| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:02.87 | Heidi Scoble | We're using this also as a cross-training opportunity for our new staff members |
| 00:00:02.90 | Chair Nichols | We're using this also as a |
| 00:00:08.08 | Chair Nichols | There's vice chair Newman. Hi, David. |
| 00:00:12.16 | Maria | Mm-hmm. Heidi, it looks, we began the recording and all, public is in. |
| 00:00:20.11 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you, Maria. Good evening, Chair Feller and planning commissioners and Chair Nichols and historic preservation commissioners. This meeting is being held pursuant to government code section 54953, subsection E and in light of the declared state of emergency, this special joint meeting of the planning commission and the historic preservation commission on December 15th, 2021 is being conducted telephonically through zoom and being broadcast live on the city's website. |
| 00:00:49.52 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you so much Interim Director Heidi Scoble. or Director Scoble from this point forward. I'd like to open the Planning Commission meeting and ask for staff to please take the Planning Commission roll call. |
| 00:01:02.32 | Maria | Commissioner Saad? here? Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:01:05.52 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:01:09.03 | Heidi Scoble | Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:01:12.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | as needed here. |
| 00:01:15.55 | Heidi Scoble | Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:01:16.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 00:01:16.96 | Richard Graef | them. |
| 00:01:17.88 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:01:17.98 | Maria | Vice Chair Gretz. |
| 00:01:20.56 | Richard Graef | Well, here, finally. I don't know. |
| 00:01:22.57 | Maria | Thank you. Hi, I'm on the phone here. |
| 00:01:24.54 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:01:25.10 | Maria | Okay, great. Thank you. |
| 00:01:25.47 | Kristina Feller | Great. |
| 00:01:25.77 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:01:25.91 | Kristina Feller | THE CITY IS A CITY IS A CITY |
| 00:01:26.26 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:27.46 | Maria | and Chair Feller. |
| 00:01:27.51 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:01:27.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:01:27.97 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:01:28.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:32.49 | Heidi Scoble | And this is the time for the historic preservation Commissioner Chair Nichols to request the roll call. |
| 00:01:38.33 | Chair Nichols | Thank you, Heidi. Good evening, Chair Feller and planning commissioners. I'm very happy to be joining you with our commission for this special meeting tonight. Heidi, if she'll start by taking roll for the historical preservation commission, please. |
| 00:01:54.24 | Maria | Commissioner Werner? |
| 00:02:03.71 | Unknown | Thank you. We met. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:02:06.09 | Maria | Yeah, that's it. Commissioner Werner. |
| 00:02:08.26 | Pat Zook | Thank you. |
| 00:02:08.28 | Unknown | Commissioner, |
| 00:02:08.62 | Pat Zook | Yes. |
| 00:02:13.26 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 00:02:13.48 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:02:14.61 | Maria | Thank you, Commissioner Berkowitz. |
| 00:02:16.70 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:02:16.72 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:02:17.97 | Maria | Vice Chair Newman. |
| 00:02:19.47 | Heidi Scoble | here. And Chair Nichols. |
| 00:02:21.22 | Maria | here. |
| 00:02:21.93 | Chair Nichols | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:02:22.19 | Maria | Thank you, Heidi. |
| 00:02:26.03 | Heidi Scoble | Great, well, thank you so much for your willingness and participation to participate in this special joint planning commission and historic preservation commission meeting. We don't have these opportunities often, but we thought this would be a really good opportunity to provide some updates regarding some really important housing initiatives that are in process. So with that, I will roll right into our first business item. This first business item is related to Senate Bill 9 and our consultant, Bob Brown, will be providing an update Oh, excuse me, sorry. Senate Bill 9 and our city attorney, Mary Wagner, will be providing an update on this agenda. I'm happy to let Bob |
| 00:03:07.02 | Mary Wagner | take the light. Apologies for that. No worries. Give me one second. I just need to share my screen. It says you've disabled screen sharing. |
| 00:03:20.72 | Mary Wagner | Let me know when I should try again. |
| 00:03:20.78 | Heidi Scoble | I mean, I'm going to... Maria, can you please provide co-host options to Mary? |
| 00:03:27.54 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thanks, you guys. While we're getting ready for me to figure out the logistics, share my screen here. It's still not letting me. I have two devices Maria, so that might be the. the issue. I'm trying to be fancy and be on one screen with you guys and run my PowerPoint from another screen. But in the interest of time, let me get started if that's okay. I'm not sure. So here we go. Excellent. |
| 00:03:59.74 | Mary Wagner | One more second. |
| 00:04:03.42 | Kristina Feller | We can see that, Mary. |
| 00:04:05.51 | Mary Wagner | Great. There we go. Okay. so and um thank you chair feller thank you chair nichols members of the planning commission members of the historic preservation commission i am mary wagner i'm your city attorney And I'm pleased to be here tonight to give you a brief overview of the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency or HOME Act, more commonly known as SB9. And in the interest of time, to flip through this pretty quickly. I know we need to get to the objective planning standards, which was the primary focus of your meeting tonight, but we wanted to take this opportunity to also give you presentation that was received by the city council in November. So Senate Bill 9, was signed into law mid-September. It goes into effect January 1st. And you all are probably aware what it basically requires is ministerial approval of two dwelling units on a single parcel in a single family zoning district. and ministerial approval of a parcel map for an urban lot split to create two parcels from one single family residential parcel. So essentially, that could result in up to four units, and we can talk about ADUs and JADUs in a second. But the premise of the law is if you have a qualifying lot and a single family county district, and you are able to divide that out there. |
| 00:05:22.46 | William Versace | Yeah. |
| 00:05:25.11 | Mary Wagner | into two and build two, two, two units on both of those slots. So Sausalito has three single family residential zoning districts, the R16, R18 and R120. Both ADUs and JADUs are allowed in all those districts. And currently the subdivision order ordinance, excuse me, requires planning commission approval of minor subdivisions of less than five units and divisions of land into two, three or four parcels after a public hearing. SB 9 as we indicated previously requires cities to ministerially approve up to two units in existing single-family zones You can apply objective standards, which is a great segue into the next item you have on your agenda. You have to allow a minimum of 800 square feet per unit and a minimum setback of four feet. with respect to the urban lot split is what it's being called. the division of one lot into two, you have to have each lot be at least 1200 square feet. Sorry, you're getting a feedback from my, other computer. Again, this is ministerial without discretionary reviewer hearing, meaning it's done at a staff level. and would not come through your typical public hearing process in front of either of these bodies. and these projects because they're ministerial are exempted with CEQA. So local agencies are allowed to adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of SB9. As you know, ordinance process is a review for zoning ordinance update is a review and recommendation by the planning commission. Then a first reading of the ordinance by the council, second reading of the ordinance by the council, and then that ordinance goes into effect 30 days thereafter. So what we did, and we can get to this a little bit at the end, I have a slide about this. We went to the council and talked to them in November. The council directed the city manager and the city attorney to develop an interim process to implement these SB9 projects. while we bring an ordinance forward to the council for consideration first in planning commission and then to the council. requirements. |
| 00:07:35.29 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:07:35.30 | Chair Nichols | instruments. |
| 00:07:36.14 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. That's me. I apologize. Let me try and... |
| 00:07:37.29 | Chair Nichols | I apologize. |
| 00:07:39.49 | Mary Wagner | I'm sure that. if I can. Apologies. if I'm going to be able to do that without Stopping my presentation. Hopefully that will stop the digging of new people coming in and stuff. |
| 00:07:52.97 | William Versace | the digging of |
| 00:07:55.50 | Mary Wagner | So with respect to the two dwelling units on a single family residential parcel, The lot has to be in an urbanized area. of particular interest for the Historic Preservation Commission. The property cannot be historically designated or in an historic district. This is different than SB 35 that we talked about before. which indicates that a property isn't subject to SB 35 only if the property itself is a listed property It being in a designated historic zone or district is not enough for protection from SB 35, but it does SB 9. does include that properties that are in a historic district are not subject to SB 9. There's also a number of other exceptions, The parcel cannot be in a very high fire severity zone. and there cannot be demolition of more than 25% of the existing walls, unless that's allowed by the ordinance, and a tenant cannot have occupied the unit in the last three years. |
| 00:08:55.78 | Mary Wagner | So with respect to the implementing regulations regarding the two dwelling units, the city has to require that a rental unit be for a term longer than 30 days, meaning it cannot be a short-term rental. cannot require a setback of more than four feet from side and rear lines. It may impose objective standards, unless the standards would preclude the construction of the two units or result in either of those units being less than 800 square feet. And you can permit an ADU or JADU on parcels. You can prevent the JADU, sorry. I got my COVID vaccine today, you guys, I apologize. Kicking in. You have to permit an ADU or JADU on parcels that use both the authority to split the lot into two and to develop two units per lot. You can require one off street parking space per unit, unless the parcel's within one of these delineated areas here. That's one half mile of walking distance to a transit corridor. a transit stop or within a block of a car share vehicle. The city does have the ability to deny an SB9 project, but only if the building official can make written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence, which is a higher evidentiary standard than is usually applied. to these types of determinations. And that determination has to be that the development would have a specific adverse impact upon health safety or the physical environment. And there's no feasible method to really mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. With respect to the urban lot split, a lot of the requirements are the same as they are for the development of two units on one lot. The city has to ministerially approve it. and only two new parcels can be created. So you couldn't take a large parcel and keep dividing it up to get down to the, you know, the not less than 1200 square feet. You can only do it one time. The lots have to be approximately of equal area. And the smaller lot, if there's one is smaller, can't be less than 40% of the lot size. of the total lot area. Again, they have to be at least 1200 square feet, unless you have an ordinance that allows a smaller lot size. Again, you can only do it once. And the parcel owner can't have done a similar SB9 lot split on an adjacent lot. again, not historically designated or in an historic zone. and not in a very high fire hazard severity zone. This is similar. You have to apply to the objective standards. The use is allowed on a lot created by SB 9 can be limited to residential. And an applicant has to sign an affidavit that they intend to occupy one of the units as their principal residence for at least a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the law The city has the ability to require easements for public services and facilities. and personals have to be able to access the public right of way. same parking requirements as the development of two units on a lot. Interestingly, the city cannot require dedications of rights of way or construction of offsite improvements, which is a typical requirement of a subdivision. And the same findings are required to deny a lot split as they are to deny the development of two units on a single lot. So again, on November 16th, the council adopted resolution 6108, directed the preparation of interim guidance rules and regulations to implement SB 9. And I know that was a lot of information to run through very quickly. And I'm happy to answer any questions if now's the time, Heidi. I'm not sure where on the agenda you wanted questions of staff. then I will stop sharing. |
| 00:12:37.36 | Pat Zook | Yeah. |
| 00:12:37.55 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. of the I assume we're going to ask questions of staff and take public comment unless you're doing it all in one festival. |
| 00:12:46.12 | Kristina Feller | I'm going to start with any questions from staff and if I could, ask the planning commission if they have any questions of staff at this time Commissioner Junius, do you have any questions for staff? |
| 00:12:59.32 | Andrew Junius | Not at this time. |
| 00:13:00.87 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. But you're still on mute. |
| 00:13:07.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sorry. Keep forgetting. Um, two, two quick questions. One, is all of Sausalito and urbanized area. Yes. |
| 00:13:16.01 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:13:16.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:13:17.04 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:13:17.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:13:17.26 | Unknown | And secondly... |
| 00:13:17.27 | Mary Wagner | in seconds. |
| 00:13:17.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 00:13:17.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:13:18.54 | Mary Wagner | Sorry Commissioner Luxembourg, just into that point, staff has been looking through the criteria of SB9 to determine what lots are actually eligible because not every single family residential lot in Sausalito in a single family zoning district will necessarily be eligible for an SB9 project. |
| 00:13:35.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. My second question is if they do a lot split, can we require a product? We require apprentice now under the interim |
| 00:13:45.02 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:17:13.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to 1200 foot lots or thereabouts or however the square footages work out. |
| 00:17:13.03 | Pat Zook | Reporting in progress. |
| 00:17:19.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | does the interim of a resolution that the council adopted require frontage under our current ordinances. And if we were to adopt something, we could set up frontage requirements for both lots, I would assume so we don't have flag lots or whatever it is that we have in a lot of places. |
| 00:17:44.45 | Mary Wagner | So interestingly Commissioner Luxenberg what SB9 allows you to impose on an urban lot split is that there's access to the right of way it does not indicate that the city can require frontage. on the right of way. So access could be provided you know, and other mechanisms, including easements. |
| 00:18:03.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we could end up with flag-type locks, so to speak. Thank you. |
| 00:18:07.34 | Mary Wagner | Potentially, and I really appreciate the question and it's really helpful to have the Planning Commission input in on this as we develop these interim regulations working with staff |
| 00:18:07.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | PUTTING. |
| 00:18:16.27 | Mary Wagner | because there's a lot of unanswered questions to tell you the truth in SB9 and some of the other housing legislation but it is clear in SB9 that what we are allowed to require is access |
| 00:18:28.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Just a third question because I have the floor If I understand the ADU part of this, that a single family lot could have eight units, with his Oh. A J, an ADU and a JADU. |
| 00:18:46.62 | Mary Wagner | So what SB9 says is if somebody takes advantage of both the urban lot split required provisions and the ability to develop two lots, on each of those parcels and I'm going to get you the actual language. What it allows, when both of those requirements are met, The city is required to allow a JADU Or an ADU. Let me find you the exact language, Commissioner Luxembourg. Sorry, I've got to flip around here. |
| 00:19:24.22 | Mary Wagner | And what it says is permit an ADU or JADU on parcels that use both the authority to split the lot and develop two units per lot. It doesn't say that each unit is allowed to have a JADU and or an ADU. So that's another question that we're watching and gonna develop as we progress. |
| 00:19:46.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so we don't know whether it's four or it's eight. Thank you. |
| 00:19:51.24 | Mary Wagner | Right, the language in the statute is personal. not. units. |
| 00:19:56.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. So it could be five, is that what you say? It could be sex. |
| 00:20:01.78 | Mary Wagner | If that is accurate, it could be six. |
| 00:20:06.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that All right, that's helpful. Thank you very much. |
| 00:20:10.10 | Mary Wagner | You bet. |
| 00:20:10.32 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Saad, do you have questions for staff? |
| 00:20:17.14 | Nastassya Saad | I... Yes, um... I had one question and I was wondering if any of these current these laws, do they take away the right to add any more historic overlays from historic preservation. I'm Does it interfere with adding an additional historic overlay? |
| 00:20:41.04 | Mary Wagner | anywhere in Sausalito? |
| 00:20:42.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:20:42.91 | Mary Wagner | So there's nothing in SB 9 that prohibits the city from creating additional historic districts or designating additional historic properties so long as all the criteria to do that. are met. in the current version of the law and that you know there's nothing in SB 35 that prohibits that either |
| 00:21:00.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:21:01.08 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. |
| 00:21:01.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:21:01.56 | Mary Wagner | THANK YOU. |
| 00:21:01.94 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:21:02.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Voice chair graph. Do you have questions for staff? Oh, you're on mute. |
| 00:21:24.45 | Mary Wagner | Apologies, Vice Chair Graff, I cannot hear you. |
| 00:21:27.26 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think you're maybe it's your Volume is not up. You just put yourself back on mute. Let's try to. unmute you. |
| 00:21:43.67 | Kristina Feller | Vice-Chereograph, while you try to unmute yourself or turn your volume up, Um, Can we, can you, Speak now. You're off mute. Okay, we still don't have sound from you. So while you were working on that, and maybe staff can help Vice-Chair Graff I'm gonna go ahead and ask a question in the interest of time. And that is just, Mary, if you can clarify how when there is a lot split considering you can only do it once. How is that recorded? Is that recorded with the city? the county on a title, how is that recorded? |
| 00:22:23.35 | Mary Wagner | It's a parcel map, so it's recorded with the county, just like any other map. |
| 00:22:27.14 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, great. Um, let's come back to you and see if We hear you now. |
| 00:22:37.29 | Kristina Feller | We don't hear you. |
| 00:22:38.84 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 00:22:38.86 | Heidi Scoble | Chair Feller, if I may, Commissioner, or Vice Chair Graff, If you look on your screen under the right next to the microphone, there's an upward carrot. If you click on the carrot, it'll give you options for a microphone. And sometimes, it's clicks off a default. So that's an option that could help you. |
| 00:23:02.04 | Mary Wagner | And Madam Chair, if I may, while Vice Chair Graff is working through that technical issue. I do want to be mindful of time. Certainly don't want to cut off this robust conversation and what are very important and interesting questions. |
| 00:23:10.65 | William Versace | Bye. |
| 00:23:10.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:18.50 | Mary Wagner | We definitely wanna get to your objective design and development standards. And I think someone alluded to the fact that this will be coming back to you, and particularly when we bring forward an ordinance to the council, But yeah, I don't want to cut off any of this discussion. Absolutely, but I just. want to do a quick time check because you're already at almost 640. |
| 00:23:36.40 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate that. I think what we'll do at this time, And we'll be mindful that Vice Chair Graff might have a question. You can also text that to me. Let's go ahead and share Nichols, I'm sure. Your commission has questions of staff as well. |
| 00:23:52.55 | Chair Nichols | Thank you. I'd like to ask the commission at this time, if they have any questions and rather than call each of you, if you'd be able to raise your hand and I'll know how many may have questions. |
| 00:24:11.30 | Chair Nichols | Uh... So let me just call out Bill or David or Nate. Any questions? |
| 00:24:19.87 | Mary Wagner | Can I make your question? |
| 00:24:20.85 | Chair Nichols | is raising his physical hand. Okay, I can't see everybody. Okay, let's see, Nate, would you like to go ahead, please? You know. |
| 00:24:28.38 | Nate | What's the whole thing? Are there any references in SB9 to elevations? |
| 00:24:30.43 | Pat Zook | Thank you. |
| 00:24:30.45 | Chair Nichols | Okay. |
| 00:24:35.68 | Nate | We have a hilly city And... My lot may be different than your lot simply because it's really laying on a falling on a Yeah. |
| 00:24:47.04 | Mary Wagner | you |
| 00:24:47.21 | Nate | Thank you. |
| 00:24:47.22 | Mary Wagner | you |
| 00:24:47.28 | Nate | Thank you. |
| 00:24:47.31 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:24:47.34 | Nate | Yeah. |
| 00:24:47.36 | Mary Wagner | Cliff |
| 00:24:48.14 | Nate | Thank you. |
| 00:24:49.28 | Mary Wagner | I'm Commissioner Berkowitz in response to your question the quick answer is no it it does not um there is no quick |
| 00:24:52.66 | Richard Graef | No. |
| 00:24:55.04 | William Versace | Thank you. |
| 00:24:56.47 | Mary Wagner | the provision that I talked about, about health and safety findings. |
| 00:24:58.11 | William Versace | you know, it helps us |
| 00:24:59.88 | Mary Wagner | which may be some of what you're you're concerned about but that as I said you know it's a pretty high bar to deny an SB9 project |
| 00:25:08.98 | Nate | I see this issue reoccurring in a number of places in the city. And without an appreciation of how hilly your lot is. I think a lot of what we're discussing is pretty new. |
| 00:25:28.75 | Chair Nichols | Thank you, Nate. Bill or David, any questions? I can't say that. |
| 00:25:34.69 | Mary Wagner | I can't see. Thank you. Commissioner Werner has his physical hand up. |
| 00:25:37.51 | Chair Nichols | physical. Thank you, Mary. I can't see everybody the way I am. situated here. Go ahead, Bill. |
| 00:25:53.90 | Chair Nichols | I think he's caller three, right? Or he was. |
| 00:25:56.16 | Mary Wagner | Commissioner Parker, you're on mute. Thank you. |
| 00:26:00.83 | Richard Graef | Go for it. Unmuted now. |
| 00:26:03.53 | Mary Wagner | Yes. |
| 00:26:03.82 | Chair Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:26:03.89 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:26:07.92 | Richard Graef | Am I open? Am I here? |
| 00:26:10.10 | Chair Nichols | Yeah. |
| 00:26:10.55 | Richard Graef | you Oh, good. |
| 00:26:11.38 | Chair Nichols | I have the floor, Bill. |
| 00:26:12.97 | Richard Graef | Okay, well, my... |
| 00:26:22.43 | Richard Graef | My question is, I'm not sure. None of this addresses The whole issue that is in front of us all over the country. and that is affordable housing. in all of these clever little. It's been... So on. There is nothing mentioned in there about about providing for affordable housing. It's just providing housing. Is that right? |
| 00:26:57.35 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:27:01.50 | Mary Wagner | SB 9 does not require |
| 00:27:01.84 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:27:01.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:05.13 | Mary Wagner | deed restricted units. I think So to answer your question, Commissioner Werner that that's correct with respect to SB 9. SB 35 does. but SB9 does not. |
| 00:27:20.53 | Chair Nichols | Any other questions? I'll ask just quickly then just to confirm with Mary, I was interested in the question Jeffrey asked about the urbanization sort of category that was helpful. And I believe that all of Sausalito, because we're so small, is technically within one half mile of a transportation source. Is that correct? |
| 00:27:48.31 | Mary Wagner | Steph was gonna look into that, Chair Nichols, and based on the definition that's in the statute. So I think that work is being undertaken. |
| 00:27:57.07 | Chair Nichols | Oh, okay. I was just sort of curious about that. And then in terms of getting back to our historical interest in this, I think that, you know, I'm going to hold my questions because some of these are so, uh, not obscure, but related to preservation. I don't think we have the answers yet. So I'll just hold back. But one thing would just be, under SB9 in general, there's no ministerial approvals required. Normally you get the neighborhood would get some kind of notice that an action was being taken. Is there any way to let anybody know that a lot split has occurred? and where |
| 00:28:39.63 | Mary Wagner | Is it really cool? |
| 00:28:44.96 | Mary Wagner | you know, so you Sure. |
| 00:28:46.95 | Chair Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:28:46.97 | Unknown | Cheers. |
| 00:28:50.41 | Mary Wagner | Chair Nichols to answer your question you know SB9 specifically says ministerial does not say that you can provide public notice. It's something that we can certainly look into But as you all know, the intent of all of these bills, you know, regardless of your... your thoughts about them are they're designed and their findings are to provide housing so you know activities that chill or prevent housing or de are frowned upon. Not to say that providing public notice would do that, Um, but We can definitely look at that for you as we move forward. You're on mute, Madam Chair. |
| 00:29:32.41 | Chair Nichols | It might be a nice courtesy if we could find a way, but certainly if it looks like an impediment, we wouldn't want to do it. And I'm not going to take any more time with questions. that this is going to be the beginning of some conversations between us and the planning commission. So I will... give up my time here and go on with the next part of the agenda. |
| 00:29:54.64 | Mary Wagner | We do need to take public comment, Madam Chairs. |
| 00:29:57.89 | Kristina Feller | Yes. I think at this time we're going to go ahead and open this up for public comment. |
| 00:29:59.72 | Mary Wagner | I think. |
| 00:30:04.93 | Kristina Feller | Director Scoble, could you kindly advise the public how to raise their hand in the Zoom application or on a cell phone? |
| 00:30:13.03 | Heidi Scoble | Yes, and thank you, Chair Feller. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application and you'll be called upon when it's your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine, and each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. It does look like of, Pat Zook has raised her physical hand and just raised her virtual hand. So I will call on the public participants and we'll start with you, Pat Zuck. Bye. |
| 00:30:47.29 | Maria | Bye. |
| 00:30:47.30 | Pat Zook | Bye. |
| 00:30:47.32 | Maria | Oh, yeah. |
| 00:30:49.30 | Pat Zook | Sorry, I've usurped Bill's phone. Um, Can you hear me? Yes, you can hear me. Okay, I have a couple of comments. First of all, The most important I think is the ability to notify the neighborhood and neighbors that something is going on. I appreciate the ministerial nature of things, but transparency and the ability to |
| 00:31:04.35 | William Versace | Thank you. |
| 00:31:14.47 | Pat Zook | obtain the preponderance of evidence that health and safety is not being impaired or is being impaired requires public notice. I don't think we can rely necessarily on staff to supply that information impartially and with knowledge. |
| 00:31:31.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:34.64 | Pat Zook | Um, Secondly, the notion that we have standards and objective standards. is an interesting one i can see that it would be inappropriate to ban structures of less than 800 square But in terms of masks, and a neighborhood character. there may be well ability to uh, designate objective standards per neighborhood. I think we dealt with some of that notion on the G PAC It didn't really get permed up. It should get firmed up now. Um, Furthermore, the notion of affordability is partially designated by size, but partially designated by will. And I would think that we would be able to require some level of affordability in this kind of of endeavor. Furthermore, finally, although I don't want to get into specifics, there are neighborhoods in Sausalito that do have CCNRs. I understand the city will not enforce those CCNRs, That has happened in the past and I acknowledge that and accept it. However, |
| 00:32:57.60 | Unknown | However, |
| 00:32:58.91 | Pat Zook | to enable those of us who are in neighborhoods with CCNRs to enforce them. We need to know. What's going on? These actions should not be taken in secret. We should receive adequate notice. and public notice. Thanks. How do I turn myself off? Yeah. |
| 00:33:20.83 | Kristina Feller | There we go. Thank you very much, Pat, for attending today. Director Scoble I see one more hand Sandra Bushmaker if we could unmute Sandra and allow her to share her video. |
| 00:33:37.86 | Heidi Scoble | Senator Bushmaker has been in |
| 00:33:39.02 | Sandra Bushmaker | YOU DID. |
| 00:33:39.41 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:33:39.44 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:33:39.46 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:33:39.70 | Sandra Bushmaker | and is sharing her video. |
| 00:33:40.71 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:33:40.73 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. All of you. Uh, on the SB nine lot split, I understand the city is preparing a map of all the eligible properties. I'm not saying that they will be done, but all of the eligible properties that could be, um, a split under SB9. My question is, when do you think that map will be available and how are we going to use those? that potential, if you will, of the effect of down zoning this property, or excuse me, up zoning this properties. in our RHNA numbers. I know it's a controversial issue, but I'd like to know how the city is going to be approaching that. Perhaps the Planning Commission wants to discuss that in the historic landmarks board, whatever your new preservation board with your new name. And then secondly, so when is that map going to be done? And are we gonna count the potential from the upzoning of those lots for our RHNA numbers? And then secondly, with regard to the affordability, I know SB9 does not mandate affordability, but I see nothing in there that would preclude the city from taking a position or at least exploring Um, And I hate to use this word very lightly mandating some affordability because that, that really is the issue. for housing needs. All right, that's it. Thank you. Right. |
| 00:35:13.02 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Sandra, for joining us this evening. I do not see any further hands raised at this time. So I suggest we go ahead and close public comment and director Scoble. Um, ask if any commissioners have any further questions or discussion at this time before we move on to our next item just by a show of hands. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:35:43.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just have one quick question of the Historic Commission. Are there any historic districts that are in single family zones of |
| 00:35:55.37 | Chair Nichols | No. |
| 00:35:57.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:35:58.41 | Chair Nichols | Is that correct, Heidi? This is Vicki. Sorry. I would say no at this time. The only thing I can think of is there's an overlay for the little arcs that are usually single family by size along Bridgeway near Barbacci. I don't know if you'd consider that an area and I don't know how they fit into this because size would limit how much how big a family could be in there. |
| 00:36:24.47 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you, Chair Nichols. You are correct. Our only historic district shown on our zoning map is the downtown area, which is not in a single family residential zoning district. And there is that arc overlay. However, the size would preclude, the lot side would preclude SB9 properties on that lot or on those lots. |
| 00:36:43.30 | Chair Nichols | I didn't mean to jump in. Sorry, Heidi. Thank you. |
| 00:36:47.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:36:49.86 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um... Let's go ahead and then if there are no further hands from commissioners, just by show of hands here. Let's go ahead and there's no action required on this particular agenda item. Shall we move to the next item, Director Scoble? |
| 00:37:05.49 | Heidi Scoble | Chair Feller, it looks like we do have a participant that has recently raised his hand. It's Tom Hoover. He did raise his hand after you closed public comment, but would you like to accept his public comment? |
| 00:37:17.20 | Kristina Feller | Well, in the interest of time, can we limit that to two minutes? Because we do need to keep going. |
| 00:37:18.04 | Heidi Scoble | in the future. |
| 00:37:23.93 | Heidi Scoble | Yes, we can do that. So Tom, you've been asked to be unmuted and to start your video. |
| 00:37:30.06 | Tom Hoover | Okay. I just had a quick question. about the overlay. We have a landmarks list. And that list actually includes houses in the residential district. And so I was just wondering, of what relationship the landmarks list of historic buildings outside of the downtown district would relate to what needs to be, you know, if someone comes in and they've got on it. So that's just my real quick question to get that in there to find out what relationship the landmarks list itself would have. Thank you. in terms of lot splits or changing the houses and things like that thank you |
| 00:38:10.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mr. Hoover. Thank you very much. |
| 00:38:13.65 | Heidi Scoble | Sure, if you'd like me to answer that question quickly or City Attorney Mary Wagner, if you'd like to. Maybe Mary, yeah. |
| 00:38:18.57 | Kristina Feller | Maybe Mary. Thank you. |
| 00:38:20.70 | Heidi Scoble | They. |
| 00:38:21.04 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:38:21.17 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 00:38:21.22 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah, yeah. |
| 00:38:21.28 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:38:22.00 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:38:22.64 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, let's go ahead and answer that, and then we can adjourn. |
| 00:38:24.62 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 00:38:25.31 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:38:25.63 | Mary Wagner | A property that's listed on a noteworthy structures list is not considered. It is a SB 9 is applicable to those lots in order to be exempt from the provisions of SB 9 You either have to have a historically designated site, meaning it's listed on a national, state, or local register, or it's in an historic zone. |
| 00:38:49.86 | Mary Wagner | that are on that list are eligible for consideration, but they are not currently |
| 00:38:49.88 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:38:49.96 | William Versace | PROPERTY STUDIO. |
| 00:38:54.99 | Mary Wagner | currently SB9 would apply to them if the other criteria are met. |
| 00:39:01.37 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Thank you very much for the clarification. |
| 00:39:05.22 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:39:05.25 | Kristina Feller | Director Scoble, over to you. |
| 00:39:07.95 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you. Our next item on the agenda is an update on the city's objective development design standards project that we're working on. Our presenter this evening is former community development director from the city of San Rafael and the city of Novato and now consultant extraordinaire, Bob Brown. So with that I'll hand over the meeting to Bob. |
| 00:39:30.43 | Bob | Thanks so much, Heidi. Let me see if I can share my screen here. Can everyone see that? |
| 00:39:38.53 | Kristina Feller | Yes, we can. |
| 00:39:39.64 | Bob | Okay, great. |
| 00:39:40.94 | Kristina Feller | Welcome, Bob. |
| 00:39:42.04 | Bob | Thank you. Okay, so tonight what I'd like to do is summarize seven months of work by the planning commission subcommittee that's working on developing these objective standards that we keep hearing about and those would be used for review of certain types of housing projects that are as we've said required by these new state laws. There's a lot of information to cover you could probably tell when you got a 400 page staff report. But we don't have to digest all of it tonight in this first sitting. I would like to suggest though, that I'll try to cruise through the presentation quickly, particularly since we're already late. And then if we can hold questions till the end, that would be great. Okay. So tonight is really just more of an overview and a check in with the two commissions just to confirm that the subcommittee is moving in the right directions. So why are we doing this? I think we've sort of covered this. Already received two briefings now from the city attorney on three recent state laws that call for objective standards. So I won't go over the details, but in a nutshell, the intent of the state is to really shorten the timeframe and limit the amount of discretion that local agencies have in processing new multi-unit housing projects. And that's in response to the statewide housing shortage. So the pendulum has completely swung from agencies having very broad discretion in design-related matters to being very limited in terms of applying only objective standards. And that's particularly hard in the case of design review since beauty is very much in the eyes of the beholder here. So you have received or hopefully will receive a handy dandy summary of these three laws for your future reference that I've prepared for the city. So what are objective standards? I know Mary covered this in her first presentation on the Housing Accountability Act, but those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are verifiable. So a pretty limited standard. So things like typical setbacks or numeric height limits, those are objective. Or design standards that you can quantify, like the amount of blank wall, the length of blank walls you could have along a street, or things like the required distance of offset on a building facade that would be required. Things that would not be objective are criteria that discuss things like compatibility, things that require judgment. So to comply with these new laws, the council quickly adopted a set of objective standards last July, and these were all taken from your existing zoning and subdivision regulations in the Muni code. But these don't include the subjective findings that we would typically use in design review or for historic preservation or for view protection. So the council call for creation of some new objective standards that could address these issues. And the idea is that these objective standards would apply only to projects that qualify under these new state laws and that the city would retain its current regulations and current review processes with subjective criteria for non-qualifying projects. So things like building renovations and additions or new single family homes or new commercial buildings, Those would all be under the current regulations and process. It's these qualifying multi-unit residential projects that would be limited to the objective standards. |
| 00:43:27.64 | Bob | So the planning commission quickly appointed a subcommittee composed of chair Feller and commissioner Junius, and they've been working with staff and myself. We've had nine meetings now when we've done analysis and we've been discussing how to objectivize view preservation standards, and also how to address general design standards. So let's look at view preservation first. The current standard is to minimize view obstruction from public and private vantage points. So that in and of itself is not objective. But the code does include a number of definitions, things that, for example, the definition of the view that would have to be protected. So it cites physical features like a view of the Bay or Mount Tam or Angel Island or Tiburon Peninsula or San Francisco. And then it also lists some more subjective items like cultural, natural, historic features. And it also defines what public vantage points are, including all public streets. So that's very broad. And also where private views are protected, those from primary rooms in a residence. So the subcommittee unpacked what would be the components of an objective view standard. And I should note, first thing we did was, we did a search to see if there's any jurisdiction that's already cracked this nut and developed view standards that are objective. And no such luck. So we are very much on the leading edge on this issue. So to create objective standards, we have to first more narrowly define the view features that we would intend to protect because they're a little overly broad right now. we'd have to define very precisely the exact vantage points from where the view analysis would occur. So our initial thinking was that on private properties, on private properties, an owner could select one window location in a primary room, and one location from an outdoor balcony and deck. And we have to limit somehow the number of potentially effective properties, because if you have a hillside, you could have dozens and dozens of homes that would have a view of something being built. So that would be a requirement. The toughest part we came across was trying to define what constitutes a view impact. So a standard like the percentage of blockage of an existing viewshed from a particular vantage point would be that kind of a standard. And lastly, we'd have to define precisely how applicants could prepare their view analyses and how staff would verify them. So that's what it would take to do an objective view standard particularly from private property. So we looked at a number of mock-up examples from an existing view shed on private property. So this is one that you can see the view there is highlighted in bright green. And then we looked at the mock-up of a proposed project and how much of that viewshed it would block. Again, just trying to get a handle on how this would work. Another example, property that has a huge view shed there in green, and then a new home that would obscure a small portion of that. And then we'd look from parklands, what the views would be from those locations. And we even did this from a number of the public stairs and open spaces. Again, just trying to understand how this could apply. So from all of this analysis and a lot of discussion, the subcommittee concluded that developing objective view preservation standards and evaluation criteria would be costly for applicants. We're probably talking in the $10,000 to $20,000 range, and half again if you needed peer review to verify the accuracy. And it would likely be challenged by neighbors, both either due to accuracy or its legality. And mostly that defining a view impact standards, such as percentage of view blockage, would be a pretty crude measure. And it wouldn't account for things like the quality of the view or other factors. Short answer, it's really complicated. So the committee's recommendation, at least at this point in their work, is that we should really focus on developing view standard regulations from public vantage points, but excluding all the street right-of-ways, because that's just an infinite number of locations. and hold private view protection for a later phase of our work, possibly after we'd have some experience in working with the public view preservation standards. Let me now turn. |
| 00:48:11.31 | Bob | to discussion of objective design standards, just general design standards. So one thing to keep in mind is we would work towards developing design standards that are objective is there's gonna be a trade-off involved between creating fewer and probably somewhat looser standards that would give applicants more design leeway versus adopting more detailed and prescriptive design requirements that would result in more certain outcomes for the city, but less flexibility for the applicant and property owners. So the subcommittee and their discussions has considered two options on how to create objective design standards. One would be either developing local criteria to address things like building mass and articulation, requirements for the buildings along the street frontages, you know, allowable materials, roof forms, etc. The other option would be to use and customize portions of an already created Marin County objective standards toolkit. which is a form-based zoning code. It was prepared by Opticos. They're a Bay Area architecture and planning firm. And they did this based on pretty typical Marin County building designs. This toolkit was funded by the county and nine Marin cities and towns, including Sausalito, and it was funded with SB two housing grants. The idea was that the toolkit would create a range of different development intensities and locations. It would be sort of a pattern book that jurisdictions could choose from to create their own standards. So advantages of using this Marin County toolkit and customizing it for Sausalito, is that these form-based regulations have been pretty well thought out and tested over a number of years. There would be some consistency for staff and applicants if a number of Marin jurisdictions actually adopt the toolkit standards. And I can tell you that currently, Corte Madera is pretty close to adoption and San Anselmo, Fairfax, Belvedere, Novato and the county are somewhere in process of looking to do so. And lastly, if the housing element update results in the need for higher density zoning to meet the town's RHNA numbers, now the toolkit contains higher density options. So it might be easier to shift into those. The downside is that we'd have two very separate and different codes to administer. They're very different in format. So one would be using the toolkit for qualifying housing projects, and one would be for your more normal fare of development review. These regulations are more prescriptive, so applicants would have less design flexibility. And also there would be a cost to have Opticus assist us with customization. And it probably would take about six months to be done with that process. So those are the pros and cons. So let me spend a couple of minutes just giving you a really high level description of the toolkit standards. And hopefully you've had an opportunity to look at some examples in attachment two of the staff report. But, Like regular zoning, the toolkit has zones, and these range from lower to higher density, and they're also based on locations, such as being located on a major corridor or in the downtown. and applicants would, the city would pick the zones that most closely relate to your current densities and your building size limits. So you would pick certain of these zones and those would be integrated into your code. And like regular zones, regular zoning codes, these zones have requirements for things like, you know, minimum lot size and numeric height limits and setbacks, et cetera. So nothing new there. But with the form-based code like this, they also regulate the length of the building facades you could have along the street frontage, because they want to avoid large gaps on the street between buildings. There are regulations for where parking can be located because they don't want it to dominate a street frontage. And there's details about how the building entries address the street, which also is a real important function of form based codes. But unlike typical zoning, the form based code defines and allows just certain building types. And these range from single family homes to various types of multifamily housing, all the way to mixed use commercial. And these regulations very carefully regulate building proportions and dimensions, much more so than your general setbacks and coverage limits. So they really try to regulate that building form to a greater degree. So very quickly, some examples of what these building types are. One is like a stacked duplex. And I should note many of these building types sort of harken back to pre-suburban development back from the 30s and 40s, where there were smaller multifamily options than we typically see today. And Sausalito has lots and lots of these kinds of building types. And then along with each building type goes an illustration. And then also the regulations are in a table format. Again, hopefully you looked at an example or two of this. Another building type there is a neighborhood townhouse. And again, this is how it lays out in terms of a site plan and shows the different types of regulations. And here's another type. This is a mixed use Main Street building and again, how it could lay out on a property. The toolkit also has, regulates how the street frontage appears. And that's, like I said, really important for form-based codes. So an applicant would have to choose a private frontage type to incorporate. Things like a porch or a stoop, or if it was a mixed-use building, maybe a shop front. So again, example of a porch, obviously these are very common in Sausalito. And again, the illustrations that have the regulations that would define its width and depth, et cetera. The toolkit also contains objective standards for other things like parking and loading, landscape and lighting, screening of equipment. slope standards, which might be helpful in Sausalito, and also in public frontage improvements. Okay, finally, I'd like to shift and talk a little bit about historic preservation standards. So like general design review, the standards for issuing certificates of appropriateness are subjective currently. They talk about compatibility and, and, you know, maintaining special character features, et cetera. So one possible solution in trying to develop objective historic preservation standards would be to use a portion of the Marine County toolkit. So the toolkit includes a chapter of architectural styles. And so these are really very tightly defined criteria for a range of historic building styles. So an applicant would have to pick one of these and incorporate the regulations. So they cover in great detail things like how to build a craftsman building or Mediterranean style. or how to do a Main Street Classical building. And there's also a default, which is contemporary. So if an applicant wanted to do a more modern interpretation in certain areas where they're deemed appropriate, then this is another option too. So each of these building styles have very prescriptive standards for tons of details. Things like, you know, how to do a cornice. I had to design the eaves, window and door proportions and trim and style, balcony railings. Again, they're very tightly regulated. So we would like to discuss tonight if we have time, whether these might be appropriate to apply in the historic district, which would help assure that qualifying buildings, these multi-unit buildings, maintain an authentic historic vernacular in areas that are appropriate. So again, that's an option in terms of historic preservation. And lastly, just for the fun of it, I plan checked a recently approved building that you probably recognize in the historic district, the Langston Building on Bridgeway. which surprisingly came really close to meeting the standards and the toolkit for a Main Street classical style, even though it wasn't designed to those standards at all. So I think it reflects that the architect had a really good handle on how to do these types of real classical architectural styles. So anyway, that was just an aside. So that finishes the quick summary. And I know that the subcommittee members and staff and myself would be happy to answer any questions you have. |
| 00:57:30.12 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you so much, Bob, for a thorough presentation and, um, chair nichols again this is uh the beginning of a conversation and And certainly a good point to a brief of the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as the larger Planning Commission on this as well. Bob, if we can stop screen share for just a moment. And before we go into commissioner questions for staff and for Bob, I just want to make a quick Announcement for anybody in the public here. who thought they were joining the 7 p.m. scheduled planning commission. We are running a little bit late on our joint special Commission meeting with Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission. We had a power outage which has put us back about 10 to 15 minutes. Please hang in there. We are going to commence. the regularly scheduled planning commission on the heels of what we're talking about here. So please bear with us. So let me ask planning commissioners if you have any questions for Bob, or for staff. Commissioner Sott, I'll go ahead and start with you. |
| 00:58:50.87 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. I just had one because I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly, but if we were to adopt the architectural guidelines for historic uh, context, essentially, does that replace the Current. South Lido Historic um, Design guidelines. Do those design guidelines, out the window essentially. |
| 00:59:16.35 | Bob | They would continue to apply to non-qualifying projects. So again, if it's not a multi, a new multi-unit residential project, either residential or mixed use, You know, they would apply in those cases, but otherwise you would continue to use your current regulations. And we as part of if we did the customization, we would look at the current historic preservation guidelines and see if we can manage to make any of those objectives. |
| 00:59:44.06 | Chair Nichols | So I'd like to add on that when it comes to our questioning from the HPC. Thank you. |
| 00:59:50.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. That was the only question I had at this time. |
| 00:59:53.07 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you, Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Luxenberg? You're on mute. |
| 01:00:00.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have one quick question. So if I understand this, this is for these ministerial approvals. And you said there was two options. toolkit or customer or creating our own so to speak, response, it seems to me that The only way to do this is to come up with something like the dual kit. some sort of form-based code. So whether we do it or customize the toolkit, it would seem to me to make sense to customize the toolkit because somebody spent a lot of effort into doing that. Obviously, it creates mediocrity and all of that, but this is only from ministerial approvals. So am I understanding that right? I mean, you're not talking about creating our own code that's not form-based because it doesn't really address the problem. |
| 01:00:57.08 | Bob | Well, I think if we did create our own local standards, I mean, we would do our best and there's a number, there's more and more examples out there that aren't, you know, form-based. But again, I think it would be less detailed, certainly than the toolkit form-based standards. Again, if that's felt to be appropriate, then we would go down that road. |
| 01:01:16.76 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and let's ask Mary to weigh in on that as well. |
| 01:01:19.61 | Mary Wagner | Thanks Madam Chair. In response to the question from Commissioner Luxembourg I just wanted to clarify that these are for these ministerial projects we've been talking about, but they also apply to projects that are subject to the Housing Accountability Act that could be coming before planning commission for discretionary review and in those contexts the planning commission would be applying the objective planning standards to the project And you can't deny projects that are subject to the HAA. You can't deny the project or reduce the density. unless certain findings can be made. So I just wanted to make sure we were all clear that it's a broader than just the ministerial projects. Thank you. |
| 01:01:58.57 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. |
| 01:02:01.24 | Mary Wagner | Oh. |
| 01:02:01.41 | Kristina Feller | Any other questions? |
| 01:02:03.04 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:02:03.06 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:02:04.39 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Commissioner Junius. |
| 01:02:06.47 | Andrew Junius | More of a comment observation. First off, Bob, thank you for the great presentation We couldn't have gotten this far without you. So you are really doing yeoman's work here. Very much appreciated. You know, Commissioner Luxenberg, I think kind of hit it on the head. process. stunned by that. detail in the toolkit, but you know it really is a interesting piece of work. It's very comprehensive. It's very detailed. And once you kind of get into it, we need to use it because if we don't use it, we're just starting from ground zero and that they've given us a great head start. You know, one final comment is simply, You know, this is an epic see change in the way things are being done in cities. This is, I've been doing Landy's work. you know, since the early 1990s and this is the biggest change I've ever seen. This is heavy lift is even that. doesn't quite cover it. This is a massive change of the way cities do this kind of work. And so it's a challenge I think we're going to get there, but it's a lot of interesting work and there's going to be a lot of interesting opinions about how this comes out. We do have a and objective and I think we're gonna get there. So again, thank you, Bob and thank you, Heidi, and thank you, Christina, for all the work on this. |
| 01:03:17.83 | Bob | I should clarify quickly when I mentioned doing that plan check on the Langsom building using the toolkit standards that Corte Madera is looking at, even though the package of these standards is huge, I only actually had to refer to 15 pages in doing that plan check. So they don't all apply. You narrow down pretty quickly. |
| 01:03:35.33 | Kristina Feller | Right. Yep. Thank you. I do not see vice chair graph, um, on in this hearing anymore. And I do not have any questions at this time. I just want to, again, echo Commissioner Junius and thank you Bob and |
| 01:03:52.28 | Pat Zook | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:03:52.29 | Kristina Feller | Andrew and Heidi and everybody else on staff who who has done so much work so far, we have a lot more to do. So, um, I will hand this over to you Chair Nichols. |
| 01:04:07.41 | Chair Nichols | Thank you, Christina. Are there any, is there anyone on the commission? I can see David and Bill or Nate that I do have a couple of questions and I will go last if anybody would like to go. David, do you have any questions? I really feel like, This is going to be, as we've discussed, we need more discussion on this. And this does not do any of this justice. So I'd also, well, I'll reserve my comments for the end. David? |
| 01:04:45.70 | David | Having been involved in creating some of the form-based code, it was not intended to be stylistic. And so I'm really very surprised at how far this has gone. and I don't think it should be stylistic in terms of the Secretary of Interior's standards. In fact, contrast between contemporary architecture and historic architecture is one of the Secretary of Interior's standards AND I'M I'm not going to try it. surprised at the length that this has gone to. And I would not support creating some sort of stylistic standards for any historic district. including the downtown. and uh... supporting Corte Madera's ideas and Sausalito, I think, is a mistake. And, I think our Commission needs to talk about all of this. because I think architecture evolves. planning evolves. and I agree with form-based I'm not sure. code, but this seems to be way past anything that I've ever seen. and I would be very, disturbed. at trying to stylize downtown Sausalito, the old historic district, or any other area, including Caledonia, which is very eccentric and Sausalito is very eccentric. actually, and I think that doing stylistic codes is a mistake. And I think the Secretary of Interior Standards supports that approach. And I think, in fact, having contemporary versions of architecture in our historic districts is what we should be doing. as long as it's complimentary to what has existed there and our past. And so Thank you. Robert. I appreciate what you shared with us. It just sounds like Pasadena to me. not Sausalito. Sorry. |
| 01:07:08.38 | Chair Nichols | Do you have anything you'd like to add? |
| 01:07:12.72 | Kristina Feller | Chair Nichols, do you mind if I just, I want to make sure Forgive my my interruption. |
| 01:07:18.39 | Chair Nichols | I'd like to let everybody talk first and then we'll come back. |
| 01:07:21.00 | Kristina Feller | I just wanted to respond to David because I think there was a misunderstanding. |
| 01:07:25.61 | Chair Nichols | I think we'll, Let's not do a rebuttal yet. Let's let everybody talk and then we'll come back because my comments are going to be similar to the years. |
| 01:07:38.57 | Chair Nichols | Right. Do you have any comments? |
| 01:07:45.07 | Chair Nichols | I think you're muted. |
| 01:07:58.38 | Chair Nichols | It's me. |
| 01:08:00.91 | Kristina Feller | He's muted. |
| 01:08:01.94 | Chair Nichols | Is he stuck? Can someone unmute him? I know I can. And there's Bill too. |
| 01:08:12.62 | Pat Zook | Amen. Thank you. |
| 01:08:17.01 | Nate | How is it now? |
| 01:08:17.99 | Chair Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:08:18.02 | Nate | Thank you. |
| 01:08:18.14 | Chair Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:08:18.16 | Nate | Okay, Nate, you've got the floor, go ahead. I'd hate to see this come out looking like cookie cutters. And that's sort of the impression I'm getting Um, maybe they are typical of the way it's done someplace else. But... What makes Sauce Toledo great is that it's unique. and you're losing uniqueness in favor of a cookie cutter. and |
| 01:08:52.53 | Nate | We're going to end up with a lot of factory built houses. I could build uh, downtown areas Um... And I don't think this is going to bank it. a historically interesting place. Um... And I think it's that same Admonition is true. across the country. So, I have to say I share David's views on this and Um, Let's keep it. Let's keep it wild and wooly. rather than smooth and slick. |
| 01:09:36.09 | Chair Nichols | Okay, Nate, thank you. Bill, do you have any comments? |
| 01:09:48.32 | Chair Nichols | Are you unmuting? |
| 01:09:49.84 | Richard Graef | And yet, yet, yet, yet Yeah. We've got so many cooks on this soup over here. Um, My only comment is that I've been practicing architecture for 60 years And I am sure glad I'm retired. I don't want to have to put up with this on Judge. |
| 01:10:18.53 | Richard Graef | That's all. |
| 01:10:19.27 | Chair Nichols | Okay, thank you. Okay, my final comments, I know we're really leading into the planning commission meeting |
| 01:10:27.13 | Unknown | Sanders. |
| 01:10:28.03 | Chair Nichols | And I'm going to use the question that we were asking staff report to address. which is how should historic preservation and just objective standards be addressed? Would you use the detailed architectural styles portion or the tool kit? So I'm going to base my comments on that. And I'm going to start by saying that I think we've gotten I really appreciate the work that's been done on this, but I need the H. I believe the HPC needs a seat at the table, particularly related to historical preservation. This is our purview. This is the area that we're supposed to be knowledgeable and advise on. And we are, you know, right now, currently, we have historic guidelines in our downtown area. We also use and rely on the Secretary of Interior Standards So while I appreciate the work of a consultant architectural group that's done the compilation of all this detail, I don't know if this is based on Secretariat of Interior standards. And I keep repeating this because this is the national standard that's used. I don't know how state laws can trump that. I'm sure it's not been determined, but I think that's not settled yet. And that is really sort of the guiding star that's used all over the country. So, I would like for us to be included in any more discussions. I have a lot more specific questions, but I think suffice it to say, rather than us get too far down the road with this, a form-based, Planning has its place. I think in this instance, particularly within the district, I don't want to see out of a choice of five styles that someone particularly enjoys tutor, which is not now present down there and decides that they're going to do tutor as an infill project. So without getting, you know, snarky about this, I think that it needs... a lot more discussion. And I think that rather than have an objections at the tail end, Chair Feller. If we could work a little bit more on this hand in hand as we go forward, it might be a smoother process for all of us. So those are my thoughts. I appreciate this opportunity, I really do. And I hope that we'll be able to speak more together. because these are gonna be challenging times. We don't have a lot of discretion, but we do have some tools that we can use to help you know, um, help plan and facilitate new new design in a manner that complements i know those words aren't um allowed anymore but that complements our existing authentic historic downtown buildings so those are my thoughts |
| 01:13:29.57 | Kristina Feller | Well, can I just provide the clarification that I want to provide before? Because I do think that there was a miscommunication or misunderstanding that, is important because each of you on HPC is picking up on it. What Bob was showing is what is from the county tool kit not what we are recommending. |
| 01:13:48.82 | Chair Nichols | Right. Right. |
| 01:13:51.91 | Kristina Feller | we have defined we want to make sure That's part of the conversation here. That's part of the purpose of this. So, whatever the cookie cutter Pasadena comments are referring to are not what we are necessarily advocating or recommending. And that's what I wanted to make absolutely clear here in this discussion before we open this up to public comment. But as a baseline, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page before we move Bye. |
| 01:14:19.05 | Chair Nichols | Thank you. That's important. And you know, for having been raised in Southern California, if we had the level of participation in our city government that Pasadena has for their historical preservation, I would be happy to be called Pasadena. They are great. They have great historical preservation programs. So Um, And I think that, you know, just to add on to the cookie cutter or whatever, I think it's unclear about with these really specific. And one thing that we need to look at is these really defined, as Bob mentioned, these are very defined. measurements and that. I think we would start, it'd be prudent to start by looking at our lots in the historic district. Are they all fronted 50 feet? You know, we can tweak these. So I see that there's room for both of those. And I appreciate you clarifying that, Christina. Thank you. |
| 01:15:15.31 | Kristina Feller | Yep, sure. well with that unless there are other questions for staff at this time or or the working group we can open this up yes David |
| 01:15:26.89 | David | Pasadena is a great place. But if you talk to people that try to do architecture there, currently. it's almost strangled anything that was new. |
| 01:15:37.03 | Nate | It's pretty hard. |
| 01:15:39.73 | David | and including preserving certain of even Julia Morgan's building. And so, yes, I have experience with that. And I didn't mean to criticize Pasadena for all of its done. but I do say we stand, I don't think of all places, Sausalito with its historic background and including all of the arts, and creativity that happened over the last 100 years. that we should get fixated on creating some sort of Disney-esque downtown for us, okay? I don't think we should do that. And if you walk along downtown and you look at what has been, built over the last 50 to 75 years, you will see some very creative contemporary. architecture that was inserted there. And I think that represents more about Sausalito. than anything that would be fixed in some sort of point in time, including 1890. uh, that we shouldn't go that direction. And so, sorry, Mr. Brown. I'm fully informed about form-based and I support form based and I think our city plan supports form-based actually in terms and its zoning and the historic district at least BUT I DO THINK that we shouldn't get into a stylistic debate. that would create something that was fixed in time. And I know I'm going to go to the Sasha and I probably had this conversation before when she was on the historic landmarks for And I'm sure there are other opinions out there about this. but I think the best place is including the best cities in the world, small and large, are the ones that evolved over time. and support that creativity of each era. and don't fixate at one point in the past. Anyway, I didn't take any time before, so I guess I saved my time till now. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 01:18:05.76 | Chair Nichols | Thank you, David. No, thank you always for your comments. Appreciate it. Thank you. |
| 01:18:11.20 | Kristina Feller | Let's go ahead and open this up in the interest of time, because we're half hour late for our planning commission meeting that we do need to get to. Can we open this up to public comment at this time? and I think we have a smaller group here. So we're gonna limit public comment to two minutes per person if if you could please raise your hand in the Zoom application. Or if you are on a cell phone, if you could press star nine, I see one gentleman. William Versace and Mr. Versace, you're welcome to comment on this item. We're still in our special, a joint hearing at this time so this would be public comment on this item I know that you had some public comment on our in our regular Planning Commission meeting. So welcome this evening. If we could unmute Mr. Versace and ask him to share his camera. You have two minutes, the floor is yours. Welcome this evening. |
| 01:19:13.38 | Heidi Scoble | Mr. Bersace has been unmuted. |
| 01:19:16.23 | William Versace | Okay, I'm a little computer illiterate here, but am I on? |
| 01:19:22.46 | Kristina Feller | You're right, we can tell you. |
| 01:19:22.98 | William Versace | All right, we can. The Just a couple things to say is, one, I agree with every word that all of you have said. The second is that I was the author of the original Secretary of the Interior Standards. So know a little bit about that if anyone would like to know some of the negotiations and interpretations that went through, that have gone over through that for 30 or 40 years when we started. And third of all is that when I presented something to the I'm an architect and when I presented something, American Institute of Architects Convention here, what I said was the only consistency in San Francisco is inconsistency. Thank you. |
| 01:20:16.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much for joining and commenting this evening. Sounds like you've got some wonderful background as well. So thank you. Um, Do we have any other commenters in our. Public gallery here. I am not seeing any hands. So let's go ahead and close public comment. And if any of the commissioners from either commission have any Final comments before we adjourn this meeting. I see Commissioner Luxenberg, you have your hand up. |
| 01:20:46.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller. I agree with David on this, and I think that the form based in the style style approach for the historic district that is not good for Sausalito. I, we, where I see this is, is for SB nine and single family zones for ministerial permits. We're going to need something. So I don't see this as a pro the historic districts excluded from SB nine. And I know some of the other ordinances would apply with objective standards, but I think if the subcommittees continuing to work on this, that's the SB nine issue in single family zones is, is the issue that I think is the biggest one that needs to be addressed that as far as those standards, because without doing something, they're just gonna come in and use the zoning as it is, and we're gonna get flag lots and a whole bunch of other things. That's where the form base helps. So anyways, that's just a general comment. |
| 01:21:46.17 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Junius. |
| 01:21:48.68 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. One final comment. I love the discussion, Commissioner Newman. I totally understand where you're coming from. I think the challenge for all of us on both of these commissions, but particularly with the Historic Commission. is removing the subjectivity of your decisions. That's the hard part. really going to be a heavy lift. You know, we're seeing it. as Bob described in the view issue. and the subjectivity there is extraordinary. and it permeates all As I said in one of my earlier comments, it permeates the entire you know, basis of, the land use planning that we've had up until this moment And now we're going to try to squeeze all of that out of certain projects and that's That's a heavy lift. So I think we're up for it, but it's gonna be an interesting discussion. |
| 01:22:42.95 | Kristina Feller | Chair Nichols I don't know if you have any further comments or Um, if you'd like to add any anything to to the discussion |
| 01:22:52.45 | Chair Nichols | No, I think I've, um, you've given me the opportunity and I appreciate that. As I said, I appreciate these meetings. I think that, um, we've gotten a little bit clearer maybe on where both the committees are going. I appreciate your work as, Mr. Junius just said, I think though, when we determine what what we're going to be using or what would be appropriate to be using in these historic reviews, um, secretary of materials or whatever, and what they're standing is to continue to be used. It will be clearer for us, but all of this is going to be more of a challenge. And then we, you know, we also have to talk about, um, I'm going to have a lot of questions about infill within the district. We've got a couple of, uh, infill. projects recently that frankly, you know, LEAVE SOME some design issues to be desired. But anyway, continued conversation. And I hope that we can get in on some of these meetings before you get too much farther. |
| 01:24:01.22 | Kristina Feller | Sure. |
| 01:24:01.49 | Chair Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:24:01.94 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I think with that, we are at the end of our hearing time. And so let's, I'd like to move to adjourn. our special joint meeting of the planning commission and historic preservation commission and thank all commissioners very much for your time and indulgence and all the reading you did in preparations for this and This is the first of a longer conversation, so thank you very much. wish everyone a happy holidays. |
| 01:24:34.70 | Chair Nichols | Chair Feller, can I adjourn our committee? I'd like to adjourn our special meeting this evening with the planning commission of December 15th and adjourn till our regular meeting, which is tomorrow, December 16th at 6 p.m. Thank you. |
| 01:24:52.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. So for anybody left here in the public, we have just adjourned. our special joint meeting with historic preservation and planning commission And we are just about to commence our regularly scheduled planning commission meeting for Wednesday, December 15th. So welcome this evening, Director Sculler. |
Sandra Bushmaker — Neutral: Asked when the map of all SB9-eligible properties will be available and whether the upzoning potential will be counted toward RHNA numbers. Inquired about the city exploring mandatory affordability since SB9 does not preclude it. ▶ 📄
Tom Hoover — Neutral: Questioned how the city's landmarks list of historic buildings outside the downtown district relates to SB9 lot splits or changes. City Attorney clarified that only formally designated historic sites or districts are exempt; the list alone does not protect properties. ▶ 📄