| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.05 | Kristina Feller | Let everybody in. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:00:06.61 | Robin Lebandahl | it. |
| 00:00:22.48 | Maria | Mayor Feller, everybody is in. and I hand it over to you. |
| 00:00:26.76 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Thank you so much, Maria. Welcome everybody. Good evening and welcome to the regular planning commission meeting for Wednesday, May 4th. I'd like to call this meeting to order. and ask for our interim director from community development, Dan Hortert to please take the roll call and provide some direction to all members of the public. Bye. |
| 00:00:51.97 | Dan | Let me So I have a couple of things first. Let me, let me go over the COVID. Good evening Chair, Fellow and Planning Commissioners. This meeting is being held pursuant to government code section 54953E. And in light of the declared state of emergency, the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 4th, 2022 will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website. And with that, I'll call to order. Commissioner Graff. Yeah. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yeah. Commissioner Saad. here? Vice Chair Junius. Yeah. Chair Feller. Yeah. We have a forum. |
| 00:01:35.75 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much. The next item on our agenda is approval of the agenda. I have any comments just by show of hands from any commissioner. If not, I will take a motion to approve. room. SECOND. Thank you. |
| 00:01:52.87 | Dan | Thank you. to the director of our target? Commissioner Graff, Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg? Yes. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:02:00.82 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:02:01.73 | Dan | Vice Chair Junius. Thank you. Chair Feller? Motion carried. Thank you. |
| 00:02:08.40 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Moving on to item three, this is public comments on any items not on the agenda this evening. And to do so, could I again ask Director Horcher to provide a little bit of direction to the public on how to raise their hand in Zoom application. |
| 00:02:25.70 | Dan | Yes, I can. 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 recludes 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 be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, Please raise your hand in the Zoom application and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when time has elapsed. Thank you. |
| 00:03:14.16 | Kristina Feller | Thank you director. I'm just looking for any raised hands in the audience at the moment. We have a couple people that have just arrived. Maria, if you can let them in. This is the time for public comment. We encourage any member of the public to please bring any items to our attention. that are not on the agenda or any items that they are seeing in our community I am not seeing any raised hands at this time. So I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. and move on to item number four, communications. Dr. Horcher. |
| 00:03:53.63 | Dan | Chair Feller, members of the commission, we do not receive any general public comments with this agenda. |
| 00:03:59.57 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Any updates from staff to the commission, either from community development or from our city attorney's office? |
| 00:04:10.39 | Dan | Yes, Chair Feller from the community development department, I'd like to inform the commission that we have contracted two consulting planners from 418, the same firm that I've contracted with to help assist the department with their burdenless workload and hopefully work with the planning commission to get some of these projects through and on their way. |
| 00:04:37.07 | Kristina Feller | Excellent, thank you so much. |
| 00:04:40.17 | Mary Wagner | And nothing from the city attorney's office. |
| 00:04:42.69 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you very much. There are probably a couple report outs from subcommittees or working groups from the commission. I'll go ahead and call on each commissioner and we can give updates on those working groups, subcommittees you're involved with or any other items. Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to start us off? |
| 00:05:03.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure, we have on our agenda tonight and that's the nine this conversation in continuation of the public hearings. information at that time. on |
| 00:05:14.97 | Matthew Mandich | I believe the city council has in its future agenda, May 9th date, but I don't know if it's actually making it to that agenda. We may have more information on that than I do. |
| 00:05:27.02 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you for that. Regarding parklets, I'm not sure. when the city council is hearing that, but just for the benefit of the public, and everybody here on March 11th, a working group, which consisted of Commissioner Luxembourg, myself, members of Saucelida Beautiful, Community Development and Public Works did issue a full report and recommended program for parklets for the city and that was issued to the mayor and the city council and to date we have not received any further feedback. So that is the issue regarding parklets just for clarification. Thank you for your work, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Frye. |
| 00:06:11.97 | Dan | Yeah. |
| 00:06:12.19 | Kristina Feller | you Thank you. |
| 00:06:12.48 | Dan | Yeah. |
| 00:06:12.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:06:12.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:13.54 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:06:13.56 | Dan | I was going to comment. I believe that's going May 10th. and myself and Kevin McGowan from the Department of Public Works are supposed to be working together on that but I would very much appreciate if that that report were to be forwarded to the Community Development Department for review as well. |
| 00:06:30.40 | Kristina Feller | as possible. |
| 00:06:30.42 | Dan | as possible. |
| 00:06:31.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:06:31.80 | Dan | I don't know. |
| 00:06:31.95 | Kristina Feller | Certainly I will make sure that it is, it's, |
| 00:06:32.38 | Dan | I WOULD LIKE TO BE A |
| 00:06:37.13 | Kristina Feller | made available to you. |
| 00:06:38.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:39.67 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:06:44.83 | Richard Graef | you |
| 00:06:45.03 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 00:06:45.22 | Richard Graef | TO REPORT. |
| 00:06:45.93 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:06:49.22 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller. So for the housing element, we had a meeting on April 25th. We went over the community stakeholder survey. We received all the results. There were quite a few results. 612 came in, 162 from the property owners. We did review some more site selections at that last meeting, and there were some discussions. We received a lot of public comment prior to that meeting, which was... We did review some more site selections at that last meeting. And there were some discussions. We received a lot of public comment prior to that meeting, which was really great to see. So we're hoping to have all members of the public continue to write in to the HEAC address before our next meeting, which is on May 23rd. But most importantly, that call out our second town hall is going to be on May 9th at 6 PM. Thank you. but most importantly that call out our second town hall is going to be on May 9th at 6 PM. I found it already on the city website so it can register for the virtual meeting. It's going to be on zoom and I am not sure if it's going to come out in the current. I imagine it will, it did for the previous town hall, but that is this May 9th again at 6 PM. And the seventh meeting on the 23rd at the end of the month we're going to continue to discuss site selection and affirmatively furthering their housing and those components that will make up our housing element. Did I forget anything, Chair Feller? |
| 00:08:17.10 | Kristina Feller | I want to thank you for all your hard work on the housing element. It is a heavy lift. and it certainly affects everybody here in the community so just want to reaffirm what Commissioner Sada has already said the public comment that we've been receiving is outstanding It's exactly what this committee needs. We continue to get public comment We're looking forward to more public comment. It has absolutely shaped what the HEAC has done so far, which is the Housing Element Advisory Committee. So please make your opinions known, your voice heard. we really do welcome that. It really is critical. So thank you. And thank you, Commissioner Saad. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:09:00.25 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Fuller. The objective design committee is, there has been work, the consultant's been busy, and you and I have a report, we're in the process of reviewing, draft of some of the consultants work on moving the Thank you. objective standards forward and we're meeting on Monday. So hopefully by the next meeting, we'll have even more to report. Thank you. |
| 00:09:20.75 | Kristina Feller | Right. Thank you and thank you for your work on that. Lastly, I will just report that city manager, Chris Zapata has approached me and the mayor and vice mayor and have asked that I give an update. to the city council on Tuesday, May 10th. of the Planning Commission. I've been asked to give a 10-minute presentation. Um, And I suspect most of that will be our priority list for funding. and hopefully secure a joint hearing, which has been over two years that Planning Commission and City Council have not, met together which is very unusual and hopefully we can look forward to that in the future. With all this new state legislation, there's quite a lot to discuss. And it's important that we strategize and work together for the best of Sausalito. That's all I have to report out. So, I think at this time, unless any commissioners have any additional points to raise, I'm going to go ahead and open this up for public comment. To do so, you can raise your hand in the Zoom application, or you can press star nine on your cell phone. And again, yes, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:10:38.31 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, I didn't want to interrupt you, but is there anything that you may need from us, Chair Feller, for that presentation? |
| 00:10:44.83 | Kristina Feller | There could be, but because I got such a late notice for this and it was not on the agenda this evening, we won't be discussing it openly here. but I will be asking staff to issue a one-way communication to the commission to, to pull your comments together and your thoughts as well. Unfortunately, we have to use that rather than a public hearing to share those ideas. Sure. Thank you. Okay, so I'm looking for public comment on item number four, communications. If any member of the public would like to make public comment on this item, please raise your hand in the Zoom application or star nine on your cell phone. I am just looking for raised hands. I see none. I will go ahead and close public comment and let's move on to item number five. which is the approval of meeting minutes. I'm not sure we received meeting minutes, Director. |
| 00:11:44.07 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:11:44.12 | Dan | Okay. |
| 00:11:44.97 | Dan | Yeah. Chair Feller, what had happened is our minute taker was ill the first couple of days after the meeting. And then when she tried to view it, there was probably, I guess there's been problems with the recordings from whether it was the HEAC or the council things or so forth. So she had problems, Serge fixed it. She was able to do it, but by the time she got them through the agenda was already published. So I'll get them on for sure next week. |
| 00:12:12.12 | Kristina Feller | Okay, all right, very well. Then we will move past item number five, since there is nothing to report or discuss there and no motion to take. And let's move on into item number six, which is the public hearing items. Director Hortert, do you want to go ahead and start with our first item? |
| 00:12:30.38 | Dan | Well, I first want to say that this is time for any commissioners to declare any ex parte communication. Are we having them? |
| 00:12:36.81 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Let's see, Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:12:39.88 | Nastassya Saad | No, nothing to declare, just a note that I did visit the site and speak with Mr. Couture and the applicant. They did give me a tour, but we did not discuss the merits of the project. |
| 00:12:52.62 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Graff? Thank you. |
| 00:12:55.71 | Richard Graef | No, it's Harte Communications. |
| 00:12:58.36 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:13:00.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I had smart communications, but I did visit 253 Glen with the architect, the architect contractor and the homeowner. And I also visited 255 Glen where the owner's mother allowed me access to their rear panel, but I did not. discuss the project with them at all. |
| 00:13:20.16 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you very much. Vice Chair Junius? |
| 00:13:23.55 | Andrew Junius | no expert a communications |
| 00:13:25.49 | Kristina Feller | THANK YOU. I also have no ex parte communication to declare, but I do want to state for the record that I did visit 253 Glen and 255 Glen. |
| 00:13:37.76 | Dan | Okay. Thank you, Chair Feller and commissioners. The first public hearing item is 253 Glen Drive, changes to an approved project. Adam East, the system planner will present. Excellent. |
| 00:13:51.66 | Kristina Feller | Welcome, Adam. |
| 00:13:53.27 | Adam Blair | Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Chair Feller. I'm going to share my screen in just a moment. |
| 00:14:01.98 | Adam Blair | And please let me know if you're able to see my screen. |
| 00:14:04.95 | Kristina Feller | We are. Yes. |
| 00:14:05.03 | Adam Blair | Thank you. Okay. Thank you all. The request before you tonight is at 253 Glen Drive is a request for a changes to an approved project The project ID number is 2021-00348. |
| 00:14:21.85 | Adam Blair | The applicant for the project is Scott Couture, who is the architect on behalf of the owners, Rich and Robin Lebandahl. And again, this is a request for proposes to a previously approved designer view permit. And that original permit number is 2019-0063. I've included a location photo here. You'll notice the parcel for 253 Glen The owners also own the parcel to the south, which is 241 Glen. And although hard to see here, you'll notice that the residence is located more towards the rear of the lot which I will describe just here in a moment. So for existing conditions, again, this home is located on an uphill sloping site. It is in a single family residential zoning district. It is on a larger lot size, which is 17,785 square feet. And the home is 2,592 square feet. And again, the residence is located towards the rear of that lot. with a steeply sloped driveway and retaining walls going down to Glenn Drive. So I've included some site photos to get some context and some of you were able to visit the site. So thank you for doing that. And I apologize for the sun flare here. um, The photo on the right shows the view not from the street, but from one of the lower portions of the driveway. So you can see, get a sense of the slope of the site, as well as the visibility of the home from that angle. You can see with the steep slope site and the retaining walls, the home is not significantly visible from the street. Additional photos, I did conduct a site visit myself last November. when this project was originally conceived. The architect invited me onto the site in the area where the proposed deck may be. I was inspecting for any view and privacy impacts at that time. The photo on the left. You can see here the structure at 241 Glen, which is again owned by the applicants at 253 Glen. And the photo on the right here is a view looking towards the north, towards the property at 255 Glen. and I'm aware that there was additional public comment submitted so thank you for submitting those additional photos for 255 Clinton as well but you can see in these photos that The home at 255 Glen is screened by existing vegetation on site. And I did include a slide for project history. The permit number for the building permit is from 2017. So although this project has a long history, I've just included some of the more recent events related to the planning commission approval So in December of 2019, the planning commission approved the design review permit for this project. There was a request made in 2020 for changes to an approved project. and that was approved in September of 21. by the CDD director at that time. So I've included a list here a summary of what those changes included. There's a provision in the ordinance, I believe it's section 10-50-180 for changes to the approved project that allows the CDD director to approve minor changes if it meets certain criteria. And I don't have those included in the slide, but I'd be happy to look those up. and share my screen to show those as well. The director at that time reviewed the scope of work and did approve that scope Um, And I did include those plans. They were dated, I believe, from 2020. So those were included as a late addition to the agenda packet. So the current request, is 2021-00348. And the current request includes changing the existing low slope shingle roof on a second floor to a flat deck with railing. And the proposed deck and railing are proposed to match the approved design of the lower decking. removing three east wall windows and replaced with two front door or two doors on the second floor I do have elevation plans on the next slide so we can again look over these. Um, The project would also add three double hung windows to the basement level of that east elevation, which is the front elevation of the structure with the window designed to match the approved windows in the rest of the house. And a parapet is proposed to replace railing. It would not increase the height. from what was previously approved as far as the railing height, And it would be located in that same area as that railing. And then as far as skylight revisions, the applicant proposes to remove one skylight, add another skylight, and then relocate two skylights, which would overall create a net decrease in that area of skylights on the structure. and then one window located along the north elevation facing the adjacent property to 255 Glen is proposed for removal. So this is a slide that shows The originally approved by the planning commission. Those plans are dated July 11th of 2019 located on the left side and the proposed plans dated December of December 6 2021 are located on the right So there are three main areas to note here. One is at the second floor where there's the proposed deck which would replace the roofing. The windows, as you can tell, would be changed to two sets of doors which would match the overall scale of the second floor glazing or the but yes the second full glazing and the rail design would match the approved previously approved decking as well. And then at the basement level, you will notice the proposed addition of three windows as well. And again, these are not visible from the street. and scarcely visible from the adjacent properties as well in their current location. And I can show you the site plan as well. I can go back to that on the first slide. So you'll note here on the site plan, the areas of proposed changes as well. So this is the area of the, previously approved low slope roof and that is where the applicant proposes to install that second floor decking in that same location. This shows the location of Skylight And this shows the location of the parapet, which would replace the previous railing. |
| 00:20:33.88 | Adam Blair | So when evaluating the design permit findings and staff is included in the staff report, a summary, as well as a full response in the draft resolution. But to summarize, staff does believe that the proposed changes meet the required findings to be approved. I'm not sure. including Uh, The overall scale and location of the structure will remain in the same location. The proposed changes will not change the bulk of the structure. It will not affect the Um, It will not impact light or air to adjacent properties, and it will not cause a view impact for surrounding properties. And that's due to the orientation of the existing structures on site and the topography on site. Again, the deck will be located in the same location as the previously approved low slope roof. um, And in regards to privacy, again, there is vegetative screening, which screens the abutting home at 255 Glen. The neighbors do have a patio towards the rear of their lot. which is visible from the previously approved windows. So staff believes that while the addition of a deck would increase the viewable areas from the master bedroom from the homeowners of 253 Glen. It does not unreasonably affect the privacy to the adjacent properties. beyond what was previously approved with the previous window locations. So staff does recommend approval of a resolution to approve these changes. And that concludes. the staff presentation. |
| 00:22:07.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Adam. Outstanding presentation. Thank you for all your hard work with this applicant. to walk us through what was approved, what some of those administrative changes and ministerial changes were to what we're looking at today. So thank you very much for that. Okay, this is a time for commissioners to ask any questions of staff. Commissioner Saad, let's go ahead and start with you. |
| 00:22:32.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. Thank you, Adam. Great presentation. I do have a couple of questions for clarification. that hopefully we can all get on the same page with. So in the staff, Report. THE first change that was approved in 2021. So I think that's 2020-00187 that was mentioned. Do we know after the approval if those changes were constructed? Has that been confirmed that those are part of the plans? |
| 00:23:14.48 | Adam Blair | Sorry, I had to unmute myself there. The typical process is that the building inspectors on site conduct inspections routinely on different portions of the work. planning will typically do a final inspection upon completion of the project and that's to confirm compliance with the previously approved plans and conditions. in this particular project, The building inspector did post a stop work order for this portion of the project in regards to the framing modifications. So typically, If there are any deviations from previously approved plans that is noticed by the building inspectors as they are doing their inspections on site. |
| 00:23:58.10 | Nastassya Saad | So then for the current change to the approved project, which is, the one that we're going to discuss tonight. Is that the one that had the stop order? Sorry, just for clarification there. |
| 00:24:11.70 | Adam Blair | Yes so a stop work order was posted in March of this year and that was for the work at the second story with the framing for the doors as well as the windows as well. Okay. Yes. |
| 00:24:24.90 | Nastassya Saad | So just in that beginning of the staff report and the project background for final clarification, it does say that, It was submitted in December of 2021. So while originally reviewed, you know, pursuant to 1050, all that good stuff. It was never actually approved ministerially at that time. Is that correct? Thank you. |
| 00:24:49.87 | Adam Blair | Thank you for that clarifying question. As I mentioned, The way that the ordinance is written, it does provide staff the opportunity to administratively approve projects. That is the process that we had initially proceeded down. Upon being notified of a noticing error, the director reevaluated the scope of the project and determined that this project should go before the original granting authority due to the scope of changes that were being proposed. |
| 00:25:15.51 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay, thank you, that helps me a lot. That's all I have, Chair Feller, thank you. |
| 00:25:20.08 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you. Uh, commissioner Graff. |
| 00:25:23.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:25:23.69 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 00:25:23.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:25:23.96 | Kristina Feller | No question. Okay. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 00:25:28.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Powell. Adam, as always, a very succinct report. It was well done. No questions at this time, sure. |
| 00:25:36.82 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:25:39.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:25:39.89 | Andrew Junius | No questions. Thank you, Sheriff. |
| 00:25:41.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Adam, I just had a couple of questions for you. And I think commissioner Saad answered some of them. There were a couple attachments to the staff report One of them was from November 8th, which is the SAZEN, DESIGN. And those, those were a list of proposed changes. And again, just for clarity and forgive me for asking again, |
| 00:26:09.95 | Patricia Elton | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:26:10.89 | Kristina Feller | everything in that letter. was ministerially approved. Is that correct? |
| 00:26:17.47 | Adam Blair | That is my understanding. That's the application that we have on file and our records indicate that that application was approved I believe in September of 21. |
| 00:26:26.06 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, great. And then just a quick clarification. what they're calling the basement level, which is the gym area. just, Confirmed to me that that has always been there and that was always intended to function as a gem. or is that additional square footage? |
| 00:26:51.74 | Adam Blair | So Chair Feller, I apologize. I do not have the answer to that question. We do have the architect on the project on the call as well and he may be able to answer that question |
| 00:27:01.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Yeah. No problem. That sounds good. Okay. Um, okay. I think those are my questions for you at this time. So appreciate that so much, Adam. I think at this point it's best to invite the applicant, the applicant team, up here to give their presentation. So I don't know if that is the Lavendoves, Scott Couture, there you are. or anybody else, let's see, Richard Lavendez has raised his hand. Unmute the Lavendovs and Mr. Couture. And Scott, I'm assuming you're going to need to share your screen. as well. |
| 00:27:48.33 | Scott Couture | Yes, I am. |
| 00:27:49.56 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And, Let's see, Maria, if you could confirm that we have the timer available So, for the applicant team you have 15 minutes to make your presentation regarding the project in front of us this evening. can. slice and dice that time however you like between the full applicant team. if you would like to save time for Any rebuttal after public comment, you're welcome to do that as well, but you'll have to manage your own time. Hopefully you can see our timer clock if you are looking at a tiled screen here. So I will hand it over. to you and have we unmuted Mr. Levendorf There we go. You're unmuted now. |
| 00:28:37.30 | Patricia Elton | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:28:39.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:28:39.12 | Patricia Elton | Bye. |
| 00:28:39.59 | Kristina Feller | So, Over to you, the floor is yours. |
| 00:28:43.14 | Scott Couture | Thank you. All right, thank you Chair Feller. Thank you Adam for that great presentation. I would like to start a screen share. |
| 00:29:05.92 | Kristina Feller | Are you able to share your screen? |
| 00:29:08.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:08.32 | Dan | I'm sorry. |
| 00:29:09.78 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Maria, if you could, behind the scenes, just confirm. that Mr. Couture is co-hosted so he can share his screen. We have stopped the clock just so you know. |
| 00:29:21.36 | Scott Couture | Bye. |
| 00:29:21.60 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Chair Feller, Scott is co-hosted. |
| 00:29:23.57 | Maria | Thank you, Madam. |
| 00:29:26.81 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, thank you, Maria. |
| 00:29:44.93 | Kristina Feller | So you should be able to share screen |
| 00:29:48.76 | Scott Couture | Yeah, that's like following up. I apologize for that. |
| 00:29:49.36 | Kristina Feller | pulling out to that. |
| 00:29:57.52 | Kristina Feller | Um, Does Adam have your presentation? |
| 00:30:04.69 | Adam Blair | Does not. I do not share, but Scott, if you want to send it to me, I can also do that as well. |
| 00:30:30.39 | Scott Couture | All right, Adam, I did send it to your email. |
| 00:30:32.89 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:30:33.80 | Scott Couture | This is right. It's got it. |
| 00:30:35.66 | Kristina Feller | for. |
| 00:30:35.93 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 00:30:44.84 | Kristina Feller | So for anybody who is listening at home through the website and not here on Zoom, we are just having a technical matter to get a share screen here, if you could bear with us. Um, The hearing is still going forward. We're just troubleshooting some technical matters. So please, please bear with us. |
| 00:31:12.80 | Kristina Feller | So Adam, let us know if you have leave that. |
| 00:31:16.85 | Adam Blair | I have received and I'm going to share my screen now. Okay. Thank you, Adam. Thank you. Just want to make sure I have the right screen here. |
| 00:31:26.45 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 00:31:31.77 | Kristina Feller | There we go. Okay, so let's go ahead and start the timer, Maria, and Scott, over to you. |
| 00:31:37.86 | Scott Couture | Okay, I'm gonna kind of quickly go through some of the revisions that we've done, I think Adam pointed out where they were in the house. And thank you for that, Adam. |
| 00:31:44.78 | Dan | uh, |
| 00:31:48.27 | Scott Couture | Um, The first kind of revision is adding the three double windows on that lower level, the gym area. These are two divided light wood windows. They do match the rest. I think it'll add some visual relief to what is now a solid wall. From inside, it adds a great deal of natural light and opens it up, opens that room up to bay views and tree views. The second revision is adding the parapet, removing the railing that's over the living room and dining room roof. We believe this kind of simplifies the sort of architectural hodgepodge of the multiple additions. I think it kind of cleans up the elevation a bit. Removing the railing kind of removes the temptation to use this area, this roof as a deck. We've also removed the window that's adjacent to this, which provides easy access to this roof. The skylight revisions, as Adam said, we deleted one, we added one, we moved two others around. And this is really just kind of fine tune the balance of light inside the back part of the house, up in the upper level. The overall net area of the skylights has been reduced. It's very slightly, but it is a reduction. We've also kind of removed the cornerboard trim detailing and done a minor detail for the side end. We feel this will help unify kind of the multiple additions. Again, hodgepodge additions, clean up the architects a little bit. I believe this will kind of elevate the detail of the house and give it a little more elegance. On the porch, we have added a tongue and groove seal into the porch instead of what was originally called as open lafters. Again, I think this will kind of add, elevate the detail of the house. This also kind of disguises a problem we got with sort of a lack of symmetry and alignment that that current hip roof has. It's sort of misaligned to the house. It's sort of misaligned to the three French doors. I'm also proposing to change as Adam said, the porch roof to a deck with a wood rail around it. Again, the deck is the same size, same footprint as the roof is. The deck and rail, I think will create a much more elegant architectural solution than the low sloped roof. Again, it kind of corrects this sort of awkwardness of a kind of misaligned hip roof had on the main part of the house. I believe it'll add a nice strong focal point, sort of an asymmetrical balance using sort of the vertical repetition of the railings. the rapidness around both sides of that sort of prominent front corner of the house where the entry is. But on the deck in the French doors up there, the real value in usefulness is really from the inside the bedroom. Adam, can you go to the next slide? |
| 00:35:02.22 | Scott Couture | So this is the current approved three window arrangements. You can see the view in there. You can see the amount of sunlight that you would get from that. Next slide, Adam. This is the two door scenario that we have and I'm all ducking here. As you can see that there's just dramatic increase in natural light, there's a dramatic increase in the view. It's much more open, much more continuous and much more enjoyable. |
| 00:35:39.32 | Scott Couture | Go to the next slide, Adam. So this is the view from the deck to the south. Next slide, Adam. Thank you. This is to the east and this is sort of the next slide to the northeast. You can see here that this is a very stunning view. This will be the nicest view on site. It adds an incredible amount of value to the property, its usefulness, its enjoyment. |
| 00:35:52.00 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:35:52.24 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 00:36:07.41 | Scott Couture | And as you can see, there are no visible houses from this deck. Put it in the next slide, Adam. To address the concerns of 255 Glam, you did read the submitted materials. Now if you walk around to the north side of the deck, kind of turn around a little bit, this is behind the actual deck, you can see the property at 255 Glam. Well, there's a few things to know. You cannot see the house. The patio that they are concerned with is over 50 feet away and it's a Northwest. The bedroom deck and the view, again, it's facing East, a totally different direction. Also, there's already an existing vine covered fence that screens out nearly all of the Glen property or the Paddy area. The Lebanon's believe that Gina Miguel should be fully able to enjoy their property outdoors and indoors. However, not at the expense of another property also another property owner also enjoying theirs. Both properties should and can have the desired outdoor spaces. The distance between these two spaces provides this. It's well over 50 feet. Existing vine covered fence provides a screen for this. Adam, next slide. |
| 00:37:34.85 | Scott Couture | And then you can kind of continue for the next couple of slides as I speak. This is the front of the house as you go by. This is a very small house. As Adam said, it's only 2,600 square feet. It's one dead row. We've done a lot of plot, almost 1,800 square feet. And from these photos, you can't even see the street. The photos that Adam showed are Um, from I think back in November, as you can see now, that the vegetation, we've planted some vegetation in front of there. Um, and this The house is completely screened off. We feel the request of revisions are very minor in nature. We find that they add a lot of architectural elegance to the home. We still keep the old historical look to it. |
| 00:38:17.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:23.23 | Scott Couture | The added windows in the gym, the added deck, the doors in the bedroom, these all add a significant value in use and experience for $11. And we think it's a very negligible impact to any of the neighbors. And I'll take any questions if you have them. Thank you, Adam, for your assistance. |
| 00:38:45.88 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you so much for the presentation. Let's go ahead and stop the clock. Okay. So I'm going to, note down here. seven minutes and 41 seconds left if you'd like to use that and I don't know if applicant would like to make any statements at this time, or would you like to wait, Mr. Levandock? |
| 00:39:06.64 | Rich Lebandahl | Yeah, I can make a brief statement. Just wanted to introduce myself again to the commission. Thank you for all your. hard work. I didn't know everything was volunteer, but even more thanks for such a volunteering effort. And I'm grateful and thankful that you are considering our application here. And, um, I think that's all I wanted to say. |
| 00:39:33.20 | Kristina Feller | Right. Thank you so much. All right, well, don't go too far, any of you, because now would be the time for the commissioners to ask any clarifying questions of the applicant. So I'm going to go ahead. Let's see, Commissioner Luxenberg, let's go ahead and start. Do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? Oh, you're on mute. |
| 00:39:57.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Farmer. No questions at this time. |
| 00:40:01.92 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. |
| 00:40:03.03 | Nastassya Saad | COMMISSIONER SAGE? |
| 00:40:03.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:40:03.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I think I have one, Chair Feller. So... My questions to Adam at the beginning were because I'm trying to understand the proposed plans that are built versus the original approved design. So, Would just love to have some input there. I don't know if that's for the applicant or for you, Mr. Couture. Can we understand how we, have built a project that's not to the current approved plans. |
| 00:40:41.52 | Scott Couture | Yes, and this is sort of a decision recommendation that I made to move forward with the project. I think as you're all well aware, the planning department has had some significant staffing issues from the last half year and even before that. And when I first took over this project, probably back in summertime last year, there were some additional changes that the Lebanon's wanted to make and some of that we had recommended to take advantage of some of the views and the light and pull the house together, I think a little bit better than the original approval. The original approval came after a little bit of a tumultuous history before that also. When we approached Adam with the revisions that we wanted to make, we did it back in November, November 2nd, submitted some plans to Adam and asked, is this a administrative approval or is this something that needs to go to the planning commission? And to us, it really didn't matter either way how the approval came. and what the process was, but the timing was actually fairly critical is that the project needs to move forward And since it was under construction, since the rains and the winter was coming, we wanted to move the project along fairly quickly. The flat structure you see up there, which looks like a deck is technically still a roof. It is fully permitted and fully inspected. Prior to submitting the plan of approval, we submitted a revision to the roof framing for both the horizontal and vertical structure of the roof to anticipate the potential of being able to turn that into a deck. a little ahead of the plan and application so that we could continue to build the house, move the construction forward. What's critical in a construction process is being able to watertight the building in so that you can move from the outside of the building to the inside of the building. In order to do that, we have to complete the framing. We have to complete the waterproofing, and then we can start to put the sidon on to close the building. Then only then can we get inside and start doing the rough electrical, the rough plumbing, the rough mechanical. So the windows, the three windows in the bottom, the parapet, the two doors up there, All of it is fully engineered. Uh, The architectural plans have been changed. They were submitted for building permit approval in January. This is about the time that the notice of decision, the original notice of decision, decision of proving the project was written At the time, I think we had lost the community development director, the senior planner had gone on leave between now and then. And I think at one point Adam was the only Planner and the planning department. The plans, the application sat dormant. and in an effort to continue the process moving forward, We did framing the doors and windows. and we installed the lower windows in place. If we need to turn that flat area into a roof, it certainly can be done. So add the sloped roof on top of it, and instead of doors, we'll put windows in the same open it's in there. So we have tried to work as best as we can within the system. The system you have there is, it's broken. It's not working properly. It's not serving the residents properly. We would have had to stop construction probably back in January. and let the house sit again. Ms. Foxen's been on for a long time. You know, I've made a best life effort to work with the planning department. The building department is fully aware of everything that's done there, everything that's in place has actually been inspected up through waterproofing. And so that's sort of how we ended up where we are. That's why those windows are in place. you Is this the Parker way to do it? I'm not sure. I've worked in Saucelita for 25 years. I think people know me well enough that we try to do things properly, do it on the upfront, but it takes a community development project that is working to serve the residents. And only it's not, or it hasn't been the last several months. So that's sort of how we ended up where we are. And I apologize for that. |
| 00:45:12.23 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:45:13.57 | Scott Couture | However, I think it's only fair for the residents of Sausalito that their projects can continue to move forward. And there's a lot of emotional and financial repercussions for Um, the community development department that can't process applications. I don't blame staff for it because there was no staff. Staff is not there. I think I'm gonna add it. At one point it was the only one down there. So I hope that kind of answers your question. There's the rationale behind it. |
| 00:45:49.26 | Nastassya Saad | I appreciate the honest answer. That's what I was trying to understand. I think that's my only question at the moment for the applicant, Chair Peller. |
| 00:45:58.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Sun. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:46:07.31 | Kristina Feller | Are you on mute? |
| 00:46:09.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:46:09.59 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Brown? |
| 00:46:13.27 | Richard Graef | Okay, I think there was some glitch. Everything froze up. for a while there. Um, So... you I did have a question, but that was answered. Um... No, I think no significant question. So let's move on. |
| 00:46:37.94 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Graff. Vice-Chair Junius. |
| 00:46:42.77 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:46:42.78 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. A quick question for Mr. Couture. I get the impression you were not the original architect when the project started back in 2019. Correct. And was there a, And that's it. That's all I need to know. Thanks. |
| 00:46:57.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Um, Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. I do have a couple of questions. One I had asked to Adam and maybe you could help answer it. the gym floor plan was the gym there before, cause it wasn't clear on the other, drawings when I looked back and went to the old hearing. Hey, bye. |
| 00:47:19.37 | Scott Couture | Yeah, they, they, the current set of Architectural plans, building perfect plans, do include a gym in there with the bathroom. There are two doors that go in there, finishes that are in there. And as far as I know, that has been in the project |
| 00:47:39.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you for that. |
| 00:47:41.39 | Scott Couture | It is included in the |
| 00:47:41.57 | Kristina Feller | It is. |
| 00:47:45.20 | Scott Couture | the 25 so about 100 square feet. It doesn't have an issue area there. |
| 00:47:49.89 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, great. And I wanted to ask you if you've actually visited 255 Glen. |
| 00:48:00.00 | Scott Couture | I have not. |
| 00:48:01.54 | Kristina Feller | or has the applicant. in the, the upstairs patio area. I think you're right. |
| 00:48:11.55 | Rich Lebandahl | I'll have fun. No, we have not visited on their property. |
| 00:48:17.67 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay, great, thank you. |
| 00:48:19.58 | Rich Lebandahl | But you know. |
| 00:48:21.08 | Robin Lebandahl | No, but we, after receiving notice of their petition, we did go out and we did try to look in their backyard which we never have done before so that is what we tried to see if we could see anything and unable to see a patio. |
| 00:48:39.78 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Thank you. And I note that there were two different neighborhood outreach letters, I think one to 255. Glenn and one sort of the end of your driveway. kind of the driveway of the project, Did you reach out to anybody else, including the homes that sit above this property? |
| 00:49:07.79 | Scott Couture | Yes, we've reached out three times to all the adjacent property owners, including the, there's four properties up on George Lane, two of which are owned by one, the same person. |
| 00:49:24.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:24.70 | Scott Couture | You reached out to all of them. We visited two of them in the homes up on George Lane. The third one in the middle have never reached back out to us. They've never contacted us. |
| 00:49:37.62 | Kristina Feller | Okay, but you reached out to them specifically about this design change. |
| 00:49:41.22 | Scott Couture | Correct. They actually have the same set of plans that I submitted to Adam. |
| 00:49:45.15 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:49:45.42 | Scott Couture | in November. So we reached out there before we contacted the plant department. |
| 00:49:50.47 | Kristina Feller | Great, great, thank you. And then you said something in your presentation regarding these these windows or doors at the master bedroom and that the value is really from inside the bedroom. I actually wrote down what you said. So my question is, |
| 00:50:06.62 | Maria | I'm like, |
| 00:50:06.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:08.62 | Kristina Feller | why would you want to put make a deck there with railings that are going to obstruct the view when clear windows would be the best view if what you're saying is really true. |
| 00:50:22.93 | Scott Couture | Well, the deck, the railing is fairly open and it does, I think, add to the view. I think one of the things that particularly Robin liked about the old house was the sort of funky X-phrase railings, as we call them. Um, the the value that it adds yes it is inside the the room but it's also outside the room too i mean it's very significant when you go out on that that that deck out there that it is you know i've been to a lot of uh you know view windows view decks and social video and this is this is really one of the nicest it's just positioned so nicely on the hillside uh you've got a, very different set of presence sitting up above the treetops. There's no houses below you that you see. And it's a very unique view. Sort of, we've got St. Mary's, or you have the Star of the Sea Church in front of you. It's kind of the center view. You see the waterfront. |
| 00:51:05.05 | Unknown | Awesome. |
| 00:51:16.88 | Scott Couture | You kind of see the hillside up by Spencer and San Carlos. And you just feel like you're sort of sitting in this involved bowl of Sausalito on the hillside, sitting on top of the treetops. It's very different than the experience and the view you get from the porch down below. The porch down below, again, the view is quite nice. And it's also, but you feel a little more sheltered down there. You don't feel like you're sitting up on the precipice. It's a very different experience on that. |
| 00:51:48.15 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 00:51:48.49 | Scott Couture | both the inside and the outside, very, very valuable, both the use, the value of the house, and it's enjoyment. |
| 00:51:58.84 | Kristina Feller | Did you look back at the prior approval and the discussion in the planning commission hearings? We did at one point continue the hearing because there was we were looking for our Historic Preservation Commission to weigh in as well on this property. So I wanna make sure that you understand sort of the context and the history of what led to the initial approval, which was not an easy approval to get And so I wanna understand what is, what is the purpose of these? changes is it because you had a fully functional approved project before that did allow for reasonable enjoyment of the property. So I'm just trying to understand how these changes came about. |
| 00:52:53.12 | Scott Couture | So, I did go back and look at the, you know, the planning commission approval, the hearing of that, and went through that. And it seemed clear to me that, you know, there's really, you know, the architect director did a great job. They took what was, you know, somewhat of a kind of a traditional four square house. It has a bunch of, you know, hodgepodge additions that were placed on it. And within that context, kept some of the funkiness, kept some of the historical nature of it, and I think elevated the house a little bit over the useless of the house, elevated, I think the detail and the standards of the house. as quaint as an old house might be the realities of the original house was that it was very cheaply built the additions in particular it was meant to be an inexpensive house and what i think we've done is we've added sort of another layer of i think elegance to the house you know when it was built uh saslita was a very different place um when all the additions were put on there, Sausalito was a very different place. When all the additions were put on there, again, Sausalito was still a very different place. In the last, you know, decade or two, Sausalito has grown up. It's not an inexpensive place to live. It's quite an expensive place to live. The housing stock around here is growing up. And this house, I think, needed that also. It needed a little more sense of elegance to it. to fit the size of the property in the neighborhood. Some of the decisions made back in 2019, even back in 2017, came out of a fear to make changes because the design review process can be arduous and not always pleasant to go through. And their attempt back then was to try to keep the house the same way as it was because they thought the question would be easier to ask to get the approvals for. My conversations with the Levinas when we first came on the project, there's another architect that lives in Mitchel who's working with me. We do what we normally do in every product is we kind of go through a little bit of a question and answer process, find out what the goals and the desires of the clients. and Not all of them were met with the original approval. You know, there was some, I think a huge missed opportunity not to have. better views from the master bedroom, better access to an outdoor deck from the master bedroom. And that's what we will bring into the table now. We're trying to elevate the house to that, give the Levendorffs more useful projects and something that they enjoy more. |
| 00:55:48.32 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then you would, You had mentioned something when Commissioner Saad was asking her question. about sort of the the iterations if you will and how how you got to a stop work order and what exactly we were looking at sort of the approved project, you know, ministerial changes and then what we're looking at today. So I too very much appreciate your honesty about that. and can appreciate some of your frustration. but I'm not sure that it's fair to completely blame the community development department for for getting as far as you have and and i and i really respect the work you do and and I know you do a lot of work here in Sausalito and I think that the applicant has been thoughtful about this project in in in many ways But please also understand that this is a platform for you or any other member of the community that the planning commission is not part of the planning department, of course, as you know, But, um, We are here, we have a legislative mandate from the state And we're also here to ensure that this community is served properly. We can't manage or solve a problem that we don't know exists. And if you are or anybody else listening at home or on a Zoom call having problems, I just want to use the opportunity to, again, encourage you. to use as a platform to help you get your projects done. That's what we're here for. |
| 00:57:21.11 | Unknown | to the city. |
| 00:57:25.89 | Kristina Feller | We're always going to root for the applicant as it relates to working within the ordinances and municipal codes that we do have. So I just wanna put that out there. and push back just a little bit on you very respectfully, but it's important that we work together on these issues. So I don't have any further questions. Let me just look at my commissioners to see just by show of hands, if there's any anything additional at this time. Okay. Seeing none. What I'd like to do is open this up for public comment. And to do so again, if you could raise your hand in the Zoom application. or press star nine on your cell phones. And I do see one hand raised. And before I call on Ms. Lee, Adam, could you just confirm I believe that we received three Um, three public comment letters on the record. Did we receive any more than that after the cutoff time that you're aware of? |
| 00:58:34.99 | Adam Blair | I do not believe so Chair Fallon. All public comment has been added to the agenda online. |
| 00:58:40.48 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I just wanna make sure that we acknowledge that we have received those and the commissioners have received them and read them. So thank you. for confirming that Adam. Okay, onto public comment. Ms. Lee, I see your hand raised. If you could unmute yourself and share your screen. You have three minutes for public comment, welcome. |
| 00:59:03.17 | Kristina Feller | I think you're unmuted. There we go. |
| 00:59:05.86 | Gina Lee | Okay. Good evening planning commission. My name is Gina Lee and my husband, Miguel Michelle Torrena is also online tonight. And we reside at 255 Glen Drive where we have lived for over 16 years. We wanna begin by thanking you for volunteering your time to the city. We've submitted a letter to you and also invited you to our property. For those who did not have an opportunity to visit, We want to explain that the applicants proposed decks are directly overlooking our primary outside space and outdoor patio where we eat entertain and play with our son. There is no space in our yard that can replicate this outdoor area, which is flat paved and has an expansive view of the bay. As a result, it's used by us on a near daily basis. There are three main points we'd like to get across in our time tonight, privacy, aesthetics, and the adherence to city ordinances. The first and most important objection for us to the proposed plan is the issue of privacy. The proposed wraparound deck on the second level has a direct line of sight to our patio area. Because of the proximity of the home to our property and the height of the deck, there is no vegetation that screens the view. When people are on the deck, it feels as though they are looming over you. Just this past Monday, for instance, my mom and I were planning to have dinner on the patio as it was a lovely evening. However, the applicants and their architect were conducting a lengthy meeting on the proposed wraparound deck. Ultimately, my mom and I opted to eat inside because we felt so uncomfortable, like we were being watched. Feeling that way in my own home felt anything but reasonable. Additionally, we have concerns about the parapet on the side deck that directly faces our yard. While it's stated in the plans that this is not meant to be used as a deck, the architect indicated to us that this was the original plan location for it. We're concerned that a tall parapet in the space will encourage its use as such. The second point I want to make is around aesthetics. In 2019, the planning commission approved a design for the residents and we supported that. At the time, the commission was very concerned about and interested in replicating the property's external appearance. The charming sloped roof over the front porch and the second story double hung windows were specifically called out as complimenting the history of the home. While our concern is less about the aesthetics and more about the privacy impact that results from the second story deck, we want to remind the commission, the staff report recommending approval of the revised project totally ignores considerations previously important to the approval. The third concern that we have is adherence to city ordinances. We do appreciate that your job is to decide a project on its merits. We're also concerned that the commission will be inclined to support the proposed changes simply because they are partially completed. We do not understand how a project can be developed contrary to prior approval and believe that the applicants took their own risk in embarking on a legal construction. For all the factors I've just outlined, most importantly, the violation of our privacy in our primary outdoor living space, we strongly request that the commission deny the revised plan for 253 Glen Drive. Thank you. |
| 01:02:11.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments this evening and for being here. I'm looking for any other hands in the public, any other public comment intended at this time. Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment. If the applicant would like any additional time of their seven minutes, they're welcome to use that now. Otherwise, we will go ahead and move into deliberations. |
| 01:02:46.45 | Kristina Feller | So would the applicant like to- Yeah, I'd just like to kind of make |
| 01:02:46.73 | Scott Couture | Thank you. Yeah, I'd just like to kind of make a brief comment on the privacy issue. |
| 01:02:54.18 | Kristina Feller | Hold on, sorry, forgive me, Scott. Can we please start the clock, Maria? I'm sorry, Scott, go ahead. |
| 01:03:02.53 | Scott Couture | Adam, can you do a screen share and pull up slide 16? Thank you. |
| 01:03:10.04 | Adam Blair | Just give me one moment. |
| 01:03:12.47 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:03:12.50 | Adam Blair | and then, |
| 01:03:12.55 | Scott Couture | Yeah. |
| 01:03:22.42 | Adam Blair | Sorry, Scott, just got to find this document here. |
| 01:03:24.75 | Scott Couture | Not a problem. Appreciate your help on this. supposed to work on my end. |
| 01:03:43.97 | Adam Blair | Okay, let me scroll down to 16. |
| 01:03:51.21 | Scott Couture | So what this slide is showing is, this is a photo that was I think submitted by Ms. Prakas on behalf of |
| 01:04:00.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:04:00.75 | Scott Couture | I'm sorry. |
| 01:04:01.05 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. Scott I'm sorry for doing this again to you. Okay Maria let's start the clock. Okay sorry Scott go ahead. |
| 01:04:08.80 | Scott Couture | Not a problem. This is a photo that was submitted to the public record, I think by the owners of 255 Plain. And what it shows is to the right there, the existing vine covered fence. And this is on the property of 255. They have full control over it. And there's a little dip in the fence and you can, in the vine and fence, and you can kind of see through there now, to give you an idea of scale, I did put some dimensions on here. It's about four feet wide. three feet tall. And there used to be a whole bunch of vegetation on the 253 side of this that prevented the vine from growing. When I first showed up in the project, most of the vine actually, which is kind of dead and woody, and it's now coming back. But if there's a vegetation that goes up to just the current height of that vine and fence, and it's not very high, it's maybe five feet tall. that actually screens out pretty much the whole portions of that debt. Adam, if you can go to the next slide. just to give you an idea of scale of what that area is. So the area highlighted in yellow, that's that sort of three foot by four foot little dip in the existing screen and that's there. If that fills in, then there really is no privacy issue. The distance between two properties is pretty far away. And as you can see, I mean, you recall the view from the deck, it's not over here. It's not towards the rear yard of 255. You can see what you see. You can see a couple of cars parked there. You see the two houses from George Lane that do actually live over both of these properties. So you know we you know we feel that the privacy issue is really not there. We have an open invitation to work with the property owner to create a screen or a fence or or anything there to help promote privacy between both homes because privacy is is a very much a two-way street. The Leven Doves want privacy from their neighbors as the neighbors want privacy from the Leven Doves. I think that it's accomplished here as is. All right, thank you. |
| 01:06:35.36 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Scott. Thank you to the applicant team. Okay. Let's go ahead and. Um, turn this back up to our virtual dais here and start our deliberations at this time. Okay, let's see. Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to start us off? |
| 01:06:59.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. I'm a little torn on this one. |
| 01:07:04.97 | Matthew Mandich | And the proposed deck is 60 feet away from the property line. So it's fairly distant. |
| 01:07:17.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't see any issue with the windows into the gym. I think that makes total sense. The only real issue I see is this, wrap around the deck and |
| 01:07:29.47 | Matthew Mandich | you when you're on the abutting patio, if I think Scott's right, if you fill it in with landscaping, it will block the view. On the other hand, it'll also block sunlight. So that's sort of the downside of filling that in with landscaping. On the applicant side, they could cut the, |
| 01:07:50.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:07:50.25 | Matthew Mandich | and not be a wraparound. They've tried to tie it in with the deck on the first floor, but if they just left it at the edge of the building, |
| 01:07:58.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:07:59.38 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:07:59.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that side of the deck in there, information is submitted. and they said they weren't gonna use that part of the deck And so other than filling out the roof, there was really no reason to have the deck go that far. And I have seen in other places where the decks are set back from the edge of the roof, they don't have to go |
| 01:08:21.97 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:08:22.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the |
| 01:08:22.97 | Matthew Mandich | to do. |
| 01:08:23.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to the actual |
| 01:08:23.96 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:08:24.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | edge of the roof. |
| 01:08:24.98 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:08:25.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | would line up |
| 01:08:25.97 | Matthew Mandich | you |
| 01:08:26.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:08:26.06 | Matthew Mandich | you |
| 01:08:26.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | aesthetically with the column below. So it could be cut back and that would solve some of the problem with the abutters But again, I know, again, this is a distance from the line. So those are the issues I see. I think the deck's the only one |
| 01:08:44.69 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:08:44.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:08:44.97 | Matthew Mandich | is flagged for me. I think all the other changes I think are appropriate. So that's where I am at the moment. |
| 01:08:54.24 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Commissioner Saad? |
| 01:08:59.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:08:59.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I think I'm struggling a little bit for maybe slightly different reasons. I do agree with commissioner Luxenberg that the deck is the most important focus of the project I do think It's an issue that things were built. outside of the scope of the approved plans. just in looking at what is trying to be achieved I don't think that they're, I think it's well designed as a standalone set of plans. but I'm concerned on how we got here as a process. I did visit the I did visit 253. I did not have a chance to visit 255 Glen. So I was not able to stand in their space, but I do think that there is, a concern I think the from the public comment, the term looming, I can understand that feeling, whether or not I highly doubt that the applicant has any intention of looking into that backyard and vice versa. But the feeling alone, I think is important to take into account that a key area of the of the neighbor, um, you know, not feeling comfortable I'm not sure. is part of the plan. I think definitely open to what, Commissioner Luxenberg just said, that was my idea when I was there as well if there's to be a reduction potentially so that there is some compromise here. But I am definitely concerned with the, roof becoming a deck. I also think there was a comment around the window that is facing north that has already been removed, but I believe it's in the proposed set of plans. I think a window and a deck are two very different things. A window facing North, knowing that it's a master bedroom, you can assume somebody is moving in there, but most likely not hanging around and therefore having anything to do with the North facing side towards 255. But a deck does feel very different. So I think they're two totally different things in terms of privacy. I don't think you can compare a window and a master bedroom to a wraparound deck. I'm So a little concerned, but I'd love to hear what my other commissioners think as well. |
| 01:11:33.76 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Grass. |
| 01:11:38.43 | Richard Graef | Thanks. Chair Fella. Um, Well, I share my fellow commissioner's concerns about the process and how Things kind of got moved ahead without benefit of proper approvals. I understand the blog jam, I don't know if it's all, It's still disturbing and, and, um, And I'm not quite sure what to do about that. So, I think generally the design solution is very good. Um, It's good for the property. The building actually kind of looks better. in some ways. Bye. very much concerned about the privacy issue. Um, I was not able to really visit either of the sites while I went by 253 but it was There was construction going on. There was no way to get up there, and I probably couldn't have done it anyway. Um, So... I think from a design standpoint, I don't have any issues. I have the same. Um, thought as Commissioner Luxenberg about the wrap-around deck that the deck doesn't really need to wrap around. architecturally that it works better Um, and the parapet and it all cleans up that whole side However, I think the wrap around portion in my mind is an issue. I think, uh, I, I, I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not quite ready to make all the findings because I don't think the privacy issue and the screening issue has been resolved. with 255 and I would like to see further efforts. in that direction. um, Uh, just curiously, I had the same, uh, And I think that's a good thing. wondering why on that second level on the master bedroom, Uh, putting larger windows in there and then putting a railing in front of that view was seem to be somewhat counter productive. Um, All things, all other things considered, that's their choice and, and, Anyway, that's... Those are my main concerns. Um, And I think the privacy one and the screening needs to be addressed. |
| 01:14:39.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 01:14:43.79 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller, and I'm I appreciate all the other commissioners comments. I'm generally in agreement with the unfortunate permitting process system and issues that this you know, situation. |
| 01:15:11.97 | Andrew Junius | I understand the frustration. with PROCESSING. I think it's unfortunate that a project this. Thank you. |
| 01:15:27.97 | Andrew Junius | this stuff out and got it originally approved, we would probably be talking about this, but I also understand things change teams change, design ideas change, new ideas come in, and you know, things get changed. And we've now seen actually, the last couple of months, several different projects that have come back to us. right in the middle of construction, with a, hey, we've got a new idea or hey, so I, you know, that happens. I can't, you know, there's no excuse of course for |
| 01:16:15.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. um anyway so that's that's a that's a really tough one that's probably been frankly and i think um i really appreciate commissioner sod's you know um driving this home that is probably the more uncomfortable part of this for me as a lawyer and Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:17:02.03 | Andrew Junius | COMMISSION. over block views and loss of views fighting over views, well, here's an opportunity to let somebody create an incredible new view, you know, for this home. It's going to add some great value to this home. And you know, know in you know into the neighborhood when when values go up you know everybody I think has benefited here and I and I you know I am going to get to the privacy issue here but I don't think I don't think it's often that we get and opportunity |
| 01:17:38.17 | Andrew Junius | to the neighborhood And I actually, you know, I walked by this, this site a million times. looking up the hill, you know, it's a long laborious process to get this home built and the driveway looks great. And I was kind of curious, like, well, what's going on up there? And now I get, I guess I'm seeing it. Obviously, right across the street, We dealt with the garage issue. So it's a tight little spot. Um, I am sympathetic to the folks at 255 But I also I just believe, I mean, there's gotta be a condition we can add to force somebody to build a, you know, a giant screen, a nice heavy vegetated screen that will, you know, will, solve the issue. I can't imagine that that, We would want to you know, force the the applicant here to not have that upper deck when this I think the privacy issue can be solved with a straightforward condition requiring I'd be curious what the applicant thinks if I've taken on that responsibility, but some mature shrubbery, there's gotta be about 15 different ways that that gap can be plugged and the privacy issue resolved. and then everybody wins. and then, Sure. |
| 01:18:52.39 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair. Um, I know we're focusing a lot on the privacy issue and having visited both properties um the privacy issue is is quite real it's not small it's not like a teeny itty bitty little area it's a little bit it's a bit a little bit more significant to that but I actually don't even want to focus on that entirely what I really want to focus on was the merits of what we approved before and why. And even the presentation this evening that we received from Mr. Couture was clear. Again, I wrote it down very clearly. The value is in the use the inside of the bedroom. Now, obviously, you know, you could enjoy the outside too, but he was talking about value. And if you wanna talk about value, and how significant you know larger windows or some type of you know, large punched openings that's really where the value is. That's really where you get the view, the beautiful view. So there's no question that this property has beautiful view. So I think that you could achieve the value without compromising the architecture and And the merits for which we approved this project before, because it was not a straight, easy. approval before either. And there's nothing here that indicates to me that Um, that this entire plan or project is completely unworkable and not good enough without this deck out there. There is just nothing to tell me that. And You know, there's an opportunity here for this applicant to get reasonable enjoyment from their property without compromising reasonable enjoyment to somebody else's property as well. And. And we did not reach the approval before lightly and the the roof structure and the pitch and the whole, The whole discussion of that was really fairly involved. Yes, there's privacy issues. Yes, it could probably be, you could add a condition of screening, We're also pretty clear that we don't just rely on vegetation. as a means of providing privacy. Because whereas this applicant Well, intends to live in this property now. that might not be the same in five years, in 10 years or 20 years. And that can be the same obviously for whoever lives at the next door property. So. I don't have any problem whatsoever with the three punched openings at the windows at the gym floor. In fact, I think that's probably an improvement to the architecture. but I really, I've yet to hear a compelling reason that this, roof area has to be a deck that you sit out on and walk out on. Because again, the value is in the use in the bedroom. And I think if we. to consider the revised architecture of those windows or whatever, you know, the openings at the bedroom, we could come up with a reasonable compromise. Um, That being said, I go back to what Commissioner Saad mentioned what Vice Chair Junius mentioned, the process of this is just, leaves a very bad taste in our mouth, my mouth and please, you know, Let's not. repeat this for anyone who's listening at home or any other applicants considering doing this because I don't like anybody trying to ride roughshod over the city or process and procedures that were all being held to the same standard. Fairness is very important in what we do and why ordinances and municipal codes are there and permits are approved. So that's really where I fall in terms of this project. tonight is I'm happy with part of it, but I don't think I could make the findings for all of it. |
| 01:23:17.97 | Kristina Feller | So I don't know if that impacts anybody else's thoughts or you want to, Um, convince me otherwise, but I'm open commissioner graph. |
| 01:23:28.56 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Uh, thank you, Chair Feller. And your comments are really quite good. I, uh, In all respects of the proposed design, regardless of to administrative problems. I think it's a really good solution Um, I think, there's gotta be some kind of either condition or continuance or something allow the two parties to come to some agreement about how to Um, and we're going to have a and how to screen without taking away sunlight, And maybe it's really a matter of some kind of screening device or something on the applicant's side. Maybe it's a combination of both properties. I'm not sure what the solution is. I'm sure there's one there. I'd like to see this project move on. Um, but I don't want it to move on without that. being resolved and that's my sense about it. |
| 01:24:55.02 | Kristina Feller | You know, Commissioner Graff, you were on the commission with me when this came through the first time. I'm not sure. Forgive me if I'm time is, I've lost all sense of time through COVID. I don't think our other three fellow commissioners were yet on the commission when this project was originally heard, or excuse me, originally approved, I should say. and we heard it a couple of times before it was approved. |
| 01:25:22.64 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:25:23.20 | Kristina Feller | and you know, there was a long discussion about the architecture and about those roof lines and stuff. And I don't want to just unilaterally throw that away because there was some really important discussion there that was not just representative me but representative of the commission as a body and and I think we need to be mindful of that |
| 01:25:51.07 | Richard Graef | Um, well, I do remember that project, I, I, I just don't remember. in that level of detail. . Uh, And I think that what we approved at that time was, you know, obviously a pretty good solution and everybody was happy with it. I do understand that uh, Um, as the owner of the property and the people who are gonna live in the house, that I mean, it's probably never finished. And I understand the desire to make improvements while the project is still under construction. logistics of how to do that. You know, I think are kind of driving this. Um, But I will repeat, I just don't have a design issue. I don't have a design issue. with the proposed changes I think it was, very nice as it was, I think it's better. in the new with the new condition with the new solution however um |
| 01:27:12.87 | Clinton Roland | I'll wait. |
| 01:27:13.20 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:27:14.88 | Richard Graef | That other problem to my mind has not gone away. So I, I, in all due respect to our previous approval, um, I do think this is You know, it makes the project better. |
| 01:27:34.70 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So In an effort to try to move this towards some whatever that might be this evening. Um, Do any of the commissioners have an issue with the skylight locations, relocation? or the basement just by show of hands. If you do just raise your hand if you have an issue with any of those. Okay. So, so. let's put that aside for just a moment. And I'm sure you guys have the full list of the proposed revisions. the issue with the tongue and groove roof ceiling on the existing deck approved in the design. Any issues with that? Okay, I don't see any. So really, I think the issues... are solely the Um, Master bedroom reconfiguration of windows, the the proposed deck. And, um, Does anyone, again, just by a show of hands here, have an issue with The parapet area. now being redesigned as sort of solid siding and the window that was on that one elevation removed. Does anyone have an issue with that? Okay, Commissioner Luxenberg, you first. |
| 01:29:07.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't have an issue with it. I think I want the previous railing instead of the parapet. The parapet's been done. There was a concern raised about that becoming a deck. By eliminating the window, at least I can be corrected if I'm wrong. I don't think there's any way to get to that roof without a ladder. So I don't think it's being used as a, it would be used as a deck. and uh i don't so i don't have a problem with the parapet i just wanted to clarify that they took the the window has been taken out because i think it's in a wardrobe area now so it's no longer needed as a window and uh and there's no access to that parapet area and they cleaned up the lines by doing the parapet. I'm not sure I would have done that that way, but at this point, I don't have an issue with the parapet. I don't think it causes a privacy problem. I don't think it causes a light problem. So I'm fine with the parapet. |
| 01:30:07.27 | Kristina Feller | Are you fine with it just because it's built or you don't mind the design? |
| 01:30:12.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't love the design. I liked the design before, but I don't think I, if this had been proposed originally, I would have been okay with it. I mean, I don't, you know, I didn't love the railing so much that I would make somebody go back to it. I just, I don't, I don't think it's an issue. I don't think it's a privacy issue. And so at this point, I don't think that's, you know, that's a problem. |
| 01:30:35.28 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, Commissioner Saad, you had your hand up as well. |
| 01:30:38.96 | Nastassya Saad | I was going to ask actually for clarification. So if, if, Commissioner Luxembourg is correct. And it might be something just to check off our list to ask the applicant, because I too just wanted to ensure that there was no access point. Obviously that window is gone, but I think if there is no access point, then it would remove my potential concern for privacy. I too like the old design a little bit better, but to, to commissioner Luxembourg's point, I'm, you know, I'm not heartbroken that it's gone. And if I were on the commission probably would have approved it as well with, with a parapet, but, um, yeah i think i think it was a it's a nice design either way but i think we should get final clarification from the applicant that it is not intended to be a stand on space. |
| 01:31:23.53 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I'm just making note of that. So when we do... I'm not sure. when we do get to that point of confirming to the applicant, we can We can talk about that. Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:31:37.20 | Richard Graef | Uh, yeah, I, I want to back up, um, Add to the discussion of the deck and the wraparound part of the deck. Um, And perhaps that's a negotiating, um, place that could Um, health. help resolve the privacy. issue. So I just didn't want to forget about that. uh, Otherwise, I think it's, you know, it's fine. crap, that's fine. It really cleans up that elevation. |
| 01:32:13.46 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:32:13.56 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:32:14.05 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:32:17.33 | Kristina Feller | All right, and of course, You know, I'm looking at plans that are too small for me to read, but I think when you're talking about not the wraparound deck, There's the, There's a column grid line, which of course I can't read what it is. I'd have to look at larger plans, but we can ask Adam to possibly help us here. Um, to figure out I just can't read it. It's the column line, Adam. Um, right along the master bedroom wardrobe, between That's seven. |
| 01:32:57.25 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 01:32:57.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay, thank you. So are you suggesting that you know, that you know, You could make the findings if the deck did not wrap around. And on column line seven, there'd be a solid hip wall of sorts or what? What are you suggesting there? |
| 01:33:20.54 | Richard Graef | Well, I'm just saying that, that, uh, probably be a little trickier architecturally, but if that side of the deck that kind of scoots around the building which is not really Bang. particularly used for anything. um, Yeah. If that was eliminated, uh, But that mic, help alleviate some of the privacy issues, but as I'm speaking and I'm thinking that perhaps what wrapping around there might give a, Uh... a place to put some other kind of privacy screen. So anyway. Um, All right. Yeah, just didn't want to let that one go. Thank you. |
| 01:34:15.25 | Kristina Feller | So Commissioner Graff, you mentioned that you felt that you could not make the findings this evening. Is that still the case? |
| 01:34:23.69 | Richard Graef | . Only as it pertains to the privacy issue, because I don't think that's resolved. Um, I think as I suggested. Um, either we work with the applicant and try to to construct or create a condition Um, or or we might continue to some date certain to where we see a solution. But, I think that one issue would prevent me from making all the findings. |
| 01:35:10.77 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:35:11.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:35:11.32 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 01:35:12.94 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. |
| 01:35:14.24 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:35:14.78 | Kristina Feller | Good job. |
| 01:35:16.99 | Nastassya Saad | I'm not sure. I think I have a little bit more of an issue with the deck as I, in my vision, it's not the wraparound. That's the only issue. I did not go to the very edge. I did walk there, but I took photos from an area that was slightly back and I could see the patio table myself and you know, I'm, So from a height standpoint, it's not that, I mean, the applicant has deemed that space not very useful. Understand from the design aspect, the wraparound lines up I am not an architect and certainly do not want to offend Mr. Couture or Commissioner Graff with a suggestion of cutting the deck down to a in my mind, I don't even think this looks good, In an effort to compromise, I'm wondering if the applicant would be amenable to some small seating area that is further to the I believe that is the south, southeast side, so that they can step out if they want a morning coffee, if they want to enjoy that, because I do think Commissioner Junius had this great point, it is creating a space that was not there. The value is from the inside, as the architect said, but there is some value outside, but I don't think it's at the expense of you know, the previous plans that were approved and the neighbors. So I really think that, that is sticking in my head from 255 is that looming. and, um, I just think from seeing other properties in town and my own experience in town, I'm to those types of balcony spaces do feel less comfortable. So I'm wondering from looking at the plans, well maybe I will offend everyone, I'm gonna even go for it. From looking at line two, I think I'm on page three of the attachment five of the project plans. Mm-hmm. |
| 01:37:26.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:27.69 | Nastassya Saad | You guys, I think we're just looking at seven. I don't know if it architecturally even makes sense or has a design, but cut it to, and it's too small for me too. Is that five? or It's fire. Cut it in half. I mean, if that gets, an outdoor space for the applicant, and if that really then leaves a lot of distance between the neighbors patio space. as a thought. |
| 01:37:55.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. So I'm hearing some. consistency with the size of, or, and looking for a compromise that will, achieve privacy to next door, but also provide outdoor space. Um, Commissioner Luxenberg, any more Thoughts on this or even certain ideas and recommendations put out here? |
| 01:38:26.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I only thought I'd be okay with seven. I would be okay with five. If you go to five, it does have the benefit. I would let the windows go to the ground, though. And if you go to five, then the view from that second set of windows is not blocked by these cross bracings, so it actually opens up the view. And it is a master bedroom. So people might want to step out, but they're going to probably not, I can't speak for them, but you don't generally entertain through your master bedroom. So, you know, you know, so maybe a smaller space that a commissioner side has suggested is it would make some sense. The other thought I had, although I don't love this idea, is the little piece of the wall that goes from the deck to the to the building on that side could have a screen in it to block the view of the abutter but if you stand you'll be. So I'm not sure that, I'm not sure architecturally, that's great. And also I'm not sure it solves the problem, but that's another idea is we could put, you can put a screen there so that they're not looking through that to the abutter. But I think if you went to five, you'd be such a distance away that it might solve the problem in its entirety. |
| 01:39:54.00 | Kristina Feller | Right. Vice Chair Junius, any thoughts on this? |
| 01:39:57.56 | Andrew Junius | Absolutely. Lots of thoughts here. Um, I mean, So I'm looking at three, I'm looking at the other, basic elevation and the more you start Thank you. proposed new deck at that upper level the more the architecture I think starts to fall apart. Um, Maybe the wraparound, you know, right now it, |
| 01:40:27.97 | Andrew Junius | as proposed if you put aside the privacy concerns Once you start pulling that back, you mess up that symmetry and if you pull it way back to five you're going to get you know, you're right, you're gonna get an opportunity for the people in the master bedroom to go out there and maybe have a few chairs and sit out there and have a cup of coffee, which is I think what this deck is really for. But then you, you know, you leave First off, you kind of, I think, ruined the symmetry of the design looking, you know, us whichever direction that is i guess that's north or something or east but you also, But you also have a deck now that you can turn to the left and you maybe, you know, dramatically you know, solve the crisis. |
| 01:41:13.97 | Andrew Junius | not what the owners want. Um, I want to go back to something that I think Commissioner Luxembourg said, which I think is an interesting observation here. Yeah, see. |
| 01:41:32.97 | Andrew Junius | is kind of a throwaway. he wouldn't have proposed it. and we wouldn't be having this discussion The... The idea of the deck in my opinion, more |
| 01:42:03.97 | Andrew Junius | doors and get a little bit of air and just kind of feel the opportunity to stand up there for a few minutes, take in the view and then go back into your master bedroom, which is not your living room. It's not a study. It's not a den. It's not a party room. It's a master bedroom. So, I know. |
| 01:42:23.65 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. of this deck, I have one of these decks off of my master bedroom. I never go out there. ever. So now it's like, Um, So I think it's a, I think in terms of the view and the value here, it's a more of a, you know, an idea and a, just a, it's a feeling you get when you're in a room that's got an opportunity to step outside for a few seconds. Clearly the deck below is gonna get used a lot more and the other spaces on this property will get used a lot more. I really think it's a shame if we have to come to a compromise where this debt gets a lot smaller. I think it's gonna make the design awkward And I just kind of, again, for, and I think, again, I think there are lots of solutions here to deal with the privacy issue. I think Commissioner Luxembourg made a good point I'd be curious what the architect thinks of putting a at the wraparound part, putting a screen up of some kind, or some kind of lattice work or some architectural feature so that when you're at the 255 backyard, you can't see anything. I mean, I think that or the vegetation or a combination of the two, I'm pretty sure that owners here and the architect would be willing to do a lot to save this deck which I really do think Yeah. is a great concept. I kind of wish, if I had been on the commission back in 2019, I wish they would have done it then, you know, and I think it's unfortunate we're at this point here, but I think it's a wonderful addition to the home. I think it makes it look great. It grads a lot of value. and the privacy thing can be solved. Thank you for listening. |
| 01:43:52.74 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, Okay, I'm gonna just stick to a little bit of my interest in maintaining what was approved before at this level, but understand that, you know, that may not happen, but I'm gonna, hold on to some hope there and, still you know definitely open to expanding the views of of uh from the master bedroom um without impact to anybody else It sounds to me though, that, None of us are at the point that we can approve what we're looking at this evening. And I think even if we're looking for ideas for screening or vegetation or anything along those lines. we would need to See. this project back with those solutions in mind. because it is a sensitive matter. And I think we're all looking at different ways to perhaps solve it and And just for everyone's benefit, we don't get into the business of designing from the dais here. That's what architects are for. We are not the architect, but we're just trying to come up with some creative ideas through discussion. So we would obviously leave that to to the applicant, but I don't wanna speak for everybody, but that is what I am hearing. And if that's the case, I'm gonna ask the applicant to come back up here. Um, Does anyone have any other thoughts about that just by show of hands? So, Mr. Couture and the Levadovs, if you could come back up here. You've heard, you've hopefully heard the deliberation discussion that we've had here I don't think we're in a position to approve what we're looking at here tonight. We're trying to address issues of that privacy. You've heard different ideas about um, you know, receptiveness to the to the deck. Um, But just for clarity as well, I don't think anyone has an issue with, all the other design changes that you're talking about, skylights, basement windows, those sorts of things we're not having issue with. It's really the master bedroom area. And so I think at this, It looks like we might want to continue this. We can do that to a date certain. to give you some time to come up with some ideas to address the issue of privacy with your neighbor and how to address that the the deck area so I want to give you a chance to respond to that or share your thoughts about that. |
| 01:46:55.89 | Scott Couture | Yeah, so thank you for all the comments. We did, of course, hear all that. I think at this point, we would probably like to really sit down with the neighbors and go through the privacy issue and really see it from their side. Rich and Robin have had an open offer to you know reconfigure that side line between these two properties there. Obviously there's going to be some work for some parking down in there and I think there's a great opportunity to maybe see if a screen can be create a down there, whether it's a fence, control the height of that. But I think, you know, that's probably best not figured out by planning commissioners on the diet, no offense, but perhaps |
| 01:47:33.91 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:47:43.14 | Scott Couture | say two neighbors down together and see what solutions may come up and then maybe a screen at the rail at the deck as suggested or maybe a landscape screen or a physical offense screen or some other screen between the two property lines and I think there's a good opportunity I if I understand correctly I believe the owners 255 are doing some re-model work in their backyard at the patio, obviously, Rich and Robin are doing some re-model work right on the opposite side of that, the parking area. |
| 01:47:43.54 | Unknown | to neighbors. |
| 01:48:04.72 | Dan | Yeah. |
| 01:48:05.33 | Clinton Roland | Bye. |
| 01:48:18.14 | Scott Couture | And I think perhaps they can work together and find a good resolution. So we'd like to continue this for a date certain as soon as possible. |
| 01:48:30.81 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and let me ask our interim director, Horter, do we have an agenda for the board? that is free for a date certain to bring this back. |
| 01:48:45.46 | Dan | I do, Chair Feller. I can, we have some openings on the 18th. We only have two projects on the 18th. And I was going to go over this at the end, but you'll know now. And it looks like I may have, potentially three on the 18th. I take that back. And if not, that one item that I said would be the third would be June 1st. And there should be potentially one other one that I'm working with Department of Public Works on. Okay. |
| 01:49:18.45 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so May 18th sounds like it might be the first opportunity. for an opening. Thank you. |
| 01:49:25.35 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:49:25.40 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um, So, Scott, are you able to indicate if that, you think that would give you enough time? |
| 01:49:37.43 | Scott Couture | I do. Yes. |
| 01:49:40.22 | Kristina Feller | And I'm assuming, well, and you've heard this commission. We'll take a motion here in a moment. I just wanna make sure that we get everything straight. with you and your client there. I'm not sure. this commission has talked about screening on the actual building as well. |
| 01:49:58.75 | Robin Lebandahl | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:50:00.11 | Kristina Feller | And in the event that you're looking at any potential screening |
| 01:50:00.18 | Robin Lebandahl | Yeah. |
| 01:50:04.72 | Kristina Feller | on the property line, would you be able to generate a shadow study to that you and your neighbor and agree upon. |
| 01:50:16.28 | Dan | Yeah. |
| 01:50:17.56 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. |
| 01:50:18.12 | Dan | you Chair Fowler. you |
| 01:50:20.06 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:50:20.77 | Dan | For the record, Adam will have to have information as soon as next week to complete a new staff report for the 18th meeting. |
| 01:50:20.85 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF but add to that. |
| 01:50:28.63 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you for mentioning that. |
| 01:50:29.88 | Dan | David. |
| 01:50:31.33 | Kristina Feller | So Scott, what that means is that, you know, Adam who has to prepare all these staff reports and such would need information by maybe wednesday of next week or thursday of next week i'm not sure Director Orchard Wood. when you're in the hospital, |
| 01:50:49.24 | Dan | I'm |
| 01:50:49.29 | Kristina Feller | um |
| 01:50:51.19 | Dan | I got to look at the calendar while we're talking, sorry. |
| 01:50:58.37 | Dan | Yeah, at the latest Wednesday, if Adam's okay with that, because the packets, I have to review the packet and get the agenda ready by the 13th. Thank you. |
| 01:51:06.95 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So Scott, if you could indicate if that gives you enough time, if you think that that's cutting it too close, we can do another date certain. and we'll work around what you think is reasonable. And of course, assuming that the neighbor is available as well. |
| 01:51:24.76 | Scott Couture | Right, it's from our end, yeah, we're very anxious to keep this thing moving forward. Obviously it's been a long, |
| 01:51:25.03 | Kristina Feller | AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD |
| 01:51:31.00 | Scott Couture | since we started this process. So we would like to see if we can get the 18th Um... Yeah. |
| 01:51:39.19 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so just so you know what happens is we're gonna make a motion here and we're gonna make it for a date certain. And if for any reason, if you can just keep working as closely as you have been with community development and Adam, if for some reason material isn't available for the 18th we'll still hear it on the agenda just to continue it again. So I think you've been through that drill before, but appreciate that. |
| 01:51:59.54 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:52:05.23 | Kristina Feller | Um, Okay, so we're gonna go ahead. Thank you for weighing in on that. We're gonna go ahead and make a motion here. than as the commission to to continue the project. Does anyone want to make the motion or do you want me to just go ahead? |
| 01:52:21.07 | Andrew Junius | to continue the aging. |
| 01:52:23.42 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So we're going to move to continue this to the 18th to a date certain. and ask that the applicant come back with your solutions for addressing privacy matters and they work directly with your... neighbor to ensure that privacy is maintained for equal enjoyment to both properties. to May 18th, great, thank you. |
| 01:52:48.27 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:52:48.32 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 01:52:49.10 | Kristina Feller | Let's take a roll call, Dan. |
| 01:52:52.22 | Dan | I Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Saad. Yes. THE FRIESTS ARE THE FRIESTS Yes. Chair Feller. |
| 01:53:03.26 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:53:04.44 | Dan | Potion carries. |
| 01:53:05.16 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:53:05.70 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you very much. |
| 01:53:07.56 | Scott Couture | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:53:09.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you too. Okay, let's move on to item 6B. |
| 01:53:15.32 | Dan | Commissioner Feller and members of the commission, I am going to summarize this agenda item for you, as opposed to read that entire title, if you don't mind. Okay. This is consideration of Senate Bill 9, the California Home Act implementing ordinance. Item was continued from the April 6th, 2022 planning commission meeting to the meeting tonight. With that, I'll turn it over to the chair. |
| 01:53:41.21 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Just real quick before we get started here, can you confirm if we've received public comment on this item? |
| 01:53:49.87 | Dan | I think we are. Sorry, I gotta look at the agenda. I believe we did from somebody on the, he had from Jenny, we did and we added it to the, my understanding was Maria added it to the current agenda. |
| 01:54:05.65 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you very much. Okay. So, We've been fortunate enough here at the commission that vice chair Junius and commissioner Luxembourg have been working on SP9 as a working group. to prepare and to confirm certain items with our city attorney So I'm going to hand this over. to the two of you. I also note that our city attorney, Sergio Rudin, is also here and can help us weigh in on any items. The goal here is to provide a red line and recommendations and suggestions back to the city council and their legislative committee so uh a um so something can be ratified here in the city So over to you, Vice Chair Junius and Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:55:00.96 | Andrew Junius | Thank you Chair Feller. I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Luxenberg to kick us off here. Thank you Jeffrey. |
| 01:55:07.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Genius. we attached to the agenda a summary of our recommendations and a red line version with the changes incorporated in each commission also received the word version with the red line versions and I also there was some discussion at our last hearing about the need to see this visually for printage issues so i did a a few diagrams that also got attached to the agenda and i think at this point if um uh dan can you can you bring up uh any of those documents, put sharing the screen or add them if you could. Maybe the, I can walk the commission through the items. So if you could bring up the diagrams, I think the one with the diagrams would be helpful. |
| 01:56:10.11 | Kristina Feller | Dan, you're on mute, I think. |
| 01:56:13.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Which items do you want me to bring up? So the first one I want you to bring up is the document I sent, which is a PDF of the diagrams. It has the words diagrams. |
| 01:56:23.97 | Matthew Mandich | Just opening off the agenda would be fine. |
| 01:56:35.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you see my screen? I can. So leave it there for a second. And I'm just gonna walk people through the memo real quickly. So one of the issues was to clarify what the frontage requirements would be. And so the bottom line of this is a minute, the draft, everything is going from the draft ordinance that Mary provided to us back in March. And we indicated in there that there would be a minimum of a 20-foot frontage requirement. But we also allowed, given the weird shapes of lots in Sausalito, the possibility of a flag lot. So if you look on the diagram that's on the screen, that would assume in order to split a lot that you have to have either 40 foot of frontage to have two 20 foot lots or 10 feet of frontage. I'm sorry, 20 feet of frontage plus 10 feet to the flag wall. And I think what this does is if you require a minimum of 10 feet, then even if isn't required it's possible that 10 feet could be used for parking for a driveway to the back which would be good the first two diagrams show 2,400 foot lots but the intent of this is only single family zones we're going to get to that later but in an R1 zone the minimum is 6 000 we have 6 000 8 000 and 20 000. so these would be the off uh chance of a lot that was non-conforming that uh per statute could go to as small as 1200. this is not going to be the typical scenario but these first diagrams show you that and then if we can go to the next page Dan if we could and so this is a 6,000 foot lot so on a 6,000 foot lot there's a requirement that one the second lot has to be at least 40 percent so on a 6,000 foot rectangular lock which is probably not a lot of those, but because they're not always square, but if they were square, 60 by a hundred, one would have 36 feet up frontage, one would have 24 feet of frontage. So that's what this one is showing. If we could go to the next page, here's a smaller lot showing two, 20 foot frontage each being equal which you could also do you can make them equal but again this would be a non-conforming lot next page uh this one's in an r2 zone it's i brought up a couple examples from our prior projects because we're familiar with them this was what i was the lot on fourth street is 55 by 110. we're not focusing on on on the address we're just focusing on the configuration of a lot and you'd have 10 feet and you could get 52 percent on the back and 47 percent in the front on that lot so that just shows another flag lot with the primary with the house that exists because that's where it was and then if we go to the next page this was one from a while ago and again they did not focus on the address but it was an hour one thing it has 8790 square feet and you could divide the two rods and the smaller one at a minimum of 35 16 16, 41 feet of frontage there. And residuals around 60 feet. So those are some examples, but if, but the intent here is that the language that we've now put in would allow for 10 feet of frontage for a flag lot minimum of 20 feet or they're not eligible for this uh and uh again i showed a bunch of examples but this is intended to be for 6 000 foot lots 8 000 foot lots and 20 000 square foot lots the other thing is this is in the sb9 written for single family zones. For some reason the draft ordinance showed R2. R2 is a duplex zone and R3 is a multifamily zone. We allow single family in any zone, but the intent of SB9 was for single family. So if you get to R2, the lots are much smaller and it creates a bunch of problems. So on our draft, we've struck stricken anything but R1. And that's what the statute was intended to do. We've looked at taking out the maximum lot size. It was set at, it's a minimum of 800 maximum unit size, not lot size, not maximum, minimum unit size is 1200. minimum i'm sorry minimum lot size is 1200. uh minimum unit size is 800 by statute uh the draft that we had had 800 square feet as the maximum so it was sort of a somewhat of a minimum or maximum i made the comment at the last year and that, you know, that's a little bit small, especially if the goal of this is to create some affordable housing of 1200 square foot unit will allow for a three bedroom, a two or three bedroom unit. So that I think is useful. So we're recommending increasing the maximum from 800 that was in the draft to 1200. i do think it's important that we have a cap on this these projects would be ministerially approved by staff and so i think it's important that we have some limit. Also the intent is to provide somewhat affordable, some affordable housing. And if we allowed it unlimited in my view, we would possibly get some bunch of McMansions on small lots, which I don't think was the intent of SB9. So you'll see in both the split, we've recommended 1,200 square feet and in the two unit development, we've recommended 1,200 square feet. That does mean that it could be 2,400 square feet where we would have somebody would propose a two unit development and each unit could be 1200 square feet. And so that could add up to 2,400 square feet. Let me just make one other comment. Please note that the underlying zoning also applies. So as long as you can build 800 square feet, you have to have enough square footage on the lot to get to the 1200 square feet. Christina, you had a comment? |
| 02:03:29.29 | Kristina Feller | I just wanted you to clarify, make sure I'm following you. Because I do see that the minimum lot size under eligibility 9.70.020 is the 1200. And Did you say that you are, that you're suggesting... that we change the minimum unit size away from a minimum of 800 square feet? |
| 02:03:51.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:51.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. No, I'm suggesting we change the log size is the minimum of 1200. That's not changing at all. It was highlighted, but it's not changing. We're recommending that the maximum unit size go from 800 square feet to 1200 square feet. The minimum still stays at 800 square feet. That's by statute. So we're only putting in a maximum that was originally in there at 800 and we've changed that. We're recommending to this commission to make a recommendation to the city council. But to clarify, we're not the final authority on this in the first place. I, I, I... |
| 02:04:35.79 | Kristina Feller | I will give you a minimum and your maximum. Thank you for the clarification. |
| 02:04:40.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The other thing we did was, The city of San Francisco, for example, and SB9 have complicated some of their complications, but one of the things they did was they set up a height limit and they recommended the unit on the backside and then set a height limit. Because we can't really come up with objective standards for view impacts, which I put a forth originally something in that regard, but we've been told that that's not, can't be an objective standard. We are suggesting that because the underlying zoning is in effect, except that you can build the forefeet from the setback lines. So what we've added is a provision that says from the forefeet to what the zoning requires, the setback, the height limit would be a maximum of 16 feet. So in other words, somebody is not allowed to sort of bypass design review, go out and want to build something, go four feet from the line that's 35 feet high. So we're putting a height limit in in the setback areas uh and again the sb9 allows you to have your your underlying zoning standards but it does allow building to the uh to the four foot line but it does you can't allow for a height limit in that area so we have suggested 16 feet which uh you know would maybe solve some of the view issues uh on the privacy impacts uh we felt that completely it was a little funny with the earlier thing tonight but we felt that completely eliminating exterior decks just by elimination was not necessarily just a good standard so we have recommended to allow those decks so to speak and balconies but required them to be a minimum of 15 feet away so in other words you're not going to be able to build a deck even at 16 feet in height, four feet from the line. We're recommending you be at least 15 feet away. The other changes that we had, where there was a requirement that you had to have similar materials for if you built a building in back and they had to be the same, we felt that was a little too restrictive. So we're recommending just striking that. Hopefully they work out with staff on this ministerial approval, a design that's compatible, but requiring the specific materials didn't seem to be needed. There was also a requirement that the other unit, the second unit face the street, so to speak. But given the weird, the strange shape of a lot of lots and given that some houses, even with furniture have the entrance on the side, just sort of randomly saying you have to face the street, each lot's gonna be different. We felt that would be able to be worked out by staff the other requirement was a 10-foot separation for all outbuild out structures and sheds and we we thought that we removed that to let the building code has restrictions on that and let that apply. There were some other minor changes in the red lines. There is one section that Sergio, if you could, you indicated that we had left in and you discovered it after we had posted it, that does create a problem. Do you wanna explain that one if you could? Thank you. |
| 02:08:26.22 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, absolutely. I think the only one... that I had sufficient concerns about to raise with the commission is the restriction on second decks and balconies as it currently reads. It says that it shall be set back a minimum 15 feet from the property line of any adjacent residential use. And then it further defines adjacent residential use to mean a residential building on a lot adjacent to the original single family lot prior to any lot split. So. with respect to SB9, You know, you can use the two unit development without using a lot split, first of all. So it's unclear how that would apply. Secondly, one can do an urban lot split and then sell off that lot. without developing it. So in theory, you could have a separate property owner that comes in and then they wouldn't be entitled to the protection of this 15 foot separation from the property line. because it says that, and adjacent residential use means the original loss. prior-term urban lot splits. So it doesn't make sense necessarily at least to me, as reported. I don't think that it is intended to work this way. as drafted. just because it would be underprotective of any you know, additional property purchaser. |
| 02:09:46.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're suggesting striking that section that we had. |
| 02:09:50.98 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I would just recommend that the planning commission, if it wants to include a 15 foot limit from the property line for exterior decks, balconies, and rooftop decks. just leave the sentence at that. you know, because if you have a urban lot split, it creates a new property line and you would probably want Um... I would assume that the commission would want, you know, that rooftop deck prohibition to apply to both lots as well. |
| 02:10:23.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So with that. I'm going to be right back. |
| 02:10:26.30 | Andrew Junius | I think that the reason why we struggle with that is that Maybe you don't. |
| 02:10:32.04 | Mary Wagner | And that is certainly something for the commission to decide if that's what you want. But knowing that those two owners of the |
| 02:10:32.11 | Andrew Junius | I'm not mad at that. And that's |
| 02:10:43.95 | Mary Wagner | Once you have an urban law split, you're not necessarily dealing with the same owner. And that should be something to be mindful of. You know what, I totally |
| 02:10:52.04 | Andrew Junius | understand that and Um, The idea here was Bye. Thank you. |
| 02:11:05.08 | Andrew Junius | the existing homes in the adjacent to the original lot, but allow the person that's subdividing and then possibly that immediately building to kind of have a little bit more flexibility and possibly a 15 foot setback might really crimp their ability to develop that new lot. But you raise a good point. unknowns here that can't really be solved for without, you know, really complicating the legislation. So I'd be I'd be fine with taking that out. |
| 02:11:32.79 | Kristina Feller | And you're talking about F4, right? Thank you. |
| 02:11:36.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. And so what I was gonna suggest, Chair Faller, is Dan, if you could bring up, not from the agenda, because those, when the PDFs are created, the red lines went away, but in the document that got circulated with the word version, if you can bring it up on screen and then we can look at that and then any commissioner can look at any of the other edits because they're sort of highlighted with the underline. See, one of the, |
| 02:12:04.80 | Kristina Feller | the word document. |
| 02:12:04.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. The word document, the one that you emailed to the commission. |
| 02:12:16.68 | Andrew Junius | And there was actually one final change that I thought simplified things. |
| 02:12:44.19 | Andrew Junius | So why don't we let the You know, the people with the expertise do that. And as long as they're satisfied, I don't know why. would be in getting involved in that in terms of the planning code |
| 02:12:54.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This the one? No, no, the word document that you emailed us. It's not in the agenda. It's not because when you put it in the agenda, it took out the, it made the red lines take away the red lines, the text was there. So I'm looking for the file. It's a Microsoft Word document that you sent out, I believe on Monday. |
| 02:13:17.36 | Kristina Feller | It's the draft ordinance. |
| 02:13:17.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's interesting. |
| 02:13:23.64 | Andrew Junius | The drug ordinance that is on the agenda does have at least highlighted the things we've been talking about. I think that may be sufficient. |
| 02:13:30.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, it doesn't really show the changes. Andrew, so I was hoping to I have it on my screen, but I'm not sure how to, I've never shared screen on a meeting. So it's the document- What I'm looking at here, |
| 02:13:42.57 | Dan | This one that I'm looking at here has strikeout and underlined. So let me try to stop sharing this screen. |
| 02:13:49.86 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. |
| 02:13:51.06 | Dan | and start sharing. |
| 02:13:51.33 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:13:51.45 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 02:13:51.65 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:13:51.70 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 02:13:53.49 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that would be good. |
| 02:13:54.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:13:55.01 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 02:13:55.05 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Saad, did you have a question? |
| 02:13:56.55 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, well that's coming up. Is this the time for discussion on these points? Can I jump in on this? Well, first of all, Commissioner Hoeksenberg, excellent summary and the visuals really helped. I'll commend you more later, but just to stick to the issue of the balcony, I don't know if I'm a standalone here. I know we had this discussion prior and I, I was, not 100% confident in the last time after rethinking, I'd be of the mindset to eliminate the balconies, as I believe is the original, how it's originally written. I'm seeing the strikeouts. So I imagine that was your 15 foot suggestion is your edit. Am I clear there, Commissioner Altzberg? |
| 02:14:41.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. What are we, Dan, if you could scroll down to that section, this is the back. |
| 02:14:48.12 | Nastassya Saad | I believe it's on page 11. I was trying to look at it myself on the Word document. should be down to page 11. Thank you. |
| 02:14:59.78 | Nastassya Saad | And I, yes, I think it's number three there. Am I right? |
| 02:15:03.27 | Kristina Feller | F3. |
| 02:15:04.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, it's number three there. So you can now see what got added and what got changed. So I would say this is sort of the end of my report, so to speak. So I would suggest this is a good time for discussion on this. And you can see number four there as well. Sergio said we should remove. So that's the recommendation. That was added, that was new. And then now he's suggesting taking it out for the issues he said. And you're talking about number three on the screen. |
| 02:15:30.47 | Nastassya Saad | I'm talking about number three. I think as is originally proposed of shall be prohibited. That's where I stand on this. specifically, In the interest of what we just saw before us, I think there was a 60 foot gap between the properties and there was still a privacy issue. So in the interest of those small lots, potentially It just as a ministerial approval, I would be uncomfortable with the concept of a balcony, not knowing those implications for for the adjacent parcels or properties or new additions. So I would just be open to seeing what everyone else thinks |
| 02:16:23.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And Chair Feller, I would suggest this would be a good time that what we could do a mechanism for doing this would just to be go through any of the edits that are in question and then let's edit them and vote on each, we can vote on each one of them or somehow, and that way we can just get this done because it needs to get to the city council for their first year. |
| 02:16:45.60 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, good point. Well, let's, because we're already on number three here, let's just stick with that and maybe, let's keep this up on the screen. |
| 02:16:51.91 | Robin Lebandahl | Thank you. |
| 02:16:51.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:51.96 | Robin Lebandahl | Okay. |
| 02:16:55.73 | Kristina Feller | And so Commissioner Sada suggested a revision to number three here of no decks at all. and I'd like to know Commissioner Graff, what you think about that. Let's start with you. |
| 02:17:13.72 | Richard Graef | I would hate to say no decks at all. 15 feet is really close. So I don't know that that's a, uh, a good number in my mind anyway. Um, I mean, I can imagine a situation where you might on a lot split up in the middle. where it has a balcony that faces away or it's not on the same side as as an adjoining property, in some way and so I think I wouldn't go so far as to eliminate the possibility of balconies and decks, Um, you I'm not quite sure how one would work uh, something. in here, but Mm-hmm. um well anyway yeah i'll i'll i'll let it go with that for now okay |
| 02:18:22.45 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Just a question along those lines. I mean, and maybe Dan, this is more to you, but typically in BOMA, standards require that decks are actually calculated as part of the square footage of a unit or of property. And so if we're seeing a minimum of 800 and maximum of 1200, this, this deck would be part of that calculation. Is that correct? |
| 02:18:52.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:18:53.46 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 02:18:54.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just clarify something on what you just said? It's not a minimum of 800, |
| 02:18:57.14 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:18:59.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's a requirement that you must provide that we can't restrict something smaller than that. If somebody wants to build 600, they're allowed to do that. The 800 is that we can't say that they want 800, they have to be able to get 800. It's a nuance, |
| 02:19:21.04 | Mary Wagner | I think it's important. |
| 02:19:21.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:19:21.68 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:19:21.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:19:23.42 | Mary Wagner | Yes, to state that differently, the city can't impose standards, for example, floor cover or floor ratio, impermeable coverage, et cetera, that would effectively deny them the ability to build at least 800 square feet. But otherwise the city can impose underlying zoning district standards or additional objective standards the city may want to choose. |
| 02:19:44.49 | Unknown | kind of. |
| 02:19:45.79 | Mary Wagner | Okay. to. |
| 02:19:46.97 | Andrew Junius | Commissioner to Chair Feller is I'm going to go. |
| 02:20:01.98 | Andrew Junius | that's like trying to count your yard as part of your house. I don't see that as part of the 800 square feet or the 1200 square feet. |
| 02:20:08.22 | Dan | I believe it counts as site coverage, but I'm looking it up right now. Thank you. |
| 02:20:11.69 | Kristina Feller | Well, this is- |
| 02:20:11.78 | Dan | So this is... |
| 02:20:13.28 | Kristina Feller | So it's not at a ground level. |
| 02:20:13.33 | Dan | Thank you. Bye. |
| 02:20:16.49 | Kristina Feller | And typically- |
| 02:20:16.88 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 02:20:16.91 | Andrew Junius | Right, but it's it's outside space I mean it's not conditioned space how could that be how could that be part of the square footage of the home? |
| 02:20:24.15 | Kristina Feller | I'm just going off BOMA standards and BOMA standards calculate balconies like in an apartment building or something. They calculate it as part of the area. of the apartment. That's why I was asking the clarifying question is, Is that what we're doing? THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:20:38.76 | Andrew Junius | That's never my understanding. No, so I'd be curious what Dan or Sergio would say. |
| 02:20:44.72 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, it should be clarified now, definitely. I mean, I just want to know like you one way or the other. |
| 02:20:54.35 | Andrew Junius | I'd like to just make a comment in response to Commissioner Saad's you know? |
| 02:21:47.97 | Andrew Junius | There could be a situation. where there'd be a perfectly appropriate place wouldn't have any privacy issues. It's a tough one. |
| 02:21:57.52 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I understand what you're saying. And I think it is complicated. You guys had a complicated So, you know, I commend you for even coming up with that. I think this past hearing sort of is guiding that a little bit. I think the concept of knowing a lot of the land space in Sausalito is also where I'm coming from. I think I may be a little bit more conservative than the rest of us in my view of of some of these but definitely open to seeing if there's a, I think you might've said in terms of a potential balcony that is not facing an adjacent lot, to this last. 253 Glen, I mean, that balcony is facing East. and the adjacent home is to the north. So it's just without knowing case by case and we're having to write something so generic, that's a check box. I think that's where my concern is. |
| 02:22:58.47 | Dan | Thank you, Chair Feller. Thank you. |
| 02:22:59.21 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:22:59.64 | Dan | Yeah. And just for clarification, building coverage limits, decks do count towards building coverage limits. Not FAR, but building coverage limits. which site coverage. |
| 02:23:12.11 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:23:14.20 | Andrew Junius | So it wouldn't count against the 1200 square foot max we're talking about? Thank you. because the 1200 square footage |
| 02:23:18.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:23:20.29 | Andrew Junius | Good. The 1200 square footage, the square footage of the conditioned space within the home. Yeah. it. Thank you. |
| 02:23:27.90 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask a clarifying question on that topic as well, just because of the public comment that we received, commented on by maybe the, that's a good question. city attorney. There was a question in that email. from Jenny Silva questioning the validity of having a 1200, having a limit basically 1200 is what we've decided on. Is there merit in that statement? Did you have a chance to read it or are we- |
| 02:23:55.22 | Mary Wagner | Bye. I have and I have considered it. I don't necessarily think that argument is particularly good. So it is Generally, we have seen HCD now issue letters to Temple City and a couple other jurisdictions on the basis of the Housing Crisis Act, stating that there... objective size limits that they're imposing you know, result in a reduction in the intensity of land use. So just for background, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 imposed a requirement that cities not Change zoning requirements. in such a way as to reduce the intensity of land use that was permitted under the zoning regulations as of January 1st, 2018. The reason I don't think that argument works and is really has any merit is that one, the city's existing zoning regulations that were in effect in 2018 are still in effect. you know, somebody can still pursue discretionary design review approval and build whatever is allowed under your existing you know, zoning regulations. Your SB9 ministerial approval process doesn't eliminate or change zoning. Bye. It just allows somebody to streamline you know, their type of development project if it meets certain criteria and objective standards. So, I don't think that that's argument is |
| 02:25:31.97 | Mary Wagner | basically imposed substantially the same kinds zoning requirements on ministerial approved projects as they do for discretionary projects. They could have stated that in there. Um, in SB 9, the legislature does know how to write that. Additionally, it |
| 02:25:47.76 | Clinton Roland | Thank you. |
| 02:25:47.90 | Mary Wagner | the literal text of SB9 says notwithstanding any other law, A local jurisdiction can impose objective standards so long as it doesn't result in the denial of the ability to build at least 200 aid standards. 200, two 800 square foot growing units. So that argument, While it is disappointing to see that HCD has taken that position, Um, That argument I don't think is very well supported by the text of the statute. And additionally, HCD has admitted that they do not have jurisdiction to enforce SB9. So I'm not particularly concerned about that risk. That being said, as a policy. you know, reason there is something for the commission to consider, particularly when you're going through your housing elements, you're looking at your site's inventory, if you're finding that you're having a shortage, SB9 could be one of several tools and options available to you. to consider you know, facilitating the creation of more housing to meet any sort of shortfalls. So as a policy matter, I think it is well within the planning commission's discretion as to where it wants to set those objective standard understanding that you know, that may have ramifications as to how people use your SB9 process, whether it gets used at all. And what we are seeing in other jurisdictions is that where you do set very restrictive SB9 limits, Um, you're generally not able to use that towards meeting your site's inventory because at least at present, HCBS taking the position that you have to show demonstrated interest. in order to count what you might be able to develop under SB9. towards your site inventory. Thank you. That's my comment on that. |
| 02:27:37.26 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, no, very helpful. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. I think the 1200 makes sense. I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion. Can we do that? Thank you. |
| 02:27:47.30 | Kristina Feller | So back to item number three here regarding decks, I don't necessarily have a problem with a balcony or a deck. What we could say is it should be within the footprint of building so it's not cantilevered outside of the building although the 15 foot property line might take care of that anyway. But I I don't know that I, I don't know that it's... I really appreciate Commissioner Assad's point, but I'm not sure that I wanna add that in here to SB9. That's sort of where I'm falling. |
| 02:28:21.90 | Andrew Junius | I think that's actually a great suggestion because |
| 02:28:39.97 | Andrew Junius | So I think that's an interesting I'd be very supportive of that. |
| 02:28:46.30 | Kristina Feller | So including it in the footprint of the building. Yeah. Anyone else, Commissioner Graff, do you have a thought about that or? |
| 02:28:56.54 | Richard Graef | I think that would be a tough one. I mean you would have to design the building. around the back. Um, in the south. |
| 02:29:09.57 | Andrew Junius | Well, I think all we're talking about is where you got basically a setback, you know, at an upper story. instead of just having a roof line |
| 02:29:32.98 | Andrew Junius | federal. as opposed to a deck that's just hanging off the side of the house. |
| 02:29:39.44 | Richard Graef | Or is like over a port. |
| 02:29:44.70 | Andrew Junius | Right. |
| 02:29:45.51 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 02:29:45.92 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. Well, that's a good point. Over a porch, I don't think would work because the porch |
| 02:30:01.44 | Andrew Junius | I guess you're, I mean, what we just went through I can't, I'm missing the visualization there. |
| 02:30:08.77 | Kristina Feller | Well, what we just went through is a deck over a porch. |
| 02:30:12.38 | Andrew Junius | Right, okay. I wouldn't consider that necessarily. |
| 02:30:43.97 | Andrew Junius | side. Thank you. converting a roof line to a deck. |
| 02:30:47.68 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:30:49.11 | Andrew Junius | over a volume, you know, over a volume of any existing design. |
| 02:30:53.84 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, it's an existing volume. |
| 02:30:55.98 | Andrew Junius | Right. Thank you. That's the particular |
| 02:30:58.72 | Kristina Feller | It's just an idea for a compromise. Cause I really do appreciate commissioner Saad's point. And frankly, we've seen a lot of sort of seventies era cantilever decks that aren't necessarily successful or a value add to the overall fabric of Sausalito. Um, Just a thought on that. Commissioner side, I would not be comfortable with that. I don't know. |
| 02:31:23.30 | Nastassya Saad | . Can you, I just want to make sure I'm grasping it. I think the last example helped me. Can you just say what you said again so it can permeate? |
| 02:31:31.22 | Kristina Feller | Sure. So what I'm trying to get away from is cantilevered balconies that are just sort of like, smacked on the side of a house that are notch out. What I'm suggesting instead is Um, that the balcony would have to fit within the existing footprint of the building. So the example that we just heard earlier tonight, there was a roof over a porch. That was part of the existing footprint. They're suggesting it's It's a deck or balcony over a porch. So it's within the existing footprint. and not cantilevered out creating a very complicated geometry of some kind. |
| 02:32:18.03 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Do we not think that that would further promote decks, it wouldn't that be an easier solution for a deck add on? I don't know. We're seeing the 15-foot setback is still... part of that, correct? |
| 02:32:35.53 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:32:35.65 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:32:36.83 | Kristina Feller | setback still exists. |
| 02:32:38.94 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:32:39.39 | Kristina Feller | I just... trying to think of it. |
| 02:32:41.79 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 02:32:42.48 | Kristina Feller | better Urban fabric. I don't know. I get your point about the decks and balconies, but |
| 02:32:45.06 | Nastassya Saad | That's right. |
| 02:32:49.08 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure that saying you can't have one at all. particularly in this climate. is overly punitive. So I find a middle ground. |
| 02:32:58.24 | Nastassya Saad | I think that's a good one. Yeah, that's an interesting idea. Definitely. |
| 02:33:03.73 | Mary Wagner | And Chair, I'll defer to you on this particular issue, but as it sounds like you folks have started deliberating potential changes, it might be helpful to consider having public comment before we wrap up. and start making actual changes to the ordinance. |
| 02:33:20.20 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I'm not suggesting we change it here. I'm just, I'm trying to get everybody on the same page. it's also clear to the public what we're talking about, but fair, fair point going, going forward here. |
| 02:33:32.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Christina, can I just make a point about that? I'm a little concerned given this is ministerial approval and objective design standards of how we define that because we just, what we just saw in the earlier hearing was a deck over a roof over a building because the gym area was part of the footprint. The first deck is over. So that one would count as part of the building. I'm just playing devil's advocate here for to make sure that we understand what we're actually saying. because the that that was that that looks like it's cantilevered but it's not. It's on top of the deck. It's on top of the of the basement floor. |
| 02:34:20.39 | Kristina Feller | Right, and I don't want it cantilevered is the whole point. So we're on the same page. |
| 02:34:25.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, but that little pump out in order to put a basement under it doesn't necessarily solve the problem that we're... trying to solve in my review. And I think it creates some problems of interpretation and administeral approval. |
| 02:34:48.23 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:34:49.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't have an issue with building it in the footprint. I have an issue of how that's going to be defined. So somebody builds a new building and instead of projecting it out, they just build under it so that you can call it part of the footprint. Cause we're not saying this is restricted to existing construction. They can design a building which has a little cross space that now becomes a space just so they can put the deck on it. |
| 02:35:12.99 | Kristina Feller | Right, but again, we're only talking about the second story or what have you. Right. Tell you what, because we have so much to get through and it's still on three. |
| 02:35:22.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:22.42 | Maria | you know. |
| 02:35:24.75 | Kristina Feller | Why don't we come back to three? |
| 02:35:27.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 02:35:27.64 | Kristina Feller | Um, So, Commissioner Luxembourg, where would you like to, you wanna start us at the beginning or keep on going here with four? |
| 02:35:33.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. Thank you. We can go back to the beginning, but basically, Dan, if we could go back to the beginning, but basically I summarized in the report, along with Commissioner Junius' addition on the utilities, pretty much all the changes we made, but we can quickly run through them. It's the ones that have red lines, so if we keep going, the highlights don't, were in the original so that's not what we did so here we go here uh the first a is simply um the the street frontage uh b talked about the flag lots and and we just sort of rewrote that but it was what i I described. So I'll leave people to look at that, but that's how, what I described in the report is what that language does. |
| 02:35:41.00 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 02:36:27.76 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Luxenberg, are you planning on including, are you and Vice-Journey is suggesting that we include the diagrams that you developed just sort of generically? as support to this section in the ordinance. So there's no, future misinterpretation. |
| 02:36:46.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I was suggesting that I provided that not as a qualification, but I mean, the city council may want to do something different. I was just doing that so people could get a visual on it, but I don't think it necessarily, I don't think the diagram helps from a code sense, but- Okay. |
| 02:37:07.79 | Andrew Junius | I'm pretty comfortable that the definition of flag law along with this is clear enough and I think Sergio would have told us if it wasn't Um, I'll be really honest with you. I really think this is one of the most important pieces because this, It really is the way you're going to, to the extent anybody wants to split a lot, if it's a smaller lot, this is the only way. And I think, I hope we can all agree on that. I think this is important. |
| 02:37:28.83 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I like what you guys have proposed here. I would totally support this. |
| 02:37:33.46 | Nastassya Saad | Me too. I thought it was very well thought out. And the diagrams helped me. If they're not included, that's fine. But I think this is great. No problems. Thank you. |
| 02:37:43.73 | Patricia Elton | and you're welcome. |
| 02:37:43.75 | Nastassya Saad | Bishop Brown. |
| 02:37:44.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yeah, I concur. Okay. Okay. So keep going. Oh, God. All right, so D. Ummm... Thank you. |
| 02:37:56.03 | Andrew Junius | to clean up to the |
| 02:37:57.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:37:57.67 | Andrew Junius | like reworded so that that 40% area was really clear about what that meant and and the area issue here. I think that's pretty just more clean up |
| 02:38:06.78 | Kristina Feller | I'm good with it. Me too. |
| 02:38:08.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:38:08.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And the next one, B, Originally I recommended changing that to 60 days to match the two-year development one. Sergio indicated that this is part of our code, we don't need this, but the 50-day requirement is part of a statute. So he recommended we just take it out. It would still be 50 days, but we don't need it in this order. |
| 02:38:35.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:38:36.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we keep going down. |
| 02:38:40.03 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:38:40.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sure. |
| 02:38:40.13 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Graff, did you have a question on that? |
| 02:38:40.81 | Richard Graef | Bye. No, no, I was just saying that makes sense. |
| 02:38:46.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. C is the 1200 square feet that we talked about. So that's what that is. And the next one is... Oh, we eliminated R2, which is what I mentioned in the report. Um, |
| 02:39:10.24 | Kristina Feller | Can I just ask a question on that just for clarification? Was it the city council that had R2 in there as well? |
| 02:39:13.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:39:13.54 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 02:39:13.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 02:39:17.93 | Kristina Feller | They put it in. |
| 02:39:18.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Mary put it in from some examples from other communities that it hasn't gone to the city council. |
| 02:39:25.78 | Kristina Feller | Okay, got it. Okay, thank you. |
| 02:39:28.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So now we got to objective standards. We have the 1200 square feet that we talked about. And then F1, this is what we talked about on entrance organization. It says the primary entrance needs new dwelling unit shall face the front or interior of the parcel unless the unit is directly accessible for an alley or public street. And Andrew and I sort of think what they were trying to do, Thank you. unless the unit is directly accessible from an alley or public street. And Andrew and I sort of think what they were trying to do, but that language made no sense. So, and given that some things faced the side, we decided we should just remove it. It just didn't really, we don't know what it helps. But that's where, you know, that was our thought process. |
| 02:40:15.34 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I'm good with this too. I agree. Okay, Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:40:18.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:40:19.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:40:19.57 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:40:19.66 | Nastassya Saad | Yep, sorry, Mom, me too. |
| 02:40:21.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Then number two, privacy impacts. I think that was the first one, eight feet of a property line of Bunningwood, a I think this is just trying to clarify it, if I remember. Number two, maximum height. That's the, Sergio drafted this language at our request. This is based on this setback area that we were concerned about. Thank you. |
| 02:40:57.05 | Andrew Junius | Hang on, Jeffrey. Just to be clear, this is kind of important. It was something that was a bit of a revelation to me. So... Um, Thank you. this guy |
| 02:41:31.97 | Andrew Junius | you're allowed but if you do if you it's a bit of a compromise if somebody decides they want to get closer to the property line, they can only go up 16 feet. If they wanna abide by our, setbacks they can go up to the height limit that's in the district or at least propose that so I think that was a good compromise and I appreciate Sergio's input there I hope that's clear |
| 02:41:51.78 | Kristina Feller | I like how you guys have drafted this and I agree with it. The question I have is, is it clear from a ministerial approval how that 16 feet is measured and where it's measured from. |
| 02:42:09.06 | Andrew Junius | We're not changing the way heights measure in the code. So the sloping. |
| 02:42:12.97 | Kristina Feller | I'm a student too. I just want to be double sure. |
| 02:42:14.12 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:42:18.37 | Richard Graef | And how is the 16 feet determined? |
| 02:42:23.45 | Andrew Junius | as any other I just measure for any development, right, sir, Jim? |
| 02:42:28.16 | Richard Graef | I mean, why is it 16 instead of 15 or 17 or something? |
| 02:42:29.11 | Andrew Junius | He doesn't know why he's 16. |
| 02:42:34.76 | Richard Graef | That's wrong. |
| 02:42:34.83 | Kristina Feller | Wrong. Bye. |
| 02:42:35.33 | Richard Graef | . |
| 02:42:35.65 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 02:42:37.00 | Mary Wagner | So generally the reason for 16 feet is because as a practical matter, |
| 02:42:45.95 | Mary Wagner | because it lines up with the maximum height limit, that can be imposed by jurisdictions on an ADU. Not that that's a necessary, basically it is really a number picked out of a hat. to a certain extent, but there is some logic behind it there as well. |
| 02:43:03.99 | Richard Graef | Okay. No, I just needed to understand how you come up with a number like that. And I'm fine with that. Thank you. |
| 02:43:11.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Good. So number three, we'll come back to it, but that's the issue of DEX. Number four, we're going to delete in its entirety. So Dan, if you can take a note that that one's just going to be deleted and let's keep going. Okay, so these, number seven, seven was the use of the same exterior material. So we just deleted that. I aim, |
| 02:43:42.73 | Nastassya Saad | by Commissioner Oxenberg. |
| 02:43:43.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Oxenberg. Thank you. |
| 02:43:45.03 | Nastassya Saad | So, Thank you. I disagree with taking this one out as well. I think maybe when it comes down to the materials, if that's where your focus is, because that could be, maybe a little limiting, but the colors, I mean, I would hope there would be some continuity there instead of two totally separate structure. I think if it's a parcel split and you're selling a different parcel. You know, you have a new owner, city attorney's point, there can be a completely different owner But I think if it's, not a lot split and you're having a second dwelling unit on the same lot, it just seems like some continuity of at least if not building. I liked this when I originally read it. I don't know if anyone else or disagrees. but, um, like to see some continuity. |
| 02:44:44.31 | Andrew Junius | One of the issues I had was |
| 02:45:01.34 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I mean, identical, and what if the materials aren't available? You know, remember, these have to be objective. Right. You can't say, you've got to make it look similar. That's not going to work. It's got to be. It's got to be truly objective. So just a comment. |
| 02:45:16.62 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I think it's pretty hard to come up with language Uh, uh, to achieve. work. what you are talking about, Commissioner Hassan, . I think that the effort would be to try to do something that Uh, that would ensure that a structure is at least compatible Um, But that is so subjective. So it's a tough one and, and, uh, I think as it's written, it's very restrictive. And just would be really hard to get by that one. So I understand the intent and I agree with the intent and that is to have something that's You know, like if you've got a neighborhood of nice little platform houses and somebody wants to put a big pink stucco cube in the middle of it, then you might be in trouble. Um, So. So maybe it needs work, maybe it needs to be rethought or re new language or something. |
| 02:46:31.43 | Kristina Feller | So is there a way to separate the materials from a color palette? We can be objective, Vice Chair Junius, I think with just using a consistent color palette. but we don't have to, you know, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT I don't think we should have the same materials because you know there's better building products now than was it in the turn of the century. |
| 02:46:56.61 | Unknown | now |
| 02:47:00.14 | Kristina Feller | But if you're looking at sort of just maintaining a consistent color palette, that we can make that objective, I believe. But otherwise, I'm okay. taking this out. I see your concern that you don't want to hodgepodge I don't think anyone does, but we have to make sure that it's objective language. |
| 02:47:27.14 | Andrew Junius | Color palette. |
| 02:47:36.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Yeah. but, unless you say identical design or something. |
| 02:47:54.96 | Andrew Junius | I think a lot of these things to make objective I agree. |
| 02:48:00.02 | Richard Graef | that was |
| 02:48:00.35 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:48:00.36 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:48:00.40 | Andrew Junius | but that's what the whole thing is. |
| 02:48:00.95 | Richard Graef | process. So, My understanding this is that and, in no case would these projects. that are being described here. be subject to design review. That is right. ministerial. That's all I understand. |
| 02:48:24.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:48:26.08 | Richard Graef | that's a problem. |
| 02:48:29.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's the statute. That's not, we didn't recommend that. That's the statute. Yeah. |
| 02:48:34.74 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:48:35.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And that's why we're trying to, that's one of the reasons we put a square foot is limit because we couldn't, You can have an objective standard, but we can't necessarily ensure it's going to get reviewed by designer view. |
| 02:48:52.30 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. So back to seven here. Commissioner Saad, I think everyone's sensitive to your point. The struggle is the objective criteria rather than subjective. |
| 02:49:05.57 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. I can't offer a language at this moment, does this, can I just understand the intent from this meeting? Is this our one last opportunity before it moving forward. |
| 02:49:19.03 | Kristina Feller | That's the idea. |
| 02:49:22.38 | Nastassya Saad | Let me hang on to this one for just a minute while we keep going. |
| 02:49:24.72 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:49:24.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 02:49:25.90 | Nastassya Saad | All right. |
| 02:49:26.97 | Kristina Feller | One, two, three, seven. Okay, let's do it. |
| 02:49:28.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:49:28.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Three and seven, let's go to eight. Eight says each dwelling unit shall comply with applicable requirements related to utility and sewer connections. We didn't feel it was needed to force them to have a separate utility if the codes don't require it. If they do require it, then they... So we thought we should just leave it to the requirement for utility and sewer connections and not add additional things in. |
| 02:50:00.55 | Kristina Feller | I'm good with that. |
| 02:50:02.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh the next one was this idea that um the building code is going to tell them how far apart things need to be so setting this distance of 10 feet didn't seem to make sense to us so we recommended |
| 02:50:23.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then 10 was, it was, uh, was repetitive of three. So we just took it out and it was redundant. The man. |
| 02:50:29.99 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner, is there any comments on that or Commissioner Graff? No, those are all... |
| 02:50:33.69 | Richard Graef | nose. All good. No, no. That's what I was. Those are fine. |
| 02:50:36.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:50:37.13 | Richard Graef | All right. |
| 02:50:37.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | keep going and that's it. So really the only issues are decks and materials. This is what I think everybody else needs to be in concurrence, but obviously we need to get public comments and then we need to address these issues. And Chair Luck, |
| 02:50:55.04 | Mary Wagner | or Commissioner Luxenberg, I think one issue I did forget to mention is if you can scroll up to Um, section... two of the ordinance, It is. Um... proposed language in 970-040. Go the other way again. There we go. Right there. Yeah, so this highlighted language. This matches, this 1200 square foot limit matches the proposed restriction on the two unit developments. What I will say is that A number of land use attorneys have asserted that And, It is a plausible reading, in my opinion, of the statute. that the urban lot split provisions do work Uh... independent of the two-unit residential development. So in theory, someone could apply for a ministerial approval of an urban lot split And then they would have two lots. At that point, they would have the choice as to whether or not to seek discretionary design review. war. seek ministerial approval under your two unit residential provisions of this ordinance. This language here, by saying, that. any dwelling units that are constructed on an urban lot split lot are limited to 1200 square feet in floor area. would effectively eliminate any desire by anyone to ever Consider discretionary design review. So, For example, if you struck this section C here, someone could seek an urban lot get an urban lot split lot approved And then, potentially seek discretionary design review to meet whatever could be built on that lot, provided it meets the minimum building standards of your zoning code. So for example, if you're I believe your zoning code says that A 1600 square foot lot is considered substandard, you can still build on it. So as long as the urban and lot split was over 1,600 square feet, someone could consider discretionary design review. they would certainly not if this restriction here remained. So that is just something I'll flag for you folks because I have seen it come up in other SB9 ordinances where people complain about that to no end. Um, So that just as a policy matter, I do think that provision there is Legal. I do think it also has implications. So. Sergio, thank you for that. And let me just really clarify for my |
| 02:53:55.97 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 02:54:08.05 | Mary Wagner | No. they could build one unit of 1200 square feet for two units up to 1200 square feet. But if say the underlying zoning district allows 3000 square feet single family dwelling, that would definitely be off the table because it couldn't be approved. and, you know, you |
| 02:54:25.97 | Andrew Junius | So you couldn't build a 2400 square foot single family home. It would have to be a 1200 square foot home. or how big. new lot you created is. That's correct. I know. Yeah. That's an interesting |
| 02:54:38.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I want to make a point about that because I, Thank you. The reason I would recommend is 1200 square feet is I don't think we're going to see our 6,000 foot zoning districts becoming 3000 foot zoning districts and building a bunch of rick mansions I think we want to create affordable housing. If we restrict it to this size, that somebody is more likely to build a two unit development, maybe 800, 1200 of each of the units and get more housing. I don't think we wanna take our single family zones of 6,000 and get a whole bunch of 3,000 foot lots where people are putting three and 4,000 square foot houses on them, I don't think that's |
| 02:55:13.53 | Unknown | and |
| 02:55:20.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | what last been on was intended to do. And I think this restriction helps get more affordable housing and doesn't get sort of a McMansion approach to development. So that's why I'm happy with having this issue. Yeah, we had this debate |
| 02:55:39.02 | Andrew Junius | And on the flip side of it, I don't think SB9 was ever intended to, frankly, apply to a city like Sausalito. there's a lot of places where it makes a lot more rational sense in the way the street grid lays out, You know, frankly, the west side of San Francisco is a pretty prime example. I'm not sure how much of it's gonna get developed through SB9, but you've got, you know, thousands of, you know, |
| 02:56:29.97 | Andrew Junius | counterproductive to not allow them to build a larger home if they wanted to create. We might get no homes as opposed to one larger home. I don't necessarily have been you know, the McMansions that worries me at all. the whole hillside is filled McMansions if you want to call them that I mean We have custom homes everywhere. Um, if, if SB9 only allows only you know incentivizes a handful of single-family homes to come into the you know you come into the THE END OF |
| 02:57:06.98 | Andrew Junius | Anyway, that's where Commissioner Luxenberg and I did disagree. |
| 02:57:11.52 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask a follow on question to... to this discussion and that is CDD had generated an SB9 list of lots that were even eligible for SB9 and lot splits and I think what what we're actually talking about as it relates to C here is like a handful of lots. It's not a whole lot of lots. so that we're not talking about I don't believe we're talking about. I mean, I don't know if, Sergei, you've gone back and looked at that list Dan, you've looked at it. I don't believe that we're looking at, you know, hundreds of lots that this would apply to. And I wanna make sure that in this discussion, we're also putting it in context about what the potential impact is as it relates to penalizing somebody in one hand or not supporting affordable housing in the other. Can you speak to that, Sergio or Dan? |
| 02:58:19.22 | Mary Wagner | I will say that I have not seen this list that you mentioned. So I unfortunately cannot speak to that, but I think you guys are, kneeling. The exact policy questions before you you I think everybody is identifying that the correct policy considerations here |
| 02:58:38.46 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:58:39.44 | Unknown | I think it's like, I think it's more like 800 or something. So I think it's a large number. |
| 02:58:39.69 | Kristina Feller | I dare and try to remember. |
| 02:58:47.86 | Dan | Chair Feller and Commissioners, I want to say that we might've done a mapping exercise to show those. And I've seen, but I can't pull up with my screen. I can't get to my map with my screen, sharing this in my screen right now. |
| 02:59:03.58 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Well, let's, we don't have to necessarily look right now, but I think at some point we should. Um, |
| 02:59:12.24 | Andrew Junius | I recall Chair Feller, I think you make a really good point, but I recall the list actually, because we have so many large lots, I mean, the criteria here is basically like, 2400 square feet, right? Because you need to, that's, A lot that's smaller than that really doesn't fit into the SB9 box. So we removed those, but we have so many large lots at least mathematically, there's probably a lot of theoretical if we lived in a flat place where there was a huge backyard, you know. |
| 02:59:39.34 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:59:40.32 | Andrew Junius | But we don't, and I think to your point, once you really look at what's buildable and what people are willing to you know, even raise their hand to consider you know, a lot split is probably super small given the geography here. |
| 02:59:57.13 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and a lot of the lots that that are 2,400 square feet or larger. sometimes the dwellings that exist on them, you know, ooze over half of it. So they're actually not eligible because you can't split the lot properly. I think it's really important to keep what you've said vice chair and just the whole this idea of the list in context when we are talking about that. or any of these items. As it relates to C here, which we need to just address before we get into public comment, um, I'm not sure where I fall on this yet. I can certainly see both sides of it and I don't want to be overly punitive. And I guess maybe Sergio, the question is, if somebody did a lot split, but they don't want the second lot, maybe it's sold to somebody else, they don't want it to be an SB9 lot, it's just gonna be a non-conforming lot. Is that correct if it's not built? through these SB9 regulations. Is that true? |
| 03:01:06.16 | Mary Wagner | Well, so absent SB9, You know, if somebody wanted to split their lot, they'd have to go through the MAP Act process, get approval of a tentative subdivision map, because I believe your ordinance requires a tentative map and a final map for just about every lot split in the city. And additionally, they couldn't get a lot split approved. or sorry, they couldn't get a subdivision approved if it were result in a lot size that is below your minimum you know, lot requirements in your zoning and subdivision standards. So, SB9 effectively gets rid of a lot of that. know provided you meet all of the requirements uh in the statute for eligibility you know, and there are actually fairly numerous, um, but they're not impossible, right? And so I would suspect that a lot more lots are eligible for an urban lot split than they would be eligible for, say, a subdivision. Um, So. an answer to your question. someone could basically get an urban lot split Law approved. And then they could sell off that lot without they themselves developing it. it would be subject to you know, whatever restrictions you guys have created on the use of urban lots built lots, which do not necessarily have to be exactly the same or conform to your ministerial approval process for our two or shall I say up to two unit residential development. under SB9. |
| 03:02:38.39 | Unknown | Got it. |
| 03:02:39.45 | Mary Wagner | So. you know, again. if you guys had this here. someone could still do an urban loss, but choose not to, develop the rump lot, but anybody who would be buying it would be restricted to developing it with no more than two 1200 square foot, dwelling units on that lot. And If they were to buy that lot, then they would obviously go through the ministerial process because there's no reason to do anything else. |
| 03:03:06.13 | Kristina Feller | Got it. Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:03:08.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask you a question on that? If they wanted, let's say they lock it split, they sell it, they sell it again, they sell it again. It still has that restriction. Can they get a variance? Is there a variance present? |
| 03:03:23.22 | Mary Wagner | You know, I will say this, that we have not seen how that has played out. I don't know if anybody has a clear answer to that. I do think that realistically, Um, you know, the standard for variance is, you know, based on the unique topological, you know, conditions, blah, blah, blah, blah. Let me pull up the variance statute so I'm not quoting it. Um... |
| 03:03:51.24 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:03:51.59 | Mary Wagner | kind of. |
| 03:03:51.98 | Andrew Junius | It's a physical hardship and I've, from my experience, you've always, it's almost impossible to prove to get a variance you know for new construction. You either comply with the rules or you don't. Yeah, so... Existing situations, yeah. Yeah. |
| 03:04:02.49 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, variances are as Commissioner Junior has mentioned, very rarely granted. And you have to demonstrate special circumstances apropos of property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings. and demonstrate that the strict application of your zoning standards would deprive them of the privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. I think it'd be very hard to get a zoning variance approved given that you're still allowing development of property under your ministerial or bureau process, you know, I think they They have an uphill battle, at least to me, saying that they're being deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property. You know, maybe they're not entitled to you know, build, you know, the two story you know, 24, 2600, 2800 square foot, you know, development they'd like to, but they're still entitled to reasonable use and enjoyment of their property. and It would just be, I think, If a grant of a variance was challenged, I think of being somewhat difficult to defensive. So. |
| 03:05:17.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and then, |
| 03:05:17.45 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:05:17.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. I also flagged for the commission's notification It would not surprise me that somebody would want to avoid Thank you. two or three years of design review approval and would build a two unit development of 2400 square feet with a second kitchen and two hour corner wall and create two units and then use it as a single family because we can't legislate how they use it so i mean i wouldn't i'd be surprised if somebody wants to go through that could go through the ministerial process would go through the whole design review process unless they have specific needs that the design review process allowed them to solve. Just a thing. |
| 03:06:03.10 | Kristina Feller | Okay. How about this? There's still a couple things that we need to figure out here, but I think this is a good place to stop and ask for public comment. before we get too far. So Dan if you don't mind this stopping your screen share for just a moment we might come back to it though. Yeah. And then let's go ahead and open up public comment. So this is a time for the public to make comment on item 6B this evening, which is the review of the SB a draft ordinance to do so if you could raise your hand in the Zoom application or press star nine on your cell phone. So I am just looking for raised hands in the audience. And I know see Maria Getting the timer ready, but I do not see any raised hands. Oh, I do see one. I see Pat Elton, Pat, welcome. if you could unmute yourself. and turn your screen on. You'll have three minutes for public comment. And if Maria, we can get the timer up, that would be helpful. |
| 03:07:11.51 | Maria | Thank you. Give me one second, Chair Follower. Somebody mark down my timeline. |
| 03:07:15.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:07:15.73 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:07:15.74 | Kristina Feller | Oh, no. |
| 03:07:15.96 | Maria | No. |
| 03:07:16.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:07:16.96 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:07:18.07 | Andrew Junius | I saw it go over there. I was wondering what happened. |
| 03:07:21.67 | Kristina Feller | Ah. Okay. And All right. So if you can. Just put it down a little bit, Maria, into the screen so we can see it. And again, I wanna welcome Pat Elton. Welcome this evening. You have three minutes for public comment on item 6B. |
| 03:07:48.09 | Kristina Feller | Ms. Elton, you've been unmuted, so we can hear you. I believe if you have comment this evening. |
| 03:08:01.66 | Kristina Feller | Maria, can you see if Ms. Elton needs some technical assistance? |
| 03:08:12.19 | Kristina Feller | Hi, we cannot hear you. You might have to, if you have earbuds in, they might not be on. We cannot hear you. |
| 03:08:34.57 | Kristina Feller | Could you dial in on a cell phone or? |
| 03:08:35.17 | Unknown | I'm just dialing |
| 03:08:41.33 | Kristina Feller | We can't hear you, but we see you talking, but so we, I don't know if you could dial in. |
| 03:08:53.52 | Kristina Feller | or maybe try without your earbuds. Maybe that's the problem, I don't know. |
| 03:09:10.04 | Kristina Feller | We still can't hear you. |
| 03:09:17.41 | Kristina Feller | Okay, we'll wait a second. |
| 03:09:26.78 | Kristina Feller | I know Ms. Elton has been on with us all evening, so definitely want to give her chance to make public comment on this item. |
| 03:09:40.46 | Kristina Feller | Uh, you, um, I still can't hear you. If you have a cell phone and you want to dial in, you can do that as well. |
| 03:09:53.14 | Kristina Feller | Let's give Ms. Elton a moment to do that since she's been patiently waiting. |
| 03:10:00.85 | Dan | For the record, Chair, I looked on marine maps. It looks like they have about 50 or so. |
| 03:10:05.57 | Kristina Feller | Okay. just based on lot size, right? Pardon? Just based on lot size? |
| 03:10:13.39 | Dan | Yeah, we have the 2,400 lots, which there's very few of those. And then the other ones that are varying sizes. |
| 03:10:21.66 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you for looking. Ms. Elton, can we give you the phone number? Okay, let's give you the phone number. Okay, so. If you're joining by phone, it's 669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669-669- 9-0-0. 6833. |
| 03:11:03.81 | Kristina Feller | Maria, if I'm giving her the wrong number, can you assist, please? I'm looking at our agenda. |
| 03:11:11.81 | Maria | I believe that's gonna ask |
| 03:11:13.02 | Kristina Feller | of the |
| 03:11:13.26 | Maria | meeting ID number. |
| 03:11:14.86 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so the meeting ID number, if you're ready is 40 5-2. 9-5. 28 three, six. And then you hit the number, the hashtag. |
| 03:11:59.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay, we're going to let you in here. |
| 03:12:04.90 | Kristina Feller | And let's unmute, I guess, If you can unmute yourself, we cannot hear you yet. |
| 03:12:14.51 | Kristina Feller | Maria, can you assist with unmuting Ms. Elton? |
| 03:12:17.96 | Maria | She has to press star nine to unmute. OK? |
| 03:12:22.21 | Patricia Elton | Thank you. |
| 03:12:22.77 | Maria | There we go. |
| 03:12:24.03 | Patricia Elton | I think I made it. There you go. Thank you. All right, my name is Patricia Elton. I represent a property owner that lives within the city of Sausalito on Casno Street. And we are going to be maybe one of the first of your SB9 approaches in the future. So it's important that we make a few comments that keep the flexibility of good design. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT So on the issue of Uh, definitely. I hope that you keep open mind that the open space, whether covered or uncovered, is equally as valuable on a lot. as is the living space within. And if anyone learned anything about through this COVID experience, We all got a better feeling because we were able to go outside. So, keeping that in mind. I'm going to go. Always addressing the privacy is important. maybe consider the 15 feature talking about between structures. and buildings as opposed to property lines. then it won't be such a preclusion. to outdoor living spaces that people do enjoy, particularly in Sausalito. So I would hope that you consider that. concept of open space and covered open space. a far more valuable thing in Sausalito than considering this living space. these second The second question, when you were talking about materials, and colors and how we're going to approach that palette. simply add the word where feasible. so that you have the flexibility to have that person explain why they're changing their materials why they're changing their color schemes. Some cities. want. three separate structure colors. if they're going to be doing the designs. So we look forward to having feasibility and practicality as part of that decision, particularly if materials are gonna start to become difficult. We're doing it. Third comment I would like to make on the issue of sewer. It's important that when we talk about sewers, that we comply with the codes of the of the Housing Crisis Act. because it directly talks about whether the JADUs and the ADUs are even considered for the hookup. in that process that the main residence is allowed. So, We want you to keep open with that. Also, when you go for the submittal, that we aren't found incomplete for submittal because we don't have the sewer, which we can't get until after we have the civil engineers finished. or we can't finish the review of a structural process before we are asked how we're going to tie into things. So those processes happen much later. If it becomes a part of completing the application, then they would never be found complete. And so we would end up denying by never being able to be completed. Those are the comments that I have and reserve the right to submit more in writing as this develops. Thank you. |
| 03:15:30.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Thank you for overcoming the technological challenges and dialing in. We always welcome public comments. This is a recommendation that is also going back to the city council. We've been asked to review it first. And so I would encourage you to also make your points known to the city council as well. Thank you for your comments this evening. I appreciate you being here. I am looking for any other hands in the public for comment on this item 6B. This is the draft ordinance for SB-9. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public comment and bring the discussion back up to our virtual dais here. And Vice Chair Junius and Commissioner Luxembourg, I'll let you start us off again. a couple points that we still needed to talk through. |
| 03:16:28.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There seems to be three areas, the decks, the materials, and this 1,200 square feet. Now, I was a little confused by Dan's latest comment on the 1,200 square foot restriction that would apply to any lots created under this ordinance, which I think can be as much as 800 or something. If I'm, you know, I thought I saw something in the HEAC materials that said that they assess the number of lots that were potentially eligible, not necessarily the ones that would actually happen count towards the arena, but, um, It says new dwellings constructed in this chapter maybe no more than 1200 square feet. If you have a lot split, wherever it is, R6, R8, R20, it would be limited to 1200 if you wanted, 2400 you'd build two units, which would create more possibly affordable units, which the comment I was making earlier. But the 50 number, you're talking about non-conforming lots, I'm talking about This would apply to any law Yeah. not any law, there was some restrictions by the historic, there's some statutory restrictions but this would apply to anything in R6, R8 or R20. Am I not getting that correct? Thank you. |
| 03:17:59.47 | Dan | So the city of Sausalito, Chair of Peller, Commissioner Luxembourg, the city of Sausalito did an exercise for Marin maps where they took a handful of lots in the R1 district only. And based on the minimum of 1200 square feet, and I've already closed that unfortunately, based on a minimum 1200 square foot per lot, they went ahead and, chose lots that were 2,400 square feet or less, and then they chose lots that were larger. |
| 03:18:38.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, so this restriction will apply to lots that are 2,400 square feet. They have to be a minimum of 1,200. The lot has to be 1,200. So it has to be at least 2,400 square feet or it can't meet the spread. And then it could go up as high as any number. With anything in our one zone. This restriction would apply to anything in an R1 zone. |
| 03:19:07.30 | Dan | Yes. |
| 03:19:07.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Okay, but that's not 50. That's like 800. I don't know. I thought it was his son with the HE Act, but... No, no, no. |
| 03:19:15.41 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, yeah, yeah. Forgive me, Commissioner Luxenberg, currently Um, SB 9. Lots are not currently counted into the RHNA numbers. HCD has not been specific. |
| 03:19:28.59 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:19:31.66 | Kristina Feller | about, or they haven't been clear about that SB nine is separate. from Rina. |
| 03:19:37.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I understand that, but as part of the analysis, I saw a document, and again, I only read it briefly, that talked about the number of lots in the single family zones that would be eligible for SB9. It was just part of some analysis. It wasn't, I didn't say it was part of the arena or whatever. I'm just saying that there was an analysis that occurred. And maybe I'm wrong. |
| 03:20:04.11 | Nastassya Saad | there was commissioner Luxembourg because I tried to find it as well. I couldn't locate it, but maybe, um, I don't know if it's relevant for right now in terms of the 1200. |
| 03:20:12.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:12.94 | Patricia Elton | Yeah. |
| 03:20:17.85 | Nastassya Saad | but you're not incorrect. Something was out there, but I'm not sure if it's pertinent to this. |
| 03:20:24.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm just saying that this restriction will apply to any sub any subdivide live as part of espionage that's what it's intended to do and i just want to make sure i understand it and that's what i was told and understood |
| 03:20:40.07 | Kristina Feller | But Vice Chair Junius, is this, You didn't agree with this language here, Zad? |
| 03:20:46.39 | Andrew Junius | I've been. Yeah, I think Commissioner Luxenberg and I had a basic disagreement |
| 03:21:03.97 | Andrew Junius | of whatever size that fits on the lot within the other ministerial objective standards. for a single family home. that could be 2,000 |
| 03:21:31.96 | Andrew Junius | you could end up with a new SB9 lot with a 4000 square foot home on it. But if that's, you know, but if, if, but that would be a, I think if Sergio was still on, that would have to go through our discretionary process. So, I'm not sure. you know, I think that's a kind of a fair compromise. Um, Sergio, is that right? |
| 03:21:51.91 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:21:53.34 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:21:53.36 | Mary Wagner | If you were to strike this provision in this proposed section. Um, then anybody. who wanted to build a unit of 1200 square feet or less that meets your objective standards could do that ministerially. Anything over that, or that doesn't meet your objective standards, they would have to go through your discretionary design review |
| 03:22:09.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:10.03 | Scott Couture | or that doesn't work. |
| 03:22:10.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:15.49 | Mary Wagner | And also the lot that is created would still need to be a buildable lot under your regular zoning provisions. You know, if someone's making an urban lot split of 1,200 square feet exactly, I suspect that they're not going to be eligible for discretionary design review anyway. |
| 03:22:25.34 | Unknown | If someone's making |
| 03:22:33.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:33.86 | Kristina Feller | Or the dairy dairy. |
| 03:22:34.06 | Mary Wagner | for the very tiny lots. |
| 03:22:35.75 | Kristina Feller | So I don't know why we just don't strike it here. |
| 03:22:38.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The reason we don't strike it here, I'm not worried about the 2,400-foot lots. I'm worried about the 8,000-foot lots in our single-family zones that we would now divide them all into 4,000-foot lots and build large houses on them up to the standard of the zoning in an 8,000-foot zone. This takes off any control of that. That's what I'm worried about. Uh, uh, uh. Okay, I know this is it. No. Thank you. |
| 03:23:11.00 | Andrew Junius | No, no, that large home would still be subject to all the discretionary processes that we have. |
| 03:23:16.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You don't deny the house. I mean, we've had a number of houses that are oversized, but they meet all the requirements. And as long as it doesn't block a view and doesn't do this and doesn't do that, eventually that house gets approved. But I don't think the intent of this was for us to put large houses, you know, multimillion dollar, non-affordable houses on all of our 8,000 foot lots. I think the idea was to create some affordable units that, you know, policemen and teachers and all that can have. And they're not going to be able to go afford the three or 4,000, you know, so what's going to happen is over time, you time, over a number of years, all of the 8,000 foot lots get divided into 4,000 foot lots and then we get large houses on them. I don't think that's what we wanna do. I don't think we're required to do that. And this is the one piece that protects us from that happening. |
| 03:24:18.23 | Kristina Feller | I'm not, I don't agree that this is the only thing that protects us from that happening. That's, that is what the entire housing element advisory committee is. is charged with doing outside of SB9. completely separate from SB9. So I'm not worried about that at all. I mean, we have a clear breakdown of what those 724 units are under the housing element and our RENA numbers. SB9 is separate. I would move to strike this from this section. |
| 03:24:50.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. I don't think we're, I understand that you want to strike this section, but I don't think you understand, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not talking about the reading numbers. I'm not talking about any of that. What I'm talking about is the practical effect of this could be that all of our 8,000 foot lots become 4,000 foot lots throughout our whole single family zones, our R6, our R8, all of them could be cut in half in large homes up to the zoning stand, which built on all of those lots. And so, yes, we could protect against views and we can review the design and somebody might have to go through two years of whatever, but we're going to create these lots, which were never intended to have, you know, in our eight or our six zones, we're supposed to have 6,000 foot lots. So now we have 3,000 foot lots. And those lots are substandard by the zoning standard, but they're allowed by SB9. And then all of those lots are going to get houses on them and if people want to build a couple of 1200 square foot units and that provides affordable housing that's great that's what SB9 was intended but if people want to build three or four thousand square foot houses you know because it's highly profitable that's not you know and then we'll have long discarded long things on these slots through the designer view but that was not affected in 10 of SB9. profitable, that's not, and then we'll have long, long things on these lots through the design review, but that's not the intent of SB9. And this is, I think the protection for that. So maybe disagree with the possibility of having that, or maybe you think it should be strict, which is fine. You're entitled to your opinion, obviously. But I just want to make sure What I'm saying is clear, that's all. |
| 03:26:37.76 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 03:26:38.85 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:26:38.87 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Saad? I think if what... commissioner Luxembourg is saying is correct, which is how I understand it. I would completely support to keep this and not strike this because I'm in agreement that there should be, I'm in agreement, I think in general that we as a eventually council and as a city should put some restrictions in place on SB nine, not to make it too restrictive that people don't wanna take advantage of this offering, but we have very little discretionary room here and I think a a limit in the square in floor area. Um, makes perfect sense. So I would, I would vote to keep that in. |
| 03:27:21.53 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Commissioner Graff, do you have an opinion about this particular item C here? |
| 03:27:29.21 | Richard Graef | I do and I would favor keeping it. I share Commissioner Luxembourg. sense that they could open up Um, situations that we really don't want. So I'm in favor of keeping a limit. I'm 1,200, I don't know. I mean, Could it be 13, could it be 11? that's just a number, I do think we need to keep a limit on it. Yes. |
| 03:28:06.72 | Kristina Feller | I know. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 03:28:09.34 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I really appreciate everybody's input. I guess, I would just remind everybody, there's really two pieces to this, right? There's the one that allows the split and there's the one that allows two units on a lot. the idea here was to promote any kind of housing production, I think, right? Um, And, I just, I mean, my feeling is that you're First off, I personally don't think this is going to generate a ton of housing in South Sausalito. for a lot of reasons that we've already kind of discussed. But to the extent that single-family homes on enormous lots I think one of the things that the legislature wanted the option to happen is to split those very large lots into to. |
| 03:28:54.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:28:54.12 | Andrew Junius | large lots as opposed to one very large lot and to allow at least one additional single-family home to be built on that lot. That's one more house that Sausalito would get that they wouldn't otherwise have without SB9. You know, if somebody, I just, for some reason, first off, I also disagree that you know, a 1200 square foot home built in today's world in Sausalito is going to be affordable. I mean, I think that's, you know, on the hillside when somebody's, you know, created a new lot under SB9. I understand the sentiment. I totally appreciate the need to generate affordable housing. I don't think SB9 really does that in a city like Sausalito. And so what I was just trying to do is suggest the idea that by eliminating this, you actually create another option for something. for one unit as opposed to two. Now we can debate as to whether that's too big and too expensive, somebody's making money on that or whatever, but at least it's in our house. So, |
| 03:29:55.55 | Andrew Junius | So I'm going to go ahead and Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't get out of the water here, but those are my thoughts. |
| 03:30:00.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Saad, you had your hand up. |
| 03:30:04.49 | Nastassya Saad | I forgot to lower it. |
| 03:30:05.56 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Well, I think the majority wants to keep this in. Um, three to three to keep it in. So why don't we keep moving on? |
| 03:30:21.10 | Matthew Mandich | So the others are the decks and the materials. |
| 03:30:24.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Dan, if we could just go back to those. |
| 03:30:27.95 | Dan | All right. |
| 03:30:28.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:30:28.28 | Dan | I love you. |
| 03:30:28.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. the decks and the materials that are found. |
| 03:30:30.75 | Dan | Yeah, that's right. Thank you. |
| 03:30:31.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm gone. Yeah. |
| 03:30:33.21 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think it's F3 and 7. There we go. |
| 03:30:36.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:30:36.50 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:30:36.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | on. |
| 03:30:36.71 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Um... |
| 03:30:38.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:30:40.28 | Andrew Junius | Can I just make a comment about the materiality part and the public comment that we got? I thought that was I thought the public comment was wonderful. I do think though that people are still having trouble absorbing the idea of objective standards And the term feasibility is also a subjective term because what does that really mean? So I really think we're stuck on that. I don't know, I don't have a solution. That's why we took it out. Mr. Saad, you come up with some approach to this that would make it objective But I think that's just a problem. So I don't think we need to waste a ton more time on that. |
| 03:31:11.96 | Nastassya Saad | I don't wanna belabor this. I tried very hard during this meeting to come up with something. I think I'd probably get outvoted because I'd like to keep it as is. in terms of colors, but I can't find anything that might be not. |
| 03:31:22.35 | Unknown | in terms of color. |
| 03:31:29.51 | Nastassya Saad | it would go against an objective standard. So in that token, if everyone's in agreement with how this is, I will yield to. to leaving it as amended. |
| 03:31:41.30 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Commissioner Graff, do you have any Thank you. |
| 03:31:43.48 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:31:43.50 | Richard Graef | Well, I was just wondering, you know, there might be some language that would You know, I mean, do words like compatible or harmonious or consistent? Are those kinds of ideas, are those two subjective? |
| 03:32:06.72 | Mary Wagner | I will answer that. with a definitive Those are incredibly subjective standards. And I will read to you the definition of what an objective standard is. |
| 03:32:18.07 | Unknown | All of them. |
| 03:32:19.29 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, so in SB9, An objective zoning standard, subdivision standard, or design review standard means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official, and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criteria criterion. available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official prior to submittal So basically, it has to be something that When they submit the application, they know at that time that they are quote unquote, harmonious. David. with your color requirement. Like it has to be something that is so obvious that there's not really a potential for two reasonable minds to have a dispute about whether or not you've met the requirements. which is very hard to draft. which is a problem. |
| 03:33:12.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:33:13.22 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:33:13.25 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. which is why height limits and setbacks and floor area ratios and all the number metrics work just fine. in an objective world, the minute you get away from that stuff, it becomes, when you really start thinking about it, it starts to get kind of easy because once, once you realize that if two minds can differ, then it's subjective. |
| 03:33:35.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. So that's number seven, which is down a little bit. And then number three is the one on the screen right now. And I heard three things. I heard possibly go back to the original language, which is prohibit them. I heard increase the standard. I heard use this language. And then the fourth one, use the footprint of the building. My comment on the footprint of the building is I'm worried that's not quite objective. It's objective but they will just put something under it to make it work and I don't know that that's really what the goal would be. I mean I understand if you were designing and we're doing design review and we wanted within the framework of the building I know what that means but given that the one earlier today looks to me like a projection out but it's actually over the top of this foundation in a basement means to me that that might create less clarity but that's just a thought |
| 03:34:47.15 | Andrew Junius | I still think that the idea, I know you're right, Jeffrey. I mean, that, you know, the minute you, Um, create something, somebody's going to, you know, try to figure out a way to utilize it. Again, the public comment, I thought, made a good point that It's important to make sure Thank you. |
| 03:35:19.41 | Andrew Junius | Um, I mean, I thought, I think a decent compromise is to basically say as long as the balcony is over a volume of the building. And again, you're right, Jeffrey, even if they go ahead and design the building that way so they get a deck, I guess that's okay. As opposed to the you know, applied, you know, cantilever deck that sticks out over a yard or over whatever that that that I think is what we're trying to that could be a pretty straightforward Uh, you I THINK WOULD BE OBJECTIVE, AS LONG AS THE you know, as long as the, Thank you. |
| 03:35:53.97 | Andrew Junius | THE BALCONY IS A CONDITION within the home. that should be fine. Other than that, You don't get one. that's a decent compromise that I think would be objective. |
| 03:36:04.76 | Kristina Feller | I agree with that. I totally support that. |
| 03:36:07.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're suggesting the language we have here, plus a statement that should be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the property line of any adjacent residential use. And it shall not be set back What's the word? |
| 03:36:26.74 | Andrew Junius | and shall be constructed over of a volume of conditioned space within the new home or the new residential unit. |
| 03:36:35.00 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, within the footprint. |
| 03:36:37.19 | Andrew Junius | Well, you see, I think the footprint starts to get, I know where you come to some extent, but I think the balcony is up high. And so to say what's under it is really the key. |
| 03:36:40.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:36:40.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:40.26 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:36:40.31 | Unknown | I know. |
| 03:36:46.34 | Unknown | Remember that? |
| 03:36:46.47 | Andrew Junius | under it is the volume and don't I wouldn't worry about the footprint I think that that might be confusing |
| 03:36:49.78 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:36:51.45 | Maria | Fair enough. |
| 03:36:52.26 | Andrew Junius | conditions based as |
| 03:36:53.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF |
| 03:36:53.66 | Andrew Junius | that shall be, yeah, the balcony shall be over condition volume of the of the proposed homes. |
| 03:37:02.70 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 03:37:04.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm okay with that. |
| 03:37:05.67 | Nastassya Saad | That's a good compromise. |
| 03:37:08.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. |
| 03:37:08.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:37:09.03 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Graff, are you okay? Thank you. |
| 03:37:11.14 | Richard Graef | Okay, that's good. |
| 03:37:13.01 | Kristina Feller | Virgio, Hope, did you, Thank you. Were you able to capture that? |
| 03:37:20.03 | Mary Wagner | Yes, and ultimately I would recommend that, you know, when the commission has reached some sort of consensus that we have a motion that sets forth exactly... what you folks are. |
| 03:37:33.59 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:37:33.69 | Mary Wagner | okay with transmitting as your recommendation to the council. Ultimately, you know, that recommendation would go to the council. We, And by we, I mean staff in the city attorney's office would probably take a crack at the exact language. I don't think you necessarily need to wordsmith it tonight, although you certainly can if you would like to. Um, But ultimately, I think... you need to make a recommendation on the ordinance and what changes you would ultimately like to see to it from its current forms. |
| 03:38:05.46 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. For sure, I just want to make sure that it was clear to you what our intent was because you're going to have to help. draft this and present it. Um, Okay, and in the interest of time, because we still have, you know, a whole other... new business items, let's move on to seven. And I think this was the last item that we needed to discuss. |
| 03:38:32.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We decided, I thought we just decided a moment ago that we were gonna let everyone agree to be taken out. That's what we were talking about most of the time. |
| 03:38:41.24 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Oh yeah, okay, this is about, yeah. I am. |
| 03:38:43.99 | Andrew Junius | We can't make an objective. |
| 03:38:46.08 | Kristina Feller | We can't make it. |
| 03:38:46.30 | Andrew Junius | Sorry, Commissioner Saad. And the trap. |
| 03:38:50.03 | Kristina Feller | I wish we could, by the way, Commissioner Assad, I wish that we could. I don't disagree with you, but Which we could, too. |
| 03:38:57.07 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 03:38:57.93 | Richard Graef | Bye. |
| 03:38:57.94 | Patricia Elton | Bye. |
| 03:38:58.57 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Well, you know what? Isn't there another opportunity at council level? I mean, they might have input as well, correct? |
| 03:39:06.60 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:39:07.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:39:08.74 | Kristina Feller | All right, so let's go ahead and take seven out. |
| 03:39:09.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Go ahead. So I just want to make clear, we're going to, Sergio, we're going to send this without the red lines because the ordinance as drafted was just not random, but it wasn't, it didn't come from them. So we're going to take out all the deletions and we're going to clean this. So the only change we made was to that one section, I believe. |
| 03:39:36.44 | Kristina Feller | Section three. |
| 03:39:38.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. And where we added a reference to the controlled Andrew and I, |
| 03:39:39.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:39:48.05 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, the deck being over a volume of the proposed new residential use. Yeah. |
| 03:39:54.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:39:54.91 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. volume. And when you say oh so that would apply to rooftop decks and balconies not necessarily first floor level deck DAX, I assume. That's exactly. |
| 03:40:03.98 | Andrew Junius | Right. |
| 03:40:04.42 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 03:40:04.53 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 03:40:04.57 | Mary Wagner | you |
| 03:40:04.87 | Andrew Junius | I mean, it was, that's just a patio or that's just your yard. So I don't think we're talking about you know, the year. Bye. It's getting like, |
| 03:40:18.47 | Richard Graef | I think you get it. Oh, that one would be on. second of course anyway, right? Thank you. |
| 03:40:25.04 | Kristina Feller | Okay, everybody. |
| 03:40:27.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then the rest of the changes were all just, all the red lines get accepted and we recommend this to the council for that consideration. |
| 03:40:36.36 | Mary Wagner | And... |
| 03:40:36.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Thank you. |
| 03:40:37.73 | Mary Wagner | Did the commission also agree with the respect to deleting the Section four currently on the screen related to adjacent residential uses |
| 03:40:51.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, you're correct. That was the other thing. |
| 03:40:55.97 | Kristina Feller | So Commissioner Luxenberg, do you want to make a motion? |
| 03:40:56.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to Yes, I recommend that we recommend the draft ordinance to the city council and corporate all of the changes that are laid out in this document with an addition to the modification to section three about above controlled spaces or the wording that Commissioner Junius had just given and then deletion of section four there. And we send that along to the city of Calumet that I learned so all the other deletions happen whatever. |
| 03:41:37.14 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:41:37.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second that motion. |
| 03:41:39.08 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. |
| 03:41:40.03 | Richard Graef | I'm going to go. |
| 03:41:42.05 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 03:41:43.30 | Richard Graef | Actually, I have a, this is sort of picky, but, It's in the section on privacy. Um, Where did it go? Oh, yeah. Okay, I'm gonna get that up in front. Hmm. where it says clear story or opaque windows for all windows facing Thank you. the adjacent property. All of that. kind of a definition A CLAIR STORY. It's not something... that faces an adjacent property or even It's a rooftop. It's something on the roof. Um... |
| 03:42:28.83 | Kristina Feller | It's vertical. A clear story is a vertical space. |
| 03:42:32.39 | Richard Graef | A clear story from my understanding is like a like a little raised area in the roof with side lights that lets light in Um, And |
| 03:42:48.61 | Kristina Feller | No, it's not a skylight. It's a clear story and sort of above the occupiable space. |
| 03:42:56.67 | Unknown | It's a |
| 03:42:56.83 | Kristina Feller | It's a beautiful wall. |
| 03:43:02.85 | Richard Graef | OK. going by my understanding of architectural terms. I guess I have. |
| 03:43:10.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:43:10.68 | Richard Graef | Yeah. That's okay. I just wondered, you know, and bothered me. Oh. If it's clear to everybody else, then fine. |
| 03:43:23.51 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. I think so. Any other points of clarification or... Discussion? |
| 03:43:33.90 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Chair Fowler, I just have one. Sorry, because we got to the motion pretty quick. I just wanted to call out one Um, term, I think I'm on Page four, let's see, what section is this? 9.70.020 eligibility. And if you scroll down to I-1, It says, sorry, I'm looking at my own screen, but this is about the, Housing units proposed to be demolished or altered have not been occupied by a tenant at any time. within three years of the date Um, |
| 03:44:16.86 | Robin Lebandahl | Bye. |
| 03:44:17.59 | Nastassya Saad | That language is just different. That was what was in the SB9 fact sheet and it was slightly different than what was further down. I'm wondering if that wants to be slightly altered instead of saying within, at any time within three years, just saying, in the last three years, because that's, it says in the last three years in other areas. So I, Um, |
| 03:44:50.40 | Nastassya Saad | This is different from |
| 03:44:53.94 | Andrew Junius | Well, I think actually, Sergio, can you correct us here? I thought that was taken directly from the statute. |
| 03:45:00.49 | Mary Wagner | So the statute says the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. |
| 03:45:08.27 | Nastassya Saad | Is that at any time in there? Because I just, I read it. I read it differently in the fact sheet. I read it differently somewhere else in this document. This is the only place that says at any time. I thought it should just be within three years, |
| 03:45:24.75 | Mary Wagner | I don't think substantively that it makes a difference. |
| 03:45:29.02 | Patricia Elton | Okay. |
| 03:45:31.76 | Mary Wagner | But I do agree with you that the statute does read slightly differently. But I think as a practical matter, staff are going to be interpreting this in light of how the statute is read. You know, if a tenant has occupied the site within within the last three years at any time, I think that that, disqualifies the parcel from knowledgeability. So, |
| 03:45:54.81 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. clearer than just It's a call out. that. Okay. Go ahead. Proceed with motion. you |
| 03:46:04.95 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, Dan, do you want to take a roll call? |
| 03:46:09.44 | Dan | I'm going to take a look at the Yeah. Chair Hoxenberg? I mean, I'm sorry, Commissioner Graff. Yes. It's getting laid. I almost had two chairs. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 03:46:22.75 | Clinton Roland | Yes. |
| 03:46:23.75 | Dan | Commissioner South. Vice Chair, June. Chair Feller. Yes. I can barely hear the vice chair of junior |
| 03:46:33.84 | Clinton Roland | Thanks. Thank you. |
| 03:46:34.97 | Dan | Okay. |
| 03:46:36.88 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you very much. And thank you, Vice Chair Junius and Commissioner Luxenberg for all your hard work with this. And Sergio, it is so wonderful to have you. |
| 03:46:37.69 | Dan | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:46:38.11 | Clinton Roland | Yeah. |
| 03:46:47.25 | Kristina Feller | supporting us here at the planning commission thank you for your quick references and all your support you're obviously well versed in this and it's made a huge difference so thank you |
| 03:46:57.19 | Mary Wagner | Thank you very much. |
| 03:46:59.05 | Kristina Feller | Okay, let's move on to item number seven, new business code enforcement. Dan, I'll hand this over to you. |
| 03:47:06.04 | Dan | With us tonight is Quentin. Quinton Walling, he is a contract code enforcement officer for the city of Sausalito. It is way too late for me. And he's here tonight to discuss his role with the city of Sausalito and field any questions you may have for him. |
| 03:47:29.29 | Kristina Feller | All right. Welcome. |
| 03:47:31.82 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 03:47:31.84 | Clinton Roland | Thank you, Chair Keller and commissioners. for the opportunity to speak. It's past my bedtime. So I hope I can, anyway, I know we probably want to move quickly through this. So my name's Clinton Roland. I'm the new code enforcement officer. I've been here at the city for the last two months. And I'm also a contract employee. I'm also new with my company CSG. So although I'm not new to code enforcement or just code working with codes, I've got experience working in three different cities, city of Pacific Grove, city of Marina, which is near Monterey and city of Willits. So, and then I worked as a consultant in various capacities over the years. So I've had a lot of experience working with government or inside government or outside government. And when I did work for government, I didn't just do code enforcement. I did. I worked in many different capacities, revitalization, economic development, revitalization. And that often involved a lot of work with getting grants for downtown planning or commercial mixed-use district planning, transportation planning, bicycle and pedestrian master plans, things like projects like this. There's a street that I designed in Willits, California called West Commercial Street. I'm not an engineer and architect, but I created the initial designs working with the community and then we pass it on to the city engineers and they finalized it. So you can look at them. So I've had a lot of experience just working in many different capacities for different municipalities and it did involve working with code, kind of can't avoid it when you're working for a city. I've even written some water conservation code that was adopted by the city of Willits. I also did water conservation for them. So I've done a lot of different things, but yeah, it's a little bit about code enforcement, I imagine. And then by the way, I'll try to be quick with this, and then you guys can about code enforcement, I imagine. And then by the way, I'll try to be quick with this and then you guys can ask me any questions you like. And so the code enforcement program, generally why do we have it? It's the benefit of a code program is, from my perspective and experience, is you want to achieve a healthier, safer, more enjoyable community for your residents, for businesses and for visitors alike. and uh in the code program will help achieve that and it generally it makes people it helps people get along with each other um that's ideally if you if you manage it right you can create you can improve neighborliness understanding and hopefully people will learn as i'm interacting with the community i try to do it with a friendly approach it's not always easy you don't always get compliance by just being nice at some point when you try to do it with a friendly approach. It's not always easy. You don't always get compliance by just being nice at some point, but you try to be understanding. And my approach is to help. Basically I ask people, what's the neighborly, in this situation, what's the neighborly thing to do? We go from there and I try to find some common ground or I try to understand people who maybe are violating the code and maybe they didn't even know it or they don't like you know getting the bad news from me and so i try to do it in a friendly way i actually don't like to write letters i don't like to send people nasty kind of anonymous you know letters coming in from a stranger uh representing the city you know the authority i find it for me the human approach is much more efficient so i try to call people talk to them if it's a business i just walk in and talk to them and so i try to do it with a friendlier approach um and then of course you may have that doesn't work and your people are stubborn sometimes and you may have to um escalate it to the more formal letter writing and fines and citations and and so forth and the goal is compliance whenever we get out there our goal is not to punish people, make them feel bad, or prove how important I think I am. It's more about just making sure they know the rules, they understand and they comply. |
| 03:51:56.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:52:20.92 | Clinton Roland | Let's see what else I could talk about. And then I think it covered a lot of it. We're complaint driven. You know, I don't go looking for trouble. It's easy to do that. I could drive all over the city and find, you know, a thousand different violations, but that's the same in every town. You can find them. I have enough work to do our little 100 cases. And, you know, for every, I'm pretty much closing cases or opening cases as fast as I'm closing them. I might be a little ahead of the game, a little bit ahead of the game after two months, but the goal is to close them faster than opening them. But then you get enough cases as it is. I'm only working three days a week. So I do need to just close as many cases as possible and not look to open more cases. So it's complaint driven. So that's called reactive code enforcement, as opposed to proactively be going out there, kind of knowing where the problems are and then really looking to fix problems, like targeted areas. So I'm not doing that. I'm just dealing with the existing open cases. And then every week I hear, I get more reports, complaints, and I go from there. And I've got, we really don't, I don't have enough time for this stuff, but I can do this in the future. I can talk to you about all the reports I can share with you and just like all the different types of cases we have, what percent of each type, what percent of the caseload and which types and so forth. Generally the two biggest, most common cases that I deal with in this town, which is unusually high, Thank you. and which types and so forth. Generally the two biggest, most common cases that I deal with in this time, which is unusually high is unpermitted work. It's the biggest part is it represents 30, over 30% of my caseload. that's higher than I'm used to. So maybe it says a little bit about the kind of culture, history and culture and living on a really, I think it has to do with just living in, trying to build and living in really unusual circumstances, the steep hills. And I think maybe people are just always afraid of the sticker shock of coming in and pulling permits and getting professional opinions about things you wanna do and being told by building officials or planners that it's complicated and expensive to you know. to build and renovate in this town. And then there's short-term rental, about 25% of my cases are short-term rental. And I've looked, I've reviewed the history of code enforcement in this town. And I think that was the first, the main reason why you started a code enforcement program was to deal with the short-term rental issue. And so those two represent the majority of my cases. And then we've got all sorts of the other cases like trees and signs and walls and deteriorating structures. And let's see what else. I was gonna think of obstruction, obstructing access, trash, and so forth. I think that covers most of it. |
| 03:55:58.83 | Kristina Feller | It's great to have you here, Quinton. It's wonderful to have you here. |
| 03:55:58.88 | Clinton Roland | It's great to have you. |
| 03:56:04.92 | Kristina Feller | and to have a fresh set of eyes into enforcement Um, although enforcement doesn't really fall directly under the purview of the planning commission, we really I think see it hand in hand, it helps inform us in terms of how we condition projects or how things actually get done versus what we think they're, how they're getting done. And it really helps us understand how we can better expedite approvals through so you don't have all this unpermitted work. So bravo to you and welcome to Sausalito and looking forward. to working with you a lot. I want, and I've got some follow-up questions for you, but let me ask the commissioners here, Vice Chair Junius, do you wanna start us off? |
| 03:56:57.50 | Andrew Junius | Nice to meet you, Quentin. It's an interesting job, isn't it? Bye. just a little bit. |
| 03:57:15.75 | Clinton Roland | by No, not my experience. And I'm surprised after two months I think I've only had one anonymous complaint. Everyone else has had no problem sharing their name. And their contacts and everything. And they want me to follow up and even let them know given progress. for an update. |
| 03:57:39.47 | Andrew Junius | And how do people know how to make a complaint? I've not really looked for that on the website. Do you get phone calls, emails? Is there a place to... out of complaint form on the website. |
| 03:57:50.34 | Clinton Roland | I haven't even begun to address, I've been so busy just dealing with existing cases and such, and hit the ground running. but you also could spend, I could spend time getting the word out, you know, and giving presentations to boards or to, you know, anywhere where there's a lot of people, there's an audience and yes, explaining this. So yes, there is on the website, when you look up city business, you can go to, um, I haven't tried to search, but, um, you can look at different departments. You end up in the community development department and there's a big icon for the code department, code compliance, and you can click on that. And there's a forum, there's a complaint forum. Also people often, I'm probably getting, let's see, phone calls, I haven't got any stats on this. I'm still working on, |
| 03:58:34.91 | Andrew Junius | You have. |
| 03:58:46.11 | Clinton Roland | um, |
| 03:58:48.34 | Andrew Junius | No, it's okay, I get it. |
| 03:58:49.37 | Clinton Roland | Yeah. Yeah, they come in phone calls, they email me, they say, they know somebody within the city that's a friend or something and they just They send them an email, call them, and then that's forwarded to me. |
| 03:58:58.28 | Andrew Junius | Sure. you're and you're charged with enforcing every part of the municipal code not just building and planning but everything theoretically |
| 03:59:09.37 | Clinton Roland | Yes, any code violation could be. something I could take care of. There are times when you may want to pass it on to the police um you know obviously i have to extract myself and and recognize when it's it's maybe a potentially dangerous environment or something and i i can take care of a lot of things that police are often assigned to do that's one of the benefits of having these i can relieve them of a lot of pettier, you know, sort of small time stuff and so that they can focus on the more important, bigger ticket items. |
| 03:59:51.55 | Andrew Junius | Thank you very much. Welcome aboard, appreciate your help. Thank you. |
| 03:59:55.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 03:59:56.04 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 03:59:57.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you Chair Powell Quinton. Welcome aboard. I have two questions. You mentioned like 30% is unpermitted work and 25% is short-term rentals. is some percentage of the work cases that Planning Commission is approved and it's either not being built her spark in If so, can we get a list of outstanding code issues for ones that we've, I mean, the commission has approved and those, cause that would help us for future ones, I would think. |
| 04:00:30.92 | Clinton Roland | Let me write that down. So anything approved, |
| 04:00:43.14 | Clinton Roland | Yes, I could look that up. I don't think it's taking very much time to narrow that down. No, we don't. |
| 04:00:49.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 04:00:51.51 | Clinton Roland | You may be familiar with those A lot of these projects are several years old. You know, it takes them forever to get going or they do part of it and then they stop and then pick up later. But yes, that happens. Thank you. |
| 04:01:08.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | we approve things and we assume it's going to be built as approved but yeah it's not and there are issues you know getting a list of those would be helpful that'd be wonderful |
| 04:01:18.11 | Clinton Roland | Thank you. I work very closely with the planning department and the building and then also public works. So we have to, we work with a team and we work as a team and whatever possible, you know, I like to take, they can tell me to go out to me and focus on their most important stuff. They can ask me to help them go out and do an inspection and check out our property and see if they're complying or sticking to, consistent with approved plans and permits and such. See, that's great. Thank you. |
| 04:01:58.59 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Um, commissioner graph. |
| 04:02:03.84 | Richard Graef | Um, well, hello. Nice to meet you. Um, I don't have many questions, although I, I, always wonder about, uh, It's relative to unpermitted uses when an unpermitted use is discovered or whatever. Then how do you deal with that? I don't know. like say somebody who's using Um, you know, a property that's supposed to be used for Same. manufacturing and their I don't know. you know, running an insurance office out of there. What is How do you handle that? |
| 04:02:49.96 | Clinton Roland | Thank you. |
| 04:02:49.97 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:02:50.02 | Clinton Roland | Yeah, that's, we have a couple of cases like that. you know, permitted use or unpermitted uses. Well, you gather that the general approach is you want to make sure, first you gather evidence, you try to figure out who the responsible party is. Is it who, you know, sometimes it's difficult to determine where the violation is and what property it's on, and then who owns that property? Or am I dealing with the tenant? Is it the tenant who's, you know, the responsible party or is it the owner? So you determine that and then you gather evidence, you go do a site inspection, make some phone calls, maybe you return to the complainant and talk to them and ask them a lot more questions, get more details. But yeah, photographs, video. And once you've gathered enough evidence, then you feel like you can verify whether there is a code violation or or whether there isn't, you couldn't find any. And so, yeah, and then you go and then you have to deliver the bad news if you have verified, at least from your preliminary evidence gathering, you can try to get an inspection, get permission from the responsible party or property owner too. do a site inspection and then you got to deliver the bad news carefully and without scaring them. You want to invite them to comply and give them an easy, try to give them the easiest path. Again, it doesn't always work, but that's the idea. It works, I think, more often than not. Yeah. And so, yeah, I hope that answers your question. There's more involvement. Yeah. Then there's a lot of back and forth that they're stubborn or they don't like what they hear. And where of course, if they have the wherewithal, you know, a lot of people have access to attorneys and things and they start telling you, you know, they're going to call them city manager, they're going to call their six, literally I hear this. I've got six attorneys on speed dial right now. you know, And, you know, yeah. And I've got to like deal with that, like, okay, I better know what I'm talking about. I better be careful because Dan is going to be, If I'm not careful, then Dan's going to get sucked in and my whole department and then the city manager and then probably the mayor. So my job is to try to handle everything on my level and make sure I'm thorough. And again, I'm surprised every week I'm blindsided by something. |
| 04:05:45.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:05:45.79 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 04:05:46.89 | Clinton Roland | Bye. |
| 04:05:46.94 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Saad, do you have any questions for Quinton? |
| 04:05:47.03 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 04:05:47.06 | Clinton Roland | Bye. |
| 04:05:50.59 | Nastassya Saad | Not at this time. Just want to say welcome aboard. It's really great to have you. |
| 04:05:54.49 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. So I had a couple of questions for you, Quinton. And I think also, Dan, I think for the foreseeable future, I'd like to have Clinton come and maybe report back and discuss with the commission at least once a month. until we can clear some of these cases because We have brought up a number of issues in front of the commission. that we've asked for enforcement or enforcement to look into. And we really haven't gotten any feedback. And some of these have been going on almost a year. the most egregious one that we've been dying to get an update on, we've probably been asking at least once a month also is all the cut trees on plat. There were about 40 cut trees on plat. And this was, we had speculated this could have even risen to a criminal matter because of the egregious nature of it and the extent of it. But things like that, we really do need to hear back on what the progress is, what steps there are, We need to think about you know, how that can help inform us on conditioning things to rethink how we engage with the public or you know, so on and so forth. And then there are also quite a number of different projects that we believe are unpermitted and some of them are historic that we've also referred to the historic preservation commission asking them if they've had anything to do with some of these projects up on prospect or You know, there's been a couple over on Santa Rosa and we've gotten no feedback. And so, We've issued or I've issued a running list to CDD. I don't know if that's found its way to you, Quinton, but it would be great if maybe we could reestablish that and then make sure double check with your list And if you have any feedback on any of these today, that would be great. If not, then I think Dan, we should, schedule a time to report actually report out on these issues these violations and these issues so Quinton I don't know if you received a list or anything from CDD |
| 04:08:17.62 | Clinton Roland | I don't think so, but I'm aware of some trees being cut down on one, probably 75 plaque and I still have to get to that case and I'm going to do it this coming week. I'll get on it. Um, I have many cases I haven't even started with because you know it's over 100 cases and you do follow up every usually every few weeks or every month you do follow up on each case you do something and you have to wait for a response and then you go follow up to see if you know the next step was taken so but yeah as far as 40 trees being cut I'm not aware of that and that's obviously I think we get concerned when one large tree gets cut. So 40 years. as far as 40 trees being cut, I'm not aware of that. And that's obviously, I think we get concerned when one large tree gets cut. So 40 trees get cut, that seems like a big deal to me. Yeah, and my email, you're welcome, all of you, anybody is welcome to just email me directly, call me. Anytime you have a question about any property, just say, hey, what's, you know, I remember something happened or something was going on with this one property a few months ago or six months ago, whatever happened, you know, what happened with that property? Could you give me an update? I'll look into it and look back to you. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 04:09:42.21 | Kristina Feller | Dan, do you think we could maybe set an agenda item for the end of May. for Quinton to come back and report out on some of these projects, what the status is. And I'll recirculate lists and I can work with you. Heidi has some of them as well. |
| 04:10:01.23 | Dan | some of them as well. |
| 04:10:04.35 | Kristina Feller | Maybe we can do that. |
| 04:10:07.42 | Dan | Yeah, I can just put it on other business or old business. |
| 04:10:11.51 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think that would be worthwhile. Enforcement is so critical. to us and so critical to the city. Part of the problem is things go unpermitted because there's no consequences. Um, So it is definitely a problem. And we're in a high seismic zone. So I get concerned about some of these as well. |
| 04:10:38.10 | Kristina Feller | Yes, absolutely. |
| 04:10:39.62 | Dan | with. |
| 04:10:39.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:10:39.94 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 04:10:39.98 | Kristina Feller | you Great. Well, welcome aboard Quinton. We're so glad you're here. Look forward to working with you. Do any of the commissioners have any more questions for Quinton? No? Okay, well then we'll see you at the end of the month. |
| 04:10:56.75 | Clinton Roland | Sounds good. Appreciate all your hard work. Thank you. I'm very, I'm always impressed with what you guys have done this evening. It's incredible, the dedication and the important decisions and questions that you guys are asking and the work that you're doing. So the respect is mutual. |
| 04:11:18.81 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Good, well, we look forward to working with you and we'll see you very soon. we'll get those lists circulated to yourself and to Dan. So thank you. Thank you for that. I guess technically I'm here to take public comment on item number seven, new business. If any member of the public would like to make a public comment, now's the time to do so. If you can raise your hand in the Zoom application or press star nine on your cell phone. I'm just looking for raised hands in the audience. Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment. And per item number eight, adjournment. I move to adjourn. Everybody in favor? |
| 04:12:01.90 | Unknown | Fine. |
| 04:12:02.06 | Kristina Feller | I didn't know. All right, thank you everybody for all your hard work tonight and every other day. So have a good day. |
| 04:12:07.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:12:08.11 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:12:09.41 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:12:10.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Doug. Nice to see you. Thank you. |
| 04:12:12.49 | Maria | Well, |
| 04:12:12.81 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 04:12:13.19 | Rich Lebandahl | Thank you. |
| 04:12:13.60 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:12:14.56 | Maria | Well, |