you're right we'll will it come up, chances are probably not. But I think the verbiage saying to consider something being feasible that can be open to interpretation that someone can consider that feasible down the line. So if you're not entirely opposed, I think we'd appreciate just the rowing that in there and seeing what council does with that. Thank you. |
| 03:36:11.67 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 03:36:11.71 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:36:14.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would concur with that. |
| 03:36:16.25 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. So, |
| 03:36:19.50 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:36:19.94 | Kristina Feller | Do you, is that acceptable to you? |
| 03:36:23.25 | Morgan Pierce | You see me? |
| 03:36:24.16 | Kristina Feller | Is that, is that, is that, |
| 03:36:25.46 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah, that's fine. |
| 03:36:26.36 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So director, Waylon, I want to make sure that we were giving clear clear direction on this matter. . that we are recommending that the Marin ship area of Sausalito be excluded from any housing overlay. |
| 03:36:50.89 | Lily Whalen | Understood. And just for clarity, the exclusion in the marine ship from any housing overlay, that's water and land based, correct? Just for clarification. |
| 03:37:02.79 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. We, well, let's ask, as a commission, we supported water-based housing previously. |
| 03:37:09.12 | Morgan Pierce | Because |
| 03:37:10.55 | Kristina Feller | um, What is this? |
| 03:37:11.87 | Morgan Pierce | I would not like to exclude that. |
| 03:37:13.93 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Let's not exclude water-based. This is just land-based housing. |
| 03:37:19.34 | Nastassya Saad | Just land-based. |
| 03:37:24.96 | Lily Whalen | Okay. I'm just pulling up the program language here. The addition of the language would be feasibility of overlay zones, |
| 03:37:37.20 | Kristina Feller | Excluding the land-based marine ships. area. |
| 03:37:43.24 | Lily Whalen | Okay, I think we understand the intent there. Thanks. Thanks. |
| 03:37:46.28 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay. Any other thoughts or directive regarding the EIR or other parts of the general plan? any direction to staff. Thank you. |
| 03:38:02.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:02.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:38:02.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:02.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:38:02.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:02.78 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:38:02.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:02.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I think that regarding the sea level rise issue, Um, I would agree with the previous comments, and it's something I had written down in mind that the. Bay Wave and the county are actually very engaged with RBRA and DCDC and and others regarding sea level rise and monitoring this and working with various agencies of the federal government on plans for manage retreats. So I think I would hope that that would be reflected in the final EIR. and ask that there be consideration for that. |
| 03:38:55.34 | Kristina Feller | So I don't know if Lisa is still here, but Director Whalen, if if you could capture those comments. Oh, there she is. Thank you. |
| 03:39:06.92 | Lisa | I'm still with you. |
| 03:39:08.29 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you, Lisa. |
| 03:39:10.25 | Lisa | So, So is this in addition to the responses to comments on sea level rise |
| 03:39:21.38 | Kristina Feller | You had mentioned that there was really no data and I think that that there is data And there are actually quite a lot of initiatives and interagency initiatives on the data and ongoing monitoring So, I would would ask that that you reconsider that and reflect that in the EIR. |
| 03:39:50.04 | Kristina Feller | and the county's taking, Southern Marin districts in the county are taking a pretty active role. through the bay wave. |
| 03:40:03.59 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:40:04.04 | Lisa | Yes, and your comment is noted. Yes. I just wanted to point I guess I wanted to state that the The presentation was was brief. It didn't cover everything that's contained in the final EIR. But we do have a master response on sea level rise is pretty pretty robust. um And So I guess. you know, we can take your comment, but also I just want to point you to the more detail exclamation that's in the master response on sea level rise. |
| 03:40:46.05 | Unknown | you |
| 03:40:46.82 | Lisa | So on pages, DASH. And I know this document is pretty pretty bulky but it starts on page 2-6 of the final EIR. And then continues on Until Mm. 2-15. And there is some language in there about I'm not sure. Bayways. and using that data Thank you. |
| 03:41:20.47 | Kristina Feller | Sure. I appreciate that. |
| 03:41:23.86 | Lisa | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:41:29.35 | Lisa | any other questions? |
| 03:41:29.58 | Kristina Feller | other comments. |
| 03:41:29.85 | Lisa | And the county, yep, sorry. And the county, you know, we have some |
| 03:41:32.20 | Kristina Feller | and the |
| 03:41:35.32 | Lisa | information there about the county and |
| 03:41:35.51 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:41:35.52 | Tom | THE END OF |
| 03:41:35.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:37.51 | Lisa | So. Anyway. Thank you. |
| 03:41:42.24 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you, Lisa. Thank you very much. Thank you, M Group as well. Are there any other final comments? our directives from any commissioner. |
| 03:41:59.40 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I see none. Okay, so Director Whelan, I think that that includes 4B unless you are looking for any other particular motion. from the commission. |
| 03:42:14.22 | Lily Whalen | We are looking for a motion to adopt the resolution, the draft resolution in your packet, which makes a recommendation to the council. and we'll carve out those two specific changes to the programs. and let the council know about those recommendations as well. |
| 03:42:34.33 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Do, do I have a motion then to approve with the amendments as noted? through our discussion. |
| 03:42:44.49 | Unknown | the moon. |
| 03:42:46.63 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:42:46.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:42:47.04 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 03:42:47.73 | Kristina Feller | very good. Director Whalen, can you take the role? |
| 03:42:52.96 | Lily Whalen | i'd be happy to and just for clarification the motion was um The motion that is in the staff report regarding the final environmental impact report in the general plan as well. That's correct. And Jeff has a comment. |
| 03:43:06.07 | Jeff Bradley | THE END OF THE END OF THE Chair Filler, I'd recommend that the motion also include acknowledgement of the memo. submitted by Fresh Carbon on the additional response to the December 11 Cox Castle letter. |
| 03:43:26.68 | Kristina Feller | We have not discussed the Cox Castle letter. |
| 03:43:36.43 | Kristina Feller | That letter though predated the most recent |
| 03:43:38.12 | Unknown | Letters. |
| 03:43:40.90 | Kristina Feller | EIR. |
| 03:43:45.80 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 03:43:47.33 | Unknown | It was from December. |
| 03:43:48.62 | Jeff Bradley | December 11th, it was submitted during the public comment period for the final EIR that was published on January 8th. And as Lisa Davidson explained in her presentation, I'm not sure. the environmental consultants found that all of the issues were raised in earlier letters from Cox Castle and or covered by master responses within the EIR. |
| 03:44:18.15 | Kristina Feller | Well, then what we're approving though is the January 8th, draft EIR, which incorporates, according to Lisa, Any comments from Cox Castle. So why would we separately be making a motion on the letter? |
| 03:44:35.24 | Jeff Bradley | The December 11th letter came in right before the 5pm deadline and since we had received other letters from Cox Castle, this one was discovered later in the process, so it wasn't actually published in the February 8th. EIR. or excuse me, the January 8th EIR. |
| 03:44:55.15 | Kristina Feller | Can you put it up on the screen just to make sure you're looking at the correct Cox careful letter. I know they've been responding with us or to us, I should say. |
| 03:45:10.29 | Jeff Bradley | Lisa or Tom, do you have that handy? |
| 03:45:21.09 | Unknown | Yeah, you can pull it up. |
| 03:45:23.98 | Jeff Bradley | THANK YOU. |
| 03:45:51.33 | Mary Wagner | Chair Feller, while that's being pulled up, if I could just reiterate. So the comment letter was received prior to the close of the comment period. It's one of a few. Letters received from Cox Castle, it incorporates their prior letters, all we're recommending is that all of the comments are addressed in other areas of response to comments in the EIR, and you have a memo that indicates where those responses are included So what we will do is this will be incorporated into the final EIR that goes to the city council. That's all that we're recommending. |
| 03:46:28.54 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:46:33.18 | Kristina Feller | And this is the November 9th, correct? |
| 03:46:37.67 | Lisa | December 11th. |
| 03:46:37.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:46:37.82 | Kristina Feller | to some. |
| 03:46:38.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:46:38.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:46:38.48 | Unknown | I love it. |
| 03:46:38.72 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 03:46:48.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This letter is in the final EI. Or not. |
| 03:46:54.82 | Lisa | This letter is over. It's not in my life. |
| 03:46:58.41 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:46:58.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:46:58.53 | Unknown | Not in part. |
| 03:46:59.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:47:00.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and your response to it is not in the final. |
| 03:47:06.07 | Lisa | Not specifically to this letter. |
| 03:47:06.95 | Unknown | specifically. |
| 03:47:11.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So don't we have to include both the letter and your response rather than just your response? |
| 03:47:20.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:47:20.97 | Unknown | Yeah, we will do that. We do have a memo. |
| 03:47:20.99 | Lisa | Thank you. |
| 03:47:21.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 03:47:21.11 | Lisa | Thank you. |
| 03:47:21.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:47:21.22 | Lisa | You will. |
| 03:47:26.27 | Lisa | we prepared a memo, um, and that was distributed tonight at I think 7 p.m. So we did look at the letter and identified or pointed to the comment letters and responses that are included in the final EIR that address those same points. and We also are going to prepare a revised final EIR, to provide formal responses to that letter. that are gonna be pointing to other responses within the EIR. |
| 03:48:01.10 | Unknown | point. |
| 03:48:05.99 | Lisa | as a person. |
| 03:48:06.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | as currently. Different from the memo? Or the same as the memo? |
| 03:48:11.88 | Lisa | the same as the memo. |
| 03:48:15.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The only thing I was saying was simply, if you're going to include your memo, you need to include the letter. That was all. |
| 03:48:22.46 | Lisa | Oh, of course, yes. The final EIR will include this letter dated December 11th. |
| 03:48:26.09 | Unknown | letter. |
| 03:48:28.81 | Lisa | and it will be bracketed and it will contain responses to that. letter within the final EIR, just like all of the other letters. |
| 03:48:40.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand, it was just discussion of your memo, so I wanted to make sure that what it was referring to was included. |
| 03:48:48.32 | Unknown | Yes, yes. Thank you. It's getting late. Yeah. |
| 03:48:59.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:07.23 | Lisa | I don't know if you want me to keep scrolling through the letter. |
| 03:49:11.60 | Richard Graef | Thank you. What is the gist of it, just quickly? Um, What's the point they're making? without having to read all the words. |
| 03:49:22.76 | Lisa | Well, but... |
| 03:49:27.28 | Lisa | I'm trying to think of, it might be better for me to pull up the memo as we summarize it. |
| 03:49:38.13 | Kristina Feller | That would be your throwback. |
| 03:49:39.21 | Lisa | Yeah. I'm going to do that because we've already kind of condensed it. |
| 03:49:41.18 | Kristina Feller | I'm going to... |
| 03:49:41.56 | Lily Whalen | you. |
| 03:49:44.27 | Lisa | in the memo. Great. |
| 03:49:59.60 | Lisa | Okay, can everybody see the memo? |
| 03:50:02.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:04.35 | Lisa | Okay. So, |
| 03:50:09.86 | Lisa | The first comments. has to do with the EIR should evaluate housing sites sufficient to meet the city's current arena allocations |
| 03:50:16.15 | Unknown | E.I. |
| 03:50:22.66 | Lisa | and this, The comment was also raised in the Cox Castle Nicholson letter dated November 9, 2020. And we've prepared a response to that comment. in the response to Cox-Castle-Nicholson 12. Thank you. The next one is that the EIR should analyze opportunities for senior and affordable housing. consistent with the proposed general plan policies, And this comment was also raised in the Cox Council, Nicholson, Letter dated November 17, 2020. and a response was provided in the response to Cox Castle Nicholson 10. to think. Kama was also raised in the Cox Castle the Nicholson letter dated November 9. 2020. A response was provided in Cox Castle Nicholson 12. next topic. is view corridors. sorry the EIR should analyze potential housing sites in the Marin ships COMMENT. was raised in the Cox Castle Nicholson letter dated November 17. and a response is provided in Cox Castle Nicholson number 11. if the comment sort of raises the same topic regarding view corridors. in the Marinship. And This same comment was raised in the Cox Castle Nicholson letter dated November 17. we provided a response in number three and four. of the... response to comments. There was a comment about the physical division of a community. And this comment was also raised in the letter dated August 5th. 2020. It's included in attachment one to the final EIR. A response to this is provided in Cox Castle Nicholson 2. So for all of these, we're, We're pointing to that are already coming. prepared. There's also a comment regarding hazardous materials. and how the revised draft EIR identifies former shipbuilding facilities within the Marineship it could have potential contaminants. and that notes certain properties have undergone several hazardous materials investigations |
| 03:53:10.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:53:12.06 | Lisa | and that These properties no longer contain hazardous materials. and the commenter asked for recognition that Policies would not be required for sites that can demonstrate an absence hazardous materials. I'm not sure. And then the property owner submitted documentation in support of a project application. the city to consider. Um, Technical information, such as a Phase I, is time sensitive, therefore updated information Commonly required if more than a year has passed |
| 03:53:45.03 | Unknown | you |
| 03:53:45.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:53:45.22 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:53:48.24 | Lisa | So depending on the age of the submitted information and data presented therein, the city may determine that no further investigation would be required. between determined that no changes to the revised draft EIR would be required to respond to this comment. |
| 03:54:00.08 | Unknown | that |
| 03:54:08.33 | Lisa | There was also a comment regarding archaeological sensitivity zones, the commenter points out a typo, in that the revised draft EIR and I think that's a good Exhibit 3.4-3. which is not included in the document, That's correct, it's a typo. The reference should be to Exhibit 3.4-2, which we will correct in the errata. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO an explicit reference be added to the EIR to clarify that no archaeological resources have been identified on the property. and I'm going to go ahead and get a little bit. Our response is that environmental documents do not make explicit statements regarding the absence of resources, as there's always a potential. that previously unknown resources could be uncovered during site preparation and excavation Therefore, no change to the revised draft EIR is required. |
| 03:55:03.58 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:55:09.20 | Lisa | So those are... the responses that will be into the revised form, revised final EIR and packaged up in a more formal documents. |
| 03:55:28.35 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Lisa. |
| 03:55:30.55 | Lisa | You're welcome. |
| 03:55:33.45 | Kristina Feller | So with the review of this, Director Whelan, are you suggesting that we modify the draft resolution that to identify Thank you. Lisa's responses to this memo. |
| 03:55:54.56 | Lily Whalen | I might let our city attorney, Mary Wagner, weigh in on that one if the if the resolution needs to be modified to indicate the this comment letter and the responses to it or not. |
| 03:56:16.48 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, thanks, Lily. So we can certainly indicate that the commission received and reviewed the response and that that's incorporated in the recommendation to the council on the FEIR. |
| 03:56:34.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. It's... If that works, if that works, if we can just make a motion regarding the resolution, Mary, and to add that language and Director Whalen, I'm assuming you would know what we mean how to do so. |
| 03:56:55.95 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and Chair Feller, we don't need to belabor it. You guys reviewed the comment letter. You reviewed the response. We have that on the record. we will just incorporate that into the, the FEIR that goes to the council and know that your recommendation includes that information that was presented tonight. So on further thought, no need to make any modifications. We'll just go forward as as planned with the two suggested modifications to the general plan elements that you reviewed and gave direction on tonight, and we can go from there. |
| 03:57:28.28 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. Thank you, Lily. So commissioners, do I have a motion to approve the draft resolution with the modifications as discussed this evening? |
| 03:57:42.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think you had that, I believe. |
| 03:57:42.51 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. So I think you just need to amend my initial motion. My original motion, so... I amend it as described. |
| 03:57:52.53 | Kristina Feller | Second, anyone? |
| 03:57:55.56 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:57:55.57 | Richard Graef | back on. |
| 03:57:57.24 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. Lily, can you please call the roll? |
| 03:58:02.42 | Lily Whalen | Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:58:06.49 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:58:06.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:58:06.81 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:58:07.59 | Lily Whalen | Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 03:58:08.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:58:09.76 | Lily Whalen | Michener Pierce. |
| 03:58:10.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:58:11.65 | Lily Whalen | by Sarah Graff. |
| 03:58:12.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 03:58:13.24 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. Fairfeller. That was a yes. Yes, perfect. That carries five zero. Thank you all for your hard work on this. huge document and effort. It is so appreciated. All of the long nights and hours. Yes. |
| 03:58:33.71 | Unknown | Thank you. Well, now let's see what the council does and hopefully we'll be implementing soon as the next step. |
| 03:58:42.23 | Morgan Pierce | I'm thankful for the pandemic only because the trees we saved by not printing out Umpteen thousand copies of this. |
| 03:58:50.26 | Kristina Feller | Exactly. Great, well, thank you, Director Whalen, Mary, staff group, Lisa, everybody, really appreciate. your efforts and support of us this evening and of course throughout the |
| 03:59:03.70 | Unknown | And... So. |
| 03:59:04.41 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 03:59:04.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:59:07.83 | Kristina Feller | the process. So thank you very much. Um, |
| 03:59:11.12 | Morgan Pierce | See you in 2040. |
| 03:59:12.62 | Kristina Feller | in the arrangement. Director Whalen, I think we're ready for the next item on our agenda. |
| 03:59:20.76 | Lily Whalen | Excellent. So we will move on to our next item, which is 4C, and it has to do with development agreement. up the Short presentation I have here. |
| 03:59:46.80 | Lily Whalen | Sorry, with all my windows open, I think I closed that one. So let me just get back. |
| 03:59:52.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:59:52.26 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:00:18.79 | Lily Whalen | So I think we, I'm on the screen now here, right? |
| 04:00:22.70 | Unknown | Yeah. Perfect. |
| 04:00:23.63 | Lily Whalen | Okay, great. Excellent. So this is an item that was continued from your Decemeber 2nd meeting to your December 16th meeting to your January 6th meeting. And we're here to continue our discussion from December 2nd. to discuss the proposed amendment, which again was continued. and from, All of those dates I mentioned, but the real discussion happened on December 2nd. And that is to establish procedures and requirements for consideration of development agreements in Sausalito. The Commission held a public meeting at that time and asked questions of staff. and continue the item eventually to the hearing this evening. So the planning commission, in addition to some of the questions that you asked at that hearing, you had a a number of items that you requested we bring back to have a discussion about And the first was to return with additional information related to the process that would be followed for a development agreement. So we prepared a flowchart in your packet and then also on the screen here. |
| 04:01:37.12 | Unknown | and then also, |
| 04:01:39.22 | Lily Whalen | The commission also asked staff return with Um, development agreement regulation examples from other communities and possibly other projects from other communities. We provided Um, as attachment for a hypothetical project from the Institute for Local Government. And then we also reached out to other Marin County cities and towns and asked about their development agreement processes. and provided some examples of specific projects. We provided those from San Rafael and Novato in the staff report. And we can go into more detail and have a discussion after the presentation here. The staff report in the presentation on December 2 went over how the proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and that's on the screen here. And this is the last slide, recommending that the commission conduct a public hearing on this zoning ordinance amendment. to establish procedures for development agreements, providing additional direction. And then we're recommending you adopt the resolution which recommends city council adoption of the zoning ordinance amendment. That concludes our staff presentation. We're here for questions you might have. |
| 04:03:05.53 | Morgan Pierce | You're really christy enough. |
| 04:03:09.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you, Director Whalen. Um, And the great presentation, the flowchart in particular, I thought was very, very helpful. So thank you. Who would like to start off this discussion tonight? Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 04:03:25.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have a question, I think this is a question part for I, as The attachments include examples of other communities and And I've been seeing this done elsewhere in different parts of the country. The ordinance is very clear. It defines that the Planning Commission's recommendation, and I'm looking at it so it's fine to turn sideways, is consistent with the objective policy, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan, and then is consistent with the zoning and other land use regulations applicable to the property. So it's clear to me that you cannot use a development agreement if the general plan and the zoning don't allow the use. What concerns me is in that example and I've seen it elsewhere even more, San Rafael is sort of more vague. It doesn't say they need zoning there's something about compatibility. I forget the exact language in the attachment. But it would seem to be the cart before the horse if you were to go out either publicly or privately, request a development agreement, for a parcel of land in Sausalito and where the use is not allowed by the zoning. And so it concerns me because I could see a case where you go out for that, you come in with a development agreement, which requests the zoning amendment and a general plan amendment as part of the development agreement. I think we should be clear that the development agreement should only be used where the underlying zoning allows whatever it is they're proposing in the first place, especially in light of the long conversation we just had a minute ago. So anyways, I don't know if I'm being clear there, but that's my question. This language is important. It's in there. I just want to make sure that was the intent. |
| 04:05:29.36 | Mary Wagner | Chair Feller, if I may. Yeah, so great question and thank you for that. And I think you'll see, you know, not surprisingly, the examples we got from our neighbors to the north. came from the big bigger jurisdictions from San Rafael and Novato, and they both were really lengthy projects. You know, you had to kind of wade through these years and years, if not decades of history, on the development of both Biomarin and the Buck Institute, Buck Institute and Novato, obviously, and Biomarin in San Rafael. But to your specific question, Commissioner Luxenberg, you do have to make those findings. They are included in our resolution that the development agreement will be consistent with. the general plan and zoning. But what you see often are they are coupled with a separate action requesting a general plan amendment and or zoning amendments because oftentimes these projects don't fit you know, within a particular bucket that exists in in the zoning code or the general plan. So both of the projects that we brought to you as examples, I believe, included general plan amendment requests that were processed concurrently. but they did have to be processed in order to be able to make those findings. Right. So it wouldn't be consistent unless the planning commission and the council also approved those, those modifications. I think if that's the commission's feeling like, Hey, don't use these to kind of I'm not sure. you know, to adjust concurrently. the general plan. Maybe that's the recommendation to the council, you know, as these projects come forward, the Planning Commission would not be so excited about seeing projects that necessarily don't fit with the existing zoning and with the general planned land use designations. But there may be an example of a project that you would be excited about. You know, I was trying to think today about the Innovation Center that has been discussed through the general plan process of something that might be feasible in the Marin ship. And it might not fit within our current zoning or current general plan. Well, it would have with the general plan policies and programs that you're adopting. But there might be other tweaks that need to happen to allow that to go forward. And that can be part of that bundle of a project. That was one example that came to mind. So I think it is our recommendation that you get the process in place and that we other tool to use, but I hear the concern know that it can't be an end around um or a way to get something in that that would not otherwise be acceptable to the to the community |
| 04:08:05.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mary. That was good. This is a good conversation. Any other comments or questions for staff? |
| 04:08:16.20 | Nastassya Saad | I had one, but unfortunately I took the note, but I can't find in which document it came to me from when I was reading. I remember seeing that There was some, It said that you can set an amount of time that the construction can begin but I wasn't sure if it was defined. So if you go into a development agreement is the planning commission setting that time is it based on the project or was there some standard that was there that I may have missed? |
| 04:08:53.51 | Mary Wagner | So if I understand the question, Chair Feller, and I'll look to your community development director to weigh in here, too. We do have construction time limits that exist. in Sausalito and they apply depending upon the valuation of the project, how much time you get and how long you can take once you're You've received all your entitlements. How a development agreement would work with that would be an interesting discussion because they're often phased, right? So sometimes these are bigger projects, right? That don't fit within a smaller timeframe and they come in like you saw with BioMorin. and with the Buck Institute that come in in different phases and then each building permit might have its own timeframe. Um, And I don't know if your community development director has anything to add to that or not. If I understand your question. correctly, Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:09:42.72 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think you're understanding. I think the example was you can go into a 10 year agreement even. So obviously phases make total sense, it's just, when it would start if there was a parameter around that and who sets it. |
| 04:09:57.86 | Mary Wagner | Yes, the development agreement itself has a lifespan, has a duration, and has those annual check-ins. And they're, as you saw from these examples, often extended because of various reasons. But I think that that's part of the negotiation. with the potential project developer. Thank you. |
| 04:10:17.82 | Nastassya Saad | And is that negotiation then from the community development director and staff, or is that what |
| 04:10:25.02 | Mary Wagner | Commission |
| 04:10:26.27 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:10:26.31 | Mary Wagner | So great question, and that came up at the first hearing we had on this, like exactly who is sitting at this table negotiating these terms? So I think in most jurisdictions, it probably starts at a staff level. I can see in Sausalito how that could involve a kind of a working group Maybe depending upon how the council wanted to approach it. on who would be involved in that, but the planning commission obviously is involved in the approval of the development agreement and recommendation to the council. And then ultimately the council would approve the development agreement itself. But in terms of who's sitting at the table negotiating, that would not probably take place, you know, with the full commission or the full council. That would be various discussions either with staff members and maybe one or to elected or appointed officials if that's the direction that the council wanted to go. |
| 04:11:16.10 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I think that flow chart was really helpful. So whoever created that was great. |
| 04:11:21.45 | Mary Wagner | Well, this is great because Lily created that. Oh, Lily, of course. You could tell because she's a planner and thinks visually. And I got that and I was like, I need to do that. |
| 04:11:24.34 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, really, of course. Fabulous. |
| 04:11:29.71 | Nastassya Saad | I was reading and I was like, I'm so confused. And then I opened that attachment. I'm like, I get it now. So thank you, Lily. |
| 04:11:30.82 | Mary Wagner | and I was like, I'm going to go. |
| 04:11:38.65 | Nastassya Saad | That's all thank you thanks that's all I had. |
| 04:11:40.78 | Kristina Feller | Thanks, Commissioner Saad, great questions. Commissioner Pierce. |
| 04:11:43.98 | Morgan Pierce | I had a quick question regarding a couple of hypotheticals. I can obviously see how this could work very beneficially for our community, but also see how it could open the door to some nefarious players. So I'm curious how it would be filtered at the community development level. Let's say somebody came in and wanted to do senior housing at the city's service yard versus somebody who came in and wanted to do a five story hotel next to the cruising club. |
| 04:11:54.73 | Unknown | Nothing. |
| 04:12:13.99 | Morgan Pierce | Obviously those would require general plan amendments and all the things we just discussed. One would be very embraced by the community, one would Probably not be. How does that? How does that track once somebody comes to the desk produces a intent to do something like one of those two projects. |
| 04:12:39.52 | Mary Wagner | If I'm understanding the question correctly, we get an application in the door, right, and then what happens? |
| 04:12:43.48 | Morgan Pierce | I'm sorry. |
| 04:12:43.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:12:43.62 | Morgan Pierce | Absolutely. |
| 04:12:43.97 | Unknown | You get it. |
| 04:12:48.23 | Mary Wagner | And I think that's something that we need to work through, obviously, on who who once it's taken in, who's discussing things with the developer, oftentimes these things have probably been talked about before the application even comes in. because there are those types of projects, right? So there's going to be somebody who's going to come to the table and say, you know, we want to build XYZ. How is your community going to react to that? What do you, you know, how do you envision that playing out and discussions that, you know, kind of at the city manager level? and or you know the council level potentially and just to be clear to you i wanted you guys to make sure everybody understands that this process that we're bringing forward you know could have been requested by an applicant or a developer if we didn't have one um so we kind of wanted to get out in front of that too and and get so we could have these levels of discussion without that filter also applying about a specific project so you know um commissioner pier, I'm not sure that I actually answered your question because I think that's going to be somewhat dependent on what it is and how it comes in the door. And ultimately it is a contract, and it's a negotiation and a discussion. |
| 04:13:32.02 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:13:58.54 | Mary Wagner | I'll leave it at that. Thank you. |
| 04:14:02.63 | Kristina Feller | Thank you Commissioner Pierce, thank you Mary. Any additional questions, Commissioner Pierce? or |
| 04:14:09.80 | Richard Graef | you |
| 04:14:11.98 | Kristina Feller | That's vice your ground. |
| 04:14:14.78 | Richard Graef | No questions. Um, Thank you. I'm interested to hear the public comment. |
| 04:14:20.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:14:20.82 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:14:21.09 | Kristina Feller | I just have one question if I may, before we open this up to public comment and I, I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but for the benefit of or avoidance of doubt and for the public record here, I'm assuming that this is applicable to both land-based and water-based agreements. |
| 04:14:43.79 | Mary Wagner | Sure. I mean, to the extent it's within city, the city, you know, parameters. Yes, there's no, there's no restriction on that, which is a really interesting. point. Right. And when one of the public discussions that the council has had about use of a development agreement is with Bridgeway Marina, which is both. Right land and water based. |
| 04:15:07.55 | Kristina Feller | Exactly, exactly. And I noticed, Director Whalen, on your fabulous flowchart, that you're identifying some work sessions as part of the process before an actual application hits us in terms of review. Is that correct? |
| 04:15:33.48 | Lily Whalen | It is. I have to go back actually and look at the suggested modifications I made to the ordinance. I think I put them in as a... an option and not mandatory. for a study session with the planning commission. I'll pull that up real quick. |
| 04:15:51.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:15:51.86 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:15:56.32 | Morgan Pierce | And this says optional. |
| 04:15:58.19 | Unknown | Yeah, optional. |
| 04:15:59.03 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:16:00.84 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:16:04.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:16:04.36 | Kristina Feller | All right. Thank you. |
| 04:16:11.42 | Kristina Feller | Okay, any further questions of staff from the commission? |
| 04:16:17.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:16:18.45 | Kristina Feller | I think it's time to open this up for public comment. |
| 04:16:22.66 | Lily Whalen | Great. So at this time, if there's any member of the public who would like to make any comments on the development agreement zoning ordinance. Amanda Solliday, she's a member of the committee and she's a member of the committee And make a public comment you press star nine on your phone to raise your hand. So we'll look for hands, any hands now for a public comment. And I do see one from Mr. Burr. |
| 04:16:56.73 | Kristina Feller | Right. Harlow. We've got three minutes for public comment. Thank you. |
| 04:17:08.41 | Kristina Feller | Oops, you're on mute. |
| 04:17:09.77 | Carlo Berg | Thank you. |
| 04:17:10.24 | Kristina Feller | There you go. |
| 04:17:10.28 | Carlo Berg | There you go. Working? OK. I was just going to say, really, Mr. Berg is my father's name. So you can call me Carlito. |
| 04:17:12.66 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:17:17.18 | Carlo Berg | Thank you. Um, You know, I'm really hard in it. you guys are taking the step to look at development agreements. It's something that's really near and dear to my heart. We're engaging in a development agreement right now with the city of Englewood to produce affordable housing. a couple blocks away from the stadium. It's gonna be 62 units of affordable housing, 100% affordable. that and we're seeing that we're seeing anywhere from 20 to 60% AMI in a city that has that has a AMI area median income of $42,000, which is $100,000 more per person in AMI than Inglewood. commonly black Hispanic community. um, None of my cousins grew up there. Obviously, the gentrification is a big deal. Um, From my perspective, this is a wonderful thing, but I just wanna point out a couple small things. In the current general plan update, I know you guys are supportive of water-based housing. And so are we, we have marinas and And we have some liveaboards, although not that many. And we'd like to do more. So I reached out to BCBC to ask what that process would look like from a permitting perspective. And they said, we will, I'm paraphrasing, but we'll never allow more. We I will not allow you to expand. in any significant way. I'm not sure. And, um, Essentially, they said it would take 10 years and you would need over 60 permits and we still wouldn't approve. So when we talk about water based housing and then if we talk even about, you know, sea level rise and the H plus plus scenario, which you know is is given by the state of California. which doesn't actually have a probability associated with it over the next 100 years. And the only things from a planning perspective that They say don't put in that area or nuclear power plants in airports. So, From that perspective, if you need a seven foot draft for a boat, of any kind and like for instance, our site is a little more than plus five MHHW, so mean high, high water. I'm not sure. then you would need to, you know, raise the H plus plus scenario in terms of water. plus an additional seven feet. in order to actually put a boat in there most areas available, quote unquote, for water-based housing. I really like the idea And I know that everyone's supportive of it but it seems like the local, even in, you know, the general plan update, it only allows minor marina expansions. So, When you look at like the Bridgeway Marina example for a development agreement and for affordable housing, I think it's a great solution out of affordable housing on the water in many ways. but it doesn't seem scalable under the current local regulatory environment, which has nothing to do with Sausalito. So I'm totally supportive of all of it. um, and And I hope that we can have more senior housing, more affordable housing, more affordable senior housing. throughout the entire city. But I think we also got to look at the practical considerations, which is anyone going to do it, it's going to be met with a ton of agencies that don't want them to do that. So that's all I have to say. |
| 04:20:34.50 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Carlito. Thank you so much. Any other public comment at this time, please raise your hand. |
| 04:20:46.73 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Seeing none. I'm going Oh, excuse me, John DeRay. You have three minutes for public comment. Thank you. |
| 04:21:00.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. We just need to, there we go. |
| 04:21:04.47 | John DeRay | Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you so much. Um, I wanted to, uh, um, just make a comment, uh, |
| 04:21:05.47 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 04:21:13.78 | John DeRay | Relating to the development agreement process that you're talking about here, I think it's very important to put in place also some type of enforcement process, perhaps, that would follow the project after it's developed. I think most people realize that a big problem that we have in the marineship is lack of enforcement for 30 years. And that is, you know, that's really a problem. You know, we have... uh, call center in the industrial zone. We have a workout studio in the water zone. The fine arts space allocation is essentially ignored. Um, If you go down Gate 5 Road, and you see the leasing signs there in the industrial zone, try calling up one of the leasing agents and tell them you have a machine shop that you want to move into their industrial space and see what they say. Um, this is the kind of thing that we're, that we're up against. Um, in the Marin ship. So I just wanted to make the point that enforcement is very important. And believe me, this is not the Community Development Department's fault. They're understaffed. You know, this has not been a priority so. They're not to blame. but it's something that needs to be worked on in the future Um, and then the last thing I'll say is regarding water-based housing. I think I would, um, I would encourage the planning commission to get their information directly from BCDC. If you look at the houseboats, there are 470 houseboats roughly. the draft on those houseboats is you know two to four feet um i don't know any seven foot draft houseboat so um they can go in in in uh water that's not very deep. All you have to do is go down the bike path and you can see that low tide the houseboats rest in the mud. So Anyway, that's my comment. Thank you very much and thanks for your hard work. |
| 04:23:28.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, John. Any other public comments this evening on this item? |
| 04:23:40.29 | Kristina Feller | Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna close public comments. and bring the discussion back up to our virtual dais. |
| 04:23:48.02 | Lily Whalen | Just to be sure, I think we had a new call in person. So if the new call-in person would like to make a comment on this item, which is a development agreement and zoning ordinance amendment, please press star 9 to make your public comment now and we'll know that you want your Um, to be unmuted. not seeing them raise their hand. So I think we're okay. Okay. |
| 04:24:17.54 | Kristina Feller | I'm gonna raise hands. |
| 04:24:18.01 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:24:18.02 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:24:18.09 | Lily Whalen | Okay. |
| 04:24:19.53 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director Whelan. caller, if you could please unmute and state your name for the record. You have three minutes for public comment. Thank you. |
| 04:24:38.48 | Lily Whalen | So caller, you might need to press star seven. There you go. Thank you. Hi. |
| 04:24:44.32 | Unknown | Hi. |
| 04:24:46.81 | Kristina Feller | Good evening. |
| 04:24:47.81 | Unknown | I can. Can you hear me? |
| 04:24:50.26 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 04:24:52.20 | Unknown | Thank you. on. I just wanted to kind of put the little note into the whole thing. You know, I just hope that the commission, I thank everyone for all their extremely hard work. It's just amazing how you hold such a sane meeting and everything. It's great. Um, I want to just say, that before my rent was tripled in my artwork space, and musician space, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. after I helped work on the crew to rebuild the whole area for the shops and artists Artisans said, that are there now, that are part of the culture Sausalito supposedly represents, you know, we have this legacy. of the arts. and literature. and so on. That can only be endangered if public-private partnerships, you know, actually be made which reflects this because I'm just speaking as one who After my rent was tripled in Arquez, eventually, I went to San Francisco and took part in the last great All right. do-it-yourself publishing and music explosion that that took place there before the dot com boom blew it away. So anyway. Just think carefully about the intricacies the things you pass and examine And I thank you for your hard work again Good night. |
| 04:26:12.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, sir. Do you mind stating your name for the record? |
| 04:26:18.14 | Kristina Feller | Well, sorry, Director Whelan, we lost our caller there. I'm not sure who that was, but his comment is on the record. Any other public comment at this time? Okay, seeing none, I'll close public comment and bring it back up to our virtual dais. |
| 04:26:42.49 | Kristina Feller | Who would like to start our discussion this evening on development agreements? |
| 04:26:50.71 | Kristina Feller | No takers? OK, I'll start. |
| 04:26:52.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You were going to start. I was only volunteering because you hadn't started. |
| 04:26:52.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:26:58.84 | Kristina Feller | Well, I actually, um, I'm in favor of development agreements. I think they're a very useful tool if used properly. I think that they could become quite useful for Sausseli though. However, I think we have to put guardrails on whatever that might be. one of the major things I think is quite important is I think the study sessions should be mandatory. enough to |
| 04:27:27.77 | Unknown | and not |
| 04:27:29.08 | Kristina Feller | That is a personal feeling and comment. I think that that will be a very constructive time And it will be, beneficial for both the city the commission as well as the applicant at any particular time. Certainly, enforcement is important. And certainly the devil's always in the detail development agreements. with that being said Um, I'm generally in favor of this as a tool for the city. |
| 04:28:09.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:28:11.58 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:28:12.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, yeah, I also think it's an excellent tool. And I was thinking about my comment earlier about how do you do that. So it's interesting because I was thinking if we could incorporate a study session, which is on the chart, but either not in the ordinance and not in the whereas's. Because I don't want to preclude an idea that we might want. that where the zoning doesn't allow it on the other hand, I mean, there was discussion of the council the other week about going out for proposals for something that was prohibited by the zoning ordinance before you figured out where you would want that item, for example. And then housing and the housing element is going to be, there might be an example where housing is appropriate on the water-based or something where we hadn't thought of it so i don't want to preclude it but i don't want it to go so far down the road so i like the idea that you just suggested about somehow either putting it in the ordinance for a study session which might be the best way or putting it in the ware assets however we do it but i think that was an excellent suggestion chair of color |
| 04:29:21.17 | Morgan Pierce | Commissioner Pierce. I fully agree with both both the You, Chair Feller, and Commissioner Luxembourg, and I am curious, you know, you described establishing the guardrails, and I'm curious how we might codify that to best serve, obviously, the commission's needs, the applicant's needs, and the community development department's needs. I mean, I can see a reason why they might have put optional on the flowchart because there might be a project that, you know, doesn't, rise to the significance of something that has, that is so impactful that really needs the entire planning commission to review it. But if that's the case, where do we establish that threshold? I don't know. I'm not sure we can figure it out this second, but We should figure something out. Or we just by default sign everything up and it's either a really quick study session or it's a really lengthy study session. |
| 04:30:13.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Good comment, Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:30:21.07 | Nastassya Saad | I didn't have any other questions, and I would agree. with you, Chair Feller. I think it should be... on the docket to be a mandatory thing and like Commissioner Pierce says it it might be a breeze but we might want to have our hand in that at that stage as a requirement versus optional. So I definitely support that. |
| 04:30:45.46 | Kristina Feller | Right. Thank you. |
| 04:30:46.56 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:30:47.52 | Kristina Feller | Vice Chair Brown. |
| 04:30:49.44 | Richard Graef | Well, I agree that this seems like it would be a very useful tool. It would also be a way of managing large projects and make sure because of the safeguards and the monitoring and checking in, to keep things on track. I think it makes sense all the way around. It certainly would make sense for a developer or somebody who's trying to do a project and definitely makes sense for the city. So, yeah. |
| 04:31:26.40 | Kristina Feller | I actually, it brings up an issue. I think Commissioner Luxenberg, you were hitting on this as well as commissioner. Yes, Mary, if, if. I can ask you sort of a follow on question just for clarification of what we're talking about here. And that is from the standpoint of of the process and approval does the development agreement in any way sort of, circumvent the norm the planning commission is this is put more weight on the city council to approve the development agreement Um, Um, and bypass the planning commission. |
| 04:32:13.66 | Mary Wagner | A great question, Chair Feller. Thank you. No, I think it actually provides for even more robust public process and includes both the planning commission and the council. And I think that that's an excellent question. And I think sometimes people think that it does kind of circumvent a normal process. But what I'm seeing and what I'm, Thank you. researching and looking into is it seems to provide perhaps even more public process than you would have had otherwise, and certainly doesn't circumvent the Planning Commission's review and weighing in on a project. |
| 04:32:47.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Any additional sort of thoughts or comments or deliberations to have here. You know, tonight in front of us, we have the draft or a draft ordinance. And then we also have the resolution. we would want to take, make a motion on on that, on the the draft resolution. Is everyone comfortable doing so this evening? |
| 04:33:23.59 | Morgan Pierce | with the caveat that we're making the study sessions required. |
| 04:33:28.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. That's correct. Yeah. |
| 04:33:30.04 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 04:33:31.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:33:34.09 | Kristina Feller | So everyone's comfortable with that. |
| 04:33:35.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Are we going to add that to 1080.070, where it says reviewed by the Planning Commission and add a specific requirement of a study session in the text of the ordinance? I think that might be the best way. |
| 04:33:49.99 | Kristina Feller | I agree with you. That's a great suggestion. So that's on page three of six at the top. I think that's a good place for that. And, and. Director Whalen, the flow chart that you have, I don't know if that that shouldn't be part of this, actually, I think it's probably one of the best Graphics. |
| 04:34:10.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:34:10.57 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. the process and perhaps that can also include the mandatory study session as well as the the section that Commissioner Luxenberg is referring to. |
| 04:34:28.38 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. I'm really happy to hear that the flow chart was helpful. That's really, it's really nice to hear that. Um, and So we can definitely make the flow chart a part of our communication materials to the public. We can post it online. and once the ordinance is adopted. by the council. My suggestion for a good location for the study session might be actually between 1080.050 and 1080-06-0. So that's between review of application and notice of public hearing. So that would be kind of the intermediate step between receiving the application and actually taking it forward through a formal public hearing would be to have that study session. So it would be to kind of convert some of the language in the last sentence of review of application where the committee director is having the discretion to require a planning commission study session that would just be separate item in between those two sections. What I might also recommend, since I'm talking right here and I have you is, retaining some of the language about the discretion to require a public workshop or another public vetting opportunity. for the community development director. So that there'd be that depending on the project circumstances. So you'd have your study session with the planning commission and then the director would also have the ability to require further public engagement and outreach. Yes. something to consider. |
| 04:36:04.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I like that. everyone. Yeah. |
| 04:36:11.40 | Morgan Pierce | Yep. |
| 04:36:12.43 | Kristina Feller | Is it the difference with the process though is we're actually just. we're not approving. the development, we're just making that recommendation for the approval of the City Council. |
| 04:36:22.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:36:22.44 | Kristina Feller | That's why I think mandatory study session and outreach is important. |
| 04:36:29.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I would hope we could convey to the council if we're gonna do something publicly rather than a private development, that if it's on a public piece of land before we go out for RFPs and other things like that, we have that study session before we get an application. In other words, if the city wants to put out a request for people to come in and propose something, We should have seen it before they're actually coming in with formal application, if you see what I'm saying. |
| 04:37:04.44 | Kristina Feller | That's a good point. I see what you're saying. Would you, are you suggesting that might be a joint Planning Commission City Council. work study session then? |
| 04:37:13.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If they're proposing something that's not allowed by zoning or whatever, yes, I would suggest that. so that we don't get something down the line that the city's gone out and invested a lot of money into. and then determine that It's not something that is, you know, it's going to be approvable eventually. |
| 04:37:33.72 | Unknown | But wouldn't the city have to follow the, general plan guidance and zoning. |
| 04:37:44.78 | Lily Whalen | If I can, Chair, fellow commissioners, make another suggestion, potentially hearing the the concerns here. What about Um... moving the requirement for the study session prior to submission of a formal application. I think that's what I'm hearing is a study session before everything's formally submitted for public hearing. and |
| 04:38:12.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:38:12.98 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 04:38:13.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be better, I think. |
| 04:38:14.71 | Lily Whalen | Absolutely. |
| 04:38:15.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:38:15.29 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:38:15.31 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Yeah, that definitely makes sense. |
| 04:38:19.41 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, that way. |
| 04:38:20.36 | Richard Graef | what I thought you were getting at here, but I see that's Yeah. |
| 04:38:25.47 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. But we don't want to waste time and resources of the city any more than we do a potential developer. So I think that would be very helpful. |
| 04:38:36.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:38:38.23 | Lily Whalen | So it would be kind of like a pre-application study session requirement. So there would be a, a requirement for a minimal level of application materials to be filed for that study session, but it'd be more in the pre-application form. I think that I have enough direction to craft some language that would own. we can integrate in as a recommendation from the Planning Commission. |
| 04:39:06.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's an excellent approach. I think that's great. |
| 04:39:14.29 | Kristina Feller | Any other thoughts or comments for this item? Thank you. amendments, edits, additions. Are we ready to make a motion? Okay, anyone would like to make the motion to approve this with the modifications as noted and just discussed with Director Whelan. |
| 04:39:40.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So moved. I'll second. |
| 04:39:45.59 | Kristina Feller | Lily, could you take the wrong? |
| 04:39:47.28 | Lily Whalen | Yes, Commissioner Luxenberg. Thank you. |
| 04:39:49.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 04:39:50.30 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. Mishra said. Yes. Commissioner Pierce? |
| 04:39:54.52 | Morgan Pierce | Yes. |
| 04:39:55.92 | Lily Whalen | Vice Chair Graff. |
| 04:39:57.19 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 04:39:57.91 | Lily Whalen | And Chair Fowler? Did I hear you? I'm sorry, yes, perfect, great. That's five zero. Thank you so much. That carries five zero, the recommendation to the council with those modifications. |
| 04:40:09.91 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, Director Whelan. I think that concludes the hearing material. Should we move to communications? |
| 04:40:21.00 | Lily Whalen | I'm moving on here to the communications item. I do have one item. that was directed to be brought back as a communications report out from and this is, I'm reporting out kind of for our Public Works Director here. He provided, so this is about the North Street stairs. The commission asked for an update on the North Street stairs at the last hearing and the public works director provided a one-way communication to the planning commission regarding the stairs. And I'll just give a really brief very brief summary of you'd like more information. I can do that, but background is during the the big storm in February of 2019. There was a surface slide that originated above the North Street steps and caused dirt and soil to fall onto the North Street steps. Steps are located within the city's roadway right away maintained by the city. And then there was also a tree that also fell over with, soil that came off the slope and caused damage to the step railing. and deposited dirt on the steps and in Tiffany Park below the steps. And the city installed cave railing and closed the steps in 2019 based on those hazards. At the same time, there was the devastating slide between Sausalito Boulevard and Crescent Avenue that happened on Valentine's Day in 2000. And so the city was concentrating our efforts on that slide. And so that's why we closed the North Street steps to pedestrian traffic at that time. City has been in contact with our soil engineer consultant to develop a repair strategy for the stairs and our timeline now is dependent on staff availability. Department of Public Works staff will do its best to get the project out to bid in early spring. the anticipation of starting construction after the rain subsides and removing the material from the slope will be labor intensive, but should not last. |
| 04:42:25.01 | Unknown | mom. |
| 04:42:25.60 | Lily Whalen | So that's the report out summary from the Public Works Director. |
| 04:42:31.07 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director Whalen. |
| 04:42:33.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I appreciate the quick follow up on that. |
| 04:42:38.97 | Kristina Feller | Any other items of communication from any of the commissioners? No, it's not. |
| 04:42:46.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:42:47.98 | Kristina Feller | I would just ask Director Whalen if you could, please add to the agenda for our next hearing We did not approve the entire calendar year schedule for planning commission meetings So I know that that's still an open item that we have to complete. |
| 04:43:09.02 | Lily Whalen | Thank you so much for reminding me. And that was on my list to bring back to you this evening. However, the council did not fully adopt their calendar at their last hearing. So I was waiting for them to do that and then bring you forward. I think there were, some dates in. April, if I'm remembering correctly, that were of So I'll bring that calendar back to you. I have it on my list and I'll bring you the rest of your calendar. Hopefully your next meeting, not your next meeting, sorry. It'll be your February meeting at the second meeting in February the 17th opening your calendar. |
| 04:43:41.35 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:43:48.74 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you very much. |
| 04:43:51.68 | Lily Whalen | So we're planning, Chair Feller, we are planning out the dates that were in that draft calendar that we provided to you for our applicants, just to keep things moving along. And if they change, will adjust accordingly. |
| 04:44:05.06 | Kristina Feller | Excellent, and I know we're not meant to get into a discussion here, but is there any indication that we would need to consider any joint meetings in this calendar year with the city council. |
| 04:44:19.17 | Lily Whalen | So good question. With the housing element update coming up, there might be a need to have a joint meeting or two with the city council. It will depend on how that process is structured, but it will be, So, Thank you. quick process, the housing element needs to be adopted by the City Council in January of 2023. So that's two years from this month here. um, Erika Endrijonas, CA OSMP, And the final rena numbers that regional housing needs allocation numbers will not be delivered to the city until the end of this year so December of 2021. Erika Endrijonas, CA OSMP, But due to the timeframe and the anticipated high rena that we will have, we need to get started soon so i'm anticipating at. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, The Council's next meeting on the 26th, we will have an item regarding the housing element and release of the RFP for that work, so that is starting soon and short. As summary, we might have joint meetings with the city council. |
| 04:45:25.79 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you very much. I didn't have anything further. So do we have a motion to adjourn? |
| 04:45:36.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | move. Okay. |
| 04:45:40.22 | Kristina Feller | Everyone save. |
| 04:45:41.03 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:45:41.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 04:45:43.11 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:45:43.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:45:43.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:45:43.95 | Lily Whalen | Thank you all again for all of your work. |
| 04:45:44.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. All right. |
| 04:45:47.07 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 04:45:48.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you all for the hard work on the general plan. That was a long process. |
| 04:45:52.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you all. Thank you all. Thank you so much. Bye. |
| 04:45:55.07 | Unknown | Bye, guys. |
| 04:45:55.33 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. |
| 04:45:55.49 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:45:56.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Please. |
| 04:45:56.51 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 04:45:56.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:45:56.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:45:56.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:45:57.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh... |
| 04:45:58.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. Thank you. |
| 04:46:15.68 | Unknown | or the old-fashioned way to P.O. Box 397, Sausalito, California, 94966. And thank you for your generosity. |
| 04:46:26.65 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 04:46:26.78 | Bob Silvestri | All day. |
| 04:46:28.03 | Tom | Let's go dance. |
| 04:46:29.48 | Unknown | Here's a public service announcement from the Sausalito Women's Club. |
| 04:46:32.20 | Tom | . |
| 04:46:34.73 | Unknown | Each year, the Women's Club Scholarship Recognition Fund |
Peter Van Meter — In Favor: States that office buildings built before April 1988 have always been legal conforming uses under both the Marinship Specific Plan and the 1995 General Plan. Changing to non-conforming would have dramatic economic impacts on property owners, including financing difficulties and loss of rebuilding rights. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — Against: Voices opposition to including a housing overlay in the general plan, warning it could open the door to mandated housing in industrial areas under state pressure. Also questions the EIR's sea level rise analysis as inadequate and raises concerns about the validity of the EIR if RHNA numbers increase significantly. ▶ 📄
Michael Rex — Against: Strongly opposes making office uses legal non-conforming, citing severe restrictions on structural modifications, financing, and uncertainty for property owners. Notes the change was made without transparent discussion with affected parties and could lead to lawsuits. Also asks to remove Policy EQ-9 regarding acquisition of a private spit. ▶ 📄
Carlo Berg — Against: As an office building owner in the Marinship, explains that his property was built in 1982 and is a permitted use. Converting to industrial would destroy immense value, is physically impractical (ceilings too low), and there is insufficient industrial demand. Urges engagement with property owners before making such a change. ▶ 📄
John DeRay — In Favor: Contradicts claims of no industrial demand, stating two new industrial companies recently moved into the Marinship. Argues that landlords are pricing industrial spaces at office rates to create an appearance of no demand, and that legal non-conforming is necessary to protect the industrial zoning intent. ▶ 📄