| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:25.43 | Maria | Is there a filler? I hand it over to you. |
| 00:00:29.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, Maria. And welcome everybody. Welcome to the regularly planned schedule meeting for the planning commission for Wednesday, March 16th. I'd like to thank our city clerk, Heidi Scoble, for helping us this evening through this process. Heidi, if I could hand this over to you for any instruction and roll call, please. |
| 00:00:52.34 | Heidi | Thank you, Chair Feller and good evening, Chair Feller, members of the planning commission. This meeting is being held pursuant to government code section 54953, subsection E, and in light of the declared state of an emergency, the regular meeting of the planning commission on March 16th, 2022, is being conducted telephonically through Zoom and being broadcast live on the city's website and also cable TV channel 27. So with that, I'll hand this over to Chair Feller for introducing the call to order. and I'll just jump right in and do that. |
| 00:01:26.97 | Kristina Feller | If you don't mind jumping in and if we could just take a roll call. Thank you. |
| 00:01:31.92 | Heidi | THANK YOU. |
| 00:01:32.71 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:01:32.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:32.98 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:01:33.03 | Heidi | in our grass. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LUXEMBURG. |
| 00:01:36.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:01:37.11 | Heidi | Commissioner Saad. THE END OF THE END OF THE Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:01:40.42 | Andrew Junius | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:01:40.99 | Heidi | and Chair Feller. Here. All members are present and we have a quorum. |
| 00:01:46.66 | Kristina Feller | Terrific, thank you so much. The next item on our agenda is item two, which is the approval of the agenda. Do I have any comments or a motion to approve? Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:01:59.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm noting, I believe, that the February 9th joint meeting minutes were approved at the last meeting, so I think those should be removed from the agenda. |
| 00:02:09.68 | Kristina Feller | Excellent point. I did note that on the March 2nd, so thank you for that. Any other comments? Thank you for catching that, Commissioner Luxenberg. I'll take a motion to approve. |
| 00:02:23.81 | Andrew Junius | Move to approve. |
| 00:02:25.34 | Kristina Feller | THEM. Thank you. Roll call, Heidi. Thank you. Mr. Gross? |
| 00:02:30.20 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:02:31.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:02:31.67 | Kristina Feller | Mr. President. |
| 00:02:31.97 | Heidi | LUXEMBERG? |
| 00:02:33.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | See you all. |
| 00:02:33.78 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:02:33.80 | Heidi | COMMISSIONER'S THOUGHTS? |
| 00:02:35.03 | Heidi | Yes. |
| 00:02:35.37 | Heidi | Vice Chair Juniors? Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.02 | Heidi | Yes. |
| 00:02:37.04 | Heidi | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:02:39.03 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:02:39.04 | Heidi | I don't know. |
| 00:02:39.11 | Heidi | Yeah. A motion carries unanimously and minutes are approved as amended. Thank you. |
| 00:02:46.96 | Kristina Feller | That's just the approval of the agenda. |
| 00:02:48.93 | Heidi | Oh, sorry, sorry. Yeah, the agenda is approved as amended. Apologies. |
| 00:02:53.32 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. Okay, great. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is item 3, which are communications. So let's go ahead and start with city staff if they have any updates. Heidi, I'll start with you. |
| 00:03:06.74 | Heidi | I just wanted to bring the planning commission to the attention of the community development department is undergoing some slight staff changes at the moment. We're working through it our city manager and our human resources manager that actively trying to find. a solution to help us keep up with our current backlog and also keep the housing element moving So as you can see tonight, myself where my city clerk is here to help. There's a possibility for me to be moving over to the Community Development Department on a more permanent basis as we fill the staffing. But in the meantime, I will be helping facilitate these meetings moving forward. I also wanted to let the Planning Commission know that at the last City Council meeting, the second reading of the tree regulation amendments were approved and those regulations should go into effect. in April and our city attorney, Mary Wagner, is actively working on the resolution regarding the fees. to correspond with the ordinance amendment. |
| 00:04:14.12 | Kristina Feller | Outstanding, really appreciate that. Obviously, you know, the commissioners can pipe up here, but you have our full support and, Delighted to see you back here with the commission this evening, so thank you for that and look forward to to what the city manager has in store for the community development department. And a thank you to our city attorney, Mary Wagner for pushing forward the tree ordinance, which is so important to us. So thank you for that. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's go ahead and move to the planning commission for any one-way communications or reporting out on subcommittees. So commissioner Luxenberg, I'm gonna start with you. |
| 00:04:58.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Nice. Thank you, Chair Feller. A working draft of the proposed parkland and outside dining program that would replace the one that was set up under an emergency basis during the COVID pandemic was sent to the city council last Friday. The working group will be looking to the city council for the next steps on the program, which may include some type of public presentation of the proposed program. |
| 00:05:24.38 | Kristina Feller | Terrific, thank you so much. Thank you for that. Um, vice chair Junius, could you update us on the objective design standards? |
| 00:05:34.64 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. We had our last meeting, I think it was two weeks ago with Bob, and you and myself on the subcommittee We're, We're still focusing on the view issue as that is probably the most difficult one to deal with, Bob. as prepared as a fantastic first draft of some actual text that hopefully will eventually turn into piece of the code. and you know, the Opticoast, I believe is ongoing and I do not have a date yet for the next schedule, but I probably, at the next meeting, Thank you. or somebody else at the staff will give us some information update as to where Opticos is And then I completed the first cut with the Sausalito Beautiful on the tree resolution we have provided Mary with some ideas and guidance as to the guts of the actual resolution implement the dollars and the purpose of the fund. So that's all. that. and I'm ready to. as needed. |
| 00:06:40.69 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Thank you so much, and thank you for your hard work on that. Let's move Commissioner Saad to the Housing Element Advisory Committee. |
| 00:06:49.23 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, Chair Feller, we had our last meeting at the end of February. The next meeting is coming up on March 28th. The last meeting, if anyone from the public does look at the agenda, you can find the 75 sites that were identified by the consultant. Our focus right now before our next meeting on March 28th is to determine eligibility and give input, especially for the very low to low housing. There's also the community survey has gone out. I believe I saw it in the South Salido Currents. Okay, thank you for confirming. It's also on the city website. It's the Sausalito housing needs and priorities survey. It's on through SurveyMonkey online. There are some resources for paper surveys, but definitely encourage everyone to take it as soon as possible. I took it, it took about 15 minutes tops. So any input between now and the next meeting will be critical. I do have a point of clarification though, just because of, Jim Moore's departure, he had said at our last meeting that he would take on any incoming email from the public with updates or, input. about HIAC and I'm just not sure where we can direct the public at this time. Heidi, I know you've got a lot on your plate. I'm not sure. but if we know where we can maybe ask members of the public to write into for any input between now and our next meeting. |
| 00:08:25.08 | Heidi | Yes, thank you. And I can jump in and thank you for a conversation that I had with the Chair Fellow this morning regarding that same thing. is that we put together a new email address called hecomments. comments at softlito.gov. AND THAT'S WHERE ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS CAN GO TO AND and we'll be publishing that email address and updating all sorts of email locations regarding this and then we'll get something in the currents as well |
| 00:08:51.98 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 00:08:52.03 | Unknown | THE CASE. |
| 00:08:56.17 | Heidi | So wonderful. 18 comments at Saucelito.gov. |
| 00:08:56.96 | Nastassya Saad | Wonderful. |
| 00:09:01.47 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, great. And that is all from me, Chair Fowler. Thank you. |
| 00:09:06.65 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. If it's okay, I'm just going to add a little bit on the housing element. Any emails that were sent to Director Moore's old email are not lost, they will be redirected. So please anyone in the public, rest assured that your comments are not lost somewhere in the internet somewhere. that we do have those and we will make sure that this is this new communication email. So it'll be a general email. So everything will go there. And then the second thing I wanted to mention is as I've said before in previous hearings and I want to reiterate as many times as I can, |
| 00:09:46.59 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 00:09:47.89 | Kristina Feller | The public input and public participation with this housing element is absolutely critical. It's very important to speak often, speak loudly, We ask everybody on the housing board to please issue your comments in writing. Definitely come to all of the meetings and hearings. It's helpful to get some comments in writing but you're welcome to reiterate them at the, at the hearing as well. But the more information and the more feedback we can get from the public, the better the product will be at the end and it will definitely represent our community. So please don't wait till the last minute. Please don't be veiled about it. It's really actually quite important to do that. So really encourage everybody to do that. And thank you in advance for doing that. I have a couple other |
| 00:10:40.44 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | you |
| 00:10:43.17 | Kristina Feller | sort of housekeeping items, if that's okay to go through. The first is the Planning Commission has been copied on some correspondence between Mr. and Mrs. White regarding 654. Sausalito Boulevard. Although those communications were not sent to the planning commission, we were copied on them and we would like to ask and request staff to please make contact with Mr. White about their communications that have been directed towards community development. We want to avoid any issues and it would be important to get to the bottom of that. If there's something the Planning Commission needs to be aware of, I trust that staff will let us know that. |
| 00:11:15.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:11:26.37 | Maria | Mr. Mark, can I jump in here? |
| 00:11:26.39 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. |
| 00:11:28.26 | Maria | Yes. I've been communicating with her over email. AND I TOLD HER TO STAY IN CONTACT WITH ME TO So when the project moves forward, because they're applying for the building permit, but they had comments that went on. So it's still the permit that actually hasn't been issued. |
| 00:11:46.08 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I appreciate that Maria, and thank you so much for communicating back to them. I think we've gotten a subsequent email. Um, I know that you are on it and, and, um, the rest of your team is on it, but if, if we could maybe. follow up with them and then back to the planning commission just to advise in the future, if there's something that we need to be aware of. That would be great. But thank you for your hard work. The second is enforcement. Could we agendize the whole issue of enforcement? and get updates for one of our future hearings here in the next month or so. There've been a number of cases that we've asked about that we know are open and I know that are, are, are big to handle, but I think, we need to keep enforcement front and center. So let's just identify that as a future agenda item. We're able to get an update from all the enforcement officers. That would be appreciated. The third is we've also talked about Southern Moon Fire in the presentation, not just to the planning commission, but for the benefit of the community to talk about evacuation routes again, let's just not forget about this and try to utilize a future agenda to possibly bring this in front of the commission and to the public. Um, there was a request for there was a one-way communication issue to the planning commission with request for any, um, funding requirements and requests were to be sent to city council. There was an initial list that had been discussed And if you guys have any comments or thoughts about that or agree with what's there or don't agree with what's there, try to buy our next commission meeting, try to get to the bottom of that so we can communicate that back to city council because we're almost at the end of our funding cycle and they need to have that feedback from us. So if staff could help facilitate that, that would be great. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE I've also received a number of correspondences and requests for public outreach for the Schoonwalker Development the over by what is it, Marie Shipway, This has been in front of this commission twice as study sessions and it seemed that the community seems to be Um, expressing some concerns about that and they are requesting like a Saturday meeting or something of that sort. Um. Again, I'd like staff to possibly get a little bit more information about that. the members of Galilee Harbor are on communications. So I want to bring that to everyone's attention. And, um, I know of course, there's quite a lot on your plate, Heidi and for the rest of staff, But can you give us a date of when you think the quarterly report will be prepared so the commission can assist or review the report out on the Planning Commission for the City Council. So we've reviewed that before it goes to city council. |
| 00:15:14.66 | Heidi | Yeah, and I can speak with you and Vice Chair Junius during agenda setting regarding that. There might be... a policy change in terms of quarterly reports versus, you know, half yearly reports versus annual reports. So I'll get more information from our acting city clerk in terms of what that direction is, and then I can circle back with you. during agenda. Okay. |
| 00:15:39.88 | Kristina Feller | I'm going to go. Yeah, that sounds wonderful. Thank you. And sorry, I know this is a long list, but I'm just trying to keep everything front and center. I know that we don't have the answers to all these things, but just want to make sure we're being thorough. And then the final one I have is the issue regarding Valhalla. and the public access I know that DPW has been trying to coordinate the property owner. I don't pretend to know the actual status of everything. But again, that had come to the planning commission from the public to to address and resolve because the owner could not get a certificate of occupancy without solving that. So if we could identify or report out on that agenda, that would be really appreciated. |
| 00:16:28.79 | Heidi | And Chair Feller, I actually have some information on that now if you'd like me to report out now or I can wait to another meeting. Do you have a preference? |
| 00:16:36.21 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. Hey, just real quick, not an agenda item. So we need to be a little careful about getting too far into the weeds. If you have a quick update, Heidi, that's great, but we can't get into too much detail. |
| 00:16:47.10 | Heidi | Yeah, definitely. So the owner of the property is working with BCBC to ask for an extension. And then we're also working, the city staff is working with the owner of the property his building permit. So I'll just keep it at that. And then I can provide a more detailed UPDATE AT THE NEXT MEETING. |
| 00:17:06.55 | Kristina Feller | Okay. That sounds great. Thank you. Thank you very much. And that's all I have. Um, okay. Anybody else have any other report outs at this time? If not, we're going to go ahead and open up public comments. for this item for communications, item three. And Heidi, could you assist the public to know how to do that? |
| 00:17:31.60 | Heidi | Yes, and thank you. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the planning commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct the subject to be agendized at a future meeting. In order to accept public comments this evening, video and audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes. AND IT IS BEING TAKEN VIA ZOOM. 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 the phone, press star nine. each seeker will be notified when their time has elapsed. |
| 00:18:19.67 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Thank you so much for the instruction. But this time I'm looking for any hands in the audience. Um, to make public comment on any items under communications, which is item three on our agenda. Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. And then we're gonna move on to item four, which is public comment on any items not on the agenda this evening. And again, if you would like to make any comments to us on items not on the agenda this evening, please raise your hand in the Zoom application or star nine. on your cell phone. |
| 00:19:01.34 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I'm not seeing any requests for public comments. So let's go ahead and close that and move into item number. which is the approval of the commission minutes. |
| 00:19:11.36 | Unknown | I know. |
| 00:19:12.80 | Kristina Feller | And again, this will be for the March 2nd and January 26 meeting minutes, the February 9th, as Commissioner Luxembourg rightly pointed out has already been approved. So let's take these one at a time. Let's start with January 26th. Any comments? I'm looking for hands from any commissioner at this time. Yes, Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:19:34.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just one typo, which we could correct on line 17 on page one. The word principle, I think should be P-R-I-N-C-I-P-A-L, P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E. So if we could just make that correction, that would be helpful. |
| 00:19:57.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you for that comment. I have another comment on the same line actually. Commissioner Luxembourg Rosalind's name is spelled incorrectly. She has an E at the end of her name. And I believe that that's the same comment I have on line 23 on page 206. just a typo on our name. Any other comments from any commissioners at this time? |
| 00:20:22.42 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 00:20:27.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I'll take a motion to approve with edit. |
| 00:20:29.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do you still move with those changes? Second. |
| 00:20:33.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:20:33.14 | Heidi | Thank you. Commissioner Graff? |
| 00:20:35.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:20:36.61 | Heidi | COMMISSIONER LUXENBURG. |
| 00:20:37.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:20:38.72 | Heidi | THANK YOU. |
| 00:20:39.45 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:20:39.60 | Heidi | Yes. |
| 00:20:39.94 | Heidi | Vice Chair Junius? Chair Feller? Yes. Motion passes unanimously. |
| 00:20:46.47 | Kristina Feller | Okay, let's move on to the March 2nd meeting minutes. Are there, just by show of hands, are there any comments or edits on the March 2nd meeting minutes? So I will take a motion to approve. THE FAMILY. |
| 00:21:02.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:21:03.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:21:03.61 | Heidi | Thank you. Commissioner Graff? Oh, yes. |
| 00:21:08.64 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:21:09.45 | Heidi | All right. |
| 00:21:09.98 | Heidi | THE END OF |
| 00:21:10.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:21:11.85 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:21:11.87 | Heidi | Commissioner Assad? Yes. |
| 00:21:14.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:21:15.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:21:15.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:21:15.14 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:21:15.16 | Heidi | Thank you. Sarah Feller. Thank you. |
| 00:21:16.52 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:21:16.54 | Heidi | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:21:17.59 | Heidi | MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AS WELL. Thank you. |
| 00:21:20.32 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you. |
| 00:21:20.98 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:21:21.87 | Kristina Feller | Let's go ahead and move on to item six, which are a public hearing item. Before we move into the first one, this would be the time for any commissioners to declare any ex parte communications. Commissioner Saad? none to declare. Thank you. Commissioner Brown. |
| 00:21:39.62 | Nastassya Saad | None. |
| 00:21:40.86 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:21:42.29 | Nastassya Saad | I'm not. |
| 00:21:43.54 | Kristina Feller | Boys turn juniors. |
| 00:21:44.77 | Nastassya Saad | done. |
| 00:21:45.80 | Kristina Feller | I have none either, thank you. Okay. Uh, shall we move into 6a? |
| 00:21:54.59 | Heidi | first public hearing item is a request for a design review with heightened design review and a variance at 489 491 Bridgeway. This evening we have Shawna Brecker-Reed with MIG and who is a planning consultant, and she will be providing the presentation this evening. So with that, I will hand this over to Shauna. |
| 00:22:14.54 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you, Heidi. And good evening, commissioners. I'm Shana Breckley-Weed with MIT Consulting. and forgive me. |
| 00:22:28.46 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | And I am working on behalf of the city of South Salado. in processing this project. |
| 00:22:38.59 | Kristina Feller | Welcome, thank you. |
| 00:22:40.09 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. The item before you is a design review and a variance for the site located at 489-491 Bridgeway. |
| 00:22:56.04 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Stay with me. I smile. The earliest record of the structure located is at that address is 1889. And the applicant provided a structural report that indicated that the site is not in salvageable The site is 2000 square feet in size and 25 feet wide. and it is zoned R3, multiple family residential, and the minimum lot size for R3 is 5,000 square feet and minimum lot width is 50 square feet. So it's smaller than normal. And that site contains no parking. The applicant is requesting approval to demolish the existing duplex and to construct a single-family residence. The residents would be on three levels would include an attached accessory dwelling unit in the rear on the floor. and would add two tandem parking spaces on site. And a 16 foot retaining wall gives the integral to the structure and extend into the side guard. to support the structure to address geotechnical reports. The project requires a variance from setbacks because the retaining wall is extending to the side yard. and because the building length exceeds 40 feet. and therefore the sublact seems to be greater. And the floor area ratio is more than 80% of what is allowed in South Mexico. And so the project requires. The structure will be about six feet taller than what currently exists. And, um, also taller than the structure to the north. and would remain shorter, probably shorter, the structure to the size. It would contain on-site parking as indicated. All the lighting is downward directed and the applicant profiles are landscaping. That is both drought and fire tolerance. I'll note here that there was late information provided to the planning commission upon request by a planning commissioner. The applicant provided additional details about the architecture and renderings. and it was forwarded to the commission and placed on the website as well. And the architecture includes board formed concrete, vertical stained wood siding and black metal windows. The project requires a number of findings. And staff believes that the findings for consistency with the general plan can be made. The site is designated high density residential The structure is built to minimize impact traffic with the setback to accommodate the parking. the general planning and encourage it successfully following the next. and the structure uses architectural innovation with the internal retaining wall or integral retaining wall. while still maintaining or staying within the height limits. and landscaping meets the fire code and water requirements. The project also complies with many aspects of the zoning, however, not all. and that's the reason for the variants. and specifically the side Subac is not met because of the building length. the subactive need to be seven feet And, um, And then the parcel size and lot width, well, not before the commission this evening, that's a factor in how the site has been designed. One note I'll make is that the project does not qualify for non-conforming status because the structure is being demolished in its entirety. And also it doesn't qualify for reduction in side yard setbacks because the lot is less than 30 feet anyway. The project proposals under 1300 square feet of floor area. And that includes our It also. proposes the ground floor garage and the accessor volume unit. Thank you. So the total would be 18. or 1,858 square feet. The accessory dwelling unit is compliant with the objective standards of zoning and that includes the size, the design, the interior design that includes a kitchen and a separate entrance as well as the exterior design. such as you know, the structure and making privacy. Staff believes the project is also consistent with and that the findings can be made. specifically in the areas of architecture, landscape and the site design, as well as the scale and consistency with what is surrounding. views are maintained the applicant indicated and provided information that the project was designed in order to minimize the shutdown of views including stepping back the first floor And and stepping back to the first floor as well. |
| 00:29:08.48 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | I know that you can do that. In the area of light, air and noise, you can see on the left side of the screen that the five yard setbacks will be increased substantially. And from as little as six inches, and it will be a five foot side right subject on both sides. which would increase light and air. And Also, a commission of approval requires screening of equipment for both visual as well as noise purposes. |
| 00:29:52.07 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | And finally, access is designed for minimizing traffic impacts and safe investment growth. staff believes that the heightened design review findings can also be made. specifically there are no protected trees on the site. and the yards and setbacks are proportional to what is proposed and to the lot itself. and the project provides onsite guest parking. Limited fenestration is located on both sides of the structure and the structure was designed to minimize view of structure. And the site has some constraints and in terms of geotechnical, the conditions of approval, ensure that their safety is maintained and how the structure is designed at the construction plan level. and provides for safe egress and egress. Retaining wall, as mentioned, is integral to the structure and it minimizes grading so it doesn't cut into both sides. And finally, landscaping is installed along both sides of the structure for both purpose of privacy, as well as designed for drought and fire resistance. |
| 00:31:22.49 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Staff believes the variance findings can also be made. In this case, this lot has extraordinary circumstances that make developing the site difficult. specifically the width as well as the size. And in addition, the steepness in the rear and the threat of sea level rise in the front results literally enforcing the the code would make it difficult. For example, the house would need to be narrower, to accommodate a greater building right. while providing for the floor area that's allowed on that lot. And the retaining wall is needed along the full length of the width of the site in order to stabilize the slope. The applicant conducted neighborhood outreach in advance of and as part of their application The neighbor at 493 Bridgeway has since moved for Bulkley, there was a discussion regarding soil and wall walls and the applicant changed the design and proposals to capture them so that there's no approach for non-removering sites. There has been no other correspondence received after either story polls were installed nor after public hearing notices went out. The applicant did provide additional submittal as I made it through. In terms of CEQA, the Historic Preservation Review Commission reviewed this project in October and determined that the site and structure do not qualify as a historic resource under CEQA. and therefore the project can be exempt from that point of view. and the project can also be exempt from sequa because it demolishes existing facilities and it is new construction of a small structure Therefore staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution that was contained with the staff report. to exempt the project from CEPA and to approve the applications for variants but design would be a permit and to make heightened design would be fine. The planning commission does have other options, including adding conditions, denying the applications, or requesting additional information and continuing in the public hearings. The applicant is here this evening and will be making a presentation and I'm available to answer any questions. I'll add that my colleague, Isabel Lowe, worked extensively on this project. And so Isabella was here as well. |
| 00:34:25.70 | Kristina Feller | Shauna, thank you so much for your presentation and the graphics in there and for for all the work behind the scenes with the applicant to get this to us here tonight that it's most appreciated. So right now, what I'd like to do is, this is a time for commissioners to ask staff in our contract planner any questions that they might have at this time. Commissioner Graff, do you have any questions for Shauna or staff? |
| 00:34:55.64 | Richard Graef | I don't have any questions at this time. Um, It was something that, um, I'm sure it'll come up, it was very minor already forgot. But no. |
| 00:35:10.50 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. Well, if it comes back, let me know. |
| 00:35:14.76 | Richard Graef | I will. |
| 00:35:14.81 | Kristina Feller | I will. Commissioner Nelson Berg. Oh, I remember one. |
| 00:35:19.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Richard didn't... |
| 00:35:21.67 | Richard Graef | I remember the first time I was I didn't quite get all of the discussion about the setbacks there were there were some criteria about setbacks and and, um, I just didn't get it all. So, If that could be repeated really briefly, that would be great. Otherwise, we could go on. |
| 00:35:43.48 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to repeat it. |
| 00:35:44.10 | Kristina Feller | I'm really proud of you. |
| 00:35:44.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:35:51.56 | Kristina Feller | Well, no, Shauna, could you just clarify the, the, the, the setbacks that are proposed? |
| 00:35:59.88 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Yes, the proposed setbacks are five B. And the based on the building length, because the the building is more than 40 feet long. The setbacks that are required are seven feet. |
| 00:36:18.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:36:18.85 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | AND Perhaps Commissioner Grapp was asking about why it doesn't qualify for reduced setback based on the list of the law. and The reason is because the code that deals with non-conforming lots and reduced setback says that lots that are 30 feet or wider can have a reduced setback. but this lot is 25 feet. Thank you. |
| 00:36:57.66 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Shauna. Commissioner Grout, does that help? |
| 00:37:01.20 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I think so. |
| 00:37:04.71 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, yes. |
| 00:37:07.61 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:37:07.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:37:08.58 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:37:08.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, I do have a few questions. First, I want to thank you for your report. It was extremely thorough. The staff report was very thorough. And then I appreciated the fact that, one, you sent the presentation out in advance, but also that the presentation was very succinct and was not just a reiteration of the staff report. It did it in a different format and used the format extremely well. So thank you for that. I do note a couple of typos that I just want to put for the record. The draft resolution is attachment one, not attachment four on page 25. And on page 12, the applicant outreach is attachment seven, not attachment six. just note those for the record. I have two sort of comments about one is about table one and the square footage for this project is 1858 square feet and there's a column and this is more also for uh directors uh the city clerk so the skull as well that column is designed for density And to compare the dense, table one has the densities of this project versus the other projects. And I understand there's an ADU and I understand that you take the ADU when you do the FAR calculation, which is fine, because you can compare it that way. But when we want to compare density of this project with the surrounding projects, we don't know. the square footages of the different units on the adjacent properties and ADUs on the adjacent properties so I think it's important in that column that you know we note that it's 1858 square feet and you can note that the main unit is 1200 and whatever but so I told I note this for both this project and any going forward because it's not a apples and apples comparison if we don't include the actual density for the project so if we we could do that going forward My only last question is related to the landscape, because you indicated in your presentation that those were fire resistant plants. And I was reading in the conditions, which said that those plants have to be changed because they're not fire resistant. So if we could get some clarity, I don't know, If you can bring up the conditions, it's in the CCDD conditions. I don't know if you have that resolution. You can bring it up on the screen. |
| 00:39:46.31 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | I yes, I could and I can clarify if I may to the chair. Thank you. |
| 00:39:52.18 | Unknown | See you. |
| 00:39:52.26 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | We double checked with Southern Marin Fire and they wanted to keep the same conditions they'd provided to us previously. |
| 00:39:52.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:03.00 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | there when those conditions were originally written it was a different landscaping material that was being proposed And so we understand and we believe that the proposed landscaping will meet Southern Marin fires requirements. However, Southern Northern wanted that to throw away. |
| 00:40:23.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, can you just bring that condition up because I thought that the plants you indicated are the plants that are indicated in there. Okay. |
| 00:40:27.13 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. |
| 00:40:27.18 | Unknown | that. |
| 00:40:27.45 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. |
| 00:40:33.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just wanna make sure that we put the right corrections to that, we don't have a condition that has already been met or something or or it's saying a plan is not eligible that it is eligible. |
| 00:40:49.35 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Right. Okay, I am bringing it up. I want to find it before I share my screen. |
| 00:40:56.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure, I think it's definitely in the first set, the CBD one. Thank you. |
| 00:41:02.30 | Kristina Feller | So Commissioner Luxembourg under general items, it would be one of the... one of the first 16, is that? |
| 00:41:10.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought so, and now I'm doing it from memory. Uh... |
| 00:41:14.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:41:14.26 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Okay. |
| 00:41:14.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but let me see if I... |
| 00:41:17.52 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | I believe it's Southern Marin fires condition. |
| 00:41:20.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It could be. |
| 00:41:22.04 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. |
| 00:41:22.19 | Heidi | 63. There's a tree removal that's number six. |
| 00:41:28.69 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:41:29.43 | Heidi | but then condition 63, speak to the vegetation management plan requirement. So, So the way the teaching is written, as Shauna has just pulled up, It doesn't preclude this application from moving forward. that the project has been redesigned to ensure that there's no pyrophytic vegetation in there then Southern Marin through their vegetation management plan requirement will assess that And then if there are subsequent changes that would be required, then Southern Marine Fire would let the applicant know and then they would need to amend the plan. And then there is an internal process that staff would need to go through regarding changes to an approved plan. |
| 00:42:19.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:42:24.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:42:24.92 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:42:24.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought I saw something else, but maybe I didn't. |
| 00:42:25.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:42:33.30 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. |
| 00:42:33.32 | Kristina Feller | I think the question, Commissioner Luxenberg, |
| 00:42:33.56 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Well, |
| 00:42:38.03 | Kristina Feller | . Yeah. |
| 00:42:39.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, there it is. He's 69. |
| 00:42:47.66 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | And in this case, so you've, um, if I may, for the chair, part of what, fire districts are dealing with is adequate plan spacing. And so this plan may not meet the adequate plan spacing. And then you'll note that Pacific Reedgrass is no longer part of the project. However, at the time that Southern Marine wrote the conditions, it was. And so when we rerouted it to Southern Miranda, they simultaneously use the same conditions to prove |
| 00:43:33.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So Pacific Reed Glass is not in the set of plans, but I thought I saw it. |
| 00:43:33.63 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | specifically, |
| 00:43:34.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:43:38.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's why I had a red flag in there. |
| 00:43:43.69 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Don't believe so. I will check with my colleague. |
| 00:43:50.99 | Kristina Feller | What? If you could check with that or if Isabel can, can look into that while we're continuing with our, our questions here. That would be really helpful. |
| 00:44:02.64 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Happy to do that. |
| 00:44:03.60 | Kristina Feller | Isabel, if you can hear us, if you could assist Shauna in looking at that, that would be helpful. Good questions, Commissioner Luxenberg. Did you have any additional... |
| 00:44:13.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, that was it. And it was related just to this number 69. So, but thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 00:44:19.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for the detailed question. Thank you for that. Commissioner Saad, do you have questions for Shana or staff at the time? |
| 00:44:27.78 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, Chair Feller. I actually just wanted to clarify something, Shauna, you just said in relation to Commissioner Graff's question on the variance. Did you say in your presentation that this law would not qualify for legal non-conforming because it's being demolished? |
| 00:44:48.27 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. The lot qualifies. It's the structure itself. They cannot ask for a non-conforming permit to maintain certain setbacks. because the entire infrastructure is being demolished. So that's one part. And then a second part |
| 00:45:06.53 | Heidi | OK. |
| 00:45:10.66 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | was related to the fact that themselves because of the |
| 00:45:16.97 | Nastassya Saad | THE END OF |
| 00:45:17.02 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | with the law. |
| 00:45:17.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:45:18.59 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Does that answer your question? |
| 00:45:19.79 | Nastassya Saad | It does. I think I understood it originally in that comment. Just confused me a little, but I think that's clear for me now. Thank you for reclarifying that. And I did have one other question. In the report, it says that there are no shadow issues. I think the proposed structure is only taller than the adjacent property to the to the north, I think that is |
| 00:45:54.84 | Nastassya Saad | 493 if I can see the tiny print. Was there a shadow study? conducted. Thank you. |
| 00:46:03.70 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | I don't believe so. And the applicant is here, so he can come. provide information as well. |
| 00:46:11.65 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I'll just say that if the applicant is listening, I'm just curious to know how it was determined that the that there would be no shadow impact. But that would be all the questions that I have right now, Chair Feller. |
| 00:46:25.59 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you so much, Commissioner Saad. I see that Isabel has joined us here. Does she have an answer back to Commissioner Luxenberg's question on the vegetation? |
| 00:46:36.07 | Isabel Lowe | Yes. I have the staff report pulled up right now and We have listed agave blue glow and creeping red fescue as the landscaping plants. |
| 00:46:52.99 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Commissioner Luxenberg, does that help? |
| 00:46:56.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, and Southern Marin is okay with those then? |
| 00:47:03.03 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | The way that condition, we believe they will be. However, the way the condition is written, they will ultimately have the authority to review it. they haven't pre-approved it. So, they will be reviewing the final material. |
| 00:47:22.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but can we get that condition to match? There's a sheet 103 and it's saying, that it has one thing that it doesn't have? Can we just somehow get that condition to match what the drawings are so there's not confusion down the road? |
| 00:47:38.71 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:47:40.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have no issue with the proposed plans. I just wanna make sure that they don't have an issue that down the road that says 103 was on 103, but 103 isn't alive. |
| 00:47:53.41 | Kristina Feller | Great. Yes, definitely. They need to be corrected. Thank you. And thank you, Isabel, for looking into that and coming back to us. Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:48:04.59 | Andrew Junius | thank you chair feller and thank you everybody i'm just a couple quick questions and clarifications THEIR OWNERS. This being a net increase of only one housing unit, I assume there's no question that that the Housing Accountability Act does not apply here and staff just confirm that. the record. |
| 00:48:22.46 | Unknown | Yes. It's a fast-paced. |
| 00:48:23.85 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Um, And then on the historic, uh, issue here. Just again, confirming the only historic analysis here was triggered by the California Crime on Equality Act. There's no historic district or other local designation here that would come into play, correct? |
| 00:48:42.22 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | That is correct. But I will add, however, it was this particular structure what had a name. I can't remember what that name was on some maps, but a historic resources evaluation was completed. by the applicant's historic consultant. And the HPRC confirmed it was not a historic letter |
| 00:49:05.19 | Andrew Junius | Great. Thank you. Um, the, The property, you know, when you're standing in front of this project site, the large home, the large building to the left, Is that a single family home? I don't remember. I walked by that. Is that a multi, is that a three-unit building or two-unit building? |
| 00:49:23.45 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | It's a three unit building. |
| 00:49:25.46 | Andrew Junius | This is a three unit district grade. And then I would also echo Commissioner Luxenberg's compliments, a great staff report. And I really liked it for the purpose of the public, the clarity of going through the findings for the heightened design review is extremely helpful for everybody so thank you no further questions |
| 00:49:43.45 | Kristina Feller | Right, thank you very much, Vice Chair Junius. I just have a couple questions myself and some of my fellow commissioners have touched on this. But again, just for any avoidance of doubt, this project is not in an historic overlay district either, is it? |
| 00:50:00.51 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | THE END OF |
| 00:50:02.09 | Kristina Feller | The resort, the agency did not look at that. They just looked at the buildings. |
| 00:50:02.28 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. It is not. |
| 00:50:07.39 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. Yes, it is not in the historic district, Thank you. They looked at the entirety of whether it can be in historic resource. Thank you. |
| 00:50:20.28 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:50:20.81 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. |
| 00:50:20.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:50:21.38 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. |
| 00:50:21.52 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:50:21.65 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. |
| 00:50:21.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. And in your presentation, I also appreciate the applicant's outreach to the neighborhood. that's helpful. I want to understand from staff, though about the noticing of this project. I'm assuming that there were no issues with the noticing and that no mail came back. undelivered or anything like that. And that there were no comments received from the public prior to this hearing posted. Again, this is just sort of, you know, for the avoidance of doubt here, I just wanna make sure that we've asked those questions. |
| 00:51:01.27 | Heidi | Thank you for asking that question. All notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. We have received no public comments. We haven't received any notifications that have been returned to the city. |
| 00:51:14.62 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. Thank you for the clarification for the record here. You know, Commissioner Saad was also asking about the shadow studies, which I think are really good. and usually we look for those particularly in heightened design review. But the other thing that we look for and would be helpful is understanding I mean, we certainly see the elevations of the design, the very thoughtful design here. But I'm not really understanding how some of these, some of the glazing matches up with the property to the north and the property to the south. And so has there been a study about the windows and all that kind of stuff, because that is not in our package and that would be something that we would need to look at and see, I believe, to be able to make some of these findings. So just asking if that had been done, but maybe not in the package. |
| 00:52:09.43 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | I believe that was in the package of the plans that were provided to the commission. There were side angles that showed the window placements and relative to the window placement, relative to the buildings on each side. Um, and The applicant can, I know we'll be able to answer that question more quickly than I can, but Isabel may also be able to point us to the sheet number. |
| 00:52:46.54 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, that would be helpful. I mean, I went through this pretty thoroughly and certainly saw the elevations, but didn't see them in relation to the neighboring properties. So, you know, and I know the applicants here and we'll have a chance here in a moment to make a presentation. |
| 00:52:56.70 | Seth | Yeah. |
| 00:53:03.41 | Kristina Feller | can take these things into consideration Um, So I'd like to get to the bottom of that. The other thing is about a little bit more about sort of the geotech and you know, there was, there's note here in the staff report about issues, um, with like mudslide landslide on the uphill. property. And, you know, the geotech was completed before the landslide task force report was issued and approved and ratified by the city council. So I'm wondering if that was consulted in consideration for this project. |
| 00:53:33.03 | Unknown | you know, |
| 00:53:46.87 | Unknown | you |
| 00:53:50.34 | Kristina Feller | And then I'm also very curious, because we have our sea level rise task force and Bay Wave that can model any kind of sea level rise or subsidence issues throughout Sausalito, if it was modeled for that as well. |
| 00:54:07.81 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | I cannot answer the question about the modeling for sea level rise. we do have the GIS information for MarinMap. which I showed on the slides. In terms of the Geotech, the Geotech report was peer reviewed by the Public Works Department. and they provided the conditions of approval that addressed the geotech considerations. And we did not consult the landslide task force report. |
| 00:54:50.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:54:51.14 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | Thank you. |
| 00:54:51.18 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 00:54:55.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, and then just again, for clarification. Um, If I'm understanding the parking situation correctly, cause the rendering kind of threw me off cause there's like a car in front of the driveway, like walking the driveway. You have tandem parking, but only one of those is actually an enclosed parking. spot in a garage, just for clarification. Right. |
| 00:55:22.84 | Shawna Brecker-Reed | That is, that's correct. Okay. One will be covered. by the second floor. Yeah. and when will be imposed, correct? Yeah, I got that. |
| 00:55:33.35 | Kristina Feller | I'm sure that there are questions, but I think it would be... helpful to engage with the applicant as well. Before we ask the applicant up here, just by show of hands, are there any additional follow-up questions at the moment by the commissioners to staff or our contract planners here? Yes, Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:55:56.79 | Richard Graef | I just found a window diagram in case you want to look at it. on sheet A0. 0.04. And it shows the windows. In relationship with a Jason. |
| 00:56:08.48 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, really. |
| 00:56:10.98 | Richard Graef | structure. |
| 00:56:12.08 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. You've come to my rescue. Thank you. I'm going to look at that. I've got that here. Um, Any other questions for staff at this time? Nope, okay. Let's go ahead and invite the applicant here to make their presentation. And is that, Seth, are you making the presentation? welcome uh seth welcome this evening appreciate you being here tonight and welcome to the commission. You'll have 15 minutes to make a presentation to us. you and anybody else on your team, or if your client would like to participate as well. We have a timer up here on the screen. Hopefully you're looking at you can see that. And if we ask you any questions or stop you in the middle, that doesn't count against your time at all. So any of the questions would not count. So. I will hand this over to you and thank you for being here. |
| 00:57:20.68 | Seth | Very good. Thank you very much everyone for your time this evening. Thank you, Shauna, for a excellent presentation. this evening as well. I'm going to jump right into this and touch on two aspects of the project in particular. There's been some discussion regarding the geotechnical aspects. And then I also want to delve into the design concept. Again, I think Sean has done a wonderful job. of explaining the code ramifications and the request for the variances so if i may i'm going to share my screen i have some just documents I'd like to share here with me. |
| 00:58:04.35 | Seth | Very good. Is everyone able to see this document? Thank you. |
| 00:58:09.09 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:58:09.12 | Seth | I'm sorry. |
| 00:58:09.19 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 00:58:09.24 | Seth | . |
| 00:58:09.73 | Kristina Feller | Yes, thank you. |
| 00:58:09.95 | Seth | I'm going to start and just quickly go through the geotechnical aspects of this project because they are a big component of this project. We're working with Craig Herzog with Herzog Geotechnical. He's done a lot of work in the city of Sausalito. Real quickly, the existing site has a concrete block wall partially up the hillside and a very short CMU wall below the wood deck. This concrete block wall is literally broken chunks of concrete. no footing, et cetera, essentially provides no stability. There is also no existing cat in the wall on the backside of that uphill, which is intended to remain. Okay. Just to give you an idea, this is the side elevation of the existing house. This is the existing concrete block wall underneath, which is difficult to see. The deck there is again another CMU wall. In speaking with the geotechnical engineer, and I apologize, he wasn't able to make it this evening. the location of the building we're proposing really has no relevance on the need for a new retaining wall in this location. If we were to undergo development of the existing structure or build a new building, the existing retaining wall is not providing any support to the existing hillside. And additionally, just going back quickly to this document, to adequately support that hillside it is required for that retaining wall to run from property line to property line and not just behind the structure itself. So that being said, we did look at a couple options on this location, tiebacks, soil nails, which require an easement most likely from the uphill neighborhood because it's just at this time very, very difficult to determine how far those go back into the hillside. And that was not granted from the neighbor. So we're proceeding with a cantilever retaining wall system. This is indicating the location of that wall itself directly adjacent to the backside of the building. Concrete block wall is shown here, but it is going away. And again, the catchment wall is remaining on the backside. It is basically a standard cantilevered retaining wall in this situation. This is looking at essentially the site and excavation plan, showing the extent of the footing underneath that retaining wall. And the circles are representing the drilled piers that will be necessary for additional support of that retaining wall. In addition to the retaining wall, which is, this is a section looking through the building, that retaining wall itself is approximately 16 feet tall. And I say approximate because it's a little difficult to determine at this point because of the existing construction in place, but I don't envision that varying by more than a few inches based on the survey. The top eight feet of that wall is actually acting as a catchment wall. So this purple line is representing the height of the retaining wall itself. We are then extending that an additional four feet for catchment for any debris coming down the hillside. And then on top of that is a four-foot fence. I'm probably pronouncing this incorrectly, a geo-brook wall, which is essentially a fence that catches any debris coming down the hillside. This is, again, a recommendation from our geotechnical engineer. We have an uphill catchment wall. However, this is a very steep slope. You recommended going with four feet of concrete and then providing this catchment wall on top for any debris that could potentially bounce down the hillside to protect any development down. |
| 01:01:42.84 | Unknown | Oh yeah. |
| 01:02:01.91 | Seth | And then just to go back to this, and I want to move on to design quickly as well, and then answer the questions that came up during Sean's review. The building itself will also be set on drilled piers. Bedrock is relatively close in that location. So these drilled piers are probably looking about four feet near the hillside in depth below grade. And then the bedrock drops further below as you head closer to Bridgeway and that's about seven feet in depth. So I'm quickly gonna move on to the design and really, again, Sean has done a wonderful job of going through the code, but just really kind of walk through the design concept on this project. And it has been an evolution in conjunction with the city of Sausalito through previous reviews as well. There were essentially three design criteria that were very important to this project going forward. Obviously, the code played a very large part. Site constraints had a very, very large part in the design concept. And then, most importantly, the context of this site. And by that, I'm referring to the prominent location along Bridgeway and the pedestrian environment that exists out there. So just quickly to start with the, I'm actually going to skip the code portion. It'll come up a little bit here and there, but I think, again, Sean has done a wonderful job of explaining those components. And so I'm going to move on to the site constraints a little bit and how that really informed the design of the building itself. so this is looking at the lowest floor of the building um and and the narrow nature of the site uh uh really dictated a a linear stairwell uh to take place on this site and and it'll make a little more sense here as i go along but essentially entering at a landing on the lower floor um traveling up a staircase to the second floor and not returning around on the stair because there's there's just not adequate width in this location to accomplish that so that really dictated the location of the landings on the first floor in conjunction with that it would be perimeter to put your programmatic functions, important programmatic functions at the back. I mean, obviously the intention here is to take advantage of the views. So the design concept also had to consider putting these elements towards the front, towards the east, which also dictated the location of the stairwell and the linear aspect. So obviously second floor master suite is located adjacent to the view. And again, that linear stair is dictating the location of the landing, which is really just pushing and pulling these volumes back and forth. And hopefully this all makes sense when I get to the mass aspect of this. But moving up to the next floor again, You can see again these prominent functions are located to the east with a desire for outdoor space on the upper floor again located these which is pushing this linear stair. To the West and again informing where these volumes take place in the building itself. This is just a section of kind of looking through the volumes and how this occurs. Again, coming in the building, landing to accommodate those programmatic items in the building itself. And then continuing up to the third floor, again, pushing those programmatic items to the east, which you can see really played with the individual plates and pushing and pulling those to the east and west. So that's really kind of the floor plan concept. And now I kind of want to, move into the massing concept, and how those really kind of interplay. And frankly, this doesn't happen in every architectural project. And it's pretty neat when the floor plans and the massing all kind of gel together. Maybe that's a little... architectural nerdy, but it's kind of cool. Anyways, so so the the narrow nature of this site really required us to go vertical and really take advantage of the maximum height limit this in in in effect had the benefit of creating this really nice transition between the victorian home to the uh uh to the north and the uh three-story condominium to the south fitting in really nicely and allowing for this transition again that play in the volumes also allowed for us to really push those floor plates back and forth and create this step back and really help reduce the bulk and scale as viewed from the pedestrian environment along Bridgeway. And again, this upper floor pushing back with this outdoor space, again, really nicely mimics the layout of the condominium building to the south and pulls that back a little bit and again had the effect of not really impacting views on upper stories of that condominium building as well. Again, Sean, I did touch on the materials, but because of the nature of this site being so narrow, not really having that opportunity to essentially put a pitched roof on this building to get the three stories out of it, really landed the design towards a more contemporary design. Again, really trying to fit a box in a relatively small spot. I think that works really well on Bridgeway. It's a very eclectic street with numerous architectural styles in this location. But to respect that and respect kind of the port in nature of some of the homes, the contemporary nature of some of the homes, we've chosen materials that are kind of a hybrid of both. And by that, I mean the use of wood vertical siding, stained wood vertical siding, more organic in nature. Sorry for the darkness. I have a sample. I can show that as well. Vertical wood siding, five and a half inch in width. Use a board and batten concrete on the supports underneath the first floor. And then the metal break shapes, which is essentially a metal panel that occurs at the coping. It also occurs at the individual floor lines, really breaking down these horizontal planes and helping kind of reduce the perceived height of the building as well, playing with the horizontal nature. And then moving to the side elevations, and this really speaks to the setback issue and the request for the reduction in the setbacks from what would be 7 feet to 5 feet. And this floor plan layout, the narrow site, really kind of required this play of these volumes. And what I think that really does is creates these, these voids and cantilevers, which really allow a, a, reduce the perception of the length of this facade as viewed from both neighboring houses i fully understand this is a longer building um by in terms of the code but from an architectural standpoint we've really taking the effort to try to reduce the perceived length of this building by this push and pull of these volumes and you can see that the individual lengths of each of these |
| 01:09:55.39 | Seth | Again, this is just looking from the other direction. This is looking from the condo and the condo, matter of fact, has a very large concrete wall. So a good portion of this is not visible from the condo as well. And I think most importantly, I really want to talk about the context of this site. Again, this is, in my opinion, a very prominent location along Bridgeway. A very important pedestrian location, not only for citizens of Sausalito, but I mean, clearly the number of tourists that walked down the street. I've had the opportunity to stay on Bridgeway on numerous occasions, and I am... astonished at how many people walk down that street and are looking back at the buildings and looking back at the hillside and pointing at those buildings when they have this amazing view of San Francisco across. So I truly understand the importance of creating something that is a compliment to this street. And I truly feel that these structures really do play a prominent role in Sausalito's appeal. So we've really taken a lot of time to ensure that this building really does provide a pedestrian scale for everyone, works really well with that eclectic mix that exists on Bridgeway itself, and also is well scaled with adjacent development along that hillside as well. So in closing and then I'll go on and touch on some of the comments that everyone had previously. I do have some image that Shawn also had within her presentation. But again, you know, just looking from the northwest with the buildings kind of screened out to give you an idea of the length of this structure. looking from the Southwest at the structure again, with the Victorian home screened out of place and showing the setbacks and the play on these horizontal plates and really providing, reducing the bulk and scale again, as viewed from Bridgeway. And then the building itself overlaid into the building, the building, the image of the neighborhood itself and what will truly be visible along the street. Again, looking from the southwest and the northwest. And in conclusion, a view looking directly across the street. |
| 01:12:31.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:12:34.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. No problem. We're just out of time here, but if you wanna show us your last image there, then we can get into some questions. |
| 01:12:41.34 | Seth | I am done. I do wanna touch real quickly, if you don't mind, on the items that came up with regard to shadow analysis, plants, And I think that was it. |
| 01:12:52.66 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, if you don't mind, definitely addressing some of the questions that you heard from us. Those will be our lines of questions to start with. So if you want to... |
| 01:12:52.70 | Seth | Yeah. |
| 01:13:00.73 | Seth | Thank you. with those people. |
| 01:13:02.67 | Kristina Feller | want to dive in, that would be great. |
| 01:13:04.65 | Seth | Okay, well, we did take a look at the shadow analysis. And as you can see, the building behind is kind of overlaid in this document. and Thank you. |
| 01:13:14.15 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:13:14.16 | Seth | Thank you. Yeah. and the building adjacent was always in shape so so our building is is a little bit taller but it's not essentially making a condition existing condition any different from what it was before in fact if anything is going to allow for more natural light to occur between those buildings than what exists now in that location uh obviously on this, there's a lot more room as well with regard to the shade and shadow that occurs on that building. With regard to plants, yes, we did make that correction at a later correction cycle. And the plants that are on the current plan are directly from the Marin County approved list of plants. |
| 01:14:03.69 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 01:14:03.71 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, Let's go ahead and stop sharing screen for just a moment. Although I suspect we're going to want to go back to those, um, |
| 01:14:13.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:14.15 | Kristina Feller | But I'd like to open this up for questions from the commissioners. And Commissioner Saad, do you wanna start us off? |
| 01:14:25.97 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, and I appreciate you touching on the shadow, and this is not to discredit your architectural eye, but I'm just curious, and without a shadow... just because of the height difference. I do see where the top the floor is recessed, it can't allow for some more light, but um, AND looking at the where we're now seeing the windows on the existing on the side to the north. Do we know where the windows are on the existing property? I think it's 493 to the north. Are... where the natural light could be potentially blocked. |
| 01:15:11.04 | Seth | I can share the document that was submitted to the city showing the glazing locations, the proposed and the adjacent houses. |
| 01:15:20.08 | Nastassya Saad | That would maybe help me visualize and understand a little bit better. |
| 01:15:24.25 | Seth | One moment, please. |
| 01:15:39.66 | Seth | if my laptop will agree. |
| 01:15:42.14 | Kristina Feller | There we go. We can see that. |
| 01:15:44.27 | Seth | Um, Does anyone have the page number in front of it? I'm looking at a very small screen, I apologize. |
| 01:15:54.71 | Nastassya Saad | were the windows. |
| 01:15:55.49 | Richard Graef | . |
| 01:15:58.27 | Nastassya Saad | I think you're right there. |
| 01:16:03.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:03.17 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:16:03.30 | Unknown | you |
| 01:16:05.71 | Seth | Oh, hold on, I'm sorry. |
| 01:16:14.71 | Seth | These are showing the individual volumes and where they occur. but we do have another image |
| 01:16:23.48 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 01:16:32.73 | Seth | Thank you. I apologize. |
| 01:16:56.64 | Kristina Feller | I think we're looking for what you're calling, at least in the staff report, the fenestration diagrams. |
| 01:17:02.89 | Seth | Yes. |
| 01:17:03.36 | Kristina Feller | South and North. it's figure 10 in the in the staff report i'm i um truthfully, it's so, it's a little hard to read. So I think that's maybe why... We didn't get it the first go around, but I think that's what Commissioner Saad is referring to. |
| 01:17:23.17 | Heidi | It's actually one above the colored site plan that you just had. So when you're scrolling down on your screen, your share screen, If you go up a little bit. |
| 01:17:30.90 | Seth | If you go. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. |
| 01:17:36.86 | Heidi | We'll go up two more. So it's not that one, it's the one, yeah, it's that one. |
| 01:17:41.36 | Seth | There it is, there you go. So these shaded areas, are indicating the location of the windows on the proposed building in relationship to the windows on the existing house. This is looking at the Victorian. And then these windows are looking back at the condominium building. And the dashed line is indicating the outline. of the building itself. |
| 01:18:09.26 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Paige, I think while I won't hold us all, I'll just double check this on my own as well just to sit with it because it was a little hard to make out. |
| 01:18:20.06 | Seth | I'm sorry, that's A0.4. A0. |
| 01:18:22.01 | Nastassya Saad | 0.4. Yeah, just because, you know, Chair Feller's point, it is a heightened design review. So, you know, these things are really important to get I'm not sure if you're correct out the gate. Do you know why there wasn't a specific shadow study? Was there a shadow study? Was it not included in our packet or was it |
| 01:18:43.36 | Seth | No, we didn't do a shadow study in our package. |
| 01:18:43.92 | Nastassya Saad | We have. |
| 01:18:48.31 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Um, I think that's all I have for the moment, Chair Fowler. |
| 01:18:53.42 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. It's good to look at some of the detail of this altogether here. So thank you for the question. and for showing us Seth there on the diagram. Um, commissioner Luxenberg, do you have questions for the applicants? |
| 01:19:12.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Feller. First, I'd just like to compliment you on the design. I think you really have taken our code to heart. You've taken the nature of the site to heart and design the building that respects that, the setbacks of the different levels and the location of the windows. I think you really, done line share to really understand what our code requires as well as what this location needs. I also want to thank you for sending that color board quickly yesterday to get that to us because I think that's helpful. I just want to clarify what you call the vertical comp composite site siding is the hewn Javanese, that's correct? That is correct. Which is a stained wood siding. The only question I had, yeah, oh, we showed that again. That would be helpful. |
| 01:19:57.41 | Seth | That is correct. |
| 01:20:04.39 | Seth | Sorry, it's kind of dark in here, but you can see it has a grain on it. And it does provide a nice warm texture. |
| 01:20:11.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | warm texture okay yeah I think that's that's very nice my only question was you're not showing any chimneys which obviously could block something so what is the proposed heating system for the building so that it's not requiring a chimney |
| 01:20:26.89 | Seth | It would be a mini split system. So essentially that is outside condensers, which are located at the very west end of the property and are shown on the elevations. They're in grade, which is essentially a, Thank you. The condenser is basically a fan. And then inside the building, all of the conditioning is through refrigerant pipes. And then there's many split units within the building itself that provide both air conditioning and heating. Thank you. |
| 01:20:57.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And so in other words, there's no gas. |
| 01:20:58.83 | Seth | So in other words, there's no gas or it's all electric system. There'll be no ventilation required for purposes of heating and cooling. |
| 01:21:08.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, great, thank you. No other protrusions for toilet vents or anything like that? |
| 01:21:15.96 | Seth | Well, yes, it will require ventilation for bathrooms and probably would go with what's called an energy recovery ventilator in this building, which would be a side mount exhaust. |
| 01:21:31.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so nothing over the top of the roof is what you're saying. |
| 01:21:34.54 | Seth | No, we're and we're proposing, I don't know if I showed the roof plan, but we are showing some skylights on the roof as well. Thank you. |
| 01:21:40.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Skylights on the upper roof as well as the ADU roof? Yes. |
| 01:21:45.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.91 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.93 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:21:47.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:21:47.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:47.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:21:47.18 | Unknown | you |
| 01:21:47.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, those are my questions, Chair Feller. Thank you very much. |
| 01:21:50.79 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Um, uh, Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:21:56.34 | Richard Graef | Um, Hmm. Well, I don't have much in the way of questions and I'll save my comments for our Liberations. Um, But the one The question I have is regarding the landscape. and While I totally understand what you're doing there. I wanted to ask if you considered in this plan, any small trees or shrubs or anything else to and add a little scale to those spaces. Um, So it was a question of any other landscape elements. And, uh, I don't have any other questions. I think everything is pretty well documented. |
| 01:22:57.28 | Seth | We are not indicating any other landscaping. I'm sure the owner would be happy to provide some larger scale elements, maybe particularly along the sidewalk. I don't know if you're familiar with the building that's there now, but there's a beautiful... Algar plant out front that I would love to save and put back in place. |
| 01:23:20.67 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:23:20.94 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 01:23:23.99 | Seth | Right. |
| 01:23:24.21 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:23:24.84 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, Vice Chair Junius. |
| 01:23:30.47 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. Seth, very complete presentation, thank you. Just two real quick questions. Did you go through any study sessions to get to this point? I'm just curious from process standpoint. study sessions with the Commission. |
| 01:23:44.92 | Seth | No. |
| 01:23:45.54 | Andrew Junius | Okay. Thank you. And did the up hill neighbor give you any reason for their not wanting to cooperate with more rational I'm not sure. retaining wall system at the rear of the property. |
| 01:23:58.27 | Seth | How can I be diplomatic? No, and in fact, their home is held up with a tieback system. So it was a conversation that just, they were not open to any easement whatsoever. That's really unfortunate. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:24:16.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair. Again, Seth, thank you for the presentation and definitely the detail of walking through this more integral retaining law, which I'm quite interested in. So I have a couple of questions and they're going to be a little bit all over the place. But I mean, the first is again, back to, the retaining wall and when I know that the DPW has commented on this, but we're not just concerned about loose rock or chert. crumbling up and falling down the hill. We're also really worried And the activity on that particular hill was specific to rainfall, not necessarily a dry condition. And as we move into these sort of, you know, terrible drought cycles, uh, the, the mudslides actually get much worse, um, because the voids underneath the ground that we don't necessarily see get bigger because it's drier and then the minute it rains, it's really quite fragile. And so I, I really, um, would like to get a better understanding of that part of the consideration here design of that integral retaining wall. I clearly... I know the engineer that you are working with, and they've done quite a lot of work, but we're finding that it's getting worse here in Sausalito, not necessarily better, and of course we're interested in public safety and everybody enjoying their properties properly. So that would be the first question I have. That's been part of the conversation. |
| 01:25:50.77 | Seth | THE END OF |
| 01:26:00.09 | Seth | Well, I don't want to speak for the engineer, but I can let let you know that his geotechnical report was aware of landslides in the past on this hillside and that obviously was a component of his design to take that into consideration and then as well working with the structural engineer a large component of this design was you know drilling these piers into the bedrock a certain distance to ensure that this is going to stay in place, in fact if there is any subsistence. Matter of fact that depth is is anticipated anywhere from four to six feet but we've talked about hitting fractured bedrock and potential have to go further, so all of these have been taken into consideration. |
| 01:26:47.57 | Kristina Feller | Right, because of course, with the findings of the Sea Level Rise Task Force, there's also issues with the hydrostatic on that. because not just the subsidence but really particularly in that in this part of the city we're not as because of the bedrock, but you still do get kind of unstable just below the surface rock. So I just really want to make sure particularly. . I'm not here to design it or engineer it for you, but I really want to make sure that we're, we're, we're doing this right the first time. |
| 01:27:19.94 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 01:27:25.54 | Kristina Feller | And because there are definitely, there was mudslide activity on that hill, not necessarily landslide activity on the hill, just a property. So I just wanna make sure that |
| 01:27:25.59 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:27:38.08 | Kristina Feller | We're being cautious with that. I'm not sure. You know, back to Commissioner Saad's question, I think the issue of shadow studies is a fairer fair ask and a fair consideration. here. I do appreciate now that now that um helped me find these particular diagrams. I guess I need more toner in my printer or something because it came through too light. I wasn't sure what it was. So thank you for walking us through where you are locating the windows. I do have a question, though, on the front facade facing bridgeway. And that is really more perspective that if you were you know, walking south down Bridgeway on that side of the street, on the west side of the street, Does this building jut out further than the building to the south, or are they aligned on the same planes? |
| 01:28:35.60 | Seth | at the larger condominium building. |
| 01:28:38.07 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:28:38.54 | Seth | Thank you. They're at grade. They're at the same point. The condominium building is actually built right at the property. but immediately steps back as you go up story by story. So the ground floor is flush with the street. And then the next floor steps back. |
| 01:28:57.76 | Kristina Feller | Okay, because I'm thinking like where, particularly where the master bedroom is, which is above the carport, let's say, right? |
| 01:29:04.60 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 01:29:04.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:29:05.15 | Seth | You know? |
| 01:29:05.71 | Kristina Feller | you have two you know, floor to ceiling windows, one on sort of the north side looking up bridgeway. and one on the south looking, I guess, I don't know if it's into the more modern building to the south or down Bridgeway. I'm not clear where those planes are, Because I think what you'd wanna avoid is like, if you're walking down Bridgeway, you're looking straight through someone's bedroom. |
| 01:29:32.39 | Seth | Correct. Yes, in effect, yes. Because of the five-foot setback, yes, you're going to be able to look up at those. I think that's a good question. I'm a proponent of providing glazing and giving the people opportunity to provide shades that pull up from the floor to limit that visibility versus providing a much smaller window and limiting their opportunity to take advantage of the view. |
| 01:29:59.71 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay. and then on this on the siding material would is that real wood or is it a hardy board? Yeah. |
| 01:30:09.53 | Seth | No, it's real what Okay. |
| 01:30:11.25 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. |
| 01:30:11.98 | Seth | Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:30:13.80 | Kristina Feller | I'm just curious. And then... |
| 01:30:15.94 | Seth | And then. |
| 01:30:19.94 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thanks. And then I'm just curious, you know, we've talked a little bit about the roof and the roof plan. Is there any consideration for solar or any other sort of, you know, Title 24 plus sustainable elements here that we need to be aware of. |
| 01:30:38.59 | Seth | we need to be aware of. The owner has requested that we place solar on the roof. It's not indicated on the plans, but he's requested it. |
| 01:30:47.01 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I think that would be something of interest for the commission. And the reason is that it would be important to understand sort of to Commissioner Luxenberg's line of questioning about any protrusions |
| 01:31:01.98 | Unknown | I. |
| 01:31:02.06 | Kristina Feller | and what is actually on the roof. I mean, some solar panels are flat, some are angled, some are smart panels that rotate around with the sun. And so we'd really like to understand, you know, when you're looking at this, you know, or down at it, as it were, perhaps, if that's going to obstruct someone's view or anything like that. But viewshed, viewquarters are pretty important in a heightened design review, so we'd really like to understand that better. |
| 01:31:21.27 | Maria | Yeah. |
| 01:31:21.62 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 01:31:33.15 | Seth | So. |
| 01:31:33.53 | Kristina Feller | If that's a requirement of, or if that's what your client is asked for. |
| 01:31:39.17 | Seth | Well, the client has asked for solar panels and because we're so extremely close to the high limit, we have no choice but to go forward with low profile solar panels that will adhere directly to the roof. So, or very, very close to the roof, I should say, not directly to the roof. So these will not be visible from the street. They will be strictly visible from the top floor of the condominium building and the house directly above. |
| 01:31:58.65 | Isabel Lowe | Thank you. |
| 01:31:58.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:32:07.10 | Kristina Feller | Right, and I just think those kinds of things are important your neighbors need to understand what is going to be built there. Thank you. you know, they, you know, solar is obviously allowed here in California, but I think it's important for everybody to understand what is actually gonna be built there. |
| 01:32:28.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:28.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. And so that's probably something that we may be looking for. We'll know more about that as we deliberate here. And then the ADU, Is that a market rate ADU or is that designated as affordable? |
| 01:32:46.81 | Seth | Market rate. |
| 01:32:48.73 | Kristina Feller | Market rate, okay. |
| 01:32:50.28 | Seth | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:32:51.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. And I'm just curious, got sort of got to ask the question, you know because you're looking for the variants here Did you and sort of your early concept designs consider and look at designing something that could fit on this site without the variances, without the setback issues? |
| 01:33:20.14 | Seth | We did in fact previous Sausalito staff actually presented a design concept to us. That provided a three story structure that was 40 feet in length. And much wider which then had parking stalls directly off of bridgeway in front of the structure. And frankly I didn't think that was a appropriate response in this location to have the building set back from the street and the parking stalls directly adjacent to the sidewalk. |
| 01:33:56.70 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so you just didn't pursue, regardless of whose design, as you are the architect, did you try to design a project that did not require the variances? |
| 01:34:09.95 | Seth | No, we originally proceeded with a, our first submittal proceeded with a shorter building, but was wider in nature. And I'll be honest, this is kind of a play between F a R and length of building. It's not possible to meet both of them without, without a barrier. So we did proceed previously with a shorter building. Uh, and that actually had lesser setbacks and that was not received well. |
| 01:34:38.96 | Kristina Feller | Okay, all right, it's good, just good to know for reference. I appreciate that. And then could you just sort of, for the benefit of the commission and members of the public here, sort of describe I know you have some fencing. I believe it's on both sides of the property, like to the north and to the south, but can you Could you just explain or describe what that is? |
| 01:35:02.24 | Seth | There's an existing fence adjacent to the condominium building to the south that will be. It's about, it's six feet tall and it's a solid painted, gray painted fence. There will be no fence between the Victorian and the new home itself. |
| 01:35:22.18 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:35:24.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:35:24.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:25.04 | Seth | And there's currently no fence there. I mean, there's, you can barely walk between the two right now. |
| 01:35:29.84 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Sure. |
| 01:35:32.06 | Seth | I'm not sure. |
| 01:35:32.38 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:35:32.40 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 01:35:32.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:32.98 | Kristina Feller | you I appreciate that. Thank you very much. |
| 01:35:35.32 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 01:35:35.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:35.69 | Kristina Feller | Um, I think at this time, those are probably the questions I have that will just sort of help us in our deliberation. Let me ask just by a show of hands if the commissioners have any additional questions at this time. Yes, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:35:54.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to ask a question about what you just said about the solar panel. Is the height that was shown on the presentation, which is six feet different, does that include the solar panel or does it not include the solar panel? |
| 01:36:10.25 | Seth | that would be. How can I phrase this? That is the maximum height because the structure actually has a butterfly roof. It's very, very subtle slope. So the maximum height is at the front facade and the building, the roof does slope back towards the hillside. So the solar panels would not exceed the maximum height we're showing. |
| 01:36:31.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:36:31.95 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 01:36:32.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. So you have accounted for that in the plans that you've shown, even though you haven't shown the solar panels, it is within the height that is shown on the plans chrome. Correct. Thank you. |
| 01:36:45.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Seth, thank you very much. Don't go too far. We're going to take some public comment now, and then we will return to our virtual dais to deliberate and may have some follow-up questions. So at this time, I'm looking for a show of hands in our audience here for anyone who would like to make a public comment on this item this evening. to do so, please raise your hand in the Zoom application. Or press star nine. on your cell phone, each member of the public will have three minutes to make public comment. And again, this is 6A on our agenda this evening. So I'm just looking for hands. I see none, so I'm going to go ahead and close public comments. and bring the discussion back up to our virtual diaspora deliberations. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you want to start us off? |
| 01:37:52.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, sure. I think this is a design that understands the site, understands Sausalito. I think they have done the geotech work to address the issues and the conditions that would be attached would address any issues that public works has regarding the slopes. I think the design is attractive. It's respectful of the neighbors. I understand Commissioner Saad's concern about shadows, but given that this is narrower than the existing building, I understand what the architect's saying about it's not cutting out any additional light other than the existing one because the existing one doesn't meet any of the setback requirements. So this is a little higher, but it's narrower. So I don't think that this is doing any worse than the existing building. So I think that we had a very thorough staff report on this, and I think this project will be an asset it's it's obviously trying to mix the Victorian nature on one side and and the modern nation on the other side and this is modern this is what is currently being built today and I think it'll be attractive the glass that's into account the view of San Francisco, obviously, and the Bay I do think that they have been very careful about where the windows are placed on the side. And then in addition, it's providing some additional housing, which I think is sorely needed in Sausalito. I'm very supportive of what they're doing there at this point. PLEASED TO THE CHAIR OF FELLOW. |
| 01:39:49.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Graham? |
| 01:39:53.64 | Richard Graef | Oh, hi. Yes, thank you, Chair Feller, and thank you, Seth. or a very thorough presentation. I would like to say a brilliant design. I think it's totally appropriate for the site. I think it's respectful to the adjacent structures, the streetscape. I could go on and on, but I would like to see this project approved and built. I think it's really nice and really well thought out. Um, At first I thought there was some issue perhaps with the front facade of the building being so close to the property line But, being that so many other structures along there are right at the street level, right at the sidewalk, I don't think that's really an issue anymore in my mind. Um, Let's see, I really appreciate the narrowness of the building and the allowing the site to breathe and letting some air and light in between the structures. I think that was a great move. Um, Well. I don't know, I could go on and on. I'm glad to see the ADU there. I'm glad to see two parking spaces. Um, Anyway, yeah, that's great. Thank you. Thank you so much. |
| 01:41:29.58 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Gros. |
| 01:41:33.71 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. I think that And I want to word this carefully too, because I think that the design is, it's an excellent design. I have to go on the record just saying, I am totally bummed that such an old building. It is one of our oldest homes in Sausalito has to be demolished. It's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking. such an old building and it's beautiful. I actually thought the historic resource evaluation, I thought that was one of the best determinations and packets I had ever seen. So that was very thorough and I understand why our colleagues at HPC also voted that way. But if this building does have to go, I do think you have designed a but it is a very, very different from what's there, unique approach to that lot. But but hard to see. right outside our historic district as well that came up earlier so it's just outside the overlay district i think that's probably pretty lucky for this property because there's a lot of constraints that come with being within the historic overlay district. So it's really taking something very historic and old, that complements the house to the north to a very modern updated look that complements the house. to the I flipped those, the house to the north and the house to the south. I'm not sure. That being said, it was an incredible report too for our staff report. I know I'm probably going to be a little bit of a stickler here, and it's not that I don't trust your professional opinion or design, but with a heightened design review, I feel like there should have been a shadow study. I will take your word on the record as taking your word, but I just don't feel it's complete moving forward and I wouldn't be comfortable voting um voting yes because of that shadow study lack personally. I think the variance makes sense. I think to Chair Feller's point asking about if it was designed in a way that could avoid a variance. I mean, ideally variances, you know, don't need to be included in projects, but I think they make sense, especially for that retaining wall for sure. I wanna say thank you for taking all of the effort for the slope stability. It's a huge issue we have here in Sausalito. all of that effort and your geotech report Um, to give some confidence because that's such a high grade behind Buckley, it's scary. It's scary when you read some of these reports and you're like, what's going to happen down below? So I think that was also very well done. definitely comfortable on the on the variants. moving forward. And again, just as part of housing element, we love ADUs. So it's a great project to include and parking because, I think oftentimes parking is overlooked, so that's great. there's so many driveways on that street that have parking. I'm not, I don't think there's a safety concern. from, entering and exiting the way it's been It's been designed. So, um, That's where I am right now, Chair Feller. I don't think I have anything more to add. But yeah, thank you for the great reports. |
| 01:45:03.22 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 01:45:07.91 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller and fellow commissioners. Great comments. I'll echo what Commissioner Saad started with, which is it is kind of a fascinating scenario here that we have one of these older homes. I'm not sure. slated for demolition and that's certainly what we're considering this evening as well. But just to be clear, I agree with Commissioner Saad, the HRE analysis was excellent. The analysis was in depth. The key here is I think the fact that the home is old And it does have apparently some connections to some significant people in our past. but it's lost so much integrity. It's been altered over time. that, um, You know, it just doesn't meet the, under the California Environmental Quality Act reach the level of being a historic resource that would need further evaluation. I think that's exactly the right decision I agree with the commissioner side, something so old I have to go. but Our job is to weigh the pros and cons, and I think the positive coming from this project clearly outweighs the loss of this small home. And so I'm very supportive of that. And I think the consultants here on the staff and the HBC did a wonderful job in moving that forward. Very difficult decision. And I think they did the right thing. And then with respect to the slope, I just, I really am also troubled by this What I'm really troubled about is the lack of understanding in the public that it's really better to work with your neighbors on the downslope. It's really better to, you know, get multiple engineers involved and understand the fact that a combined solution where you do work together create an engineering solution is gonna be better for your uphill properties But yet again, we see somebody that just didn't want to cooperate. And I think that's a disappointment. We don't know how to solve this problem. over and over again in a very hilly town like Sausalito. And it's really unfortunate. And maybe there's a way we can start down the road Heidi, we're not gonna add any more things to your list at the moment, but at some point, some type of community education so that we can start to get property, uphill property owners to trust their downhill neighbors and the experts and the engineers. that they are going to do something that actually is better than just letting the downhill neighbor go it alone. but I'm very confident that that this will get resolved appropriately. It's unfortunate for the project sponsor here that they have to go it alone, but I think that'll be fine. And I echo the other commissioners, I'm very glad that we're all supportive of the modern design. You've done an excellent job, Seth, and I really can't wait to see the house get built. That's it for me. |
| 01:47:53.15 | Kristina Feller | Right. Thank you, Vice Chair. I love the design as well. And yes, it's sad that that that area or that building is not going to live live on but But it's time for new history to be made there. I don't think we can salvage what's there. So I think that's a non-issue for me. I think that there's still a little bit of housekeeping to do here on this project. I think we are almost there. And I'm not... You know, if I look at, I think we have 26 findings that we have to make tonight and I'll let staff correct me if I've... rattled off the wrong number, but I think that there's 20 26 that we have to make tonight. A lot of them are very easy and a lot of them are very straightforward. But, you know, part of what we have to do here is also apply the same standards and fairness to any applicant, every applicant, and we're certainly all clearly in favor of this project. I have a quick question though for staff. maybe Heidi, this is for you. Do you know in this part of town if DPW maybe in combination with Saucelito Beautiful has a tree planting program on the sidewalk. |
| 01:49:15.77 | Heidi | I am not familiar with that. I do not know. I haven't seen anything for this part of the town. I've seen it for the northern end of the town. |
| 01:49:25.89 | Kristina Feller | Okay, all right, thank you for that. because I know a couple of commissioners have mentioned that perhaps it would be nice to although I like the landscaping and succulents are always great to add a little bit more variation to the landscape, but I know that that's also very difficult with this size lot. And so My thought with asking Heidi that question is perhaps if there were some tree planting on the street, that's in the public realm that could solve that problem inadvertently constraining this particular site I really think because this is not a legal non-conforming, this is a brand new build. We do need to ask for uh the any view and shadow studies um that is a very standard part of heightened design review and um you know we need to be thorough we need to be bulletproof and we have to be equitable and fair to every applicant that comes here so i would probably be looking for that Um, even if Heidi, that's something we can handle on consent if there's no particular issue with it. Um, And then in terms of some of the Um... not just the findings we have to make, but some of the conditions You know, this is a pretty, pretty important part of town. It's, it's certainly a more active part. Um... you know, in our high tourist seasons and things like that. So we've done this on similar projects, but I would hope that we wouldn't issue a demo permit until we had the full design permit ready. What we want to avoid is a giant gaping hole sitting there indefinitely if something were held up. on the design review and design application side. So I'd like to maybe socialize that with the commissioners here and see if there's some, concurrence or an opposing thought about that as well. Any. Any nays in that? |
| 01:51:38.61 | Andrew Junius | I totally agree with that, Chair Feller. And frankly, I actually think that WE MAY BE and adopt a commission policy where, you know, we have to think globally about that, They'll too have to link up so that we don't have to revisit this project by project. It's a it's a pretty. THE BASIC CONCEPT. that you don't want vacant lots, right? You'd rather, you know, the building needs to come down for safety reasons. You know, you either get your demo permit and your building permit at the same time, or you keep going until you can pull them both together. So totally agree. |
| 01:52:11.01 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. And I love the idea of something more global as well. |
| 01:52:15.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sorry, Mike. |
| 01:52:15.13 | Kristina Feller | Sorry, Michael. |
| 01:52:16.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't have an issue with requiring that the demo permit can't be issued ahead of the building permit, but I would encourage us to move this ahead tonight so they can get their building permit plans developed. So, cause this project's been going on since 2018. This is four years. So I think we, this project's been sitting and we've got the story polls up. And so the sooner we can move ahead, I think if we can get them to prepare their building permit plans, cause that will take some time. And I think we can condition this this evening to address these other issues that you've mentioned, including the shadow study. |
| 01:52:59.06 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think that the issue, sort of back to pulling the demo and building permit togethers, it also hopefully avoids the issue of temporary shoring for any unique or difficult lot. And we definitely want to avoid that because sometimes temporary shoring does have a time limit to it. before it starts to fail. Heidi, did you have a specific comment about the issue about the permits? |
| 01:53:23.34 | Heidi | Yes, I was just going to let the planning commission know that it's typically the city's practice to not allow the demolition of a building unless the building permit has been issued as well. Just because if we do that, then we may be losing. a building as part of our housing element, and then, again, that you could also have the gaping hole. But if the Planning Commission wanted to, they could add a specific condition of approval to ensure that. |
| 01:53:50.14 | Kristina Feller | We do. We definitely do. And I agree with Vice Chair Junius. This should be something more specific and global because it only makes sense. It's actually gonna make it much easier and probably cheaper for the applicant anyway. And I think it's a huge missed opportunity for, you know, for an uphill neighbor not to either understand, comprehend, or... participate in a solution that ultimately actually helps their property as well. That's unfortunate. I know in past circumstances, sometimes the city has gotten had to get involved, but that's, you know, obviously there's a design here that will work. So I'm happy about that. So I don't have any further comment about that. Um, And then, you know, with a roof plan, I'd really like to see what the ultimate roof plan actually is intended to be. And if it includes solar panels, I just, I think. this is a time that what we are approving is everything on drawings and everything that is proposed. And so we don't want to come back and have anything changed if we can avoid it. or have or require the applicant to come all the way back to the commission because we, we, you know, we want to streamline and facilitate something more fast track for them as well. Not that just solar panels would require that, of course, since the state allows those, but I think that there's a little bit more just to clean up here with this particular application, I have absolutely no issue with the design in front of us at all. I think it's thoughtful, I think it's clever. I think you're packing a big punch on a small lot. So I think that's all a good thing. And I appreciate that greatly. Any other thoughts? Yes, Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:55:50.32 | Richard Graef | Yeah, one thing I forgot in my enthusiasm was, and maybe this is Mickey, but Um, I'm a little concerned with the color scheme as it stands for this reason. It seems a little aggressive or of contrasting. um, if you know what I mean. I'm thinking that the renderings that we've seen, of a very dark Wood. apparently. And then there's the gray of the concrete, of course. Then we have like Stark Flight, Uh, . going around the building at three levels. I was just wondering if that um, the sharpness of that might be modified a little bit, softened slightly, maybe the metal edges are slightly toned down from bright white and maybe the wood. is not as dark as it looks. Maybe it isn't really as dark as it looks. But that was the other thing I was a little concerned about. Um, All other aspects of the project I think are are really great. that the contrasty color scheme was a little, a little on the harsh side. That's all my only other comment. and thanks for the opportunity. |
| 01:57:24.50 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Oh, absolutely. you have the best eyes on this commission for things like that. So I'd like to know that are sort of what what you might be thinking in terms of the issue of the contrast and how you would address that. What would you recommend? |
| 01:57:47.01 | Richard Graef | Oh, I would just... introduce or try to reduce the the kind of contrast that is shown in the drawings and the render. And as I said, I could be reading those wrong. but you know, if the wood tone was a little lighter and the edge fans were like I say, a very light Thank you. gray or putty color or something. not to be confused with the concrete color, because that's always a good color. And the word is beautiful. and then we just got glazing. You know, it's such a simple I think it could be so it can be softened a little bit. Um, |
| 01:58:41.11 | Unknown | Hi. |
| 01:58:41.52 | Richard Graef | I would not |
| 01:58:41.55 | Unknown | But that's my first call of vengeance. |
| 01:58:44.86 | Richard Graef | I wouldn't let the project live or die because of it, but I think it would be a little softer, a little less, I find it to be very difficult to slightly aggressive. And if we could. take care of that, that would be good. |
| 01:59:03.69 | Kristina Feller | Okay. It's certainly something we can ask the applicant here shortly. Once we get through some of these deliberations. Um, |
| 01:59:05.61 | Richard Graef | But certainly |
| 01:59:16.60 | Kristina Feller | So, For me, you know, I'm looking at the heightened design review findings and I'm looking at C and D. Those would be the areas that I am just not 100% sure about. the views, public vantage points, I'm not as worried about, really not one, and that just with the surrounding properties, and this goes to the point that Commissioner Saad had as well, And then the proposed development of the site presents no hazard to public safety in terms of the vehicle traffic. I'm not worried about that. it's just the um slope stability again i'm not as worried about landslide i'd be more worried about uh a mudslide and then any any issues regarding the sea level rise because it doesn't sound like you modeled this through bayway which they the county does for free it doesn't cost you anything um but it would be worthwhile to do uh in this heighten design review situation um So that's really what I'm looking at as issues. I really have no, I'm a fan of the project in every other way. But these are the findings that the commission has to make and we apply those equally and fairly to everybody. I just think we need to address those in your particular project. Again, I know, Commissioner Luxenberg, you want to move this through tonight. I do too. But these two, I'm not sure that we can, I don't know that I can meet the findings. And we can figure out maybe a way to do so. in how to get this project moving. I don't wanna inadvertently hold it up. But again, these are the findings that we're required to make. So that's sort of maybe what we need to figure out together. Or if someone... disagrees with that and wants to you know help me see it another way i'm all ears |
| 02:01:23.96 | Nastassya Saad | Chair Feller, I actually, I think those were the same findings that I was looking at. Those are, those are where I would. be stuck as well. I'm not sure. but I totally agree. Everything else looks good. And I think the rest of the findings can be made. just, TO COMMISSIONER, Graff's comments. I actually had the same feeling about the contrast as well. I think I was a little stuck on the slope and the rest of the design as a focus, but I would definitely be in support of his proposal there just to soften it a little bit. from a contrast standpoint, but to the findings, I don't know if it's something that we can do Of course, we'd have to ask the applicant, I think the consent calendar, I don't know how that would work, but if we do a consent calendar, if the shadow study were to show that there's no impact, but I'm not sure if that is a ministerial, but I see Mary, thank you, maybe you can help me out. I don't, at a ministerial level that can come and then to a consent calendar, how would that maybe work? |
| 02:02:37.85 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I think we have, you know, since this is a public hearing item, I think if the count, if the commission's considering new information, we would need to continue the public hearing and hold it as a public hearing. instead of, and I appreciate your thought of trying to streamline it a little bit, but unfortunately, I don't think that would work in this circumstance. |
| 02:02:59.65 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, that's helpful to know. Thank you, yeah, so that's from me. |
| 02:03:07.64 | Kristina Feller | We'll get to you and hold on just one, one second. I definitely see your hand. Just hold, bear with me just one moment. Vice Chair Junius, you had your |
| 02:03:16.09 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, thank you, Chair Feller. I'll push back on the shadow a little bit. You know, I do understand shadow can be an important issue on such a confined tight lot. where we have no objection from the adjacent property owners I'm, I'm frankly not sure what the shadow analysis you know, result in and what you know, what additional information we need, existing home is pretty much covers a lot in the front. It certainly isn't as tall as this one, but again, the neighbors to either side don't seem to have a problem with this project. you know, should, if they were here objecting or having an issue speaking to shadows in the rear yard or shadows on certain windows, maybe there would be a little more relevance in my mind here, I just don't. I do understand where you could project a shadow requirement into some of the heightened design findings, but the actual term shadow, I don't see in the findings requirement themselves. Is it, am I missing something? but So on the shadow, I don't think I would be supportive of continuing this for that. issue. based on what I just described. and I'm the... on the other issues with respect to slope. Haven't we been successful in the past, Chair Feller, in conditioning? the project further on additional review or, I'm not an engineer, you are, so I thought we'd been able to take a look at the work that we've been able to we've been able to take that and put it into the staff's hands with some additional direction. So maybe that's a solution. |
| 02:04:40.08 | Kristina Feller | We have. That's a good question. You know, certainly to the latter point there, we've required or conditioned it to have a peer review. or things of that kind. Again, we have this data now that did not exist in 2018 or 2019 or whenever this project started. We have it now. We're smarter now. we have more information. And, you know, the building that exists there has been there for, you know, since 1880, whatever. You know, we hope that the new one is going to be there for that, that amount of time, if not longer. So let's just make sure that we've got everything straight now with the information and data points that we know that we have. Um, You know, I can appreciate your point about what I'm referring to as condition or the finding C under heightened design review, but that's really part of what the views are. The home is bigger than what is there. Without information like that, I'm not sure that a neighbor would really understand or think about things like shadow studies or view studies or any of those sorts of things, because they're like, well, there's something next to us now. They're just not necessarily aware of what's going to be there. in the future. and and so I I appreciate that and we don't always have to agree on absolutely everything uh I just you know we've we've we've subjected other applicants to this requirement before and I I I just want to be fair and equitable um you know with every applicant I love this project I my intention is not to hold it up at all my intention is to make sure it's it's thorough it's complete it's comprehensive so it can move on um i'm held up on these two items and i am totally open to somebody who's talking me out of it Who's Sherlockson Berg? |
| 02:06:43.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I concur with Commissioner Junius on the light and air. This is a narrower building, so I think it's actually improving things for the neighbors because it's giving some breathing room on both sides. So I think we could ask for a shadow study as part of the building permit, but don't think we need to hold up for that i also think the and other projects have conditioned as far as slopes are concerned to make sure that we get whatever we need on either a peer review or whatever so i don't think that's an issue uh per commissioner graff's comments i would like when we get to that point to have the architect comment on that suggestion to see what what they think of that my only concern about moving ahead is uh to spend four years on this project uh if the last time we continued something it didn't even go to the next meeting it went two meetings out because by the time you have the notice requirements and you have to rewrite the staff report and whatever it goes out yet another month and so I'm concerned that this is a project that seems to have very good support that we could condition this and not have to have a delay given that we can't do a consent calendar thing at the next meeting so Again, I, you know, you know, |
| 02:08:09.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:09.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | if you look at the project, you know. Anyways, I would like to have the applicant comment on both Commissioner Graff's comments and also what if we had to delay this for a month, what that would do to the applicant. Answer those questions when we get to that point, Chair Feller. |
| 02:08:31.57 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. The applicant does need to respond to that and definitely provide their input so we can agree on a path forward Before we do that though, Is there anything that you or vice chair or any other commissioner recommend as a condition to address. Again, what I'm referring to is C and D in the heightened design review. |
| 02:09:02.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think a condition regarding a review of public works which might already be in there about the proposed slope design. uh would be part of that building permit submittal anyways. as far as The shadow study, I think, We could ask that the shadows, if the applicant feels that the shadow study is not going to show that the shadows are any worse than the existing building, which is what they said, that they would have to submit that study that would show that this is no worse than the existing condition. I would be okay with the condition that said that if the applicant. because that's what the opportunity put forth. and I think that would Again, I think this is giving some breathing room I mean, I agree with Commissioner Saad. It is a shame that we have to take down an 18- an 1890s building and that's unfortunate. But if we are doing that, I like the fact that it's giving some breathing room on the sides. And I think it's much better to do, I didn't comment on the variance, but I will now. I think it's much better to have a narrower building with some breathing room than shorten the building and have it not need the variance. I mean, that doesn't make it go up higher. or not go higher, because it can't go any higher, but shorten it and make it bulkier. I think that the narrowness is actually a benefit here. Amen. But I think those conditions would solve, would address those finding issues in my mind. |
| 02:10:40.04 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 02:10:45.79 | Andrew Junius | And I agree with Commissioner Luxenberg on the slope issues as well. I think we can figure that condition out. I mean, I can make the other findings without the shadow study. I don't need the shadow study to convince me that I'm ready to go. on that finding. |
| 02:11:01.79 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Saad? |
| 02:11:03.36 | Nastassya Saad | Did I, just from what city attorney just stated though, can we condition, this is where I'm not understanding, can we condition the additional information because it's a new piece of information. So I thought we were not able to make that condition. We'd have to continue a hearing. |
| 02:11:24.22 | Mary Wagner | May I, Chair Fuller? So I understood the question to me to be, you know, if you asked the applicant to provide some additional information for the commission's consideration, could you just put that on consent and not have to have the public hearing continue? So that was the question I was addressing. If the commission wanted to craft a condition that gave staff authority to make a decision, you could do that tonight. So for example, if the shadow study shows, I believe Commissioner Luxembourg said something along the lines of it shows no greater impact than the existing structure, then that would satisfy that condition and staff could make that determination. And if it showed greater impact, it would return to the commission. That's how I understood. |
| 02:11:28.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:28.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:12:04.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:12:06.67 | Mary Wagner | that conversation to be going. |
| 02:12:10.22 | Nastassya Saad | you summarized it well, yes, thank you. That does make sense. But then as a follow-up, if we condition |
| 02:12:18.91 | Nastassya Saad | Is there any notice? How would any members of the public be aware that there is shadow study to review it would be approved essentially right so there would be no opportunity for anybody else to look at that shadow study. I don't know if I'm articulating this particularly well, |
| 02:12:44.78 | Kristina Feller | We move it basically into a ministerial approval. Is that correct? |
| 02:12:50.26 | Heidi | That would be fine. |
| 02:12:51.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:12:51.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:51.55 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:12:51.55 | Heidi | Yeah, if I could jump in, you know, if we if the Commission would like to add this condition of approval and it is at that ministerial level. Would it be appropriate to allow for the adjacent neighbors to sign off on the shade study and if they don't sign off on it, then we come back to the Commission I my concern is. IF YOU'RE NOT, IF YOU'RE NOT it's not apples to apples, then it's automatically going to drive it to come back to the that commission for review. |
| 02:13:25.45 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I mean, it's a taller building, so they're gonna be different shadows. But again, I think the totality of the circumstances here And to Commissioner Luxenberg's point, It's just a better, it's better all around. I mean, there's more, you know, more room on the sides of the building. It's, I don't know, it just, again, I like to look at things in a holistic way. end. balancing all the issues here, I completely I don't see the need for a shallow study. So I'm sticking to them at that point. |
| 02:13:56.51 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:13:58.34 | Richard Graef | I would not support the need for a shadow study. With the space that's been provided there and the fact that nobody's concerned about shadows as far as the neighbors are concerned. I think it's a non-issue, personally. And we can move ahead without that. if there are structural questions I am not an engineer, but I was looking at the drawings that were being explained to us, and boy, that looks strong to me. But I think, again, that's something that it seems to me that we've been able to have done ministerially and if there are issues there that they could probably solve that there there are engineers in the city And So I think we could condition this project for approval tonight. |
| 02:15:05.47 | Kristina Feller | Again, I'm fine with that. I'm trying to grapple with proposed language to do that so we can ask the applicant if it's acceptable or if they would prefer to continue it. We all like the project, we all support it. The issue is not totally just the structural and the slope, We're talking about water. And that was the issue with D. It's not about the slope only, we're talking about other things. So I'm open to proposed language. If everyone liked what City Attorney Wagner recommended, then that's fine. I'm just trying to bring this to some sort of conclusion. |
| 02:15:54.86 | Kristina Feller | Yes, Commissioner Lawson. |
| 02:15:55.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller, I can concur with Commissioner Junius that I can make the finding without a shadow study as well. So I don't think we need a conditioning with that regard. |
| 02:16:08.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Any other comments? |
| 02:16:14.94 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF THE END OF THE Okay. Seth, can we ask you to unmute yourself for a moment, if you have the ability to do that? |
| 02:16:30.43 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:16:30.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:16:30.48 | Richard Graef | There we go. |
| 02:16:30.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:16:31.00 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:16:31.04 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 02:16:31.54 | Seth | I noticed we have an individual that would like to speak as well, Deb ready. |
| 02:16:36.13 | Kristina Feller | public comment time is over unless he's part of the is he the applicant |
| 02:16:42.23 | Seth | Now, I think he might actually be the adjacent neighbor |
| 02:16:45.43 | Kristina Feller | All right. Well, public comment is over at this time. So we've deliberated here. And you've heard what we've talked about. So let's go to the easy part first, which is Commissioner Graff's comments about the coloration, and the contrast of that. Would you be open to considering um, softening that. |
| 02:17:15.98 | Seth | Oh, by all means, as a matter of fact, Thank you. previously had three different versions on our color board and carried it down to one. Just so we didn't have any ambiguity during this design review. So yes, by all means. |
| 02:17:33.76 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and I think there was an issue with the super white trim and Commissioner Graff, if I'm misstating that, then I know you'll stop me. the issue was with the super white trim and then the dark wood. and you're looking for something less severe between the two. Am I stating that correctly, Commissioner Kraft? |
| 02:17:54.69 | Richard Graef | Yeah, pretty much. |
| 02:17:59.82 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So Seth, would you be willing to sort of, um, tone down the white as well a little bit, sort of make them a little more complimentary. |
| 02:18:14.47 | Seth | Yes, of course. |
| 02:18:16.98 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Very good. I appreciate that. And you've heard the debate between some of the heightened design review. I don't, unless you have any comments that I wouldn't give you the opportunity to comment on what you've heard us debate about. |
| 02:18:36.57 | Seth | I don't have any comments other than just with regard to the shadow analysis and clearly in retrospect it was a document that should have been included. I've been through four correction cycles with the city of Sausalito and been asked for numerous documents all that were present in the permit set or not the permit set but the design design review set. And this never came up as an item that was requested by the city. And so I would find it unfortunate if at this point we were required to come back again for this document. Secondly, I have been in contact with the name, not the neighbor next door, but their architects. has contacted me and they have been given the documents I would be under the assumption that their architect was familiar with the architecture of the architecture the separation between the buildings and the potential shade and shadow that would occur on their building. And then with regard to the condominium building, it is owned by my clients. So they're fully aware of the shade and shadow that's going to occur on that side of the building. And also just to touch on the retaining wall, Frankly, I don't think we're done designing it. We've done an excellent job through this preliminary schematic phase to get to the point we're at and I fully anticipate further design and review of that through the building permit process. |
| 02:20:09.53 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you. |
| 02:20:11.17 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. you |
| 02:20:11.95 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 02:20:12.03 | Unknown | you |
| 02:20:14.72 | Kristina Feller | Okay, back up to our virtual dais here. Would anyone like to make a motion or propose a motion? |
| 02:20:25.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Amen. |
| 02:20:27.10 | Kristina Feller | Yes, Michelle Kriber. |
| 02:20:28.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll defer to Richard. |
| 02:20:31.22 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:20:31.25 | Richard Graef | Oh. Well, yes, I basically want to move to approve the project. with the conditions One condition being that the color scheme be softened as we discussed. Um, And Do we have another condition that's around the structural Um, I'm not quite sure. It sounds to me like that's all going to get worked out in the process. So basically, I can make all the findings and I Believe me. Um, most of the commission probably can't so yes i i would move to approve the project |
| 02:21:23.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would second that. |
| 02:21:24.86 | Kristina Feller | Would you be willing to make an amendment to your motion, Commissioner Graff? Because one of the conditions that I thought we talked about as well is that the demo permit would not be issued or approved until such time as the design is complete and that permit is ready to be pulled. together with the demo permit. So we avoid the gaping hole scenario. |
| 02:21:50.51 | Richard Graef | Oh, yeah, I'm fine with that, but I thought... Heidi kind of explained that that was going to happen anyway. or did I appear that wrong? |
| 02:22:05.01 | Heidi | If I'm going to jump in, Chair Feller, So it is our practice, but if the Commission would like to add a specific condition of approval, I have some proposed language that I could suggest if you're interested in hearing it that could be incorporated into the project. Sure. Yes, please. A demolition permit shall not be issued unless the applicant has obtained all prior approvals and permits required for the replacement structure. |
| 02:22:33.17 | Kristina Feller | Great. Yeah, I think it's important to actually condition because the city doesn't always do that. So I'd be comfortable with that. |
| 02:22:44.95 | Richard Graef | I'm fine with that too. |
| 02:22:45.02 | Kristina Feller | I'm not. |
| 02:22:47.82 | Richard Graef | um, |
| 02:22:50.27 | Kristina Feller | So Commissioner Luxenberg, yes, Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:22:54.69 | Nastassya Saad | I... have noted everybody's opinion here, but would you indulge me on a condition? So I too can say yes, because I do love this project. And I do want it to move forward. And I'd like to vote yes. Can we also add a condition for a shadow study ministerial? I can never say this word. Approved. just to cross our T's and dot our I's. I would really appreciate it. approved just to cross our T's and dot our I's. I would really appreciate that if we can add a condition for the shadow study. |
| 02:23:30.09 | Kristina Feller | I would support that. |
| 02:23:32.95 | Nastassya Saad | And I understand to the applicants, you know, it is very frustrating to not know everything that may be asked for up front. But this is something we've asked for in the past. And I just would like, I would feel more comfortable and I'd be more than happy to vote yes with that condition. |
| 02:23:57.89 | Richard Graef | Well, in the interest of crossing all the I's and dotting the T's and being sure of everything, R. can go along with that condition. I think it sounded like they might have already done some kind of shadow study as it is. It seems to me that that's not... too much of an answer. |
| 02:24:24.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Would that be a requirement as part of the building permit plan? It would not be, we're not asking it to come back to us, Commissioner Saad. Exactly. |
| 02:24:32.85 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. Not to come back to us. |
| 02:24:33.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | not to come back to us. As part of the building permits, they must include a status. |
| 02:24:38.84 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:24:40.87 | Andrew Junius | And as long as that doesn't trigger any further review or discretionary actions, I suppose that's okay. City Attorney Wagner. |
| 02:24:48.50 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I was just going to ask about timing. Thank you, Vice Chair Genius. I think Commissioner Luxembourg addressed it, that it's just part of the building permit submittal. So it's a document that the city has on file, but that there's no interpretation or action required by staff or the commission, if I'm understanding the direction correctly. Correct. Another alternative would just be to say, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a shadow study. That would be what I would have recommended. |
| 02:25:21.45 | Nastassya Saad | definitely open to that language, it's straightforward. |
| 02:25:26.19 | Kristina Feller | I'm fine with that. Yes. |
| 02:25:28.32 | Richard Graef | Yes. I'd just like to clarify, if that's If that's the case, a shadow study is done And who approved? the shadow said here, how does that get approved or how does that blend into the process. not to hold things up here, but now I'm curious. |
| 02:25:49.89 | Mary Wagner | May I chair Feller or would you like to? |
| 02:25:52.39 | Kristina Feller | You can go ahead. |
| 02:25:54.02 | Mary Wagner | So my understanding is the Commission just wants that information in the record. There's no action to be taken in any way, but that in order to have a complete document set, if you will, the Commission's asking that the applicants submit a shadow study showing the, I would look to Heidi to provide the kind of the standard information about what's included in a shadow study. And that's just basically a receive and file. If I'm hearing the commission correctly, that's the direction I'm going to |
| 02:26:24.19 | Kristina Feller | That's correct. That's correct. |
| 02:26:33.22 | Kristina Feller | All right, so with those conditions, unless there are any additional conditions, I'll ask Commissioner Luxenberg if he still intends to second that motion. |
| 02:26:45.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I intend to second it with those additional conditions, those amended conditions. |
| 02:26:50.01 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:26:50.03 | Mary Wagner | Chair Feller, apologies not to belabor this, but if I may, the changes are the softened palette, the color palette that Commissioner Graff mentioned, submittal of a shadow study prior to issue of the building permit and the condition that Ms. Scoble read into the record regarding the demo permit not being issued unless and until the building permits ready to be issued. |
| 02:27:12.79 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 02:27:13.74 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:27:15.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Heidi, could you please take the roll call? |
| 02:27:18.11 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 02:27:19.78 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Fotz? |
| 02:27:22.83 | Heidi | Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 02:27:25.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:27:26.61 | Heidi | Commissioner Graff? |
| 02:27:28.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:27:29.05 | Heidi | Vice Chair Junius. |
| 02:27:30.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:27:31.29 | Heidi | Chair Fowler. Motion passes unanimously. Any action of the planning commission may be appealed within 10 days of the action to the city council. You must complete the required appeal form and pay the appeal fee within 10 days of this action for the appeal to be timely filed. Questions regarding how to file an appeal may be directed to the project planner or community development department staff. |
| 02:27:56.62 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Seth, thank you again. And we'll look forward to seeing that built. Shauna and Isabel, thank you very much. Okay, so we're ready to move on to item 6B, which is the public hearing regarding Senate Bill 9. |
| 02:28:15.00 | Mary Wagner | Chair Feller, I think that's me, unless Heidi wanted to introduce it. No, Chair Feller did such a great job. I was just gonna hand it off to you. |
| 02:28:15.05 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:28:21.51 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 02:28:22.52 | Mary Wagner | Great, so thank you Chair Feller, Vice Chair, Judy, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Mary Wagner, your city attorney, and I'm going to give you the presentation on the SB 9 implementing ordinance that's included in your packet tonight. And then also we'll turn it over to Ms. Scoble to share some information and the map that's been prepared illustrating what properties are subject or have the ability to take advantage of SB 9. So I'm going to share my screen. |
| 02:28:57.45 | Mary Wagner | Hopefully you're seeing my presentation. |
| 02:29:00.62 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 02:29:03.29 | Mary Wagner | Okay, so we're talking about, and I apologize, I have to turn to look at multiple screens. So forgive me if I'm not looking like I'm making eye contact with you as I give this presentation. |
| 02:29:09.79 | Seth | with you. |
| 02:29:11.85 | Mary Wagner | So we're talking about the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency, or HOME Act, that added California Government Code Section 65852.21 and 66411.79.5 to the statutes. Senate Bill 9 was signed into law on September 16th. It went into effect January 1st of this year. It essentially has two components. One requires ministerial approval of two dwelling units that are both at least 800 square feet on a single parcel within a single family residential zone. It also requires ministerial approval of a parcel map for what's been termed an urban lot split to create two parcels of at least 1200 square feet from what was previously one single family residential parcel. The council's discussed this a couple of times. Back in November, they adopted a resolution with some interim guidelines regarding SB9. And then on January 25th, the council received that interim guidance, directed staff to start drafting an SB9 implementing ordinance. That went to the legislative committee on February 28th. And now it's to the Planning Commission and we'll go back to the Council, slated to go back to the Council on April 26th. We just point out that gives us another planning commission meeting if we need it. to if we get direction tonight to make modifications or things that the commission would like to see changed we can bring that back to you at your next meeting and still make that april 26th council |
| 02:30:54.35 | Mary Wagner | So the SB 9 interim guidance was in compliance with SB 9 and required application of objective design and development standards, those that are currently in place and those that are later adopted. It's important to talk about what properties are eligible for SB9. So the city has three single family residential zoning zoning districts, the R16, the R18 and the R120. ADUs and JADUs are permitted in all of those zoning districts. The city has just over a thousand parcels zoned for single family residential. And then we've broken them down for you by the different zoning districts. Previously, we had thought that about 945 of them were eligible for SB9, but I think that number has gone down and Ms. Scoble can speak to that a little bit too. |
| 02:31:48.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:49.88 | Mary Wagner | This is just the schedule again. If we stick to the proposed schedule, these regulations would go into effect in June. |
| 02:31:59.80 | Mary Wagner | So there's been a lot of discussion and I think a lot of Thank you. um, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. but not misunderstanding, but just a lack of clarity on what SB9 actually does and how many units can be developed on a parcel So you can get one additional primary unit of not less than 800 square feet on a residentially zoned parcel, an eligible residentially zoned parcel without splitting the lot. Under the urban lot split, you can get two lots that each have two primary units. Currently in a single family district, as we discussed, you can also have an ADU and a JADU. So if a property owner wanted to take advantage of SB9 and they had their primary dwelling unit on their lot, they also had an ADU and a JADU, If the project was eligible, if the parcel was eligible, they could also add an SB9 unit to that lot. for a total of four units. The primary unit, the ADU, the JADU, and the SB9 unit. If someone wanted to take advantage of the urban lot split, you would basically end up with four units on that lot with the split being two primary dwelling units on each of the two new lots. There's a few iterations you can run through a primary dwelling unit and an ADU on one lot and a primary dwelling unit and an SB9 dwelling unit on another lot. And then the interplay between JADUs and ADUs. When the legislative committee talked about this on the 28th, they had asked for some schematics to be developed. Unfortunately, with a lot of the staff turnovers, we have not been able to develop those schematics. and kind of give you an idea of what a development under SB 9 would look like. But if the Commission wanted, that's potentially something we could return with or with your direction, we could try and prepare that for the City Council, depending upon what action the Commission takes tonight. We are looking for some input from the commission on the areas of SB9 that allow for some discretion. Currently as drafted, we're saying that notwithstanding any other provision of the code, no more than two dwelling units can be permitted on any parcel created under the provisions of SB 9. As we've indicated, SB 9 says that dwelling units cannot be less than 800 square feet. The city could decide to allow larger units. I think there's some debate out there about what SB9 requires. A number of jurisdictions that we represent have included that 800 square feet as a maximum size, but the city's not required to do that. You could allow for larger units if you wanted. If you wanted to be very permissive, if you will, or more open, you could say that you would allow the units of at least 800 square feet And then the regulations of the applicable zoning district would basically govern the size that we'd be permitted in addition to the setbacks and the other requirements of SB 9. With respect to lot size, there's two requirements for an urban lot split regarding size. The parcels have to be of relatively equal size. The resulting lots have to be at least 1200 square feet. And neither lot, neither parcel can be less than 40% of the original parcel size. So I tried to give you some lawyer math examples in the staff report of what, how that would be applied. SB9 indicates that the side and rear yard setbacks have to be four feet. As we've drafted it, the front setback would just default to the zoning district, as would the height of the structure. provided that that doesn't prevent the development of the two dwelling units and provided that that does not prevent each dwelling unit from being at least 800 square feet. There's also language requiring building separation, that they be at least 10 feet from any other structure on the parcel, but that they could be adjacent or connected if the structure meets building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. Oh. There is language in the draft ordinance and I highlighted some things in yellow in the ordinance. I'm sure you saw that where we were seeking some input from the commission. There are standards included in the ordinance that talk about parcel lines that about a street shall maintain right angles to streets or radial to the center line of curved streets or be parallel to existing parcel lines. and that lots without 20 feet or more frontage on a street are not permitted. Frontage requirements for flag lots may be satisfied by a driveway or private road accessing a street of 10 feet in width or more. These are standard objective standards we've seen applied in other jurisdictions. You know, I think the question for the commission and it's great to be bringing this forward to you for your consideration is whether or not that actually works in Sausalito. driveways we're deferring to the underlying zoning district regulations We also included a time requirement. SB-9 does not have a time requirement in it, but we included a 50-day period to act on an SB-9 application. Interested in the commission's input on that, if that seems reasonable. Um, or if you think another time frame would be better. SB 9 requires that a minimum of one off-street parking space will be provided, except that you cannot require parking when the parcel meets both of these requirements on your screen, that it's within one half mile of a high-quality transit corridor. This is very similar, I think, to the ADU regulations, or if there's a car-shared vehicle located within one block of the parcel. Landscaping, we were looking to the existing objective standards, same with flood control and water quality issues. There's a couple other objective standards that you saw highlighted in the draft ordinance regarding entrance orientation, privacy impacts, and the second story decks and balconies. So we're definitely looking for your input on those if you think that they make sense. to the application of an SB9 project and or if you think they there should be other objective standards applied. Here's a couple more. This one, requiring that the exterior materials and colors be the same as the existing dwelling unit. Very interested to hear the Commission's input on that. I know oftentimes you don't want things to look the same, but in some instances you may. So that's something that we can either play with or delete if the Commission doesn't like it. We're requiring a separate utility connection from each dwelling unit to the utilities for water, sewer, and electrical. We have a lot of... shared sewer common private laterals that are problematic in Sausalito. So I think it's important to think about having separate laterals and other connections. There is a requirement that each unit be separated by at least 10 feet. I think we talked about this a little bit, unless that you can meet building code standards to allow a separate conveyance. And then again, the issue about the second story exterior decks and balconies, if those should be prohibited on dwelling units constructed under SB 9, we're not. Excuse me, I have been under the weather. I'm getting over it, but I still sound a little Bad. So apologies for that. The requirements for the submittal of the urban lot split documentation or the parcel map. I've just laid those out for you here of what our city engineer worked with the city's contract surveyor to come up with. Requiring copies of all deeds for the properties, a plat map that shows the existing and proposed lot lines, location of easements, and then identification of the percentage of the lot split and that's basically to satisfy that 40% requirement and that they'd be basically this equal the setbacks and the parking So what we're recommending tonight, and I know I ran through that pretty quickly here, is that you hold this public hearing, get input from the public, provide input from staff, ask questions of us, then either continue this hearing to your next regular meeting where we can come back with some more information. or if you're prepared to make a recommendation to the city council That's another alternative. I do want to point out there's unfortunately a typo in the ordinance. I apologize for that. There's two sections that are numbered 9.70.030. So the second of those two sections should be 040 and then following we would need to update the numbering. in those sections. So with that, I'm happy to stop screen sharing and if it's okay with the commission, I would recommend that we hear from Ms. Scoble and she can walk through the mapping that she's prepared. So I'll stop screen sharing. That's unless, and then you could ask questions of both of us. Chairfellar, I think that might be the way to Attack this. |
| 02:41:15.53 | Kristina Feller | I think that's great. Appreciate that. And over to Heidi. |
| 02:41:19.80 | Heidi | Great, thank you, Mary. That was an amazing presentation. And thank you so much for the opportunity to share what we've been working on with regards to the mapping. So before I go into the mapping, I did want to, identify that you know we've been working on this mapping for a while and the numbers have been changing our final total count is that there are 1,075 parcels that could be eligible for SB 9. We still need additional information regarding like special status species and any type of parcels that may be encumbered by a conservation easement. And. The reason why those numbers were fluctuating is we were trying to figure out how the city's very high fire severity zones related to SB nine and we ultimately learned that the southern were in fire departments mapping doesn't is not consistent with the government code section. So in terms of urban land splits, we did identify that THERE WERE 37 parcels that are below 2,400 square feet so then that would reduce the number for urban lot splits to 1039 and we also have 39 unverified lots so those are parcels that the assessor does not have any land information on so when those it when and if those parcels were to come to the city, we would need to ask them to provide evidence what their land area is. And then we could go down accordingly through the checklist. But so let me pull up our mapping. And I'll be right. |
| 02:43:01.02 | Isabel Lowe | Thank you. |
| 02:43:01.03 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 02:43:01.41 | Isabel Lowe | Thank you. |
| 02:43:08.10 | Heidi | Can the Planning Commission see my share screen? yes okay so what we've done is we're utilizing the marin map application and we um we're working with marin map to make this open to the public. Right now it's only available through the planner application, which means that you need to be a registered user for Marin Maps in order to get this information. But within the next few days, these layers will be available. So what we've done is if you can look to the left side of the screen, you can see three boxes that are checked These are our three new layers that identify which parcels are eligible for S.B. 9. those parcels that are below 2400 square feet and then those unverified parcels. So right now I have all the parcels Ticked. which means that you can see all the parcels that SB9 would apply to. So in the Marin maps broke it down by zoning districts. So you can see in red the zoning classification is R16. In blue it's R18. And then there's a hatching up in Wolf Backridge, which is a little brown or darker red, which is the R120. So if you untick this box, then you'll see that there are two other areas. The areas in red are those parcels that have unverified land area. So if you click on it, You can see on the screen that it's showing the living area, but it's actually not showing the land area. So we would again ask for parcel data and information. It could be |
| 02:44:50.89 | Seth | EXPECTED. |
| 02:44:52.48 | Heidi | most likely a record or survey or a survey to verify the land. It could also be an instrument. You can add in the legal description and varying distances into certain CAD programs and it can come up with a land area number. So that would be for those unverified parcels. And then there are a few parcels where you can see in blue that are under 2400 square feet. So these are the parcels that are not eligible for the urban land split, but they would still be eligible for SB9. So they could potentially have a duplex, an ADU, and a JDU. So with that, I will stop sharing my screen and I'm available to answer any questions you may have regarding the mapping or the numbers. |
| 02:45:45.16 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:45:45.18 | Mary Wagner | All right. |
| 02:45:46.34 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:45:46.36 | Mary Wagner | Sorry, Chair Feller, may I add one other piece of information? There's been a lot of questions about SB9 and how it's going to be treated in the housing element. and how those units, if any, would count toward the city's arena. We still haven't gotten any guidance from HCD, but at least nothing in writing. They tend to issue technical assistance documents, but nothing's forthcoming yet. But what I'm hearing from other jurisdictions and then from our consultant as well is HCD is requiring some level of verification that people are actually interested in pursuing an SB9 project on their lot. And Bob Brown, who is a consultant working with the city, obviously you know him from the objective planning standards, has been working with some other jurisdictions as well. And he's working with jurisdiction and crafting language for their housing elements to include things like you have to include a site-specific inventory of the SB9 projections, which we have, thanks to Heidi, some really good data on that. And then include a program or policy to determine local developer owner interest in developing their property through SB9. So they're kind of shifting from prior housing elements for example where we were able to count ADUs. I think we did do a neighbor outreach to see if people were interested and I believe that the survey and and Chair Feller and Commissioner Saad kind of answer this better than I, but that the survey that's being either currently circulated or that is going to be circulated asks property owners about their interest in pursuing an SB9 project and or an ADU and potentially a JADU. I'm not sure if it includes all three of those. So thank you for letting me add that. And I too am available for any questions. |
| 02:47:42.53 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Thank you both so much. And I'm glad this is in front of us tonight. There's a lot to discuss about this tonight. So now would be the time for us to ask questions to staff. And I'd like to ask Vice Chair Judd, he wouldn't mind kicking this off. |
| 02:47:59.55 | Andrew Junius | Sure, thank you, Chair Feller. Great presentation, Mary. and Very fascinating data, Heidi. That's a great start, I think. we're starting to get our arms around this. Back to the high level, Mary, aside the ADU issues and the JADUs, is it pretty clear for the public to understand that A vacant lot could be split and then two units, two dwelling units be put on each lot, right? With part of using both of these, a qualifying vacant lot. to the extent we even had that. |
| 02:48:30.97 | Mary Wagner | Yes, I mean, it doesn't even have to be vacant, but... Correct, but if we had to make it... |
| 02:48:33.79 | Andrew Junius | That's correct, but if we had to make a lot, Thank you. |
| 02:48:35.67 | Mary Wagner | A qualifying parcel can take advantage of both provisions of SB 9, of the what we call the two dwelling unit provision and the urban |
| 02:48:43.80 | Andrew Junius | in the last. And you can also combine a demolition permit. For example, somebody with a substandard home or a home that's been damaged by fire, could apply for demolition permit and again, start over, right, split the lot, put two on each, right? |
| 02:48:57.42 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, again, assuming that it doesn't trip over any of the provisions of SB 9, that wouldn't allow it, correct? |
| 02:49:03.69 | Andrew Junius | Exactly. Is it also kind of a super high level question I'm not sure. if we just rezone the entire city, nothing below R2, there wouldn't even We'll be wouldn't have any SB9 issues. |
| 02:49:19.27 | Mary Wagner | Uh, SB nine only applies to single family dwelling, um, parcels. Correct. |
| 02:49:24.35 | Andrew Junius | Cool. |
| 02:49:24.82 | Mary Wagner | And then I- Part of the single family dwellings are allowed. |
| 02:49:27.24 | Andrew Junius | right exactly and if the zone allows two units already then there would be no Right. Okay, I have a couple of, a handful of I want to get into the... actual text of the ordinance here and just make sure everybody's understanding what we're looking at here. So starting with the urban lot split ordinance, section, the section ending 020. The reference to the section 503 Can you just really quickly for the public explain where that comes from as well as I'm not sure. under subsection B. the reference to government code section 65913.4. |
| 02:50:05.47 | Mary Wagner | Sure. So the second, the first question is a reference to the fire code and it's, um, part of the California fire code section 503 deals with fire apparatus access roads. And I actually asked, um, our building inspector to send me that section. Um, the, the building codes are interesting, right? They're not as available online as every, every other code. You have to have special permission to access them. He has sent that to me. Vice Chair Junius, I have not done a deep dive on it, but it basically sets standards regarding road width and access by emergency vehicles. If the commission would like, you know, if we end up returning to the commission, or if you think that the council would benefit from additional information on that, be happy to provide it. |
| 02:50:51.07 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I mean, we live in a city that's got really tight roads. if that's not going to become an issue for us. So I do think we need to put that on a list for further consideration. that would be done. |
| 02:51:03.54 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 02:51:03.56 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:51:04.64 | Mary Wagner | The commission could also make a recommendation that it be eliminated from this ordinance. If you, and I concur with you, I think that additional analysis given the roadway width and our current status, would be very beneficial. |
| 02:51:19.28 | Andrew Junius | Yep, I appreciate that. With respect, so we're still on 020, just for the public's benefit, I mean, I think under subsection C, |
| 02:51:23.93 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:51:28.74 | Andrew Junius | These are all these all are kind of embedded in SB nine already. And it just to verify, you know, rent control cities have to deal with rent control issues. That's not Sausalito. |
| 02:51:38.84 | Mary Wagner | Commissioner Junius, you're correct. Did you want me to address the SB 35 government code 65913.4 question? Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize, I did not do that one yet. |
| 02:51:46.27 | Andrew Junius | I apologize, I did not do that one yet. |
| 02:51:50.30 | Mary Wagner | So, and I'll try and give you the the nutshell answer and then if you have more questions you can ask them. |
| 02:51:55.33 | Andrew Junius | SHALL ANSWER. |
| 02:51:55.99 | Seth | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:51:56.27 | Andrew Junius | if you have more questions. |
| 02:51:57.14 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 02:51:58.55 | Mary Wagner | So SB 9 specifically refers to government code section 65913.4, which is commonly referred to as SB 35. and establishes some criteria for which parcels are eligible for processing under SB 9. So I won't get into too much detail about SB 35, because really for purposes of SB 9, it's what are those qualifying factors, what parcels essentially are not eligible for processing under SB 9. And there's a lot of categories. I'll give you kind of the title or the area of what is is excluded but then you have to look to the statutory structure that's referenced in s in sb 35 to figure out if it's really applicable or not so it excludes parcels that are in a coastal zone parcels that are prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance wetlands very high or high fire hazard severity zones, which we've talked about a little bit, hazardous waste sites. And those are sites that are listed on their Cortese list that's published by DTSC, Department of Toxic Substances Control. It's in a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, a regulatory floodway, something that's been identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat for protected species or land under a conservation easement. So I think it can be really confusing for someone to try and figure out what parcels are and are not eligible under SB 9 when you then have to go find SB 35 and dig through a pretty dense statute. You know, it's when I list out a reference, you know, or a citation, the number of parentheticals are kind of ridiculous, but that's that in a nutshell, and I'm happy to get into more depth if that would be helpful. Thank you. |
| 02:53:47.36 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 02:53:47.53 | Mary Wagner | THE FIRST With respect to your question about subsection C of the lot split ordinance, you're correct that those are all criteria that are listed in SB 9 about parcels. You cannot destroy a home or impact it if it's listed in one of those listed things of already providing affordable housing. And then the question about the Ellis Act and how that applies, that really applies to jurisdictions that have rent control, which Sausalito does not. So it basically, you know, it's a, it's a statutory end around a government or a court decision, which essentially allows landlords an opportunity to convert their property from residential rental. But that's, that's not an issue that we would have in Sausalito. |
| 02:54:36.98 | Andrew Junius | Agreed, thank you for that clarification. Moving on to subsection, we're still on the urban law school ordinance, subsection 030. So this is the one where we first see the reference to the 800 square feet. And I do wanna focus on the two highlighted areas under subsection A and B. I just wanna wonder if we need to add- |
| 02:54:58.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt. I think it would be really helpful because this is really technical. Can we bring up the actual ordinance that show the highlights so that we're looking at language? Because we're going back and forth too much to really follow the language, if we could, since we're really talking about language. |
| 02:55:16.90 | Andrew Junius | We'll really talk about that. |
| 02:55:18.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No problem. |
| 02:55:19.92 | Mary Wagner | If I can do that. |
| 02:55:20.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have. |
| 02:55:20.73 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:55:20.87 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:55:20.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:55:21.00 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:55:21.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:55:21.26 | Mary Wagner | I do. Give me one second. |
| 02:55:23.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:55:27.25 | Andrew Junius | The concept that, well, Mary brings that up, that I wanna speak to is the fact I'm not sure. where there's a requirement that the unit size be at least 800 square feet, and then some things that um, would possibly, you know, are the exclusions like unless these different scenarios here. And I'm more concerned more about the process. that we understand that maybe we even need to add some language or consider some amendments here. regarding who makes that call I think that might be a staff decision as to whether where you essentially have a situation where you don't have a parcel you know, that parcel lines above the street. So we're getting to that here, there it is. I think, you know, could it? |
| 02:56:16.98 | Nastassya Saad | Which section are we talking about? |
| 02:56:19.76 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. One more page now, Mary. One more page down. |
| 02:56:23.00 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:56:23.69 | Mary Wagner | I understand Commissioner Junius and if I just may since it popped up on my screen. The city has the ability to allow lots that are smaller than 1200 square feet. I think that was identified in your staff report. So that's why this language is highlighted as one of the areas that you could make. You could allow them to be smaller. You cannot require them to be bigger. and then under the first 030, sorry, sorry, |
| 02:56:52.03 | Andrew Junius | And this is, I'm not gonna, I don't have any questions about the second one, but the first one here, thank you, stopping right there. So those two, subsection A and subsection B I'm not sure. those are requirements that, we're going to ask to make sure that we are to meet. to be eligible for SB9. unless an applicant can demonstrate that this would have an effect on precluding the use. So I just wanna make sure that we're not aware that we have some language that who makes that decision I'm not sure. And I do think that, for example, you know, We have new lines of street that maintain right angles. We have lots of curvy streets here. I think some of this could become extremely difficult. the staff would be able to quickly look at both of these. and determine if it's clear that they're just again, almost in a varying mode. that you couldn't comply because of the odd shape of the lot, but the lot's big enough. The lot otherwise could handle an SB9 project and shouldn't be precluded from proceeding simply because of the configurations here. because I think these could be really problems for Sausalito. Some of these, I don't think can be met for many, many lots. |
| 02:58:09.75 | Mary Wagner | Vice Chair Juniors, if I may, these were proposed for the commission's consideration. You could certainly recommend that they be omitted. And I will tell you they were, you know, we've looked at other jurisdictions and what they were proposing. If they're not applicable to Sausalito, we could just delete them. These are not requirements of SB 9. or an attempt at drafting an objective standard that we've seen in other places. but I hear you and concur that to the extent that the exception would always be the rule. it doesn't make sense to include them. So we'd love some direction from the commission on that, a recommendation. |
| 02:58:46.59 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. add that to the list for consideration. Moving to the bottom, the number D there, the one regarding that references the fact that I'm not sure. Yeah, you're right. Perfect right there. I've got no problem with this. We do need to verify this information. I just, you know, and I'm trying to be a little bit practical here. Um, This one also, Thank you. This one isn't required by SB 9, specifically the requirement that it be verified by a surveyor. There are lots of times when we absolutely need a surveyor to do things for simple setback determinations, if the staff could be provided with clear information satisfies the ordinance and SB 9 about. going through the you know, extreme expense and time necessary to do a physical survey to determine something simple. I think I would suggest that the commission could recommend a possible staff waiver in that situation. So that's. Another comment? |
| 02:59:44.34 | Mary Wagner | it. |
| 02:59:45.94 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:59:45.97 | Mary Wagner | May I, Chair Feller? Yeah, we're kind of going in between comments and questions, but if I may. Yeah, the first part of this section is in SB 9 that the city can't require if an existing structure has a setback that's different than the four foot setback required under SB 9. We can't require that it then comply with the four foot setback. I concur with you, Vice Chair Junius, that the second sentence is not required by SB 9. I think if the commission wants us to come back, you know, if you make a recommendation again, you know, just to delete it versus having, you know, a staff verification, I think it would be helpful if we return to the commission to get some input from the Public Works Director. or if we don't return to the commission with that recommendation that we have that input for the city council. so that they hear from the public works director as well. He's the one who's gonna be processing the map portion And so it'll be important that he's got the information that he needs there. |
| 03:00:48.68 | Andrew Junius | Agreed. Thank you. |
| 03:00:49.93 | Kristina Feller | I like this. Vice Chair Junius, do you mind if I ask a clarifying question to this particular point while we're on it? |
| 03:00:55.79 | Unknown | please. |
| 03:00:56.19 | Kristina Feller | Because I'm curious how we would also handle It, you know, we have so many legal non-conforming here in Sausalito and we're the city has not been particularly good at understanding where I'm not sure. uh, you know, city land is versus private land. And so there's a real mixed bag in that. And, and I'm just curious if this was, first of all, discussed and considered in legislative committee but also how this would affect the legal non-conforming situation. |
| 03:01:36.45 | Mary Wagner | So there's a whole variety of legal non-conforming things, right? Structures can be legal non-conforming for a whole bunch of reasons. And then you have a pretty complicated code structure about modifications to those types of structures. If that existing structure is not being modified and all you're doing is adding an SB9 unit, don't believe the city would have any ability to require that existing structure to come into conformance. And I think it would kind of go against the intent of SB9 to add the additional Unit. if we were then requiring the existing unit to come into compliance where they're out of compliance. There's also a question there though about existing lot lines right where where does the street end and the and the the private parcel start that is something we would need clarification on and I think what we're asking for is a plat map showing the existing and proposed lot lines And if we have, I think what you're asking me is if we've got a structure that is really actually located in the right of way or, you know, not on their property, what would we do? |
| 03:02:51.50 | Seth | Yes. |
| 03:02:55.45 | Mary Wagner | I think and I think I would have to think about that for a minute. I think that |
| 03:02:56.29 | Seth | I think. |
| 03:03:02.48 | Mary Wagner | we would obviously require any new structure be contained on the property, you know, the private property, with respect to an existing property that's out of compliance, it might be a very fact-specific property. analysis, you know, is it encroaching on a neighbor's parcel? Is it encroaching on city-owned properties? Can they get an encroachment permit for that? that encroachment or something along those lines. Chair Feller, that's sort of my thought on that right now. |
| 03:03:34.21 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you, Vice Chair Junius for letting me just interject there so back to you though, please. |
| 03:03:42.22 | Andrew Junius | So. Absolutely very good. |
| 03:03:42.63 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely very good. |
| 03:03:44.06 | Andrew Junius | that's an important, that we also need to figure in here. So yeah, but sticking with this, just so that the reason why I'm so, So I think that's a good question. the practical issue of surveys, this part of the process is driven by a survey. surveyors are expensive, surveyors are backed up you know, serve, you know, so the, the, the more we make the surveyor do and the more complex it gets for the surveyor, the more difficult it's gonna be to do these things. So part of what I'm trying to do is sift through these pick out a handful of things that Maybe, you know, architects, once they get a base survey, architects can provide a lot of this information in terms of actual location of existing structures and whatnot that I would definitely trust. I'm not sure. once you get a base survey. And so that's basically where I'm coming from. I'm not sure. moving along here. So now I do apologize for the second O3O section. There we go. I'm not sure. that, the . So we have to do that. Uh-huh. Yeah, that language I think we should probably recommend clarifying. Thank you. identifying the percentage of the lot split with this action that refers i think mary back to the 40 and i think what that really just needs to be reworded to talk about the areas we're talking about here so the idea here is that you can't You can't take a 3,000 square foot lot and shave off something that's, complying maybe with the 1200 square foot minimum, but is so much smaller than the bigger lot. It just creates an awkward situation. I think just that I'm comfortable with the 40%. The 40% is part of SB9. We can't change that. MR PRICE. um, But yeah. And I'm not, You know, I haven't thought about making about changing that. I'm really curious what the other commissioners think when we get to when we get to everybody else on the 1200 square feet, But that's That's what we're talking about. And it's at least 40% of the lie. uh, original area there. Thank you. So I think I would recommend cleaning that up. I'm not sure. Okay, let's move on to section. the 040 section. And this is where I really start getting a little confused here. the This is the second reference to the 800 square foot in subsection C. I'm not sure. No. and we're not allowed to require that the units . require them to be any less than 800 square feet. And here we're also saying that they can't be any more than 800 square feet. So. If this is read, I think literally, is the ordinance gonna end up requiring exactly 800 square foot units? I'm just very confused about this. |
| 03:06:24.00 | Mary Wagner | Well, they could be the applicant could choose to make it smaller. They just couldn't, under the way this is drafted, and I think this raised some concerns at the, or questions at the legislative committee meeting as well. You know, what the language in the statute refers to it in both the urban lot split provision and in the two dwelling unit provision. Says you can't, you can't apply objective standards that would cause any one of the units to be less than 800 square feet. So a number of jurisdictions are imposing that as a maximum. The city does not have to do that. If the city could say you could use the language that says, you know, they have to be at least, um, we could switch this to utilize the language in SB9. The, I think if you left it open-ended and didn't have a cap, then you're kind of left with whatever the development standards in the zoning district would allow in terms of floor area and all those other things, but it's going to be complicated. because you've already got an existing dwelling, right? So we had proposed that this language of no more than 800, meaning it couldn't be bigger than 800, but it could be smaller. |
| 03:07:38.76 | Andrew Junius | and you're saying that it could be smaller based on, the applicant's decision to make it smaller. Even though the, yeah, but you see that just doesn't really work for me. It seems to me that the whole idea here is to have these livable units and 800 square feet is a pretty small unit. And for the city to be, and forcing them to do really small units that they're almost becoming ADUs. I just think that's a great point. I don't support that and I would definitely be in favor of recommendations to increase that 800 square foot number so that larger units could be built. under our ordinance. Thank you. |
| 03:08:16.12 | Mary Wagner | And... |
| 03:08:16.17 | Andrew Junius | that. |
| 03:08:16.24 | Mary Wagner | understood and that's why it's highlighted for the Commission's input. Yep. |
| 03:08:20.21 | Nastassya Saad | Can I ask a question on that now rather |
| 03:08:20.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:08:20.46 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:08:20.56 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:08:20.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. than having a seat sequentially go through this. I mean, I had the same question of, I mean, we have at 80, people can build ADUs. So if they want to build something less than 800, they can do that, they can do a JADU. So under this statute, let's say somebody takes down a house and wants to do a two unit development. Why is it better to have, let's say they're building 2,400 square feet, why do we think 1,600 square feet for a primary and 800 for our secondary is better than two 1200s. Plus we need two and three bedroom houses. So I don't know why we're not letting the zoning I mean, just because the lots are smaller, why aren't we letting the zoning do its thing? I sort of concur with our commissioners |
| 03:09:11.03 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 03:09:11.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:09:11.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:09:11.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:09:11.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:09:11.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:09:11.84 | Mary Wagner | I appreciate that, Commissioner Luxenberg. And I think this is where the legislative committee thought that some graphics might be helpful. |
| 03:09:11.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:09:19.03 | Mary Wagner | just to see what this kind of development would look like. And again, we're seeking the Commission's input on this very question. |
| 03:09:28.53 | Andrew Junius | and I'm almost done. Following on this exact same, so I'm done with the, the slot split part and let's move on to chapter 10. uh, of the two unit developments and so I'm specifically looking at 10.44.350 and moving all the way down to E to where we talk about this exact same thing. And this is where I think you kind of, I'm going to highlight Hopefully it's just confusion because this language here I'm not sure. seems to run right into it's gotta be 800 square feet because at the, at the last sentence of subsection E it says, We can't. do anything that would physically preclude the two units from being at least 800 square feet and then you say it can't be any greater than square feet and he won. So. Again, maybe this is the same exact issue I would definitely support that 800 square feet getting larger. So, And then finally, some of the issues that you're looking for comments on with respect to down under subsection F there, Um, you know i'm I don't I'm F three. I think I'm not sure why we would be, you know, objecting to decks and balconies. I mean, I think my opinion here is that these should be, allowed to be normal homes. They're not gonna be, they should not be considered ADUs. They should not be limited in this way. Once we decide on a floor area, I do think You know, we do have some issues to consider with respect to positioning on the lot and some setbacks privacy impact when I'm curious what the other commissioners think about. I think it's a good thing. It's almost punitive to say you can't have a deck or a balcony on a second SB9 home on your lot. I don't think that's appropriate. I also support the 50-day THE FAMILY. suggestion with respect to the time to act. I wouldn't care. Hopefully we'll have some to actually do that work. Um, And those are my comments. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 03:11:25.34 | Kristina Feller | Excellent comments. That's a great way to kick us off here. Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, did you have any questions for Mary or Heidi? |
| 03:11:36.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do. They're very similar to Commissioner Junius. Can we go back up just a slight amount to E? No, stay on E. Go on E. So... If I understand this correctly, the introduction in E says we're using the zoning to determine all this stuff. Then it goes on the number one that says there should be no greater than 800. I think that could just be deleted because maybe some graphics might be helpful, but I don't see why, as I said, we could use two and three bedroom units. I don't see why 1600 for one and 800 for another is any better than two 1200s. So in a similar regard, Number three concerns me greatly because if the setbacks for the zones we're talking about are 5 feet and 10 feet on the side and 10 feet and 15 feet on the rear, that's the 20 feet. The 20,000 square foot lots are 15 and 10. The other ones are 5 and 10. So, There's no place for a setback of four. That's in the language that it can't be less than four, all things considered. And so either delete Section 3 and let the setbacks that are required by the lots stand. ADUs have a different setback, but a regular lot has five and ten. So if we delete that, or either delete it or put in, in any event, because they can't build any other way, it has to be a minimum of four. But the zoning requires more than that. Am I misunderstanding? |
| 03:13:30.99 | Mary Wagner | Commissioner Luxembourg, if I may? SB9 specifically says that we cannot require a setback greater than |
| 03:13:32.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, we know. |
| 03:13:37.41 | Mary Wagner | four feet from the rear and side yard property lines. |
| 03:13:41.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Now, I might be wrong, but I read the actual language of SB9. I'm happy to pull it up if that would be helpful. That would be helpful because I looked at that and I didn't think it actually said that. It's not the same as the ADU link. |
| 03:13:50.82 | Mary Wagner | I'm happy to pull it up if that would be helpful. |
| 03:14:00.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It says that you, you can require a minimum of flow. It doesn't say that it has to be a minimum of flow. I believe it. |
| 03:14:09.33 | Mary Wagner | you can't require that it be greater than four. |
| 03:14:13.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you bring it up because I'm not sure. It'll take me a minute. |
| 03:14:15.63 | Mary Wagner | It'll take me a minute if you want to. I can stop screen sharing and find it if you guys would like me to. |
| 03:14:19.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Me too. uh, |
| 03:14:26.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, because I think it's different than the ADU language is what I'm saying. And we have that language for the ADU. Oh, my God. |
| 03:14:40.85 | Andrew Junius | it's under, um, |
| 03:14:43.54 | Mary Wagner | Got it. Thank you. |
| 03:14:44.80 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, it's under Romanette. Yeah, man, it's really confusing lettering here, but you find it, Mary? |
| 03:14:50.34 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 03:14:51.20 | Andrew Junius | Great. |
| 03:14:55.25 | Andrew Junius | There we go. Now we're talking. |
| 03:14:57.07 | Mary Wagner | Under no, notwithstanding A and all other circumstances not described in one, the local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lines. |
| 03:15:09.58 | Nastassya Saad | No. describing Clause 1A. Can you, is there a way to make this a little bigger |
| 03:15:15.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:15:16.78 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:15:16.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 03:15:16.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:15:16.93 | Mary Wagner | Um, |
| 03:15:17.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:15:17.52 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:15:17.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:15:17.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:15:17.68 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:15:17.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can try. Or I can, I have it on my screen too. |
| 03:15:21.44 | Mary Wagner | Sure, I can try it. It's hard when I'm screen sharing apologies. to make it bigger. Ah, ah, ah. |
| 03:15:28.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Point me to the right number. I have a thing up on the right time I screen also. |
| 03:15:33.03 | Mary Wagner | So this is the two dwelling unit provision of 658.52.21. And then it's actually section, this is where it gets fun trying to go through this, section B. to Thank you. the ruminant. too. Thank you. |
| 03:15:54.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:15:56.66 | Mary Wagner | I'm also happy to copy and paste it into a Word document and make it bigger. |
| 03:15:59.26 | Nastassya Saad | and make it bigger and have a meal. Okay, so it says notwithstanding subparagraph A, What is subparagraph A, though? |
| 03:16:10.65 | Mary Wagner | it talks about the objective standards that you can't apply anything that would make it, um, preclude the two units from being at least 800 square feet. |
| 03:16:20.05 | Nastassya Saad | Um... But isn't it that we can impose objective zoning standards Correct. |
| 03:16:27.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So we have objective zoning standards that said it's five keys. And then not withstanding that, no subject, |
| 03:16:35.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:16:36.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:16:36.45 | Nastassya Saad | setbacks shall be required for an existing structure in the same location in the empty. Thank you. I'm not sure. |
| 03:16:45.22 | Andrew Junius | I mean, it, Jeffrey, I think it's just different wording. I think I kind of agree with Mary. In SB9, it says a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet And in our ordinance here, a setback of at least four feet is required. So, I mean, there's, uh, That looks bright to me. |
| 03:17:04.43 | Nastassya Saad | Outstanding paragraph two. and all other circumstances described in subparagraph A, |
| 03:17:11.38 | Kristina Feller | So it sounds like the four feet is the max that we can require under SB 9. Is that correct, Mary? |
| 03:17:11.62 | Nastassya Saad | something. |
| 03:17:17.27 | Mary Wagner | Yes. |
| 03:17:18.05 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:17:19.11 | Mary Wagner | You could say less. You could say three or two or zero. but you can't say five. |
| 03:17:24.61 | Andrew Junius | Well, maybe the confusion then is our ordinance says at least four feet, sounding like you can do more. Maybe that's the, is that your problem, Jeffrey? |
| 03:17:31.38 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:17:31.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:17:31.51 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:17:32.86 | Nastassya Saad | I guess. I'm just still trying to understand this, who drafted this. thing for the legislature makes it complicated. |
| 03:17:41.91 | Kristina Feller | I would just require a minimum. I mean, isn't it a minimum of four feet? |
| 03:17:48.42 | Andrew Junius | It says agency may require up to four feet. |
| 03:17:49.05 | Kristina Feller | Mary. Thank you. |
| 03:17:51.29 | Mary Wagner | THE END OF We can play with that if you guys want it to be more clear that, you know, the, the setbacks for the rear and side yard are four feet. |
| 03:18:00.33 | Heidi | Yes. |
| 03:18:01.84 | Mary Wagner | Someone can always choose to make their building, you know, five or 10 feet, but we can't require that it be more than four. |
| 03:18:09.68 | Andrew Junius | Correct. |
| 03:18:10.38 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 03:18:11.29 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, that needs to be amended. That needs to be clarified. |
| 03:18:13.87 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I would just say a minimum of four feet Thank you. |
| 03:18:19.47 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, and then the next one I have was in F. If we go down, Uh... |
| 03:18:25.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So, |
| 03:18:27.40 | Nastassya Saad | So, |
| 03:18:27.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And if? If somebody, I thought we, I was confused on that. I thought it was a minimum of five feet and 10 feet. If it's a minimum of five feet and 10 feet, I don't see why we're requiring opaque windows. If it's four feet, then I can see why we're doing that. But if we're requiring... opaque windows on four sides of a house. Am I getting that right? |
| 03:18:58.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | For a second story wall, all windows facing the adjacent property shall be clear story or opaque. on four sides of a house We're requiring opaque windows. |
| 03:19:11.12 | Mary Wagner | And these are highlighted for this very reason to get your input and modifications. These are not required by SB 9. These are just standards we've seen in other jurisdictions. Happy to modify them, eliminate them. and whatever the commission's recommendation to the council would be. |
| 03:19:27.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, if they have a reasonable setback, I don't think we have to make an opaque But if they're within four feet, then yes, we should make it opaque. So, I mean, can we do it depending on the setback, or is that going to somehow violate? I mean, in other words, if the setback is less than the typical zoning allowed, then we can require that? |
| 03:19:56.55 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I mean, as it's drafted right now, it says to minimize privacy impacts on adjacent properties. The following requirements apply to walls with windows within eight feet of an interior side or rear property line. abutting another residential use. |
| 03:20:13.70 | Nastassya Saad | So, so, so |
| 03:20:13.73 | Mary Wagner | So. |
| 03:20:15.62 | Nastassya Saad | It's only within a |
| 03:20:18.78 | Richard Graef | Correct. |
| 03:20:19.57 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:20:19.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:20:19.60 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 03:20:19.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I miss that part. |
| 03:20:21.04 | Nastassya Saad | POLICE. |
| 03:20:21.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:20:21.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:20:21.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay. Again, if they're eight feet on the rear and eight feet on all the sides, then I guess that's an incentive to go more than eight feet or whatever. I guess. I'm just worried about unintended consequences of this thing. My other question comes back to I'm confused and I apologize about this frontage. What does it mean for flat, Is there a 20-foot frontage requirement, and if you have a driveway and it's 10 feet, and is that a flag lot? I'm very confused at what that actually means. |
| 03:21:06.03 | Mary Wagner | We were talking about these standards. |
| 03:21:06.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We were talking about these |
| 03:21:08.90 | Mary Wagner | Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 03:21:08.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Lux Yeah, there was something about a 20 foot requirement but then something about a driveway. Can somebody explain that to me? in actual terms or not legal terms, but just in a Can somebody have a |
| 03:21:24.42 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 03:21:24.44 | Unknown | inside. |
| 03:21:24.98 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 03:21:26.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Somebody has a lot and they have to have 20 feet of frontage lots without 20 feet of frontage will not be permitted. So if they don't have 20 feet of frontage, They can't do, they don't have to do |
| 03:21:41.03 | Nastassya Saad | You can't use SB9? |
| 03:21:44.11 | Mary Wagner | That's what this standard is saying. However, I think as it pointed out in Vice Chair Junius' comments, If the application of that standard would have the effect of prohibiting the development of two units of at least 800 square feet or prevent the split, then we couldn't apply it. So I think, I think we're, as we're delving into this, um, these conditions, and I think this is incredibly helpful and I know it's late and you guys have already had a full evening, but that might not be a good standard for Sausalito given the way that lots are, um, the size and the configuration of lots. This might be something that's more applicable to a flatter, you know, more square development community. |
| 03:22:31.70 | Nastassya Saad | Let me just, I just want to understand |
| 03:22:33.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and I just wanna understand it before knowing whether we should or shouldn't do it. But I realize it's highlighted in yellow for discussion. We have We have a lot, whatever it is. Let's say it's 30 feet by, I don't know, whatever makes it up to, by 40, you make it to 1200, square feet. I'm forgetting whether it's what so we're gonna split a lot that has 30 feet of front and does that mean 20 and then a driveway? I guess I'm trying to understand what the intent of the language is before I can determine whether it's a good or a bad thing. I'm just trying to understand it. |
| 03:23:15.36 | Mary Wagner | . I think the two concepts might be better split, if you will. So you've got the lots without 20 feet or more frontage on a street are not permitted. But we know we have flag lots that don't have frontage, you know, on a street other than their driveway or private roadway. And what we're saying is that has to be 10 feet in width or more. So I think there's an exception for a flag lot is what this is trying to get at. |
| 03:23:44.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What is a flag light? Is it just a driveway or how do you define a flag light? |
| 03:23:47.99 | Mary Wagner | It'd be really helpful if, I don't know if Ms. Scoble has any planner advice instead of lawyer language that might be helpful to address what a flag lot is. |
| 03:23:58.74 | Heidi | Yeah, a flag lot. And let me see if I can actually try to find one and I can show a visual. But it's basically what it sounds like. It's one of those parcels that has a very narrow frontage with a long driveway. and then it opens up into a larger lot. SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND A GOOD Example of a flag lot. I'll stop sharing so you can |
| 03:24:20.82 | Mary Wagner | AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. |
| 03:24:21.29 | Andrew Junius | And Heidi, we also have a definition, so don't forget that a black blood is defined in the code. |
| 03:24:21.31 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 03:24:25.93 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:24:25.94 | Heidi | It is. So let me... Let me actually... Pull this up. Mr. Skinner. |
| 03:24:35.82 | Andrew Junius | Hey, Jeffrey, so the definition is a lot which does not have direct frontage on a road or street and which is connected to a road or street by a narrow fee ownership appendage that is primarily used to provide access to the building site or the on the lot. |
| 03:24:50.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so we have a flag log. |
| 03:24:50.50 | Andrew Junius | I love it. |
| 03:24:52.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and Somebody in, oh, how does it, and it doesn't have 20 feet of furnace. and so it goes way in the back. So now we have something without frontage, and we're gonna let two houses be built without frontage? I'm trying to understand what this is. |
| 03:25:09.67 | Andrew Junius | Well, I think that the logic here is you're basically building a house in the back. You know, and that's actually a configuration you know, weird cities like San Francisco that we see, you know, not that uncommon. Um, where they're, you know, long skee- long, relatively wide lot, long city lot, huge backyard. and a driveway that allows you to have a house So the house has no frontage on the street. but it has access. through basically a private driveway. |
| 03:25:36.11 | Mary Wagner | I think that this was intended as an exception to the frontage requirement and that it's met if you have this driveway or private road of 10 feet in width or more, which may be too wide. I'm looking to the commission again with your knowledge of Sausalito, that might not be the right standard for Sausalito. |
| 03:25:37.02 | Andrew Junius | guys |
| 03:25:54.94 | Mary Wagner | But it's something to at least something to react to. |
| 03:25:57.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:25:57.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's two questions, and I'm just trying to understand this, and I'm not getting this. So you have a flag line. and it's all housed back there. And it's big enough, and it's a separate lab. And its only axis is down... this driveway. That's its only access. We have those. And now somebody wants to build a second unit in there. and they want to split it into another unit. So are we going to let a flag lot be split into two lots. We already don't have frontage to begin with. Are they going to be allowed to split that lot, which doesn't have frontage in the first place? |
| 03:26:40.07 | Mary Wagner | The way this is drafted, they would if they've got that 10-foot... access way. |
| 03:26:46.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So now we have a 10-foot axis way to go to the back for four units, if possible. |
| 03:26:51.36 | Mary Wagner | THE POTENTIAL. |
| 03:26:51.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:26:51.80 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:26:51.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 03:26:52.01 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:26:52.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . Okay, and that would be a shared access. for they're not splitting the lot. They can't split the lot and divide up the land. a common axis for the two lives. MR. Yes. |
| 03:27:07.59 | Mary Wagner | So a condition would have to be access. A condition of the split would be that they have access through some kind of reciprocal easement agreement or something. |
| 03:27:20.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and then, all right, and then let's say, forget the flag lot for a second, we have a 30 foot frontage. and they split the lot into two 15-foot frontages. Is the proposal to allow that, I guess is my question. Because we're saying you have to have 20 feet of frontage, but after they split it, you don't. Are we suggesting that that's okay? |
| 03:27:45.20 | Mary Wagner | I think that's a great question. I don't know that it was entirely thought through with this condition. So I think that some input from the commission would be helpful on what you think makes sense. |
| 03:27:56.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think we should have frontage. I don't think flaglots are the best things in the world, but I want to understand what the intending consequences of the language are. If we're saying you can't split, if you have to have right angles, |
| 03:27:56.73 | Mary Wagner | I mean, I'll just... |
| 03:28:11.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and you only have 30 feet of frontage, we mean you have to have 40 feet of frontage in order to split a lot. I'm just trying to understand what we're proposing. Yeah. |
| 03:28:19.48 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:28:20.10 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:28:20.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sorry, it's terrible. |
| 03:28:21.39 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:28:21.60 | Kristina Feller | Can I, can I just interject because I think part of what we're being asked for. through the lens of the Planning Commission is also to try to beta test what this is, the ramifications of what this is. I think that we have to look at those beta tests generically and say, you know in the in the case of the flag lot does this actually make sense when you apply these standards does this actually make sense or Commissioner Luxenberg to your question. Well, if I've got a 30 feet of frontage and I split it in two and now I only have two 15s, Does that make sense? I think that's the exercise that this commission actually really needs to go through to ensure that what is being proposed here and drafted by a legislative committee and not someone, you know, not a group that necessarily has to apply it in and hear these cases through a commission deals with and that's why it's coming to us. I don't know that we can figure all of that out tonight. But these are definitely the steps we need to take to be able to make a recommendation to city council. |
| 03:29:32.72 | Andrew Junius | And one comment just quickly. I read this to be, I think part of the logic here is that flag lot should be allowed to be the second line Right? I mean, so that's one way to think about it, Jeffrey, is that you've got to, a 30 foot frontage, you should be able to do a 20 foot frontage for the, for the, first lot that you know you're taking a big lot and you're splitting off one that's got a 20 foot front edge and then one with a 10 foot frontage that allows you to get to the back for the second lot. So you're taking a large, a 5,000 square foot lot and you're splitting it into something where there's a house in front of the house in I mean, that's one, that's the, I think the most logical way to read this. but I totally agree with Sheriff Feller. It's as complicated and we should probably think this through some more. |
| 03:30:14.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I mean, I think I understand that logic, Commissioner Genius, that you create a flag lot and you have flag lots, so that's okay. What worries me is we also have flag lots that are large and now they're gonna split. And that's not, and you can't really split the two lots. That's much more, so I think we need, I think the suggestion that either the council made that we have the community development staff come up with some examples of how the language would be implemented in these kind of cases. And looking at that map that we have, that you can zoom in and see what kind of lots there are. and also address the thing about the perpendicular lines. I mean, as much as I'm always one to push things ahead, I don't think we're gonna be able to push this ahead. Oh no, we need another meeting. |
| 03:31:07.52 | Unknown | Oh no, we need another meeting. |
| 03:31:09.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think we need another meeting, but I mean, I think |
| 03:31:11.15 | Unknown | I think Thank you. |
| 03:31:12.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think before that meeting, I think we need some graphics developed and sent out ahead of the meeting, too. |
| 03:31:18.67 | Andrew Junius | But do it. |
| 03:31:18.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But dude, Thank you. |
| 03:31:19.45 | Andrew Junius | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:31:19.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:31:20.11 | Andrew Junius | We can all agree on the fact that we don't want to create lots that don't have any frontage. I think to your point, Jeffrey, a flag lot. is already kind of compromised. And you may be able to get two units on a flag lot with the two unit part of SB9, but to split a flag lot that essentially is gonna create a landlocked parcel that has no real, legitimate access to the street shouldn't really, I don't think that should be allowed. I mean, that's a little much. |
| 03:31:42.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I don't think so either. I mean, I'm okay with a two-unit development, but not a splitting of a lot. |
| 03:31:44.34 | Kristina Feller | for the two years. |
| 03:31:48.59 | Kristina Feller | I have another question about sort of this, this, this line of discussion we're going down and that is how, how are easements, calculated or recognized. So for instance, if the diagram that Heidi had up here that did have the flag lot, if that was one lot and I owned it and I wanted to split into and create a flag lot in the back, but I have to allow an easement on the front property to get to it. But that the calculation of what that easement is takes away from my 1200 square foot lot size. Is it a non SB9 lot, I guess is the question. |
| 03:32:35.07 | Andrew Junius | Well, I mean, our definition says, So I don't think you can create a flag lot with just an easement if you look at our definition. You literally have to own that strip. And then creating a new law behind that, you can't rely on an easement under our flag lot definition to create a lot that has has access to the street. Even though I think you legally do have access to the street under our code, at least under the flag line definition. |
| 03:33:00.70 | Kristina Feller | Okay. But so fast forward that, you know, we've got, |
| 03:33:01.75 | Andrew Junius | There you go. |
| 03:33:05.59 | Kristina Feller | There are a lot of these very odd private roads slash driveways that a number of lots face like a private And it's now it's sometimes it's clear who owns it and sometimes it's not. And it's not really, they, you know, they haven't like created an HOA that, that owns just that driveway slash. I don't understand how the that would work with SB9. And maybe that's a little bit funky here to Sausalito, I don't know. But we do have those around here and we need to figure those out. |
| 03:33:52.54 | Andrew Junius | I think they're all taken care of with easements, frankly. I mean, I think that's going to be a problem. because you've got, we had a case last year where you've got, 20 houses, they're all sharing like a common easement. It's not even right away. So that's, |
| 03:34:06.43 | Kristina Feller | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:34:06.51 | Andrew Junius | That's messy. I hear you. |
| 03:34:06.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:34:10.56 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay, we need to figure that out too. Sorry, Commissioner Luxembourg, I know you had more questions. I didn't mean to overtake your line of questioning, but it was connected to that. |
| 03:34:18.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. No, that's why I think this is better as an ongoing discussion of the specifics. I mean, I am concerned of 1200 square feet is, you know, even with frontage of 20, we just looked at a property tonight at 25 feet of frontage and we were struggling how they could fit this in or whatever. So 20 feet times 60 by 60 feet, is tiny. I mean, it's in so, but I think we do need frontage on a street. I think flag lots are not optimum, but maybe that's a solution for the second lot. But we need to be clear about what we're asking, because this is all ministerially approved. And I think the staff really wants to know what they're supposed to approve when this gets approved. I mean, they're gonna be implementing this and then there's gonna be lots of questions. So I think maybe some diagrams that take the language as proposed and what it would mean for frontages, of how that would work, and what it would mean for angles on the lot, just some examples. And Heidi, I'm suggesting you look at the map, the Marin maps, and look at some of the the configurations of the law, are they square, are they not square? you know, what's it gonna mean for some of these? And so that we at least understand what it is we would be recommending to the council. |
| 03:35:48.62 | Andrew Junius | And I'd really be curious. I mean, I think one thing maybe we can start to, it is getting late and I think this is gonna definitely require another meeting, but do we, how do the other commissioners feel about the 800 square footage? I mean, I personally think that's, that should not be. be the base, not the max under any circumstances, And so that's my position on that. for the unit size. |
| 03:36:11.17 | Kristina Feller | I don't think it should be a man. As a minimum of paid class, right? |
| 03:36:11.35 | Andrew Junius | I don't know. |
| 03:36:11.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't think it should be a man. |
| 03:36:13.02 | Nastassya Saad | you know, |
| 03:36:15.66 | Kristina Feller | I always read it as a minimum of 800. Yeah. |
| 03:36:19.84 | Nastassya Saad | I agree, I agree. |
| 03:36:20.53 | Kristina Feller | I agree. Thank you. |
| 03:36:21.87 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I agree. I don't think it makes sense to be that restrictive, given, you know, there's so many unique wants over here, which is really be... forcing somebody's hand so I would agree that we, that change. Thank you. |
| 03:36:36.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And if somebody wants less, they can make an ADU. |
| 03:36:36.80 | Nastassya Saad | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:36:36.97 | Andrew Junius | And also the carry budget. |
| 03:36:39.62 | Kristina Feller | Exactly. On Commissioner Luxembourg hold on hold on. What? |
| 03:36:44.46 | Andrew Junius | Well, Well, I did, yeah, I just wanted to, Mary kept also pointing out the fact at the 1200 square foot number is also a minimum established by, or the MAC, is that, I forget which one is that the, SB9, is that a max or min under SB9, 1200 square foot lot size? |
| 03:37:00.16 | Mary Wagner | We can't require that the lots be bigger, but we can allow them to be smaller. |
| 03:37:04.61 | Andrew Junius | Caller. So that's another kind of, you know, piece of the puzzle. We can squish a little bit and move around. I'm not sure I, I really have strong feelings about that at the moment. I really have strong feelings about 800 being the floor, not the ceiling. for the size of the unit, but I'm not, 1200 square foot lot is already pretty small. Yeah. |
| 03:37:23.70 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Junius. Well, what? What was your comment? |
| 03:37:27.82 | Andrew Junius | I would just, I think Commissioner Graff might, I'm kind of not sure I, how I feel about the 1200 square foot Matt, uh, Max, I don't know if making it smaller makes sense. |
| 03:37:41.28 | Mary Wagner | Okay. It's a pretty small lot. 1200 square feet is pretty small. |
| 03:37:45.85 | Andrew Junius | is pretty small and we've already, you know, we've got a lot of lots that do seem to be greater than 24 hundred square feet. So theoretically we have a nice pool to start with. We're not overly restricting with that number, so anyway. |
| 03:37:57.72 | Mary Wagner | Anyway. Chair Feller, if I may, I'm hearing the Commission loud and clear on the size issue and appreciate that clear direction of coming back with something other than, you know, that 800 You're falling back to the statutory language versus creating a max size of 800 square feet. The only distinction I would draw between an ADU and SB9 dwelling unit is it can be in the lots can be separately conveyed and you could although you can't do that with an ADU. ADU has to be attached to a primary dwelling unit. |
| 03:38:31.64 | Andrew Junius | And you can't put a condo map on an ADE, right, Mary? Right, so that is a huge difference we should all really be clear on. |
| 03:38:33.80 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. Right? |
| 03:38:35.11 | Unknown | I DIDN'T KNOW. |
| 03:38:38.60 | Andrew Junius | get a user. I don't know. UNITED. So, Thank you. you. Thank you. Oh, no. by somebody completely different with a deed they can hold and sell and whatever stuff. I think that is an important difference to I appreciate it. |
| 03:38:53.00 | Kristina Feller | Great. Commissioner Graff. |
| 03:38:57.18 | Richard Graef | I need more time. I haven't been able to digest this. I certainly agree. Pardon me. about the 800 square feet being minimum, not a maximum. I mean, that's silly. Um, Thank you. There's so much language here. I need personally more time to, Work with us. So, Yeah. |
| 03:39:29.21 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think we all do. I think we all do. Commissioner Luxembourg |
| 03:39:36.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. I had one other question. It's back to |
| 03:39:37.48 | Kristina Feller | Did you have? |
| 03:39:42.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | City Clerk, You indicated there were 1,000 units that would be eligible roughly. How many of those units do you know have the ADUs or JADUs in them? |
| 03:39:56.91 | Heidi | We have not done that analysis. We do have a listing of all of our ADUs, and we could cross-reference it. We haven't had the staffing to do that. |
| 03:40:06.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:40:06.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I mean, just, you have a ballpark idea? How many ADUs are there in the city? Do you know that? |
| 03:40:13.41 | Heidi | Oh, I don't want to give out a wrong number, but I do know that, you know, since 2010, we've been encouraging them and our numbers are heading in the right direction in terms of multiplying every year. So, and in fact, we actually have 15 current applications in for ADUs at the moment that we're processing. |
| 03:40:15.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 03:40:34.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, the number of ADUs would affect the number eligible. Ones already with ADUs means there's less units that would be available under SB-9. So that's it. |
| 03:40:46.89 | Mary Wagner | For the urban lot split, correct. You could still add the SB9 unit for a total of four if you met all the other qualifying criteria. |
| 03:40:56.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But if I understand what was in your presentation, there's a maximum of four units per lot, whether it's ADUs, JADUs, |
| 03:40:56.63 | Mary Wagner | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:41:04.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or two units, is that correct? |
| 03:41:06.13 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, so if you take one single family parcel, |
| 03:41:06.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:41:09.74 | Mary Wagner | and you basically it has the ability to have four units on it. Whether you take advantage of, if you take advantage of the urban lot split, then you've got two, you had two dwelling units on each lot, the two SB9 dwelling units. If you choose not to take advantage of the urban lot split and have say an existing single family home with an ADU and a JADU, you could still add an SB9 dwelling unit for a total of four. |
| 03:41:38.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I simplify it to this and tell me if I'm not getting this right? if there were a thousand units that were eligible under SB9, you could potentially add 3,000 units citywide as a maximum because there's one unit on there. Assuming there was at least one unit on there, you could add 3,000 units minus the number of JADUs or ADUs. Good and bad. Yes. Yes, okay. That's what I thought. And I just want to make sure that was correct. |
| 03:42:08.67 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:42:08.97 | Nastassya Saad | THE END OF |
| 03:42:09.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:42:09.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:42:09.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:42:15.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just as a maximum. Obviously, there's not going to be not every lot of, you know, not every lot will configure itself, even if it's technically able to do it to make that happen. But that would be the absolute maximum. |
| 03:42:27.68 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 03:42:30.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | would be 3,000 minus the number of ABUs and JABs. |
| 03:42:36.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:42:36.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:42:36.66 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:42:36.86 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:42:37.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK. |
| 03:42:38.96 | Kristina Feller | So I just have another quick question. Does this only apply to land based lots or does this apply to water based lots here as well? |
| 03:42:54.02 | Mary Wagner | I don't know if any of our water-based parcels are zoned R1. So no, it would not apply to any. And Heidi, I don't know. |
| 03:43:01.94 | Heidi | AND HYDROITICALLY. Yeah, so we actually have these residential ARCs, so the R1A. Um, So that, I guess that is a question I would need to look into, but, and I believe they, the land area that they sit on are rectangular lots. So I can pull that up if you're interested. |
| 03:43:25.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:43:25.53 | Heidi | or we can come with the information. |
| 03:43:25.68 | Kristina Feller | Um. I think coming back with the information I just want to make sure that as we're looking at the new ordinance that we kind of turn over every rock here because we do have some oddities here. I mean, they're not a lot, And then I guess the other question is, in the event that there is some level of rezoning in Sausalito to manage the housing element, Do those lots automatically, does SB9 automatically apply to them? |
| 03:44:09.91 | Mary Wagner | If you create more single family zoning districts, yes. |
| 03:44:14.37 | Unknown | Okay. Okay. |
| 03:44:16.61 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:44:16.63 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:44:16.81 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:44:17.05 | Andrew Junius | if we reason the host of the R2, That would solve their problem. |
| 03:44:21.30 | Mary Wagner | you know. |
| 03:44:21.96 | Andrew Junius | Sorry. |
| 03:44:22.72 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I mean, not to, we do need to be cognizant of, you know, HTD and looking at anything that's viewed as being less than |
| 03:44:23.26 | Andrew Junius | I'm not sure. |
| 03:44:25.20 | Kristina Feller | We do. |
| 03:44:37.28 | Mary Wagner | Beneficial. I apologize. |
| 03:44:38.06 | Andrew Junius | I apologize. I'm just having some fun. It's late. But you're right. Yes. |
| 03:44:41.50 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:44:41.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:44:42.01 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:44:42.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:44:42.09 | Mary Wagner | but you're right. |
| 03:44:42.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 03:44:42.51 | Mary Wagner | Okay. |
| 03:44:42.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. The housing element isn't likely to recommend more single-family zones, right? I don't think it's happening. |
| 03:44:49.35 | Andrew Junius | That's awesome. |
| 03:44:49.87 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 03:44:49.92 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 03:44:49.94 | Kristina Feller | I don't think. Right, but I mean, I just, you know, I just, I just wanna, again, make sure that we're connecting the dots and we're not inadvertently creating a problem with what we're doing. I'm just trying to kind of think through what that might be. |
| 03:45:09.02 | Mary Wagner | THE FAMILY. Chair Feller, if I may, SB9 applies whether the city adopts an ordinance or not. So yeah. |
| 03:45:16.84 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, yeah. |
| 03:45:17.61 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 03:45:19.28 | Mary Wagner | So I think what we're trying to do is provide some structure where we have the ability to do it. to things that make sense in Sausalito. And I know this is sort of tedious, you know, we're making sausage, but it's incredibly helpful to have the Commission's input on these, on these criteria and the areas that we've kind of identified as being open for modification. |
| 03:45:42.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:45:42.88 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:45:43.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Can I make a suggestion the next time? Hopefully we'll have some graphics before the next meeting and we... we'll have these languages highlighted in yellow. But if we can plan the next time to go through the ones that you're not sure about the number or the yellow, instead of just asking questions about it, that talk about it and change the language or whatever, go through it that way rather than or each of us sort of asking questions or whatever. |
| 03:46:12.56 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Well, I wanted to kind of ask sort of the next steps here, knowing full well that there are some staffing limitations with CDD, but we cannot wait on this since it came into effect January 1st of this year. Um, you know, I'd like to understand better, you know, from Mary from you and Heidi from you. with the input that you've gotten so far, from the commission and sort of the suggestions of the, you know, ideas, debate how to beta test or come up with some generic diagrams to get, you know, 90% there. what Does that sound doable to you for our next hearing? Is there some sort of additional assistance that the commission can help you with or how would you like to move forward? |
| 03:47:08.57 | Mary Wagner | So I'm happy to start and speak from my end. The graphics are something we absolutely need planning support on. I don't know if there's an ability to use a little bit of consulting dollars to try and work on some of that. That's just something we would have to work through between Ms. Scoble, the city manager, myself, two weeks from now is what, I don't even know what the date is, but what I would recommend, Chair Fowler, is that if the commission is open to it, continue this public hearing to a date certain of your next meeting. If we're not able to pull the information together in time, we can just continue the public hearing again, but let's save the expense of re-noticing And we could also come back to you with the information that we have. You know, I know this is difficult to belabor this conversation all the time, but it's very helpful. And I think, you know, it's unfortunate that we don't have any members of the public here tonight. because I think there are people who are very interested in this topic. I should also let Ms. Goble chime in. |
| 03:48:17.89 | Heidi | THANK YOU, MARY. AND I'D LIKE TO ACTUALLY ECHO MARY'S COMMENTS. depending on the level or the quality of diagrams, we could see if we could work internally with our Department of Public Works staffing, or we could potentially expend some professional services dollars to have something a little bit more prepared but um so we are limited we have you know one planning staff member and myself where we're trying to balance both long range and current planning we could definitely try I think it is best that we do continue this to that April 6th meeting and then we'll work hard to get the information but if not we may have to push it back to the next April meeting Thank you. |
| 03:49:06.52 | Kristina Feller | Okay, appreciate that. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 03:49:09.33 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Sheriff. You know, let's back up for a second. And really this meeting has been extraordinarily helpful for me to get my head around. |
| 03:49:09.58 | Heidi | Sure. |
| 03:49:09.82 | Kristina Feller | like, |
| 03:49:16.57 | Andrew Junius | some of the issues. One of the things we're really struggling with here is that SB9 is definitely a one size fits all. you know, for flat cities with square lots, rectangular lots, make it easy. you know, and we just aren't back. Right. And so I think we should let's keep thinking about this between now and the next meeting. because expending a bunch of money on examples of, one-of-a-kind lodge, which every lot in Sausalito up the hill seems to be a one-of-a-kind lodge. for all. octagons with I mean, literally every lot up here is different. So I'm not sure if you're going to have a variety of different frontages. I think we should be maybe thinking more holistically about how to either just pull a lot of this stuff out and try to give some you know, again, kind of more holistic general policy guidance as to how the surveyor and the staff is supposed to deal with this. because some of these, as Jeffrey was really pointing out really nicely, Some of these things are just not going to be We are never going to do that. It's a little bit like the objective view standards we're working on. with such a variety of different fact patterns and physical situations we have to deal with We're not Bakersfield, right? We are Sausalito and we have curvy roads And you know, every lot's different. So I think we should accept that and not try to, you know, do something that might be impossible. and spend a bunch of energy and a bunch of staff time that's really limited right now. to try to do that, it's really going to be hard. |
| 03:50:46.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would suggest that we not, I mean, I wouldn't focus on nice graphics. I would just focus on take a typical lot and look at the language and see how it works. I mean, and do a sketch. I mean, I wouldn't, we just need to understand how the language applies. And also from a technical point of view, Mary, do we have, we haven't opened this up to public here. We have to do that, don't we? |
| 03:51:10.07 | Mary Wagner | We have not, I don't think you have anybody here. |
| 03:51:10.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:51:10.20 | Unknown | We're not. |
| 03:51:13.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But we still have to do it, though. Thank you, Commissioner. So that we can continue. |
| 03:51:15.57 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:51:16.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:51:18.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just made a right into you. |
| 03:51:18.71 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:51:20.04 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:51:20.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:51:20.26 | Mary Wagner | RELATED. |
| 03:51:20.88 | Kristina Feller | Wow. |
| 03:51:22.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:51:22.82 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:51:22.82 | Kristina Feller | I apologize. You had a comment as well, Mary? |
| 03:51:26.69 | Mary Wagner | I just wanted to say, Chair Feller, that I think the direction of maybe focus a little bit more on modifications to the objective standards that have been proposed would also be super useful. In diving through these and walking through examples with the commission, it's clear that those ones about frontage and square lots and right angles just don't work in Sausalito. I'm wondering, and this is going to be a budget issue that we would have to work through, but you know, if Bob Brown has a little bit of time to maybe look at what was proposed, maybe pull from the objective design and development standards that you guys have been working on. And we might not even need these. We might not need SB9 specific objective standards you know if there are objective standards that are being developed that would apply anyway that would be helpful so i think you know i think unfortunately we're we're learning that the ones that we've pulled in are more applicable to a more typical subdivided community not to a community like sausalito i would suggest that we look at other jurisdictions, but frankly, none of them are this far along. You know, not the Tiburon or another jurisdiction. San Francisco is really far along, but pulling, you know, graphics from other jurisdictions like that aren't going to be useful or helpful. So I think, you know, kind of a redirect to look at some down and dirty graphics, if you will. You know, like what does it kind of actually look like? Maybe if Ms. Scoville has time, you know, she and I can put our heads together, maybe with Mr. Brown to try and noodle through what would actually make sense. And if the commission has anything that you're concerned about, you know, as you think about this SB nine world, that would be helpful too. Like we really need to address blah, you know, whatever it is that, that you're concerned about, that would be helpful. And we don't only have one more bite of the apple. The idea was to get it to the council on April 26th, but if that's not possible, then it won't be possible. But I think we can make a heroic effort to keep this moving I will also tell you, I think we've had one serious inquiry about SB9 and a few other just questions, but there's not a huge line at the door. |
| 03:53:48.94 | Kristina Feller | All right, I appreciate that very much. Commissioner Saad, I wanted to give you a chance. I know you had some comments. |
| 03:53:56.93 | Nastassya Saad | Well, you know, I won't belabor this now. And I think, um, I think you guys asked them a lot of the questions I had. And I really, um, I didn't know what a flag law was. I learned that this evening. Um, so all very helpful. I, I just want, there's one thing that's sticking out to me and it's, it's quite specific, but, um, I think it is on Page five. A minimum of one off street parking space shall be provided on each parcel. I'm just like the practicality of OF THAT. Is that language, is what isn't highlighted SB9 language or is everything open to some edits? |
| 03:54:42.32 | Mary Wagner | So you can't require more than one off street parking space, but you could waive that off street parking space requirement. Again, if you're within a certain distance of a transit hub, as that term is defined, or if you're within a block, I think of it as a car share program, we can't require an on-site parking off street parking space. So you can require up to one, you can't require more than one, but you could require less. It will suggest that this was a huge issue on the ADU regulations. early on. And then the ADU. statutes became tighter about what parking you could require. Um, So parking is definitely a hot button. RIGHT. |
| 03:55:28.29 | Nastassya Saad | And then just in general, like moving forward, would it be appropriate like to be in just in a more organized fashion to send I mean, I took a lot of notes here and I have some edits. Would that be helpful ahead of time if we were to email directly to staff so you guys can email us? kind of collate all that, or would that be a bombardment It would not be. |
| 03:55:50.85 | Mary Wagner | It would not be a bombardment. It'd be greatly appreciated. But what we would have to do is collect your individual comments, bring them back to the planning commission, identify who commented on what, |
| 03:55:53.78 | Nastassya Saad | but what we would have to do is |
| 03:56:01.87 | Mary Wagner | And then you have the benefit of then walking through all of that collective wisdom as a commission. Sure. And any questions in advance are always greatly appreciated. |
| 03:56:08.85 | Nastassya Saad | AND ANY QUESTIONS? Thank you. |
| 03:56:11.50 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:56:11.72 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:56:11.81 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:56:12.09 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I think, I don't know if we're all in agreement there because it would be kind of easy to sit down with a pen and paper and go through this and then maybe get some stuff ahead of time back to staff. That's going to be my point. |
| 03:56:22.03 | Mary Wagner | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:56:22.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:56:22.91 | Mary Wagner | LIKE, |
| 03:56:23.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:56:23.70 | Mary Wagner | I'm also happy to circulate Word versions of documents if that would be helpful. That actually would be really helpful. I'd love to take you up on that. |
| 03:56:32.60 | Kristina Feller | That'd be great. Thank you for doing that. Mary. |
| 03:56:37.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I make a quick comment about Commissioner Saad's comment about the parking. It would be helpful, and I don't want to add to CBD stuff given staffing issues, but it would be helpful to get a map |
| 03:56:37.25 | Kristina Feller | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:56:49.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of Sausalito that shows what areas in the single family zones, but also for the ADUs and stuff, are covered by buses, because there's a bus up on Spencer and there's a bus on Bridgeway, and a good part of the city is going to get covered by that. And if that could be mapped at some point, we would know how much of it's not covered. It also has to do with the city be you have to be able to get there it can't be just geographic some of the things are one way you have to you have to measure the the 500 feet from actual travel distance but there should be a way to map that is what i'm suggesting at some point you might cover most of the time and the issue will go away so |
| 03:57:31.44 | Mary Wagner | CHAIRFILLER. the time. |
| 03:57:36.71 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, so we'd have to walk through these definitions of what a high quality transit corridor is and what a major transit stop is. I think the ferry landing, I believe qualifies. whether a bus stop on Bridgeway or up on Spencer Wood, we'd have to look into that. I thought we had done some of this mapping back in the ADU days, but I don't think we've been able to locate that, unfortunately. We'll keep working. |
| 03:58:01.80 | Heidi | We'll keep working. Yeah, we haven't been able to find it yet and the one thing that we did find is that on marine maps we there is a layer where you can click on the transit stops and then there are some measuring tools. But that's another program that we can work with marine maps on. Okay. |
| 03:58:21.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:58:22.49 | Mary Wagner | May I, Chair Feller, ask a question? Or would you like to start wrapping this up? So would that information be useful so that you can identify where you cannot require a parking space or would it, would it, |
| 03:58:26.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to start wrapping this up. |
| 03:58:37.59 | Mary Wagner | inform the Commission's decision about recommending to the Council that they not require on-site parking Period. Or both? |
| 03:58:47.50 | Mary Wagner | I would say. |
| 03:58:47.97 | Nastassya Saad | both. |
| 03:58:49.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, I think we should require parking unless it's within the fair. So I think we should require it. So it probably isn't going to change what we do, but it would be helpful because this keeps coming up to know how much of the city is covered by that. so that we know that We can't require it and we shouldn't be even thinking about it. |
| 03:59:12.56 | Mary Wagner | It'd be good information for the public to have two Commissioner Luxembourg |
| 03:59:16.07 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Yes, definitely. Okay, are there any other questions at this time? Yes, Commissioner Graff. |
| 03:59:25.60 | Richard Graef | regarding visual aids, I would really promote that. And I think real simple diagrams are easy to make and they can almost be freehand, but they're talking Um, their visual talking cues And I would, |
| 03:59:45.77 | Seth | Thank you. |
| 03:59:45.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:59:48.87 | Richard Graef | Definitely. support the idea of having as much of that visual Um, information as possible. I know it helps me a lot. And I'm sure it helps the public a lot. because it's very difficult to understand some of these discussions when you're not looking at |
| 04:00:03.84 | Seth | Sorry. |
| 04:00:08.75 | Richard Graef | some kind of a diagram or a map. So yes, please. |
| 04:00:15.75 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, I think at this time, I'd like to ask the public if they would like to comment on this particular item, item 6B. If you could please raise your hand in the Zoom application or press star nine if you are calling in from the cell phone. for anyone's at home and wants to switch to Zoom. Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment on this item and try to finalize this and look for a motion to continue to a date certain and Heidi could you remind us of that date again April April 6th April 6th |
| 04:01:04.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll make that motion and we move to a date certain of April 6th. |
| 04:01:04.79 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 04:01:05.03 | Andrew Junius | I LIKE THAT. |
| 04:01:08.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:01:08.86 | Andrew Junius | Second. I'm sorry. Commissioner Saad seconded for that one. |
| 04:01:11.19 | Nastassya Saad | I'll second for that one. |
| 04:01:12.49 | Andrew Junius | . I beat you to it. |
| 04:01:15.81 | Nastassya Saad | I am nanosecond. |
| 04:01:17.13 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:01:17.23 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 04:01:17.60 | Andrew Junius | But, |
| 04:01:19.39 | Heidi | THE END OF THE END OF THE Could you kindly call the roll? Commissioner Graff? |
| 04:01:25.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:01:26.14 | Heidi | Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 04:01:27.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 04:01:28.38 | Heidi | Commissioner Saad? |
| 04:01:30.04 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 04:01:30.14 | Heidi | Vice Chair Junius. |
| 04:01:31.13 | Heidi | you Thank you. |
| 04:01:31.50 | Andrew Junius | it. |
| 04:01:31.74 | Heidi | Fairfeller. Thank you. |
| 04:01:33.63 | Heidi | Yes. |
| 04:01:34.04 | Heidi | Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. |
| 04:01:39.23 | Kristina Feller | Great. Perfect. |
| 04:01:41.16 | Mary Wagner | Thank you all for your input. |
| 04:01:42.44 | Kristina Feller | PUT. Thank you. Yeah, no, thank you very much for the presentation and more to come. So that is the end of our evening. So I'd like to... |
| 04:01:53.83 | Andrew Junius | Move to adjourn. |
| 04:01:55.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. All in favor. |
| 04:01:58.17 | Andrew Junius | Hi. |
| 04:02:00.16 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you, everybody. Thanks, guys. Nice to see you. |
| 04:02:01.22 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Good discussion. Thanks, everybody. |
| 04:02:02.99 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, bye. |
| 04:02:05.71 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |