| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:01.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Very good. |
| 00:00:01.42 | Mr. Dixon | Very good. |
| 00:00:02.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Maria, I think we have everybody, including Brendan and Sergio. So do we want to proceed with to start at 630? Are we all set? |
| 00:00:18.20 | Monica | Recording in progress. Let me let the public in I hand it over to you guys. |
| 00:00:24.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Monica. |
| 00:00:42.98 | Kristina Feller | Okay, the public is in. |
| 00:00:44.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Maria. Welcome everybody. This is the January 25th, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. With that, can Brandon, can you do call to order? |
| 00:00:57.66 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg, certainly, thank you. And just some opening remarks before we begin. Good evening, planning commissioners and members of the public. This regular meeting is being held pursuant to government code section 54953, subsection B. And in light of the declared state of emergency, the regular meeting of the planning commission on January 25, 2023 will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website. With that, I will move to call roll. Thank you. Commissioner Hassan. |
| 00:01:27.53 | Michelle Dumont | Here? |
| 00:01:29.23 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Kraft. |
| 00:01:30.26 | Michelle Dumont | Sure. |
| 00:01:31.98 | Director Phipps | Commissioner. Tell her. |
| 00:01:34.26 | Michelle Dumont | Thank you. |
| 00:01:34.28 | Director Phipps | THE END OF THE END OF THE Vice Chair Juniors. present. and Sherlockson. here. All commissioners and presidents |
| 00:01:45.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Next item is approval of the agenda. |
| 00:01:51.96 | Kristina Feller | I'll make a motion to approve. |
| 00:01:54.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there a second? |
| 00:01:56.79 | Kristina Feller | I'll second. |
| 00:01:58.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. |
| 00:01:59.34 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:01:59.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we call |
| 00:02:01.03 | Director Phipps | All right. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:02:05.08 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 00:02:05.97 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:02:07.13 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:02:07.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 00:02:08.26 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:02:09.40 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 00:02:10.42 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. |
| 00:02:16.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. We might move on to public comments on items not on the agenda. Director Phipps, can you give instructions to the public, please? |
| 00:02:26.59 | Director Phipps | Yeah. Yes, thank you, Chair. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the Planning Commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct the subject to be agendized at a future meeting. Video or public comment participation is limited to two minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand and those TO BE AGENDIZED AT A FUTURE MEETING. VIDEO OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPATION IS LIMITED TO TWO 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 FROWN, PRESS STAR NINE. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE NOTIFIED WHEN THE TIME HAS ELAPSED. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF WE CAN REDUCE THE TIMER FROM THREE MINUTES TO TWO MINUTES, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. Worst case scenario, we can stop members of the public at one minute. Okay, thank you for that, Miranda. |
| 00:03:24.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not seeing any members. Are you seeing anybody? Go ahead. |
| 00:03:29.70 | Antonella | Sorry, I... Thank you. We don't see the hand here on our side, but it's the question also regarding the tree. Buchanan or this is a separate, you're taking separate comments on that tree? |
| 00:03:42.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And to know we're taking comments for items not on the agenda. That item is on the agenda. So we'll have an opportunity to speak at that time. |
| 00:03:47.24 | Antonella | Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 00:03:53.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Seeing none, Chair LeClerc. Okay, thank you. Let's move on to item four, the Planning Commission Minutes. I believe that those are gonna be available for our next meeting, is that correct? |
| 00:04:06.17 | Director Phipps | Yeah, correct. Based on lack of staff availability of the particular staffer who generally puts together these minutes, we do not have them before you this evening, but the minutes from the previous meeting, in addition to the minutes from this meeting will be provided at the following meeting for you to vote on. |
| 00:04:25.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, so I could request that that be at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission and not the joint meeting that will occur on Monday. Certainly. Thank you, sir. |
| 00:04:35.13 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:04:35.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Okay, we're now going to move on to new business. Before we start any business this evening, I would like to have planning commissioners know any ex parte communications for any item on the agenda this evening. I'll go to commissioner Fellas. |
| 00:04:55.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair Luxembourg. I just want to report that I did drive by several of the properties including Buchanan Avenue. the South Slido Boulevard, And also Santa Rosa, although I did not speak to anybody and I did not see any of the owners, it was just my own. I'm doing my own homework. I would also like to declare that regarding item 5C this evening, I am within, I'm not within 500 feet of any of the subject properties, but I am within a thousand feet. of sites 202 to 206, also known as 125 Bulkley, and also within sites 207 to 207 to 10. which are 911 to 917 Bridgeway, 931 to 933 Bridgeway, and 927 Bridgeway. I'm also within a thousand feet of item 6C 145 Santa Rosa Avenue. Thank you. |
| 00:06:03.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Commissioner Tsai. |
| 00:06:09.20 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. Luxembourg, I did the same separately as Christina, but the same practice, I went by myself. I did not speak with the property owners, but I visited Buchanan, Saucedo Boulevard, Santa Rosa and had one more look down at Gate five. I did not engage in any correspondence. I also am within regarding item 5C. I am within 500 feet of site 52. And I am also within 1000 feet of site 47, which is 300 locusts. And, um, That is all I have to declare at this moment. |
| 00:06:54.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, thank you, commissioner side, uh, commissioner ground. |
| 00:06:58.56 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:06:58.58 | Richard Graef | No ex parte communications. Um, I am within 500 feet of site 52 city hall and site 47 on bridgeway nearby SO THOSE TWO ITEMS I WILL RECUSE MYSELF. during discussion of those. Um, Other than that, nothing else to declare. |
| 00:07:22.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 00:07:27.07 | Andrew Junius | No ex parte communications and thankfully I'm not within the thousand foot radius of any of these properties. |
| 00:07:33.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Genius. I myself looked at 145 Santa Rosa Boulevard, and the property owner, Peter Johnson, allowed me access to his backyard, but I had no ex parte communications. I did go to look at the 118-120 Buchanan, and I was given access from the property owner, Antonella, at 127 Tomales, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE ANY EXPARTIE COMMUNICATIONS. AND I ALSO LOOKED AT THE other side on the agenda I'm sorry, let me just scroll down Oh. The one... 215 Sausalito Boulevard. I went by, but there obviously is a vacant lot, so did not talk to anybody, so there were no ex partake communications there. And I also went by again, 265 Gate 5 Road and had no ex partake. I JUST LOOKED AT THE SIDE. And I'm not within a thousand feet of any of the opportunity sites on the agenda this evening. With that, that concludes the expert discussion. We're going to move on to 5A Zoom meetings. I put this on the agenda. This came out at the end of last meeting. The plan has been and continues to be, as long as we're legally allowed to provide Zoom meetings, we have been doing them. We're subject to both state emergency action and the city council to be able to hold Zoom meetings. I think in our case, given materials, doing a hybrid meeting of some in city hall and some on Zoom makes it hard to see some of the materials. So my recommendation would be to continue Zoom meetings till we can't and then go in person when we're required to but not to attempt to do hybrid meetings but i'd like to survey uh commissioners on their preference as well but my permission uh we're going to get to a discussion of permanent meetings in a minute, but before we do that, your preferences on given three choices, either Zoom meetings, hybrid meetings, or in-person meetings, while we're allowed to do virtual meetings, what is your preference? So I'll start with Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:10:07.13 | Nastassya Saad | At this point, I would prefer to stick with a Zoom meeting and agree that a hybrid meeting would be a bit distracting, so I prefer to sit with a Zoom meeting until further notice. |
| 00:10:20.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:10:24.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I would prefer zoom meetings at this time. I believe the hybrid format is is a little bit disruptive and it's very difficult, particularly during public comment to either see exhibits or understand folks in in the city hall hearing room. So I think we need to stick with zoom for now. |
| 00:10:47.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much, Commissioner Grapp. |
| 00:10:50.73 | Richard Graef | I concur. I think we should stick with the zoom meetings. until we can all meet in person. And then I think we should do that. So yeah. |
| 00:11:01.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:11:01.80 | Richard Graef | stay with us. |
| 00:11:03.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:11:06.22 | Andrew Junius | I concur. Let's stick with the Zoom meetings until we should be all meeting in person. |
| 00:11:11.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. With that consensus, we'll continue to do that. I do need to make everybody aware of the following. The Zoom meetings are a result of AB 360, which was adopted in 2021 under an emergency order both from the legislature and emergency order by Governor Newsom due to the COVID outbreak, which allowed virtual meetings so as not to spread the disease. That order is slated to end at the end of February, 2023, although that could change depending on the conditions at the end of February. However, in anticipation of that, the California legislature adopted AB 2449, which took effect on January 1st, 2023. So just a few weeks ago, beginning with January 1st, 2023, AB 2449 allows individual board members to participate in meetings remotely only during quote unquoteunquote emergency circumstances such as a physical or family emergency or for just cause including child care, caregiver needs, contagious illness, a disability, or travel on an official agency business. This is an additional way in addition to the teleconference rules that were in effect under government code section 54-953. And those exist as well, but if you work remotely you have to post that at your remote location, allow the public to access your remote location. The intent of this new law is to make those things a little bit simpler. However, it has a number of new rules, and I'll quickly run through them, and you all can, at your leisure, look up 2449. You have to have at least a core of the board to participate in the meeting in a single physical location. In our case, that would be City Hall. The agenda must have an option for members of the public to participate in the meeting remotely by phone or internet in addition to public participation at City Hall. So the public will still be able to go through Zoom, but members will have to have at least three members there. Commission members using AB 2449 must notify the city at the earliest opportunity, even at the start of the meeting as possible. A separate request and disclosure is required for each meeting. The disclosure must include a general description of the need to participate remotely, provided they don't need to disclose any medical diagnosis or disability or personal medical information. At the meeting, NEED TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY PROVIDED THEY DON'T NEED TO DISCLOSE ANY MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR DISABILITY OR PERSONAL MEDICAL INFORMATION. AT THE MEETING BEFORE ANY ACTION IS TAKEN, THE BOARD MEMBER MUST PUBLICLY DISCLOSE WHETHER THERE ARE ANY ADULTS PRESENT IN THE ROOM WITH THE BOARD MEMBER AND THE GENERAL NATURE OF THAT PERSON'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE BOARD MEMBER. The board member must participate remotely by audio and video if you're using AB 2449. A board member may only participate remotely for just cause for two meetings per calendar year, so a maximum of two meetings. In addition, you can't participate under that statute for more than three consecutive months. And if the broadcast of the meeting is interrupted for any reason, and so call in or internet options are not available, we cannot take any further action. So those are the new rules. Once we're meeting in person, again, we're still under the Zoom meeting, but I wanted you all to be aware of this new law, just cause it will affect the next item on the agenda. So as you look at the proposed meeting calendar, realize that if you have to do a meeting remotely, it's a maximum of two for just cause, and you can combine that with the emergency thing, but I mean, just practically speaking, just keep that in mind. With that, I don't think we need a vote. We're doing Zoom meetings, we'll continue to do that. So I don't think we need to have a vote to do that. Let me just ask questions, Sergio. One, I don't think we need a vote because that's where we're at and we're not changing anything. And number two, I should pick public comments on this item, is that correct? |
| 00:15:47.26 | Mary Wagner | Yes, you should take public comment. And no, I don't believe you need a vote to continue Zoom meetings. |
| 00:15:51.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. With that, I would like to open it up for public comment. If you can raise your hand in the Zoom application. Oh. I'll scram through this. I'm seeing one hand, Sandra Bushmaker, the floor is yours for up to three minutes. Thank you. |
| 00:16:14.76 | Ms. Bushmaker | Well, I'm not going to take all that time. Good evening, commissioners. I'm relieved to find out that you're going to still have Zoom meetings for the public. even after the end of February. So I'm very relieved because that gives the public an opportunity to participate more easily than than before when it was all required to be in person. So I'd really encourage that. I'm glad to hear it. And I thank you for allowing that to proceed. Thank you. |
| 00:16:45.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments this evening. With that, we will move on to item 5B, the proposed meeting calendar for 2023. I will turn it over to Director Phipps to share his screen and show that schedule. |
| 00:17:02.91 | Director Phipps | Thank you chair. Give me one moment to share screen. |
| 00:17:06.67 | Nastassya Saad | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:17:10.25 | Director Phipps | And here we are. This is the proposed planning commission meeting schedule as recommended by staff. I'm not sure, Chair Luxburg, if there was any particular method with which you wanted to review this. You know, the largest summary that we can get is this sheet here. |
| 00:17:32.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be great. I want to flag for the commissioners that normally we were meeting first and third Wednesdays of the month, but the city councils decided to meet first and third Tuesdays of the month, depending on the month. So we've, the general rule was we're not going to meet in the same week as they are unless for, you know, this week we are. But if we can avoid it, we're trying to avoid that. So the calendar has been set up to do that. And the other highlight was one meeting in December, no meetings in August, that's the same as 2022. And then certain months, the first Tuesday and the first Wednesday are in different weeks. So we had to adjust to that. So if anybody wants to go back to any particular dates or any, we also have, we're suggesting three meetings in March because we were doing them every two weeks. So we could take out the March 29th if people felt that was too much for March. Thank you. But with that, I will open it up for any questions of any commissioner. Actually, just a show of hands rather than going around on this. |
| 00:18:48.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. The guy said he didn't know. So I have my hand up here, Chair Luxembourg. |
| 00:18:53.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. I didn't see that. Commissioner Fallon. |
| 00:18:57.44 | Kristina Feller | I would be ready to make a motion to approve the schedule. I just want to make a quick comment. and something for consideration of my fellow commissioners, but also the staff. And that is Even on the heels of submitting the housing element to the state, there's a lot of additional work coming up for the Planning Commission and City Council this calendar year. And so we should look and try to reserve some joint hearings and meetings and special meetings with them to discuss issues regarding ordinances. Because that's going to be a very heavy lift and we should try to reserve that time early rather than last minute otherwise i'm ready to make a motion to |
| 00:19:41.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, commissioner that comment is well appreciated. Uh, and we should, uh, allow for as we're doing next week, but we will need, we will need some other meetings as well. You are correct. So that's a good comment. I will entertain a motion. That would be helpful. |
| 00:19:47.20 | Mr. Dixon | that's where we're going. |
| 00:19:56.86 | Mary Wagner | And chair, if I may interject here, |
| 00:19:59.30 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:20:00.28 | Mary Wagner | So as I understand it, precipitating factors in the planning commission schedule. was the city council changing schedule the first and third Tuesday of as it's regularly leading time. Unfortunately, I have a conflict with that meeting schedule, so I will be requesting the city council change those times. So, you know, as a, practical matter, that will be something that will probably be coming before the Council. sometime in the next week or two. TO THE EXTENT THE COMMISSION WANTS TO ADOPT THE SCHEDULE NOW, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU FOLKS KNOW THAT YOU MAY NEED TO REVISE IT AT A FUTURE DATE. |
| 00:20:39.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 00:20:42.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Sergio. I guess until they do change it, we're sort of at their mercy, so to speak. So I would suggest we adopt the schedule and then if we need to, we'll agendize and adjust accordingly, as we've had due for this month anyway. Let's see how it goes. Oh. |
| 00:21:05.39 | Kristina Feller | So I'm happy to make a motion to approve the calendar as published here. Of course, taking into account this might change due to what Sergio has just mentioned, but I think we should go ahead and approve this tonight. Uh, |
| 00:21:18.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 00:21:21.67 | Andrew Junius | How to be a song. |
| 00:21:23.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:21:23.54 | Andrew Junius | . |
| 00:21:23.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:21:24.22 | Andrew Junius | we looked at the city council work Yeah. |
| 00:21:26.88 | Kristina Feller | Well. Maria? Maria. |
| 00:21:29.90 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 00:21:31.31 | Kristina Feller | Maria, we can hear you. |
| 00:21:34.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. Wait, who seconded? |
| 00:21:38.68 | Nastassya Saad | I seconded originally if you guys heard me after. |
| 00:21:41.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:21:42.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Fowler. |
| 00:21:43.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, I didn't hear you, but I now hear you. So let's go back to yours since it was first. Can you take a roll call, Director Phipps? |
| 00:21:54.63 | Director Phipps | Certainly, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:21:57.60 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:21:57.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:21:58.78 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff? Yes. Commissioner Feller? |
| 00:22:02.09 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:22:03.32 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Juniors. Chair Luxenberg? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. |
| 00:22:09.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, next item on the agenda is review of the housing element, recommendation on element and the CEQA exemption. For this, I'm going to outline what the process is going to be this evening so that theAND THAT THAT'S THE PROCESS. WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AFTER THAT PRESENTATION, GET IT ON THE FLOOR, AND THEN WE WILL LOOK FOR ANY SUGGESTIONS OR AMENDMENTS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS. IF NEEDED, IF WE START TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC SITES, WE WILL NEED TO SEGMENT THE MOTION AND INDIVIDUALLY DISCUSS SITES, IF WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON SITES, IF THAT'S NEEDED. WE WILL THEN, ONCE IT'S CLEAR, I WILL OPEN IT FOR PU then, once it's clear, I will open it for public comment and we will allow people to comment for up to two minutes. I will encourage speakers that if something has already been said, you feel free to just say I concur with what so-and-so said or I concur with what the Planning Commission has recommended rather than fully reiterating it, depending on how many speakers we're were going to have this evening but everybody will get a full chance to be heard and also we've received a number of written comments and those are all being posted to the public record so those are out there as well and you can refer to the fact that you've sent that previously. I will then close public comment based Based on the comment, we'll entertain additional amendments or discussion from the commission. And if it relates to specific sites, we may have to segment that. But hopefully we've accomplished that before that point in time. And then we will vote on our recommendation to the city council. And then on Monday, we will have a joint meeting with the city council regarding adoption of the housing element. Also with that. AND THEN ON MONDAY WE WILL HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT. SO WITH THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF DIRECTOR PHIPS, YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR SHOULD I JUST TURN IT OVER TO MS. THOMPSON AND OUR WORKING BUSINESS. |
| 00:24:31.08 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxembourg, that was wonderful. I think that, yeah, that's all that we need to do. Beth, I will let you take it away. Or excuse me, actually, Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Saab, I'll let you take it away. |
| 00:24:45.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director Phipps. Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Um, We have about 20 slides or so to go over this evening. So we're gonna walk everybody through where we are, how we started, how we got to where we are. So Beth has been kind enough to share her screen here. So I'll ask her to move on to the first slide. and level set everybody in terms of the purpose of this agenda item. And I'm gonna read some of this into the record. The purpose of this is for the Planning Commission to endorse a comprehensive housing element plan that refines the draft October 27, 2022. document that was issued to HCD, which is the state housing. that is responsive to the preliminary state feedback, which we received orally only. And there are a couple slides on that later on. So we'll get to that. We want it to be reflective of the Saucydo general plan, the state legislation and mandates, public comment consideration, and industry best practice considerations of urban planning, master planning principles for the built environment, for the City Council to approve and adopt to issue to the state HCD no later than the statutory state HCD deadline. I just want to add in here that Sausalito has not formally received written comment from the state as of this evening. So we are anticipating additional comment from the state. But tonight, again, back to the purpose, we'll receive public input and comment to provide revisions to staff. and to the consultant to draft adoption Draft housing element that would be considered for recommendation to the City Council by the planning committed Commission at a notice public hearing on January 30th. 2023 so that's Monday this coming Monday and our hearing starts at 3pm and it has been formally noticed. So if we can move on to the next slide back. I want to just give a little bit of background so everybody understands sort of how we got to where we are. back in February, March 2021. is when the housing element working group was actually established. And that was comprised of two city council members and two planning commissioners. And, Those four individuals, I was one of them. I still am one of them. Um, The city council and the planning commissioner are the two bodies that have to weigh in and formally approved and also city council has to ratify and send to the state. So that is the reason that there are two city council members and two planning commissioners. Um, At that time, we started to develop an RFP for procurement to find a consultant, and we have DeNovo consultants with us tonight and throughout this whole process, we have had them. So that was one of the reasons that this working group was put together. We scoped that. In addition to that, we also queried the public and asked members of the public to volunteer and to become a member of what ultimately became the Housing Element Advisory Committee or HIAC as we call it. There are 10 members with an alternate that developed the draft plan. that was issued in October. Um, We had a number of different meetings. I have them all listed here, including three town halls and 10 different HEAC meetings. These were all Brown Act publicly noticed meetings And we received an enormous amount of public input and public comment and participation. And I was We went back through the working group went back through a lot of those comments. And Commissioner Saad and I, I think we counted over 850 written comments that doesn't even include the oral comments. So I think that's an incredible amount of public participation. and more to come. There are some additional noticed housing elements meetings which includes the meeting that we're in this evening a regular planning commission meeting and also at the special joint session scheduled for Monday the 30th that I mentioned. I will. also mentioned that the state changed some of their deadlines midstream. as we were developing this housing element. And due to that fact, it was the recommendation of the CDD director, the consultant, myself as chair, Commissioner Saad, and one of the city council members to actually engage the working group again to work in parallel and more invasively with the consultant to develop the final opportunity sites. That was a scheduled recovery and acceleration strategy that we felt was reasonable since the working group was still technically in existence as well as the HIAC. That did not get passed through city council, unfortunately, but the two city council members assigned did spend more time working with the consultant to develop the ultimate opportunity list and help develop the draft. So that's just a little bit of background to give you some color how we got here today. So let's move on, Beth, if we could to the next slide here. |
| 00:30:45.19 | Kristina Feller | We talked a little bit about the public input and I want to Um, just again reiterate that we got a lot of written comment. We got a lot of comment and responses from surveys and mailers. There was oral comment at notice meetings in addition to the town halls. And if those of you who are part of the town halls, there was a lot of interactive information. questionnaires within those town halls. And there was also outreach workshops to focus groups here in Sausalito, employers, property owners, et cetera. We developed a virtual binder that is still in existence on the city website and continue to populate that and are continuing to populate that as we move forward. It's important that there's so much information and so much legislation, it gets confusing very easily and it's really important that we're all looking at the same information so we all have the same baseline. So let's keep going, Beth. Okay. There are a lot of different elements that are part of the housing element programs, are part of them. There are 31 of them. We're going to go through them very quickly here. We're going to really report by exception only. And in addition to that, we've got opportunity sites We have to look at units per acre and a number of other things. So we're going to go through each one of these. So the first seven programs here, as you can see, there's really no further comment on most of them. And just some small comments here, which I'm not going to read out or anything like that. But these are the comments that Commissioner Saad and I are recommending that we amend in the draft October document. Let's move on to the next grouping draft. Um, I just wanted to point out in particular program nine because there was a lot of discussion in our general plan as we were updating the general plan. about water-based housing. And also, you know, how to outreach and work more with BCDC, who ultimately is the authority over water-based development. So I just think that it's important to be clear with that because we did identify water-based housing as an option in our public policy document. As you can read the rest of these, we're just including additional groups within the city that need to be take primary responsibility for some of these programs, mainly because they deal with, um, funds and how to assist with housing and so on and so forth. So let's keep going back through the rest of these. As you can see include finance department, it's and then program 17, we're looking at sort of the density in terms of affordable. Let's keep going on here. Okay. Additional comments about how to handle the displacement protection. and how we should be partnering with South Slita Village and so on on senior housing. There have been comments on looking at program 26 about universal design and accessibility I want to clarify and be clear that California Building Code, the CBC, and the Salcedo Municipal Code, the SMC, are both pretty clear on that. And the California Building Code really is the authority over accessibility throughout the state and we follow that as well. And then pretty much no further comment for the most part in terms of the programs. I think next we will go into the sites. Um, I think I'm going to hand that Over to you, Beth. The one thing I just want to mention is that we also referenced what's called Appendix C, which is a site suitability criteria. And Beth can expand on this a little bit more, but it's a point and rating system on the criteria and desirability of sites. And so I'll hand that over to you, Beth. |
| 00:35:21.37 | Beth | All right, and thank you, Commissioner Feller. So in looking at how the housing element accommodates the regional housing need allocation or RHNA, we have identified several modifications to the housing element to continue to accommodate the arena, but to refine the approach to. calculating the units per site and then to modify some of the sites included in the arena. And I won't go through all the details. 160 units total would be added by the sites recommended to be added. And then there's some sites identified for removal or modification, and those would reduce the potential units by about 210. And these unit counts are based on the realistic capacity, which is the reduced unit count that's calculated based on some reductions. It's not the total units allowed under zoning, and it definitely isn't the units that would be accommodated with a density bonus. So, And going through the approach to modifying the opportunity site overlays, as you'll recall, there are three types of opportunity site overlays. There's the opportunity site multifamily 49, and that overlay would allow densities of up to 49 units per acre. And we would establish a minimum density of 43 units per acre. So sites that have this opportunity site overlay would have to develop with a minimum of 43 units per acre. This allows the city to get more credit, more units per site than would otherwise be counted under the realistic capacity assumption, which would only be 39 units per acre. So this helps the city get some more credit per site. Similarly, the Opportunity Site Mixed Use Overlay, which is also the 49 unit per acre overlay, would establish a minimum density of 43 units per acre. And when we also make an assumption that there would be 85% of the site used for residential uses, that would allow us to use a minimum density of 36.5 units per acre in the calculations, as opposed to the 24.5 |
| 00:37:13.51 | Mr. Dixon | and so, |
| 00:37:17.10 | Beth | units per acre used for the realistic capacity assumption. So by establishing these baseline requirements, The city will ensure that the sites are developed to a higher use and then also that the city is getting more credit per site in the inventory and it reduces the total number of sites that the city needs to identify. And then we've also made some adjustments to the income assumptions and particularly for privately owned sites we've increased the number of the assumed above moderate income units. As you may recall, when the inventory was initially prepared, there was a shortage of above moderate income units, and we had anticipated that as we received HCD comments and that sites were adjusted, Some of the sites would convert to above moderate or we would have to make higher above moderate assumptions. So we've in advance of getting the HCD comments, we have adjusted the above moderate unit counts for some sites. So now I'll go through the sites site by site with the recommendations for removal and modification. And there are some commissioners with, with potential conflicts. And I don't know if at this point in the presentation you want to recuse yourself or if you want to wait until there's discussion. So I'll pause for a moment. |
| 00:38:25.71 | Kristina Feller | Beth, if you can just continue with the whole thing. |
| 00:38:27.60 | Beth | go through all of that. Okay. So- Site 52, which is the City Hall site located at 420 Letho, is recommended for removal. And this would reduce the city's potential units by 37 units. And basically the justification for this is that the City Hall site is needed to support, you know, to provide city services to the city's residents and the existing population and units that would result from the arena. rather than developing the city hall site, maintain that as a governmental site to continue to provide services to the community. And it was also noted that there was an error in what was submitted to the state and that the city council had voted to only look at the parking lot |
| 00:39:01.03 | Mr. Dixon | and it was all, |
| 00:39:08.83 | Beth | And regarding that, I will note that the 37 units could be placed just on the parking lot, but the housing element did not clarify that. Next, there's site 47, which is located at 300 Locust Street, and this site is below the minimum acreage required to be a lower income site. So we're just recommending that the unit count be adjusted to moderate and above moderate income units, so there's no change to the net development potential on this site. And it's just adjusting how the units are counted in terms of income levels. There's some new sites that are identified to be added. So sites 207 through 210 are located at 911 to 917 Bridgeway. 931 to 933 Bridgeway, 925 Bridgeway, and 927 Bridgeway. And 925 Bridgeway is already in the inventory. So this grouping of sites would be added to accommodate some additional growth. This would accommodate about 14 additional units, moderate and eight above moderate. And the owner is interested, the owner of three of the parcels. Three of the parcels are contiguous or close to one another. And the owner of those three parcels has expressed interest in development. There's one additional parcel kind of right in there. And so that's also been included just to provide more potential for development as a block of parcels. Site 202 through 206 is the Altamira site, and this is currently the Altamira facility. And this includes the, this site is an unusual site in that it looks like a single parcel, but it's actually six separate parcels. And so this would take five of the parcels, so the hotel site would not be included, but it would take the three parking parcels and two of the other parcels on the lot and designate those as opportunity sites. And the owner has expressed interest in developing five of the six parcels. The site is currently leased and there's an option this year coming up to extend the lease for another five years. but it's anticipated by the owner that the site would be available during the planning period. that they are interested in developing the site. So this would give the site an additional 64 units. with 27 very low, eight low, six moderate, and 23 above moderate income units. There are also some additional sites that are being recommended for inclusion. Site 211 is located at 2660 Bridgeway. And this site is immediately adjacent to the Avatar site that's also been discussed. This would add about nine of the capacity for about nine units. Site 201, the real Napa parking lot, has also been identified to be added and the owner is interested in development. And this site would have capacity for about 20 units. And it's not anticipated that it would replace the real Napa use, but that the parking lot would accommodate some residential uses. And then there's a lot on, it's actually not an existing lot, but there's Caltrans right-of-way along ebb tides. That is part of, it appears to be the old right-of-way when it actually went through town. And so it's owned by Caltrans, but it's no longer being used as part of the right-of-way. working with the state to have that declared surplus property and that would yield about 25 units and that's designated already in the inventory as a backup site. So it would just be converted to being an operative and active opportunity site. as the site at 330 Ebtide, which is also an existing backup site that has about two units on it. converting that also to an opportunity site so that it's an active site and that would accommodate about 29 units. There's also a vacant lot along Sausalito Boulevard just north of Sunshine and so that site was identified as an inventory site And converting that, since it's a vacant lot to an opportunity site, would also yield and additional unit in capacity. and going through some of the sites recommended for removal or modification. Site 14. is located at 300 Spencer. That's the second, the old fire station site in the city. And that's recommended for removal due to the disproportionate fire risk and some deed restrictions and concerns with the actual availability of the site to be developed. circulation concerns and evacuation concerns. So that's been identified for removal. Site 100, located at 66 Marion, is also identified for removal from the inventory and it would be noted that the site does have the potential to develop under the existing zoning as an underutilized the ability to develop under the current zoning wouldn't be removed. It would just no longer be identified. as an opportunity site and when it be counted toward the inventory. Site 84 located at 100 Eptide, the MLK site, is also identified for some modification. And this site would have an increase in a total of 12 additional units. So to accommodate some of the shifts for the other sites, this site would increase by 12 units. And there were also, when we had looked at this site, there were three different sub areas identified within the site. And so it's recommended only that the sub area one within the site be developed and that would be the site. with the tennis courts and adjacent uses so that that only that portion would be considered for development. And there's some adjustments to increase the very low and low income units, decrease the moderate and increase the above moderate income units on that site. And then site 67 and 68, which are adjacent to one another, and they're both located in the Marin ship. are identified for removal. Site 67 is a vacant site. It would accommodate about 47 units. And it has the existing office designations and the reason reasoning for removing this would to be to maintain the site for the city's maritime activities to provide more economic development, economic growth for the community, and then also to recognize that the site is designated for industrial uses, and so it's less less appropriate for the city to consider residential development on this. And similarly, site 68 also located in the Marin ship. It's the site that's developed with the two existing office buildings. also designated industrial and recommended for removal similar to Site 67. that would remove or reduce the inventory by about 106 units. And so with that, let's see, I'll also go through the city has recently reviewed its approved projects. And so currently the city has approvals for about seven accessory dwelling units and two single family dwelling units. So nine total units that can be counted toward the inventory. And we are working with the planning department to review all of the building permits issued since June approvals and make sure that we've adjusted the inventory accordingly prior to submittal to the state and getting as much credit as possible for all of the approved units in the city. So with all of those discussed changes, the net result of those modifications to the sites would be to continue to provide a surplus of units. So the city has a regional housing need allocation of 724 units. With these adjustments, the city would exceed the Very low allocation by about 21 units, the low income allocation by 32 units, the moderate by 40 units, and the above moderate by three units. So you would have a total buffer of about 94 units. So you would still have capacity to meet your allocation and some potential to exceed it, which would give the city some some capacity to make adjustments to the sites in the future if needed. And with that, I will turn it back over to Commissioner Fowler. |
| 00:46:45.30 | Kristina Feller | Oh, thank you, Beth. And just a quick note on your last slide, the buffer of 94 doesn't include consideration. of the nine units that already count towards the 724. So in other words, you'd really have more than 94 units. you'd have 103. |
| 00:47:06.59 | Beth | Right. And we do have to just double check that those haven't already been counted as pending projects. So we're confirming that. |
| 00:47:13.45 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. All right, so let's keep going and let's go through, let's go through some of these, the verbal comments that you received from HCD so far. And if you want to explain any of these, since you were part of the conversation with director Phipps, that's fine. The planning commission working group has. provided some comment and input here that we can go over as well. |
| 00:47:41.29 | Beth | All right, well, so I'll start off the state did mention that the city should include a general program and the housing plan to address infrastructure to ensure that the city's addressing the additional demand that would occur with a 724 units to ensure that master plans are updated to address the sites prioritizing high density low income sites and then also to seek funding to expedite improvements and there are a number of funding sources, the SB2 REAP and LEAP funding sources, as well as the state's infrastructure infill grant program. Yeah. the, The Planning Commission, you know, feedback here, direction to the consultant is recommended to be that the infrastructure is addressed throughout the 2021 general plan update. and that we should include that and that assessment and the housing element And we should add the program to address updating the water and sewer master plans to ensure consistency with the housing element and general plan. as well as ensuring the city coordinates with Marin Water and the Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District to address that increase in growth associated with the arena and recognizing that those entities aren't only affected by Sausalito's arena, but that they're affected by the other areas they serve outside of the city as well. So they'll be seeing some increase in demand beyond just the city. Regarding program four, which was this program that identifies the rezoning of the sites and it includes the need for an election for sites that are affected by the fair traffic initiative, as well as an ordinance in the city restricting modifications to certain city owned sites. the state recommended that we look at the city of Yorba Linda and city of Newport beach special elections programs. And so the, direction from the planning commission there can just recommend that we revise that program to address this comment. And we have reviewed those programs and they really don't involve significant changes, but mainly outlining a timeline for the special election. And, table one of the housing element just addressing whether the lower income units are deed restricted and those would be the lower income units included in the approved projects so we'll we're reviewing that with the Community Development Department and we'll make sure that that information is clarified in the element. |
| 00:49:46.16 | Kristina Feller | Right. Great, let's keep going. |
| 00:49:57.59 | Director Phipps | Excuse me, Beth, I think you're on mute. |
| 00:50:01.76 | Beth | Sorry about that. So table 45 of the background report. I'm requesting that the city address development standards by zone, including for the historic overlay and Marin ship specific plan. And then also addressing weather development standards will be superseded by the odds. So the recommendation here would be that we clarify the historic district standards and requirements. We revised the housing element to reflect that the membership specific plan was incorporated into the 2021 general plan. And it's anticipated to have limited applicability in the future, following revisions to the housing element, and then having the zoning ordinance updated to reflect the of the MSP into the general plan. And also to clarify that the odds will initially be a parallel code to the zoning ordinance, but it will ultimately supersede the zoning provisions in the municipal code as they relate to the specific housing types addressed by the odds. |
| 00:50:55.81 | Kristina Feller | regarding sorry Beth to to interject here but I just think it's important for everybody um the public listening in as well as the commission |
| 00:50:55.82 | Beth | Yeah. |
| 00:51:04.80 | Kristina Feller | Just to reiterate that the objective design and development standards that that that we have that the City Council heard last night and that we are finalizing for their ratification is specifically for multifamily. And that's why it will initially be a parallel code until such time as we can update and meld together the existing Sausalito Municipal Code with the objective standards into actually one code. So I just want that to be clear to everybody how we're doing that. |
| 00:51:42.40 | Beth | Thank you. Regarding residential care facilities, the state asked that the housing element analyzed the approval findings to clarify whether approvals were discretionary or non-discretionary, and then whether there are any unique requirements such as the requirement for a conditional use permit. for group homes that serve seven or more residents or clients. And so we did note to the state, we understand that the element has to ensure that there are no discrimination or constraints for group homes. And so just revising the housing element to address that comment, provide that clarification Yeah. The state also asked for more detail regarding the city's reasonable accommodation process, including identifying the findings of the process. So the housing element needs to include some additional information regarding the city's findings for the reasonable accommodation process. And the state does have a model ordinance that they. like cities to mirror. So looking at that in terms of the findings and whether the city's findings have discretion or subjective nature to them that would potentially constrain a reasonable accommodation requests. The state also asked that the city ensure that the potential flooding and sea level rise issues regarding is this existing slips and permanent housing opportunities be addressed and. Director Phipps mentioned that we should reference Galilee Harbor specifically since looking at a permit of furthering fair housing. concerns and that is one of the affordable housing projects and specifically our residential community along the waterfront. So ensuring that we reference those findings and reference how that would affect housing, including permanent housing along the waterfront. |
| 00:53:21.94 | Kristina Feller | I think that we have a very capable sea level rise and subsidence task force that has already presented and done a lot of mapping with the city council. And there's a lot of reference throughout the 2021 general plan about sea level rise. about subsidence, about sustainability and resiliency. Um, uh, so I, I, I think this is a well-founded comment to reference that, um, um, in, in this housing element portion of the general plan. |
| 00:53:56.25 | Beth | And yeah, that definitely makes sense to include all that effort that the city's put in. And then going back to the proposed amendments and comment, did you want to cover these Commissioner Fowler? |
| 00:54:09.24 | Kristina Feller | I think we can cover these together. I mean, I think we've sort of outlined throughout this presentation what the proposed amendments are. We know that there's already the exemption that's being prepared for the environmental impact report. and that we want to focus on the preparation of an EIR that's specific and targeted to any ballot measure. The Planning Commission recommends the approval of the objective design and development standards to be considered separately. We've already touched on that a little bit. And that we will also separately develop SB 9, which is for single family objective design and development centers beyond what is already in the ordinance. that was recommended by the Planning Commission Legislative Committee to the city council and the city council ratified. but we will take that further. We have amendments to the proposed site inventory list and to achieve equal or net gain to those numbers. And then we're also reducing the critical mass of sites within some of the northern neighborhoods to increase the probability of approval of these voter initiatives and the fair traffic initiative in particular. So we want to achieve those sustainable resilient neighborhoods and we want to thoughtfully incorporate housing opportunity sites throughout the city in a manner that that will not inadvertently create issues further down the road. We've gone through the 31 recommendations. Those sort of stand as as we've explained them. And, you know, we would just want to ask one more time that we, we would like funding for a citywide master plan. It's critical for any of the future. moves that we're making here. What is not on this slide is what Beth referenced earlier, and that is an additional proposed amendment to the units per acre, which really helps us achieve a very thoughtful, viable, justifiable proposed amendment to the October 27th draft HCD plan. And so that sort of, I think, summarizes most of this, unless Beth, you have anything to add or Commissioner Saad, you have anything to add? |
| 00:56:42.44 | Kristina Feller | I don't. |
| 00:56:43.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Nothing to add. Thank you both for presenting our thoughts so eloquently. |
| 00:56:49.98 | Kristina Feller | So let's move on to the next slide then, which is really the draft direction. Um, So the planning commission requested the staff and the consultant, Beth, that's you DeNovo and your team, prepare an adoption draft housing element that addresses the identified revisions and provides the adoption draft housing element to the planning commission and city council as soon as possible and prior to our Monday joint hearing meeting, which is January 30th. And to the extent feasible, the adoption draft housing element should also address comments received by HCD anticipated Tomorrow, close of business. So that's really where we are here. And based on how Chair Luxenberg has laid this out, I would like to put a motion on the floor to approve the plan the comprehensive plan as we walked you through this evening here. |
| 00:57:44.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Feller. I will second that motion. Thank you. And so I understand that the program changes that are outlined, the opportunity and the density changes that you outlined, the opportunity site changes and the comments that Beth has addressed so far for HTC are all part of our recommendation that's going to this recommended to go to the city council on Monday. with a motion on the floor at this point, first of all, I wanna thank Beth for all of her work on this. ON MONDAY. WITH A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AT THIS POINT, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK BETH FOR ALL OF HER WORK ON THIS AND AS WELL AS HER WORK WITH HCD BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE NOT ONLY A CRITICAL PART NOW BUT AS GOING FORWARD TO GET THIS RATIFIED AND THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. I WANT TO THANK THE HEAC PUBLIC MEMBERS WHO VOLUNTEERED THEIR TIME THROUGH THIS LONG PROCESS. I ESPECIALLY WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONERS FELLER AND SAAD FOR NOT ONLY HELPING WITH THIS PRESENTATION TODAY, BUT FOR SPENDING ALMOST TWO YEARS ON THIS EFFORT WITH BOTH AS A WORKING GROUP AND PART OF THE HEAC. So with that, we have a motion on the floor. And at this point, I'm gonna open it up for other commissioners other than the working group, because I'm assuming you're Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Saad AND SO I'M MAKING COMMISSIONERS AWARE OF THAT. So at this point, if we could, I guess, stop sharing screen and I will go to Commissioner Graff if you have any questions or comments or amendments. You're muted. |
| 00:59:55.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You're muted. Richard, Richard, you're muted. Zoom team, can we help Richard? |
| 01:00:10.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is Richard unmuted on the Zoom team? There we go. Richard, how did that? Okay, thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:00:19.82 | Richard Graef | I couldn't do it. It wouldn't let me do it. |
| 01:00:21.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I know, that's why I told the Zoom team to do it. |
| 01:00:24.28 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Um... I just want to thank everybody for putting that presentation together. That was very helpful. and getting a a bad picture. I don't have many comments on they on the proposed Um, um, draft. I did have a question in one of these programs. What is meant by reasonable accommodation? I've seen that mentioned several times and I don't know what it means and that would help me understand that. Can somebody explain? Oh, Beth, could you agree with that? |
| 01:01:09.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 01:01:11.32 | Beth | Reasonable accommodation means that a person with a disability can come and ask the city to waive or modify standards and regulations in order to accommodate their disability. This allows for a more straightforward process than coming in and requesting a variance or a use permit or some other more formal and lengthy process. So it's a straightforward process for someone to be accommodated who has a disability. |
| 01:01:21.38 | Mr. Dixon | or, |
| 01:01:37.39 | Mary Wagner | And separately, it's required by law to accommodate folks with disabilities in its zoning and change its zoning to the extent required. to do so. |
| 01:01:47.45 | Richard Graef | Okay, thank you for that. Excellent. I definitely support that. Um, I don't have any further comments right at this time as I mentioned before on if we discussed specifically site 47 or 52, I'll have to shut down. Thank you. |
| 01:02:07.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Graff. Vice Chair of Juniors. |
| 01:02:13.59 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. And I'd also like to echo your kind words to Commissioners Fell and Saad, incredible work. Beth Thompson, you've done an incredible job to get us here. It's an it's an impressive document. It's I'm very, very happy with with it for the most part. But I do, I am concerned that we're taking sites off at this late date. I don't really don't have a problem with the with the City Hall coming off that. There's some very special reasons why that. probably makes some sense. But the other sites are relatively high density, large sites. And I, you know, I would have thought that to the extent that the fire danger up on Spencer or that the other comments made with respect to the two marine ship sites. You know, that would have been debated a while back. I mean, this is where we're, this is a housing plan. We need as much housing as we can. This is a long-term plan. 94 units of cushion, I don't think, is nearly enough to accommodate you know, ups and downs of real estate development, the various permitting challenges, labor challenges. economic challenges, interest rates. It's a crazy world out there. It's gonna be tough to build anything. And in my opinion, we should be looking at every site. and overdoing it by a big margin in order to Make sure we even come close because it's very difficult to develop out there. I'm not sure I agree with the the comment that we need more office or that the office buildings that don't seem to be very heavily utilized down on the east side of Bridgeway. need to be office movies anymore. You know, this is a We live in a tourist town, there's certainly marine activity But... The office buildings are, I think, past their prime. I don't see a huge future as Sausalito as an office site. There's tens of millions of square feet of office space that's vacant right now in downtown San Francisco. But I think my main comment is I would just like to hear a little bit more or again, offer a not taking those larger removed sites off the list. So those are my comments. Thank you. |
| 01:04:29.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice-Chair Junius. At this point, I appreciate your comments. At this point, I think maybe unless Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Saad have additional comments at this time, we might want to open up for public comment and then come back for further discussion. At that point, we decide if we have to segment this. Does that make the commission good with that approach? |
| 01:04:55.61 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:04:55.62 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:04:55.64 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Amen. |
| 01:04:57.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, at this point, I would like Director Phipps, if you could inform the public how to raise your hand in Zoom yet again, and then we were gonna have a, I believe you had indicated a two minute time for public comment for people that wanna do that. Director Phipps, I'll turn it over to you for a description of how to raise your hand. |
| 01:05:24.18 | Director Phipps | Thanks very much, Chair. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to two minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application. You'll 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 the time has elapsed. Thank you. And at current Chair Luxembourg, I am seeing three raised hands. The first one that I saw is from Keith Diggs. And I'm going to request, Keith, that you unmute yourself. And you can, we'll start your time. |
| 01:05:24.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks very much. |
| 01:06:01.57 | Director Phipps | So Mr. Dix, |
| 01:06:03.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The floor is yours. |
| 01:06:05.37 | Keith Diggs | Keith Diggs, Okay, sounds good. Hello everyone. I'm Keith Diggs. I'm an attorney with Yimby Law. I am deeply concerned that the city is planning to remove site capacity amidst a housing crisis. I don't think this is funny. I got priced out of Arizona because my rent went up 30% because some Californians had to move into my state because it was impossible to find a place to live in there. And there's a large movement that's going to keep advocating for more housing until we get it. So you can get with the program now or later. I have some specific concerns I want to raise your attention because we are considering litigation about these issues. Number one, the city of Sausalito has yet to receive comment from ACD, as I understand it. Section 65585, subdivision B of the government code. has some specific requirements around the adoption of revised draft housing elements. One of them is that you have to let a, sorry, I'm busy right now. |
| 01:07:03.18 | Mr. Dixon | Yeah. |
| 01:07:03.20 | Andrew Junius | Absolutely. |
| 01:07:04.55 | Keith Diggs | One of them is that you have to allow a subsequent draft housing element to be open for public comment for seven days before submission to HCD. After that, HCD has to be given 60 days to comment on it. Now, I understand that a lot of cities are planning to take the self-certification route under subdivision F. That has some problems with it too. Subdivision F allows you to either change a housing element in response to a rejection from ACD, which requires going through all the procedures, Or you can adopt the current draft without changes, with findings as to why you think HCD is wrong, that your housing element is out of compliance. I do not think any of those possibilities will go well for you. And I would strongly encourage the city to take its time and get the housing element right before adopting. Thank you. |
| 01:07:57.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Diggs, thank you for your comments. Next speaker, Director Fitzhith, Jenny Silva, is that correct? |
| 01:08:06.03 | Director Phipps | Bye. |
| 01:08:06.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:08:06.23 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:08:06.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:08:07.73 | Director Phipps | I'm seeing that as well, Chair Luxenberg, and I'm going to request that Jenny Silva begin speaking and we'll start your time. Ms. Silva, the floor is yours. |
| 01:08:19.26 | Monica | Hi, thanks. I will do my best. I'm actually quite upset seeing all this as Keith Diggs mentioned there's a problem with the process that Sausalito is undertaking. I will not repeat that, but I will. I find it a bit offensive. And I find it really problematic what is being proposed tonight. The revisions to the site inventory are substantial And the timing of changing the site inventory is questionable at best. We have not yet received the EIR or the comments from the state. And these revisions are swapping out over 10% of the sites and are proposing a major reduction in the previous buffer, which wasn't extensive as it was. There is no new information that you have today that justifies these changes. The number of people being served by city hall hasn't changed. The noise levels in the marine ship haven't changed. These changes were not announced to HIAC or those who commented on the housing element. which is really upsetting, frankly. The previous site inventory went through an extensive process. This new one has not. I've sat through many housing element meetings for many jurisdictions, and I've never seen jurisdiction make this many changes this late in the stage, without a good process. Um, This is also not what was submitted to HCD. The comments that you're getting tomorrow is gonna be on a different site inventory. So they're not valid to this one. Lastly, thanking the HIAC feels like a joke. It honestly feels like a slap in the face. Um, Commissioner Syed and Feller tried over and over again to remove city hall and these other sites and they could never get the support of the HEAC to do so. So now they are taking this back route that was not announced to people in the HAC to try and do it. So, in a process that's not compliant with the state. It's frankly, it makes me feel like I wasted hours and hours and hours of my time. Thanks. |
| 01:10:23.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | COB, Dan Burke, COB OSMP COB, Dan Burke, COB OSMP The next comment I'm seeing is Chris S. Is that Commissioner Phipps who concur with him? Thank you. |
| 01:10:34.37 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm going to request that Chris unmute themselves and we'll start your time. |
| 01:10:41.17 | Chris Sullivan | Hello Chris Sullivan here, a resident of Sausalito. I think I would First of all, congratulations for all of that work, getting 885 comments. It's a vast task and I know it must have been a lot of work for all the people involved, Brandon and all the commissioners. It's a monumental project, my experience in planning and and planning. But I have a question which addressed to the chair, most likely would go to Sergio Rudin. A number of people that I'm in contact with in the community in Sausalito also shared these thoughts that having put such a huge and good effort into this rezoning effectively of the city to accommodate the requirements. I have a question, please. Section 65585, Section 1, says that for any subsequent draft revision, the local government shall post the draft revision and email the link at least seven days before submitting the draft revision to the department. I.e., of course, it's a democratic process. |
| 01:12:26.49 | Chris Sullivan | B1 that was. be |
| 01:12:28.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. Thank you. |
| 01:12:29.68 | Chris Sullivan | Two, the planning agency staff shall collect and compile the public comments and this is a follow-on from one, regarding the housing elements received by the city and provide these comments to each member of the legislative body before it adopts the housing element. |
| 01:12:56.16 | Director Phipps | Mr. Sullivan, if I may, your time has elapsed. If you could please finish up your public comment, and we would appreciate it. |
| 01:13:11.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is Mr. Sullivan muted by the Zoom team have to unmute again? |
| 01:13:17.69 | Director Phipps | Yeah, Zoom team, can we just unmute Chris Sullivan briefly to let him finish his statement? |
| 01:13:22.95 | Chris Sullivan | Thanks, Martin. |
| 01:13:23.98 | Director Phipps | you |
| 01:13:24.27 | Chris Sullivan | Yeah. |
| 01:13:24.93 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:13:25.44 | Chris Sullivan | So B1 and B2, these comments will be provided over seven days from the public. then considered by the officials and electeds. and then adopt it. So there's a minimum seven day period during which time residents and other interested parties can comment. My fear is, and I have a horse in both races on the housing element. rezoning. Some would possibly advantage me, others would seriously disadvantage me, but that's what it is. But the thought that applications that are put in. Under the new rules, could be taken down by the court because the housing element was not effectively adopted or legally adopted would create, in my opinion, hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits Folks, you've come this far. Just. follow the end of the process so it's done forever. Mr. Sullivan, thank you very much for your comments. Thank you. |
| 01:14:38.06 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:14:38.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Sullivan, thank you very much for your comment. |
| 01:14:41.19 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 01:14:41.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you Mr. Sullivan for your comments. We'll move on to let's see what, Ms. Sibbol-Mirad. Thank you. Help me with the pronunciation, Brandon. I believe Sybil Broutier. |
| 01:14:56.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I believe. |
| 01:14:58.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. I apologize for not getting your name right. Sybil, the floor is yours. You're muted still. Subway or stone unit. |
| 01:15:15.78 | Sybil Broutier | There we go. Can you hear me now? |
| 01:15:18.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Now we can, thank you so much. |
| 01:15:21.03 | Sybil Broutier | Can you hear me now? Yeah. |
| 01:15:23.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:15:24.42 | Sybil Broutier | Yes, okay. Sorry about that. Um, First of all, I just wanna say something about my role here. I am Chair of H. Renly Salcedo, And I'm chair of the Marin County Commission on Aging's Equity I'm the equity chair for the Marine Commission on Aging. And so I have my primary mandate, as most of you know, is really to advocate for seniors. And that's what I try to do the best of my ability. And, um, So, I don't, you know, I think it's kind of exciting to have the opportunity, you know, to have the author on, one of our landlords to look at the possibility of doing a continuing care community. Um, facility in our community is so needed. I would just add that 42% of the population of South Salido is over 60. 34% of the population of Marin is over 65. And 73% of people over 65 in Marin live alone. So these are people many of them. will eventually be looking for something other than single. you know, living alone in a home, you know, a full house, or having to have some kind of community support around them. So I just think it's a great idea, and I want to say that. But beyond that, I'm just, you know, one thing, I don't quite understand the comments about the noise because there's actually a very serene place down there, I go personally to sit under this, there's this knoll with this beautiful big tree and a bench, and I sit there to look at the bay when I'm not actually going out in my small boat that I keep right there at the at the model. But I just want to say two other things. I'm really glad HBR mentioned the comment 63 because the law did change about group homes, residential facilities to go beyond six beds, seven and more. And so that was an important change. And also in regards to the reasonable accommodation Um, I think it'd be really great to make sure that we continue to highlight our building permit waiver process, which makes it more affordable. or landlords of a multi-unit facility, for example, as well as homeowners to make accommodations to their homes. Thank you very much. |
| 01:18:12.31 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment. We appreciate your time. |
| 01:18:13.96 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 01:18:15.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | time. |
| 01:18:15.60 | Sybil Broutier | They're building. |
| 01:18:17.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So thank you so much for your comments. We need to move on and we appreciate your comments. At this point, Peter McGuire, Mr. McGuire, if we could bring Mr. McGuire up on Zoom team, that would be good. Okay. |
| 01:18:32.91 | Peter McGuire | Yeah. |
| 01:18:32.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 01:18:32.97 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. |
| 01:18:33.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. |
| 01:18:36.26 | Peter McGuire | Well, let me take a little different tack with the planning commission. And I want to focus on a relatively small site. At 66 Marion. I represent the homeowners of that area. And many of these residents, we've opposed the inclusion of 66 Marion as an opportunity site. for density zoning for quite some time. The reasons that we did this are pretty obvious. It's bisected by a GGNRR creek. that reduces its buildable site and all sorts of soil conditions. It's on a narrow, dead-end street representing a hazard to public safety. I could go on and on. We trusted the planning commission would sooner or later take a close look at this site And with its expertise, conclude that 66 Marion, site 100, is a terrible choice as an opportunity site. You did not disappoint us. Thank you very much. |
| 01:19:42.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, Mr. McGuire, thank you for your comments. Uh, next on the list, uh, Ms. Bushmaker, welcome back. Uh, can we unmute, uh, Ms. Bushmaker and the floor is yours. |
| 01:19:54.86 | Ms. Bushmaker | Thank you very much. I want to tell you how much I appreciate all the work that has gone into the program tonight and trying to meet the deadline, which has always been January 31st, 2023. And so I appreciate the push, the effort to get this done because the consequences are so huge. for Sausalito and Sausalito will lose local control unless we get this thing adopted. I submitted a letter today basically taking the position that there should be no housing south of Harbor Drive in the Marin ship. for the reasons stated in the letter. And I will not go over them because I'm gonna stay within my two minutes, which I hope everybody else does too. Um, There's plenty of opportunity for housing in the north part of Bridgeway and we can talk about that sometime if you You've already identified some, with regard to the amount of mail that was received in the public record. I just want to bring to your attention that my letter of September 13th, 2022 did not make it to the public record. And it was addressed to HIEC and it was addressed to our consultant. I know of another instance where letters did not make it to the public record. So I just want to say that I think we can do better in the future. Thank you. with making sure our public comment gets into the public record. And lastly, kind of had to laugh at HCD wanting us to do infrastructure and sea level rise and everything on top of the 724 units. I think they're being completely unrealistic and it's going to cause some serious problems in our culture. With regard to the clarification of the date changes, I would like to hear them. This is the first time I've heard that there were date changes by HCD. And I'd be curious to know what those were. Thank you very much. |
| 01:21:52.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Bookmaker, thanks. Thank you for your comments. Next on the list that I have, Director Phipps is John. John, if you can identify your name and address for the record because you don't have your full name there, but the floor is yours. |
| 01:22:10.77 | John DeRay | Thank you, my name is John DeRay. I am a member of the Saucydeo Working Waterfront Coalition. We submitted an email that we had submitted in the past, and we included more signatures about some of the sites in the Marineship. I won't go over that again because it is in the email. I wanted to thank the planning commission for the work that they did. And I understand that the HIAC did a lot of work but the HIAC is the housing element committee is 10 people and we represent over 1,000 people. We included 277 signatures on our open letter to City Council that we forwarded to you. We have many others that we're compiling and we'll get to city council. um, And I also wanted to make a comment that Um, I have heard from some property owners in the last week that, uh, they had never been contacted by, uh, DeNovo and that they are interested in housing on their property. Um, and it doesn't look to me like they were included yet in this, uh, list of housing. So I advise them to talk to the city. and city council, so hopefully they'll do that. Um, And the last thing I wanted to say is there was a comment from HCD related to Galilee and sea level rise. I just wanted to, and I could be wrong, but I wanted to make sure HCD understands that Galilee Harbor is a floating home community and key level rise does not affect Galilee at all. Thank you. |
| 01:24:00.24 | Mr. Dixon | Bye. |
| 01:24:00.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and keep it. |
| 01:24:07.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments. I'm not seeing any additional hands raised. I see one now. Chair Luxenberg, I've seen two additional ads. I've seen two more now. Yes, thank you. They were just there, so that's fine. The first one I see is CB. If you could identify your name and address for the record, and the floor is yours. |
| 01:24:18.77 | Director Phipps | Dr. Luxenberg, I have seen two additional. |
| 01:24:36.00 | Carlito Byrne | Well, everybody. Carlito Byrne, representative of sites 67 and 68. Thank you guys very much for having this meeting. Um, I think a lot. has been said about Yeah. the legal inadequacy of Uh, of the process as it sits. Um, But I... I really don't want to talk about that. What I really would like to talk about is, is something that's close and personal to me. which is On this day a year ago, My father passed away from Alzheimer's dementia. And he passed away in a facility, a memory care facility in Santa Rosa. and he passed away in that facility. because there are Almost no options. Yeah. Thank you. We took care of him at home for two years. but when his condition got sufficiently advanced, It wasn't possible to do that. The reality is, We're all going to get old and die. and in the time on this earth that we have. It's, there's nothing more important than being together with the ones that we love. there's nothing else that matters more than being with each other. in the built environment, facilitates that. 10% of all people are gonna have memory issues or Alzheimer's dementia. And if you look at the demographics Sausalito. by any metric, that means several hundred people. Um, of our substantial senior community. going to be afflicted with that condition. Currently. Most of those folks are living in single family homes. on the hills. win 40% grades. |
| 01:26:15.61 | Nastassya Saad | and then |
| 01:26:16.15 | Carlito Byrne | has asked her or something else of that nature. Um, tragedy would be terrible. There's opportunities. to with our site and with other sites. to not go forward and do that and to look at some about. beautiful, beneficial things for the city. I hope. that It's possible. to maintain our sites and keep them in. Um, for no other reason. than the seniors of the city needed. Thank you. |
| 01:26:46.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Brod. Next on the list here is Craig Morales. I hope I pronounced it correctly. Mr. Morelle. |
| 01:27:00.73 | Craig Merrilees | Hi, this is Craig Merrilees. I work with the sauce |
| 01:27:03.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | with this shot. |
| 01:27:06.15 | Craig Merrilees | Go ahead. Thank you. Um, I want to thank everyone involved tonight and including the members of the Commission for slogging through a long and difficult process to try and come up with a way to try and address our housing needs. Um, So these needs are gonna be addressed. myself and others will continue to push for senior housing. on city sites where more of it can be built that's affordable than on private sites. Um, And I want to remind folks that The last time we took a major survey of seniors and their preferences, most of them wanted to stay in their own homes. Um, sometimes we We hear other ideas, but that's a pretty sobering fact. We've heard threats of lawsuits tonight. We've heard disappointment from people who served on the housing advisory committee, but it was an advisory committee and the democratic process is is before us here, the planning commission is weighing in, the city council weighing in. I don't know what's gonna happen, It will be a process that tried to look at all these sites and come up with where the best place for the best sites in the city can be. And some people will agree and disagree, It's a difficult call. I will say that we have over 100 additional sites beyond the 724. which was probably an unfair number to begin with, but we have over a hundred additional ones. Um, kudos to people who took this challenge and made the hard decisions. tried to deal with all the complications and came up with their best judgment. So thank you to the to the Planning Commission for doing your best with a difficult situation. |
| 01:29:08.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much for your comments. Let me see. I'm Director of footsteps. I'm not seeing additional numbers at this point. Are you seeing anybody else? Chair Leisenberg, seeing none. Thank you. Okay. So at this point, I'm going to close public comment on this item. And I want to bring us back to what are we doing here tonight? We have a motion on the floor, which has been seconded. And our job as part of this housing element process is after the committee process and after the work of the HIAC and also our working group and the members of the council was to bring it back to this planning commission and give the city council a recommendation so what we're doing this evening this isn't the final step but we are making a recommendation to the city council and so at this point uh we have a motion on the floor which has been seconded and i will open it up to the commissioners if anybody wants any changes or amendments to the motion on the floor. If we get into individual sites, we will need to segment this conversation. But before seeing if we even have comments on, we'll wait to figure out how to do that process if it's even needed. So at this point, I'm going to ask the two commissioners that were not in the working group. First, Commissioner Graff, do you have any questions, additional questions or comments or recommended amendments? |
| 01:30:38.54 | Richard Graef | Um, Not much. I'm seeing the process working here. Um, I did have a question. There was mention And the reports, I forgot where it was. |
| 01:30:56.06 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 01:30:56.38 | Richard Graef | that they're that reference parking sites. And I'm not quite sure what is meant by that, if one were to turn a parking lot or a parking site into housing, where would people park? It's just, it may be a rhetorical question, It did sort of jog me a little bit and I didn't understand it. So, if I could get a quick explanation. That would be great. Um, Otherwise, I want to... reiterate and support any efforts and everything for senior housing. I think it's really vital for our community. So I wanna support every aspect of the plan that supports that. |
| 01:31:51.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Graff. I don't know if that was a question for Beth or Commissioner Was that related to the city hall parking lot? |
| 01:32:01.87 | Richard Graef | Well, there's a Well, no, that's an obvious one, but I did notice that parking sites were mentioned Two or three. And I didn't write them down which, which, which sites they were, but I was just unclear as to the meaning of it. and what the implications might be. |
| 01:32:29.34 | Beth | I'm happy to chime in. So there are two contexts for for discussing parking and the housing element. And one is there are sites that have existing parking, such as the Altamira site that are anticipated for redevelopment. And it's expected that if housing was developed there, it would incorporate parking. There is a separate component of state law AB 2011 that allows sites that are retail office and parking uses to be redeveloped with residential uses and that's a mandate of state law eligible projects have to be accommodated and so. the parking there could be lost conceivably. And so yes, your rhetorical question of where would the parking go is a good one, but one that the state did not fully address in AB 2011. |
| 01:33:16.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Commissioner Graff, that was a good question. Is that helpful? Do you have any other questions at this time? |
| 01:33:26.36 | Richard Graef | Oh, |
| 01:33:32.60 | Richard Graef | No, I just am amazed that Dave Kuntz, This this group and he act and everybody was able to come up with with a plan and a surplus. under the circumstances, and I just can't say that how much I appreciate what they've done. Thank you. |
| 01:33:54.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Vice Chair Genius, any questions, amendments, comments at this point? |
| 01:34:08.24 | Andrew Junius | I don't think so. the public comment was very interesting and I, Um, still I'm wondering if any of the commissioners would engage in a dialogue about these removed sites back on. Uh, as they were taking off at a late date, but if that's If that's not in the cards, I don't have any further questions. |
| 01:34:30.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Commissioner Saad, any additional comments, questions? Thank you. Your floor is yours. Thank you. |
| 01:34:40.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:34:40.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:34:42.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Can you hear me? |
| 01:34:43.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, we can. |
| 01:34:44.31 | Nastassya Saad | No, I wanted to say thank you to the public. It's all wonderful to hear from the oral to the written comment. It is important to note if there is missing public comment, like we heard tonight, the virtual binder should be Hopefully up to date. If there's anything missing, I'd be happy to help with that effort. As a member of HIAC, we should have received those emails. Um, to find them for public record. And I would hope that this presentation would be added to our virtual binder as well for the public to continue to review. You know, of course, supportive of this presentation. And I just would like, to um, note, you know, for the public that we, we are in this position, um, it's, it is part of the planning commission remit to be able to. make some changes again with also a recommendation to look forward and note to what HCD is going to say to us. And so there's still opportunity, I don't have any further comments to add. And I just really want to Thank DeNovo for their assistance with us tonight. |
| 01:36:06.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saab. Commissioner Feller, any additional comments at this point? |
| 01:36:11.59 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair Luxenberg I I appreciate that putting plans like this together that are citywide are always difficult. And there is a lot of toing and froing and you're going to make some people happy about some of it and some people not as happy about it. It affects all of us no matter where the housing is. So I just want to reaffirm that the site suitability criteria in Appendix C is a really critical piece of looking at sites. And for the city, Even if we get an approved housing plan from the state, or when we get that approved housing plan from the state, The work is not done. We have to have a viable bulletproof, justifiable plan that is actually achievable. So it's not a group of people just looking at where are all the blank sites around town. That is not what this exercise is about. And the site suitability criteria is key to it. And so I fully endorse this plan based on that and based on the viability of what we're putting forth to actually come to full fruition. With the city, so I have a motion on the floor and I still support it. |
| 01:37:41.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Keller. I mean, Commissioner Keller. Not useless, it's only about a couple of weeks. So again, we have a motion on the floor. I want to make one additional comment. It is subtly in some of the program elements, there is a lot of reporting requirements for CDD throughout. And one of the recommendations was including some others beyond CDD and the requirements that the, for some of those recording requirements, I would like to see as part of this plan, and it is in the items that are as part of this recommendation, the city council, that CDDs staff resources go to the creation of housing, greater than of senior housing, greater than affordable housing, and less so into lots of reporting requirements that although may be important or not as a major priority as the actual creation of housing. |
| 01:37:49.22 | Mr. Dixon | Oh. |
| 01:38:41.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And that was part of some of the programs that we're commenting on and I just wanted to flag that for everyone. With that, we have a motion on the floor, and I'd ask the director Phipps to take a roll call vote. |
| 01:38:54.87 | Director Phipps | Thank you chair Luxembourg regarding the motion on the floor. I will call roll. Krishna Asad. |
| 01:39:02.63 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 01:39:04.11 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:39:05.38 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 01:39:05.72 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:39:08.23 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:39:09.55 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 01:39:11.17 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 01:39:13.13 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries unanimously. |
| 01:39:15.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | from Kurt? Thank you all. And we will meet all of us again on Monday on this issue again, a joint meeting of the city council. At this point in the meeting, I would like to excuse Andrew, who I know is not feeling so well. So we will still have a quorum and we will still continue. But Andrews, thank you for going through this item on the agenda. |
| 01:39:39.60 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg, and we'll see everybody next week. |
| 01:39:42.66 | Kristina Feller | Thanks, Vice Chair. |
| 01:39:44.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, let's move on to item six, public hearing. Director Phipps, if you could outline for the public the way we do the steps in the public hearing, and that would be appreciated and calling the first item as well. |
| 01:39:59.68 | Director Phipps | Certainly. Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. So for regular hearings, generally we start with a staff presentation, followed by planning commission questions for staff, followed by an optional applicant presentation of 15 minutes per team. Planning Commission will offer questions for the applicant. There will then be a public comment portion, an applicant rebuttal portion with a reserve time, if applicable, and then a planning commission discussion, deliberation and ultimate decision. |
| 01:39:59.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 01:40:36.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you so much for that. The first item is 118 to 120 Buchanan. And if you could introduce |
| 01:40:47.03 | Director Phipps | I'm just going to go. Certainly, yeah, I think that this is one of the first opportunities that you had to work with Kristin Taiki. She is a member of our all-star planning staff, and we are very lucky to have her in CDD. Kristin, I will turn the floor over to you. |
| 01:40:48.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Certainly. |
| 01:41:09.01 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. I do not have a PowerPoint presentation for you tonight. Since I'm working part-time, we're trying to manage my time in the most efficient way possible. So I'm going to give you verbal reports. I want to also acknowledge that we received three late mail items in response to this application. All three were submitted by Antonetta Olivia. on January 19th, the 23rd and the 25th of 2023. All three of these emails were forwarded to the commissioners and attached to the agenda on the city website. The commission should note that the information in these emails was not part of the record when the staff report was drafted. So if there's new information you want to consider. Certainly, that's appropriate. The applicant Steve Clements on behalf of Crandy Real Estate is requesting a tree removal permit to allow removal of one coast live oak located in the southeast rear corner of the property. The applicant has stated that they wish to remove a falling oak tree to proactively resolve the situation. An arborist report was prepared on behalf of this applicant and a certified arborist named Zach Zvat, The report confirms the tree in question is a single trunk, coast live oak, standing approximately 25 feet in height, and 17.8 inches in diameter. The report further indicates the foliage of the tree Canopy, trunk, and branches are all in good condition, appear normal and healthy, and the tree is vigorous. The trees growing adjacent to a fence shared with 125, 127 tamales And previous efforts have been made in the fence design to accommodate the trunk. Although the gaps in the fence construction were uneven on either side of the trunk, the arbors could not conclusively state the tree had shifted in this opening. or if the fence maybe had been built unevenly. However, if the tree were to fall, he estimates it will impact the fence and backyards of 125 and 127 tomales, which will result in minor to significant damage. The report also indicates that the arborist was informed that the soil at the bottom of the slope was thrown to saturation However, this condition was not present during his inspections and he could not conclude the tree was in process of failure. The report provides the following conclusions. The Coastal Live Oak is a species with a large growth potential, and this tree is still young and has lots of growth left in it. The future growth would encroach further into the fence and damage the fence and may cause property damage or create management issues. The subject tree is poorly located near the property line and is a tree with questionable stability due to the possible change in its orientation with fence. Removal of the tree will have a negligible impact on neighboring vegetation or slope stability. To approve the removal of the protected tree, the planning commission is directed to consider the criteria for approval under 1112-03-OB of the South Slater Municipal Code. Based on the submitted Arborist Report, The tree was determined to be in good health and condition at the time of inspection in April of 2022, and the arborist did not identify any factors that would conclusively indicate the tree was in decline or in the process of failure. Therefore, staff was unable to identify any eminent health and safety issue regarding the tree. Further, the proposed tree removal is not necessary to accommodate new development. And because it's relatively small, it appears that the property below at 125, 127, Tamala says access to adequate sunlight and it doesn't impact a significant view. Although the tree does impact the design and placement of the fence separating 118, 120 Buchanan and 125, 127 Tomales, This is a common occurrence around Sausalito and is not meeting the criteria for removal. Lastly, there's no indication by the arborist or information provided in the application record demonstrating the tree removal is necessary to ensure good professional practices of forestry or landscape design. However, since the drafting of the staff report, staff was informed by the property owners of 127 Tomales that there's a shared sewer lateral running through the rear yards of the lots above their property, which they believe is impacted by the tree. Staff checked with the Department of Public Works who confirmed there is a private six inch clay sewer line that runs through the area. DPW is unaware of any damage to the pipe as it is private and they have not been provided a current conditions assessment of this line. This assessment is typically only required when a property is being sold. So it's not something we just do routinely. Further as noted in the report, Marin County is currently experiencing above average rainfall. Healthy trees can fail due to oversaturated soil conditions. If the commission's concern regarding the stability of the trees or its possible impacts to the sewer line, it may be appropriate for the commission to continue the application and request either a more recent harvest report that evaluates the tree stability based on the site conditions today after all the rain. and an inspection of the current conditions assessment of the clay sewer pipe. Based on the available information in the records, staff recommends the planning commission deny the tree removal permit. A draft resolution of denial was provided for your consideration. And that concludes my report. |
| 01:46:50.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Kristen. I want to thank you for a very thorough report. Also, I want to thank Director Phipps for now bringing staff reports back into the CBD department rather than having to use consultants for all of them. So I think that's an excellent thing. and Kristen, we really appreciate your report. At this point, I want to ask other commissioners if we have questions of Kristen at this time before we get the applicant's presentation. Rather than going through one at a time, if people can just raise their hand or either in June or physically. Anybody have specific questions? I'm not seeing any. Okay, with that, who is presenting? Kristen, who is presenting for the applicant? |
| 01:47:39.11 | Kristin Teiche | I'm not even sure if they're present. I can't see all the... who's all here, let's see. |
| 01:47:44.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If the applicant is in the Zoom, if you could raise your hand through the Zoom, that would be appreciated. |
| 01:47:57.55 | Kristin Teiche | There we go. Antonella is the neighbor. Located below the property. |
| 01:48:00.79 | Andrew Junius | So, |
| 01:48:00.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | it below the I do not see |
| 01:48:03.02 | Kristin Teiche | I do not see the applicant. Chris Clements. in the audience. |
| 01:48:10.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | um, My understanding is that Antonella encouraged the submission of this. Should we allow them to speak under the thing, or we would have to do that under public comment? |
| 01:48:24.33 | Kristina Feller | Public comment. |
| 01:48:25.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so what we will do is there is not a applicant here. So I will open it up for public comment. Is that, let me check with Sergio, are you still on? |
| 01:48:43.43 | Mary Wagner | Yes, I'm here. |
| 01:48:44.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If we do not have an applicant presenting, do I just open it up for public comment? I just want to conclude. |
| 01:48:52.72 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I believe so. Hopefully the applicant, the applicant obviously still can have the opportunity to show up anytime before the close of the agenda item so. We need to keep an eye out for them. |
| 01:49:02.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We can. All right, with that, I'm going to open it up for public comment. If you want to make public comment, you can put a raise your hand in the zoom application. or go star nine on the telephone. And Antonella, the floor is yours. |
| 01:49:24.15 | Antonella | So can I share a small presentation, just a few slides? |
| 01:49:28.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, the Zoom team, can you allow Antonella to be co-host so she can share her presentation, or she can share her screen? |
| 01:49:41.60 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:49:41.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the |
| 01:49:42.02 | Director Phipps | I know. |
| 01:49:44.13 | Antonella | I think I shared that. Let me know if you can see it. |
| 01:49:48.05 | Director Phipps | Antonella, we can see your presentation. I just would like to make one brief comment. If you could attempt to keep your presentation under the three-minute public comment mark, that would be appreciated. Thank you. |
| 01:49:59.34 | Antonella | Sure, no problem. So here I have everybody from pretty much all the residents. So myself, my husband from 127 Tomales. I have Bob Gibron from 125. And I also have Marion Ramnussen who shares the fence with Bob. So we're all very worried about this, and that's why we are here as a community. for and hoping for a positive outcome. So, you know, I just want to make the same point I made an email I sent out. We read your draft. And we read your requirements, the city requirements for grinding permits. So there are four points, A, B, C and D. So I would like to go over that and we believe we meet all of them. And therefore, you know, you should be able to grant the removal permit for this tree. Now, even the Arborist Report, if I read the conclusion based on plain English and, you know, I'm outlining a redlining the key conclusions. He says that the tree has questionable stability due to the change of orientation with the fence. And for this reason, it is my opinion that removing the tree is a reasonable action. This is the arbores concluding this, right? And then he's also saying that removing the tree is not a big deal. You know, the vegetation is not going to impact the vegetation or the slope stability. So again, these are conclusions from the arbors, which is supporting removing the tree. Now, you know, back to the four points, four requirements from the seating. A is that the tree could pose an hazard to the property or the people or proximity structures or its near utilities or sewers. So number one, if you just look at one of the pictures below, right, you can see the tree leaning towards 125, but also partially towards 127. the bedrooms, the windows you see upstairs here, these are our bedrooms. the tree leaning towards 125, but also partially towards 127. The bedrooms, the windows you see upstairs here, these are our bedrooms, that's where we sleep. Okay, and if the tree, the tree is actually more than 25 feet, it's 35, 40 feet, we estimate. If it falls, it's going to fall on the roofs. I mean, you can also see from this picture, it's a fairly Simple to see. And also you can see the tree in question here on the rightmost picture. It's in a very tiny alley. It's about 10 feet wide near the sewer line. I think Kristen also mentioned that. So, |
| 01:52:21.10 | Bob Gibron | So really leaning. |
| 01:52:22.76 | Antonella | And it's leaning, exactly. |
| 01:52:24.18 | Bob Gibron | extreme angle. |
| 01:52:26.56 | Antonella | Right, exactly. So anyway, so we believe this tree meets your A condition. unless I don't know how to read English. The other one is sun exposure and mental distress. Also, the requirement is that doesn't allow the enjoyment of the property, including sunlight and the right to develop the property. Well, number one, our backyard, so the 127, is constantly in the shade of that tree. And I've attached some pictures. I can send this presentation to you. So you can see here, this is the tree. This is our backyard here at 11 a.m. in the shade from downstairs, also the bedrooms upstairs. You can see Bob's backyard in the sun because it doesn't have the tree. We are in the shade. Same is happening later in the day around 2pm. We are also in the 60s, mid 70s. We have a lot of mental stress coming from the risk that this tree may fall during a storm. We were pretty much up all night during the atmospheric fever of the past year. |
| 01:53:32.00 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 01:53:32.01 | Kristina Feller | bugs. Thank you. |
| 01:53:34.46 | Antonella | I'm sorry? |
| 01:53:35.69 | Kristina Feller | I think we're out of time. |
| 01:53:37.41 | Antonella | Yeah. So, and then the other, I think these are the main thing, right? So basically the sunlight, Also in the ability of solar, right? Being able to install solar panels because of the shade and again, the mental distress, the views, Right back to reasonable views. We don't get any views of the sky. We only see that tree from our bedrooms. And then, you know, you talked about the landscape, right? And the forestry, the canopy is 60% our property. So we don't have access to the tree. We cannot do anything about it. So I'm not sure that we are allowed to do any reasonable Um, So that's all we have to share. So in other words, we really hope that you can grant the removal of the tree We also have a lot of coastal trees in the front yard that we are grooming and we really want to grow. And if the decision is negative, we want the city to take full responsibility. |
| 01:54:39.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and to now I think the Zoom team turned off the muted, your microphone because you've gone beyond the time. Thank you for that presentation. |
| 01:54:50.92 | Antonella | Thank you. I will send you the presentation. |
| 01:54:54.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, if you could send that to Kristen at City Hall, that would be helpful. At this point, are there other people that were in public comment? Anybody else? Raise your hand in the Zoom application or star nine on your star, is it star nine or star six? What's the? Star nine, correct. Star nine. Um, |
| 01:55:23.05 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:55:23.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm seeing Antonella once again with a raised hand. I don't know if that gentleman is that your house or is that your neighbor? |
| 01:55:37.18 | Bob Gibron | The property that has the tree directly behind it. |
| 01:55:37.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The property that has the |
| 01:55:42.39 | Bob Gibron | And what I wanted to tell you was is that I've lost two trees on that on that slope already in the past 10 years. This is the third one that I would be losing. I would. |
| 01:55:55.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I wish What's your name and address? |
| 01:55:57.04 | Bob Gibron | My name is Bob Gibran. |
| 01:55:57.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 01:55:59.53 | Bob Gibron | G-E-B-R-O-N, and I'm the homeowner of 125 Tomales. |
| 01:55:59.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Maybe. |
| 01:56:04.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so you're a separate homeowner, so we'll give you three minutes also. |
| 01:56:04.58 | Bob Gibron | Thank you. |
| 01:56:08.38 | Bob Gibron | Yeah, I just want, I'll be quick. I just want you to realize that underneath, you know, our ground swell there, you know, in that where I've terraced it in three different areas, because of the loss of those trees, You know, I've done as much as I could to to protect my land. but that tree is leaning so far over that is bound to, you know, be coming down in the very near future. Secondly, underneath the groundswell, incredible amount of really bad pipes. The material that those pipes were made from have deteriorated. They no longer exist for the most part. And no one's come in my yard and said, well, let me take a sample. No one saw Saludas come to my yard and said, I'm going to dig in and let's find out about this. It hasn't been done. And being a former property manager in San Francisco, I saw a great many pipes that were demolished because they just wore out. The pipes that are down there now were designed for 30 years, maybe. And they've been down there twice that long. |
| 01:57:22.69 | Kristina Feller | Same word, no lawsuits. |
| 01:57:24.08 | Bob Gibron | So, you know, and we've had to file a lawsuit, you know, eight years ago to try and get the city to look at these, you know, these pipes and look at the damage. Because we had an incredible amount of sewage come up from the ground and, you know, come all over our yards. Cause a lot of mold, cause a lot of problems. We just want what's fair. All right, when I'm not asking the city to go broke, I'm just, we're trying to get the city to do the right thing. Because if these trees, if this tree were to fall over, You know what I mean? Who's gonna be in charge of that? Who's going to be the one who's asked to make the payments for that? We don't want to cause the city any more funds to go out than necessary. We just want what's fair. That were. We love our city. We don't want, you know, you guys to take a bum rap, but This is beyond the pale. someone's got to do something about this. And being a 75-year-old man, Living alone. you know, and seeing that tree looming over us every day. It's not easy. It's not conducive to pleasant living. I don't go in my backyard anymore. |
| 01:58:36.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:58:37.99 | Bob Gibron | You know? And I like to plant and do all that stuff in the backyard and all, but Man, it's dangerous back there. |
| 01:58:45.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:58:45.69 | Bob Gibron | Just look at the tree, look at the side, look at this angle that it is on. Who's coming down soon? I don't know when. You know, if I had my choice, you know, I would say, I hope it never comes down. I love trees. But this has put us, both me and both my neighbors, you know, in a precarious situation. It just needs to be, you know, something needs to be done about it. You know, we just want peace of mind and we want what's fair. Okay. |
| 01:59:12.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I think three minutes is up, but I thank you for your comments. I don't see any additional public comments, so I'll close public comment at this time and bring it back up to the dais. At this point, I'm looking for recommendations from the commission, Starwick Commissioner Fellows. |
| 01:59:36.73 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think, thank you chair. I think it's a little unfortunate that the actual applicant is not here. So I'm not, I'm not and staff has recommended this for denial. We have an arborist report that reports this tree to be healthy. heritage oak trees or live coastal oak you know, are part of Sausalito. They're everywhere. It's part of what defines the character. I'm not sure. that where the fear of going outside is and based on some of the photos I saw there's quite a lot of blue sky, so I would make a motion to support the staff report and deny this project or the request for removal. |
| 02:00:28.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there a second? |
| 02:00:36.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh And the Sasha, you're muted. If you were saying, you look like you're saying something, but you're muted. |
| 02:00:42.92 | Nastassya Saad | I was going to just echo commissioner Feller it would be best, of course, if the applicant was here. Um, I do understand what the neighbors are saying and I'm sympathetic to their but I do think that the arborist report is is weak at best given that this is a heritage. coastal live oak, protected tree, and would support a motion for a continue. and continuance. based on what staff had mentioned at the beginning, getting that late mail, I did not have a chance to read it until now. So I appreciated the neighbors presentation to bring me up to speed on their concerns. But with With that in mind, I would support a continuance to either to get a more recent report Understanding that we did have a very big storm It was worrisome, perhaps those soil changes have shifted. I'm not an arborist and I don't want to speak for them, but it would be worth an updated report. And I'd rather consider an updated report given our weather events. So I would support a continuance with an updated arborist report. |
| 02:02:05.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Saab. Commissioner Grell. |
| 02:02:09.23 | Richard Graef | Um, Thank you. Yes, I concur with Commissioner Saad. Initially, was inclined to lean towards a denial, I think there are circumstances that really need to be looked at and I'm not. comfortable making a decision at this point. I support a Um, a continuance. I think Commissioner Saad outlined what we would be looking for. I might add to that a further investigation into the pipes and sewer condition that may or may not be affected by this tree. |
| 02:02:59.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Graff. I echo Commissioner Feller's comment about it would be helpful if the arborist or the applicant was here because the words minor to significant did concern me because I did go out and see the tree personally and it is leaning. But if it's totally healthy and it's never going to come down. Coastal oaks tend to lean but but it definitely if it leans it hits it hits the roof and it hits the house so uh so i understand the the concerns but i understand in order to make the findings that we have to that uh uh we can't do it with a healthy tree and this arborist report is not very detailed so uh so with uh that i'll look uh i heard a motion to support the staff report and i heard a motion for continuing so uh what uh what what do we prefer to do here commissioner phillips |
| 02:04:03.32 | Kristina Feller | So I'm willing to rescind my motion, but I think I'd like to add to some of the conditions that we have to hear. I mean, if there's concern about all these pipes that are private pipes, then the onus is on the applicant or the neighbors to actually come back with some information about their pipes. They don't appear to be city pipes, as mentioned by staff. So I think that that's important. I'd also want to understand you know, who is maintaining this tree and what is the regular maintenance of it? I mean, like many trees, it likes to be, you know, species like this like to be, trims, maybe not. topped but trimmed. They like that. They thrive in that. And again, this species is all over Saucelito. It's part of what makes a lovely landscape around here. So this is not an unusual or unique situation. And I worry that this is not being taken seriously if the arborist and the applicant is not even here. |
| 02:05:14.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Powell. Are you suggesting that maybe in order to increase the light for the abutting residences, I mean, the problem here is that this tree affects the abutters more than it affects the applicant. That's probably why they're not here. And my understanding is the abutters ask the applicant to submit this. If this tree were topped or trimmed, do you think it might help with the light and keep the danger if it were to fall not to hit the house? Do you think it could be trimmed enough to do that? |
| 02:05:48.51 | Kristina Feller | I mean, I am not an arborist like, like Commissioner Saad, we are not arborists, but you know, having this species, you know, in on my property and around my property, I know that they do enjoy that. |
| 02:05:52.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 02:06:01.80 | Kristina Feller | So what I would just ask is if we're going to continue this anyway, which I, I, can support, I want it to be clear you know what some of these caveats are. I mean if the tree is just never maintained, well maybe some maintenance will will help the situation. You know, removing a healthy tree is a is an absolute last resort, particularly when there is no no development going in its place. |
| 02:06:28.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | COB, Dan Burke, Norcal PTACCIA. Okay, thank you, Commissioner fellow I at this point I would. COB, Dan Burke, Norcal PTACCIA. i'm hearing that we would like somebody to make a motion to the effect of as much as I try to avoid continuances in this case, we would continue this to a date uncertain and request that. Chris, I'll get you in a second. Let me just put the concept out there and then I'm guessing there's some technical reason why that's an issue. We would continue to do a date, uncertain and ask for the arborist to determine whether this tree could be trimmed in order to address any safety or other issues and address the issue about the potential damage it's doing to the sewer line. Let me, before I go to Commissioner Saag, Kristen, is there a technical issue here? or something? |
| 02:07:34.41 | Kristin Teiche | Well, first I see a Chris Sullivan in the audience. And if this is the Chris Sullivan who is our applicant, we may want to ask him to speak. |
| 02:07:42.33 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 02:07:42.43 | Kristin Teiche | to see if there's anything he wants to say or agree to. Secondly, I neglected to discuss this with the city attorney, I typically consider all discretionary permits to be subject to the permit streamlining And if that's the case, the applicant should grant us the one time 90 day extension of the processing time limit. in order to be sure they have time to get these things done that you're asking for. |
| 02:08:08.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, who do we think is the applicant? |
| 02:08:13.34 | Kristin Teiche | Chris Sullivan. |
| 02:08:14.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I go with that. |
| 02:08:15.15 | Andrew Junius | No. |
| 02:08:15.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | at the office. |
| 02:08:16.28 | Kristin Teiche | Oh, I'm sorry. That's the next application. Steve Clement. |
| 02:08:21.51 | Kristina Feller | for Steve Clements. Maybe Sergio can weigh in on that legal issue. You've raised Kristen real quick so we can move this along. |
| 02:08:31.11 | Mary Wagner | I don't think we need to worry about the Permanent Streamlining Act at this moment, absent the applicant trying to invoke remedies. |
| 02:08:34.74 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:08:37.95 | Mary Wagner | So let's let's move this along without that at this point. |
| 02:08:43.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'll entertain a motion to either the effect of what I just described or some other motion if somebody wants to make a motion. |
| 02:08:55.97 | Kristina Feller | I'll make a motion to continue this item to a date uncertain. and ask for additional information from the arborist, including any history of maintenance to the tree, including any information that any applicant or a butter has on their, uh, an underground piping or sewer lines that they can provide that might support this application request. um, And Commissioner Sada, am I missing anything? |
| 02:09:31.19 | Nastassya Saad | No, thank you. I was gonna add the history of maintenance. I... I would be interested to know if we'd agree to an updated arborist report from, Is that the intention? |
| 02:09:47.32 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we're looking for additional information. So yeah, it has to be. |
| 02:09:49.94 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. It has to be. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. Yes. No, I don't think you're missing anything. And I would second that. |
| 02:09:56.65 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:09:56.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, we have motion on the floor and a second, Commissioner Drell. |
| 02:10:00.36 | Richard Graef | I just wanted to add to the, request for continuance that Uh, a new arborist report might, if it was appropriate, make recommendations what might be done to prevent any damage from the tree or to to make the tree better, you know, to, to, uh, whatever it might, things might be done to mitigate the circumstances. |
| 02:10:35.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | such as trimming the tree or something whatever |
| 02:10:35.24 | Richard Graef | Perfect. Whatever. Yeah. |
| 02:10:38.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you. |
| 02:10:38.48 | Richard Graef | Right. Thank you. |
| 02:10:39.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm willing to accept that amendment. |
| 02:10:39.55 | Kristina Feller | I like the... willing to accept. |
| 02:10:44.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. All right, we have a motion on the floor. We have a second. Commissioner, Director Pips, can you take the roll? Thank you. |
| 02:10:53.25 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. |
| 02:10:53.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:10:54.52 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Son. |
| 02:10:55.66 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:10:56.10 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:10:57.17 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:10:58.43 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 02:10:59.90 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:11:01.08 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 02:11:02.65 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg. Motion carries. |
| 02:11:07.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Moving on. 615 Sausalito Boulevard is, is that Kristen also? |
| 02:11:20.12 | Kristin Teiche | Yes, all three of these will be me tonight. |
| 02:11:22.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Kristen, the floor is yours. Thank you so much. |
| 02:11:26.34 | Kristin Teiche | Do you see this screen here with the civil plan? |
| 02:11:29.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:11:29.45 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 02:11:29.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:11:30.12 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 02:11:30.53 | Kristin Teiche | Okay. |
| 02:11:32.42 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 02:11:34.00 | Kristin Teiche | I'd like to acknowledge again that we have received five late mail communications on this property. All of these late mail communications were attached to the agenda and were forwarded to the commission. Um, The project applicant is questing. tree removal permits, design review, and an encroachment agreement to support their plan to remove 23 trees located in the Sausalito and Marion Avenue rights-of-way and on site. of which seven are unprotected and 16 are protected trees. And one additional tree, number 24, is located on 107, 109 Marion Avenue. And it's also proposed for removal due to its proximity to grading and retaining wall construction. They've also proposed to grade the street footage in the site and construct retaining walls to support the driveway entry and future building paths. No residential structures proposed under this permit. Based on the civil plans, The work proposed includes 1,840 cubic yards of cut and 155 cubic yards of fill. The retaining wall design includes stacked walls in the Sausalito Boulevard right away separated by approximately one foot. Each wall will range in height from six to 10 feet for an overall combined height of approximately 20 feet at the highest point. A stacked wall system is also proposed in the rear yard. And the combined wall heights would reach approximately 14 feet. The project sites and undeveloped heavily vegetated, steeply sloping parcel with an average grade of about 60 to 70%. The total land area is 5,622 square feet. The lot was previously a portion of 109-111 Marion Avenue And the subdivision map separating this lot was recorded in, I believe 2016. As the paved right-of-way does not match the full width of the real right-of-way that is Sausalito Boulevard, the lot is separated from the improved roadway by about 26 feet of unimproved right-of-way that's steeply sloping. As discussed in the staff report, the subject application in civil design was deemed incomplete by the city departments, including planning fire and public works. However, the applicant noted that he provided some comments after the 30 day review period required under government code and required that we continue with the public hearing process on this application. So this is why this application before you even though it's not complete. I'm going to move to the second page, just so you can see the design better |
| 02:14:23.36 | Kristin Teiche | The subject application proposes to construct accessory structures in the form of a driveway in support of retaining walls, but has admitted a proposed primary use so permitted use. for which these walls and driveway would support. The applicant's been informed that the proposed success for use is not permitted unless there is a primary use or primary use proposed for the site. In order for the planning commission to approve the proposed application, the Sausalito municipal code requires a series of findings under the design review chapter. Staff finds the scope of the proposed work would circumvent the whole purpose of the design review process. Planning Commission charges to consider an entire development that ensures that both the residential development and supportive features including the driveway access and finished grades of the proposed building pad. are best suited to the site, minimize impacts on the neighbors' views, etc. To make findings of approval of the design view permit, all of the design elements, including a residential development, should be included in this application. More specific to the project is filed, the project's not consistent with the San Francisco General Plan as required under finding one, Has the applicants not proposed a permitted use and consistent with the general plan designation. In addition, Project design was determined to be deficient by fire department. required correction. and clarification regarding the driveway grade and width. Therefore, the applicants failed to comply with finding 10 in that the details and configuration of the proposed driveway design will not provide an appropriate level of traffic safety and emergency access to the site. Yeah. proposed the removal of 24 trees and grading excess of 1840 cubic yards. in the right-of-way and on the site, which has an average grade of 60 to 70%, but has not applied for the necessary grading permits and provided support of geotech reports to demonstrate the site conditions can adequately support the design. Therefore, the proposed project does not meet the findings of Conditions Number 11 or the finding number 11. and that the evidence is not provided to demonstrate the proposed design preserves protected trees, and the natural features of the site to a reasonable extent or minimizes site degradation due to construction activities. Lastly, the applicants failed to provide evidence that the property owner at 109 111 Marion Avenue has supported the proposed removal of tree 24. In evaluating the findings required to recommend approval of an encroachment agreement, staff finds that the subject application does not meet the criteria B or C. Based on the project record, approval of an encroachment permit for construction of an accessory structure or use, absent of proposed permitted primary structure or use, without completion of a design review application to fully evaluate the project would establish an undesirable land use precedent. Further, there's no evidence in the record to demonstrate that the proposed encroachment in both Susceleta Boulevard and Marion Avenue is reasonable. or necessary to enjoy reasonable use of the property. to determine that the extent of the request encroachment is justifiable or with regard to the required findings for tree removal permits based on the project record, the applicant does not meet SMC 1112-030-D1A. As the submitted Arborist report indicates that the majority of the trees, the protected trees are in fairly good condition. And there's no indication that removal is necessary to ensure the public safety Further, the application does not comply with finding 1112030B3A, as the removal of healthy trees may be avoided with redesign of the proposed driveway. access and modification of the building pad in support of retaining walls. None of this can be determined because we don't have adequate information. |
| 02:18:18.73 | Mr. Dixon | None of this. |
| 02:18:22.73 | Kristin Teiche | or 1112-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03-03- Lastly, there's no evidence in the record that the property owners of 109 111 Marion Avenue have authorized removal of their case. Staff recommends the project be denied as demonstrated in the staff report and we have provided you with a resolution of denial for your consideration. |
| 02:18:50.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | CHRISTIAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO SAY YOUR ONE NEW STAFF REPORT WAS EXTREMELY THOROUGH AND ALSO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOSAWITO MINISIMAL CODE. SO THAT IS WELL APPRECIATED. AT THIS POINT I HAVE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS OF THE STAFF REPORT. I'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER FELLER. |
| 02:19:16.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I do not have any further questions for staff at this time. |
| 02:19:21.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:19:24.33 | Nastassya Saad | I just had one question I wanted to echo that. It was an excellent report. Thank you very much. Did staff receive any further correspondence or updates to the notice of incomplete or from anything more submitted from fire? Any response to any of the the concerns that were raised by the various departments |
| 02:19:46.21 | Kristin Teiche | I have no new information provided. They did not respond to our email inquiries. as to whether they'd like to |
| 02:19:53.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:19:54.57 | Kristin Teiche | take a different tactic. |
| 02:19:56.36 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. That's my only question. Thank you. Um, Chair Luxembourg, |
| 02:20:02.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Grau. |
| 02:20:05.77 | Richard Graef | So, No questions. |
| 02:20:08.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. I don't have any questions either. I do wanna make just a comment on public mail comments. Some of them ones are coming in with an Adobe problem and then they got reposted and whatever, I don't know if that's coming from outside of city hall or something in city hall, but, um, Even some of the stuff that got posted uh, not necessarily on this one, but had this weird Adobe thing. And that might've been my computer versus the posting, but I, I had it happen on both my phone and on my computer. So I just flagged that for you to, to check, you know, with a, another computer, just in case with this, uh, do you know who, uh, for the applicant is here this evening and Kristen. |
| 02:20:54.08 | Kristin Teiche | I saw Mr. Sullivan. In the list of attendees. |
| 02:20:57.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay. Mr. Sullivan, you'll have a 15-minute window to provide your presentation. You do not necessarily have to take all of that at the first part. We will then open it up for public comments, and if you reserve some of your time, you could also make those comments, you can make additional comments. So with that, the Zoom team can set a timer to 15 minutes. Mr. Sullivan, do you need to share your screen? Mr. Sullivan needs to be unmuted. Zoom team, if you could help with that. |
| 02:21:39.48 | Chris Sullivan | Yes, I do need to share a screen, please. |
| 02:21:42.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, you've been made co-host, so you can share your screen. The floor is yours. Thank you. |
| 02:21:47.50 | Chris Sullivan | I'm not familiar with the way you folks may use Zoom, so I have my- |
| 02:21:52.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There should be on the bottom a green thing that says share screen. |
| 02:21:56.44 | Chris Sullivan | Yeah. |
| 02:21:56.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:22:03.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:22:03.75 | Chris Sullivan | Yep, on my Zoom it's not there, but it's going to share anyway. Thank you. |
| 02:22:07.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 02:22:07.41 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you anyway. |
| 02:22:07.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But thank you anyway. We can see it. |
| 02:22:09.74 | Chris Sullivan | Yeah, you just see the screen? Do you see a screen that says one new home to a family? Yes. Just one screen or more than one screen? |
| 02:22:19.02 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:22:19.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 02:22:19.44 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 02:22:19.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:22:19.59 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:22:22.65 | Kristina Feller | Just one. Just one. |
| 02:22:23.64 | Chris Sullivan | Okay, great. Well, thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to make a presentation, very important to me, for my new home at 215 Sausalito Boulevard. |
| 02:22:41.66 | Chris Sullivan | The proposed agenda background, our application, the process as it's happened so far in the city, Soscelito Municipal Code and other texts, followed by comment, no doubt, Is my screen showing well? Yeah. Right. So background, I think some of you are familiar. The lot was created by a minor subdivision action in 2016. The lot's in the R2, 2.5 zone, essentially medium to high density. There was a planning permit issued to the prior owner, |
| 02:23:08.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have a question. |
| 02:23:25.81 | Chris Sullivan | for ostensibly a single family home or was it dual family. That permit was extended through to about 2020. A mitigated negative declaration was recorded in the registry for the site and the home in December 2009, when the prior applicants started the process, and As the lady who presented, who I think I met briefly one time for a couple of minutes in the city office, is correct at 5,622. Of course, as we all know, the majority, over 50%, much more, of available residential lots in society are steep slope. Our application is to build a home, homes, whether they be dual family plus an ADU or a single family plus two small ADUs. you |
| 02:24:31.74 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:24:31.76 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 02:24:31.77 | Andrew Junius | Amen. |
| 02:24:32.03 | Chris Sullivan | we entered into a lot purchase agreement with the prior owner in June 2018. |
| 02:24:32.09 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 02:24:39.62 | Chris Sullivan | some time ago, Um, Our family moved in April 20. I moved my office here from where I'm speaking to Sausalito on Bridgeway. And after some time during the pandemic, we got our sons into local schools. The family's objective is to create stability. We've moved a bit before now. but so that we could have one stable home location through the school years of our children. |
| 02:25:09.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:25:10.99 | Chris Sullivan | The Duff family to occupy the other part of the dual family. A little bit of history, which will be relevant to the participants. We couldn't close until the adjacent lot, when a Nymarian above us, had its mortgage balance paid. So a year ago, Mr. Tan bought that home and lot. On the same day, at the same hour, we closed on 215 Sustentable Boulevard, which is further down. off Sausalito Boulevard. So we had to close together. Everyone knew about the previous planning permits and proposed construction. We mutually assisted each other. Mr. Dixon, who I see as written comments, was the agent for that transaction, at least Mr. Tan's side, was well aware of all of the things going on. At least I hope it was because he could have probably told the owner. Sure, he did. The new owner. So we think it will driveway and a home with ADUs or single family, dual family and one ADU. Um, As advised and required, it seems, to go through this process, we, and we wanted to, we sent a letter to all neighbours last April within 300 feet, which is actually quite a lot of people, in fact. the great majority of the feedback we received, which the majority had in writing, was... which is actually quite a lot of people, in fact, the great majority of the feedback we received, which the majority I had in writing, was... I have to say, almost overwhelmingly about not adding parking on Sosceleta Boulevard. As there are three or four parking spaces, and those are all right up against an unprotected and at any one day, it seems 10 or 12 cars come in, going, and needing. It's a pop. So we took those comments very much to... to heart because we had considered an underground garage. We had considered a mechanized device to get up 30 feet maybe. That was going to be about half a million dollars, I think. We continued on. David Solmaz, who is to our east on Sausalito Boulevard, at that time said he will support the driveway. We haven't heard anything different. but he wants to return a small retaining wall placed between his house and the driveway side, which is about 25 feet away approximately. We agree to that, given there might possibly be a disturbance from the build activities. We met Lovely Hancocks, hello, and received a letter of support. But I do note, and I'm sure importantly, that following discussions with absolute neighbours, and maybe, of course, very much has his own mind, decided that the driveway, in his opinion, was not such a good idea, subject to his comments. We received feedback from our, we have two neighbors above us, Mr. Tan and the Jeffrey Michelle of the Dumont family, Mr. Tan asked that we pay his architect and engineering fees to provide all feedback and a guarantee and bond that if anything went wrong, that we would pay him forthwith. Jeffrey and Michelle had at that time many questions, and we did a Zoom meeting spanning really across the whole range, architectural, structural, civil, geotechnical. Stacey Cray, I will not speak for her she's And we did a Zoom meeting spanning really across the whole range, architectural, structural, civil, geotechnical. Stacey Cray, I will not speak for her. She's the next house, Pastor Du Mons. Was mildly supportive, subject to view confirmation discussion. And we have our own volition installed some story polls to help with that discussion. We'll come back to this, but a driveway, which is the principal complaint of Ms. Tiki, I believe. She says she's our planner, but we've never spoken with her. The first substantive communication or any communication we had was something we found on the City website with a denial drafted for the Commissioners to approve. Yes, indeed. Our home, and we have not heard from the planner for four months, And at all. How does that work? Anyway. Strange things happen. We could have discussed all of this prior to this meeting, A driveway is not an accessory use, nor an accessory structure, including specifically in Sausalito, California. I'll say more about that. It's important, but it's obviously a threshold subject. in the opinion of the people who have presented to you from the city side, So it will be time consuming and significantly reduce the time that I have to explain our |
| 02:30:58.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 02:31:09.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So that's a large file, so I'm going elsewhere. |
| 02:31:21.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:31:21.97 | Chris Sullivan | Quite simply, we need to have access to our lot. Can people see the civil plans? Yes, yes, we can. We need to have access to our lot. We currently repel, a reverse repel, up the side of the slope to get to it. Um, And that obviously doesn't work. Sorry, I'm having a technical issue here. There's the civil plan once again, Francis. |
| 02:31:51.38 | Andrew Junius | business. Yes, it is. |
| 02:31:55.40 | Chris Sullivan | So, Standing at Sausalito Boulevard, which is pretty narrow at this point, It just about allows for a car to park and one to pass with a valve six inches spare. Maybe a little more depending on the exact spot So standing here at Sasabalavan, looking up at the hill. It seems clear, and for reasons I will go into, that a driveway to get up to, we propose, a 165 foot elevation would be sensible, common sense, and part of any at any good design to access this lot. There are a number of subjects. One is we don't actually front onto the graded Sausalito Boulevard. So we have to get over and up to the lot. An important subject also is that the further this way that we move the house, which is proposed to be here in the dotted line, in the dashed line, the... here, in fact, the closer that we move in this direction, the more it presents itself for the two homes of the DuMonts, Geoffrey and Michelle and Stacey Cray over to this side. Because their view is out through here. The more we move it just to create space and attempt to keep excavation somehow reasonable or reasonable is a related subject. So in our proposal, we have conceived a 13 percent driveway grade up to 165 and to essentially start with a corner of the lot. if we were to have a driveway come up to 165 and to essentially stop at the corner of the lot. If we were to have a driveway coming up into the lot, we would lose essentially all of the, a good portion of the limited building space. This width is, with the setbacks, is about 35 feet. |
| 02:34:21.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | only. |
| 02:34:31.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can't see a clock because I |
| 02:34:32.71 | Chris Sullivan | so many screens at the top at the time. |
| 02:34:32.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have three minutes and seven seconds. I'm at 10 minutes. Three minutes. Three minutes left. |
| 02:34:37.03 | Chris Sullivan | Bye. |
| 02:34:37.08 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:34:40.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Figures that, okay. |
| 02:34:57.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:34:57.28 | Chris Sullivan | So the average grade calculation is 180, the points below the proposed structure. That takes us up 32 feet to 212 feet The Demonts here are at 225 foot on this survey, certainly pretty close. Mr. Tan is here and his views really go east and north across the bay. This goes back into the hill, essentially up here, which is where some, where any of the heights would be around this area here. Folks, it's impossible to turn into and out of a garage on Sausalito Boulevard. It simply couldn't be done. There will be no sight line and We found no engineer prepared to propose it. This driveway design is good for any house. It doesn't impinge on the lot. really at all. the driveway can can accommodate. any of the future house designs that you would care to comment on? So far, we had a pre-application meeting with Rosalind Thompson, neighbor engagement we submitted. We advised that day that our investors will need to comply with the PSA. We have not been able to reach a planner. We've had some occasional very useful communication with Brandon Phipps helpful. His central message was about accessory uses, but he took an incinerating and helpful tone in general. Yeah. We submitted, we booked to have a meeting for intake with a planner, but no planner showed up. We wrote multiple emails. I wrote to Mystique on November the 8th to follow up on a meeting that we've had for about three minutes where she said she was busy. We saw the application of being assigned to Adrian Masqueral. In utter exasperation, we asked for an agenda item in the council meeting. That was the first time we heard from a planner. So we'd had three months of silence. And as we all know, the city offices are only open for three hours a week. As to the law, in the code of the city, the accessory structure means a detached building on the same lot. So the drafted staff report and denial, which I sincerely hope they're not paying for, had to put that in, which goes to accessory uses, is incorrect. The accessory uses are listed here, second column. If indeed the driveway were an accessory use or an accessory structure, it would be listed above and it's not. I like to use Williams for accessory uses. He's got a compendium of all active cases and appealed cases. |
| 02:38:14.45 | Andrew Junius | to |
| 02:38:14.61 | Chris Sullivan | These are the five, I would have thought, |
| 02:38:14.68 | Andrew Junius | I'm just... |
| 02:38:18.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Sullivan, if you can just wrap up, you've gone through your full 15 minutes. |
| 02:38:18.44 | Chris Sullivan | the social media. Yeah. They must be located on the same lot. They must be customarily incidental, which of course a driveway can never be, Here's the problem we have, folks. My sons are seven and eight. This is a tabulation of the single-family dual families approved. in Sausalito. It's circulating around at the moment. I've personally checked each one The average permitting time for a single family in the city of Sausalito is 6.8 years. My sons will be 17 and 18 by that time that we would finish development, which we approximate to be two years and two months for certificate of occupancy. Maddox goes to the same school as the daughter of the owner of the large developments just off Bridgeway, Valhalla. |
| 02:39:26.37 | Kristina Feller | Chair Luxembourg. |
| 02:39:26.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, yeah, yes. So, Mr. Sullivan, you're getting off subject to- All right, I'll stay on subject. You're concerned about building your house and getting your children in it before they go to university. That's very clear. But at this point, I think we're gonna wrap up. |
| 02:39:31.28 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 02:39:31.77 | Chris Sullivan | Yeah. |
| 02:39:32.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:39:32.54 | Kristina Feller | Sorry. |
| 02:39:32.78 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:39:37.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:39:37.77 | Chris Sullivan | Bye. |
| 02:39:37.96 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:39:37.98 | Chris Sullivan | Bye. |
| 02:39:38.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:39:41.69 | Chris Sullivan | That's it. I have finished, so I'm asking for the assistance of the planning. |
| 02:39:46.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so at this point, if you can stop sharing your screen and come back to your video, we will, there we go. So basically, we're going to have, this will be the time for questions from commission members. I'm going to take the opportunity here before I go around to ask a couple questions myself. it is clear you want to build a house or a duplex or a house in a duplex in an ADU or something like that. If in order to answer questions like does it create a shadowing effect or how you turn around or you know you need a geotechnical. All of these things are needed. Traditionally, we need to see what you're proposing. This is a driveway to nothing at the moment. We need to see not just the dotted line of where a house might go, but what the house is. And without that, we don't have a complete application. So I guess my question to you, because you do want to get this bill for your children is when when will you have the plans for house. |
| 02:41:02.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You're muted. Zoom team, can we unmute Mr. Sullivan? Hold on one second. |
| 02:41:09.14 | Chris Sullivan | All right. Thank you for the empathic statement about our family's home. It's the first one I've heard since we started this process, though Brandon has been helpful because |
| 02:41:30.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:41:30.65 | Chris Sullivan | The proposal for a house involves so much elapsed time |
| 02:41:41.30 | Chris Sullivan | And because the city code does not disallow it, We wish to build the access to our future homes. Our plans to submit, and we'll commit to this, for a home or homes on the side, we will do in the next couple of months. And I'm prepared to... where affirm our attempt and for you to condition this on that use and submission. but I'm very scared that as we go into this, And there are other documents now that Talk about architects not receiving for single families, including on this street. right around the corner. any responses from city planning for five months. and others going on for so many years. |
| 02:42:48.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 02:42:49.00 | Chris Sullivan | that we ask for your assistance, and clearly that's partly because of the process of going all constituents and the time and effort required to draft documents and explain them in a meaningful way. is that because the code does allow it and because of the historical enormously long times to get a house building permit, that we be allowed to at least start the access for our homes. |
| 02:43:24.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand what you're asking. I will tell you that there have been examples where somebody starts to take out part of a hill, builds construction of driveways, and then can't get funding for their house, and it destabilizes the environment. Traditionally, if you were to come in with a complete application, we would process it forthwith. And in doing so, we would approve, tell you that you can't start demolition on the driveway until you're ready to go with the house. Because we don't want a situation where it's half built. So quite honestly, the issue here, I mean, you can give examples and, you know, I can apologize on behalf of the city for some staff turnover that we had in CDD, but we are, but that is, we're moving forward now. And so, but without knowing what you're going to put there, it would be very difficult to approve this. And about three quarters of what you're asking to build is not on land you own. It's in the city right away. So we need to know what the house is going to be, quite honestly, in order to approve this. And if you have us, you know, you don't want to, I wouldn't even think you'd want to build a driveway to nothing without having the approval of your house. So I don't know. With that, I'm going to open up other questions of commissioners. I'll start with Commissioner Graff. Oh, um, |
| 02:45:06.74 | Richard Graef | Um... Thank you. Ah. Well, It seems clear to me that the whole process is just not being followed correctly. Um, there are just too many too many unknowns in the project. I just can't imagine approving this particular effort. Um, I I think that the territory has been pretty well covered. I just simply think that Amen. Well, We need to see the whole project. And that's all there is to it. That's all I have to say. |
| 02:45:52.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you Commissioner Greff, Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:45:56.05 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair Luxenberg and thank you Mr. Sullivan for your presentation. It's clear what you intend to do here. I think you need to focus on your project and not anybody else's project and what's happened on their projects. There's always a lot of reasons why things are delayed. Sometimes those are on property owners. Sometimes it's on funding. Sometimes that's a combination of a multitude of things. But let's focus only on your project. And I would love to see something built here. the problem that we face and the risk that's involved is, and this is meant to sort of help inform maybe a process that we can get through with you. is you're asking for quite a lot of excavation you're looking for removal of a substantial amount of trees that that should be looked at almost collectively, not singularly. because it's a whole habitat. And your, your, this commission has to make a recommendation to the city council to approve easements and so on and encroachments into city property. We cannot make those informed decisions. We cannot make those recommendations. to the city council without the proper information in front of us. And this commission has that that you're in front of tonight. And our vice chair, who is not with us due to an illness right now, we've, very commonly um, uh, condition approvals as the chair was saying, where you will not achieve a demo permit until you achieve a building permit. That is particularly important on this site. It is, I believe, subject to the heightened design review standards, which are higher standards than design review. and you've got substantial slope. in a city that has a number of findings based on the landside task force in how to handle these types of situations. So engineering is quite key. So, So what we have in front of us tonight Um, I don't believe that we can make any motion to to approve because it's incomplete. So I hope that what I've described to you will help inform a process and what we're looking for and why. And so when you come back to us, you'll have that information and we can have those discussions and talk through how you're actually going to achieve your family home. And we will all advocate for that, you know, obviously within the confines of the Sausalito Municipal Code and ordinances and And all of those sorts of things. But, you know, we're looking forward to seeing what you envision on this property. So I would not be in a position to move forward with what you presented to us tonight, but I am looking forward to what you come to us with in a complete package. |
| 02:49:14.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Commissioner Saad, any other questions? |
| 02:49:21.28 | Nastassya Saad | I just would like to echo everything Commissioner Feller just said I'm in complete agreement with her comments and I want to make sure that the applicant hopefully does understand those the only question that I had. was in relation and I'm sorry, cause I'm having a lot of lag time on my, end of my laptop, but For one, the fire um, prevention. conversation, I believe, It is, I'm not confident of what attachment it is, but it is part of the packet from November 22nd. If they've had a chance to review and digest and any response to those that they're either prepared for tonight or hopefully in the future, Um, I'd ask out of Mr. Sullivan if he's had receive those and understands what the fire, forces asking for and if there are any concerns around how they're deeming it incomplete, Did you have a response there? |
| 02:50:31.28 | Nastassya Saad | I think Mr Sullivan might need unmuting again. Thank you. |
| 02:50:35.04 | Kristina Feller | we, And there you go. Thank you. |
| 02:50:37.11 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 02:50:37.13 | Kristina Feller | I know. |
| 02:50:37.32 | Chris Sullivan | Yeah. |
| 02:50:37.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:50:39.34 | Chris Sullivan | Yes, on the fire, you joined along with the application is complete. By law, it's complete. Now, it can be subject to further information requests Bye. I'm not sure. city to amplify and clarify and I had received none of those requests. but under the Permit Streamlining Act, the application is complete. There's a difference, of course, between completeness and, as it were, corrections. As to the fire subject, In my conversations with Southern Marin, they will accept a 14-foot width because the truck will be able to ascend on the basis that the 17-foot width higher up of the plan I'm looking at now will allow the fire doors to open So, Clearly, there are many, many, many existing lots that don't really, are not able to conform to every provision. So therefore, as is the case here, the fire department has noted the exceptions that they will be prepared to make. on the point of geotechnical The Geotechnical Report has been on file with the city of Sausalito since 2009. And upon a check that I made a few days ago, it remains on file. and Mr. Jane Nelson, geotechnical engineer, has stated that of the 800 sites that he has surveyed in Marin and over 100 in Sausalito, that this is in the top two stable sites in the entire city of Sausalito. There's rock. It's very stable. We proposed a drainage plan. That's my answer to your questions. |
| 02:52:54.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Additional questions, Commissioner South? |
| 02:52:59.56 | Nastassya Saad | I do not have additional questions. |
| 02:53:01.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:53:01.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:53:01.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So, for example, you're going to drive up this driveway. How are cars getting down the driveway? Are they going to turn around? Are they going into a garage? What are your intent? |
| 02:53:13.58 | Chris Sullivan | Yep, we could go into a garage and turn around, sure. Thank you. |
| 02:53:17.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, see that this is the issue that we're having that you could, but are you? So we need to see, you know, I mean, we need to see what you want to propose for this site. You can't build a, you know, 12 foot structure to get to no place. I mean, you've got to, if you're going to turn around in the garage or you're going to turn around before the garage, how far is the garage set back? How high does the building go? Some of the, I don't know the specific examples you said about other things taking so long, but part of the problem we've had is somebody comes in without a plan of whatever, of what they're actually going to build and doesn't have all the information that's needed in order for it to be reviewed so we can make the finance. So we want to help you build your house, but we need you to come in with a set of plans that says what that house is. And then this driveway gets you to your house. And then we can figure out the encroachment permit you need from the city council. But without knowing what it's going to, you know, it's an accessory use to a house that hasn't been submitted, basically. And I don't know how... We're trying to help you. It's not an accessory use. So it's not an accessory use. So it's a parking lot. In essence, what you're doing is you're building a parking area. |
| 02:54:27.85 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 02:54:30.65 | Chris Sullivan | not an inset |
| 02:54:38.34 | Chris Sullivan | I don't know. building a driveway. We can't |
| 02:54:39.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Building a driveway. A driveway is a parking area. |
| 02:54:43.29 | Chris Sullivan | I look for examples in Northern California of debates over terms. |
| 02:54:43.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:54:54.14 | Chris Sullivan | and what the Appeals Court decided. And do you know what? The one that came up was the city of Sosilito. And the judge in San Rafael ruled that you cannot ask me, city of San Sausalito, to give meaning to your code or define words. They're obviously either defined in the code or in general planning conventions. And this is another example. And the city's Defense was struck down. Accessory structure and use are defined in the Sausalito Municipal Code. And we can't rewrite that. I will need you to point out What it is in the City Co that does not allow you to make findings. I would also like to... |
| 02:55:49.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think the staff report is done now. I'm going to go to Commissioner Sada who has another question. So I want to have her ask that. Commissioner Sada. |
| 02:55:57.79 | Nastassya Saad | All right, I want a point of clarification chair Feller if we're at a point of deliberation here or are we asking are we still having open conversation, I mean open questions with the. |
| 02:56:01.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 02:56:01.86 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:56:10.34 | Nastassya Saad | Applicant. |
| 02:56:10.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. We're not deliberating. We're trying to ask questions. So I think we need to get back on asking questions, but I'm trying to figure out a way to help this applicant come in with what he needs to come in with. But I guess at this point, we're not going to get into, the staff report is fairly clear. So yeah, I think you are correct, Commissioner Saad. So do you have an additional question or anything? |
| 02:56:38.83 | Nastassya Saad | I personally do not have any additional questions. |
| 02:56:41.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Any other commissioners have any additional questions before I open this up for public comment? |
| 02:56:47.72 | Kristina Feller | No additional questions, thank you. |
| 02:56:48.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so we're going to now take public comment and then we will deliberate Mr. Sullivan used this time, didn't reserve any time. So that's the plan of attack. At this point, I will look to my list here and see, I have one hand raised, Ms. Bushmaker, welcome back. |
| 02:57:11.87 | Ms. Bushmaker | I can't seem to get enough, so I'm back. Good evening, everybody. Good evening, Chris Sullivan. I've met you before. I reside at 317. I'm the immediate next door neighbor on the same side of the street as 215, but there's nothing between us. Um, My concerns are about traffic. The narrowness of the road. and the hill stability, because I do see quite a bit of chert in the road. when I walk by there daily with my dog, and the narrowness of the road. There are cars parked immediately across the street from this residence or from this property And so the road is indeed very narrow there. With regard to the trees, I just want to say I have a personal opinion that I think those trees could be, some of them could be removed and cleared up. There's a very dense foliage at this section of Sausalito Boulevard. And as I've said, it's on a very steep slope as you've already pointed this out, up to 60 some degrees. And I do know that the property I have observed the property at 119. Sausalito Boulevard has had a mini mudslide or landslide into their carport. from the adjacent property. So these are areas that are of concern to me. Obviously, I'm not going to speak for or against the particular application. I just wanted to bring up these elements as a neighbor of this particular property. This street has plenty of traffic. and it is a little challenging for pedestrians and their dogs at all times, and so I just hope that we can take those kind of things into consideration, but I'd like to see another look-see at the trees. There's lots of, thick vegetation overgrowing Sausalito Boulevard at this site. Thank you. |
| 02:59:12.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, News Muchmaker. We love you again. We're gonna move on to Ms. Dumont. If you, the Zoom team can unmute Ms. Dumont. We, you'll have, Are we doing two minutes or three minutes, Director Phipps? |
| 02:59:32.09 | Director Phipps | I think for these particular public hearing items, we've been doing three minutes, so let's stay consistent. I'm going to say consistent. |
| 02:59:37.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and thank you very much. Ms. Dumas. The floor is yours. you |
| 02:59:45.94 | Michelle Dumont | Hi, and Thank you, principal planner Kristen. And the Planning Commission, thank you for your time on this. My name is Michelle Dumont and I live at 514 South Street. And my home is adjacent and uphill from 215 South Sluta Boulevard. I extensively annotated the civil plans that Chris provided, and I thank him for sending these to me. I won't go through them all, but I hope you have time to review them. Tonight, I'll keep my comments to three points based on the limited information that we have. Number one, it's been said the property is extremely steep at 65%. That's the slope. Half of my property is at the same slope and I've actually never set foot on it because it's unwalkable. So even imagining construction on this site is really difficult without the full picture. the Hill cut calculations, are extravagant. I'm an architect. I design homes and we aim for equal cut and fill. It's really the right thing to do. It's minimal impact. It's not always possible, but it's always the goal. This project has 1,840 cubic yards and a tiny 115 cubic yards of filth. It's just not even close. The concern here is that this construction will or may destabilize the hill and the older homes all around it. We're on post and pier constructions, so stilts. And even though we are, I believe, on rock, I don't have a geotechnical report to prove that. The houses move, you know, when we walk around. It's older construction. They're not up to code. And then the last one is the driveway. It's huge. And I didn't even realize how much of the public way it's going into. And then all the retaining walls. So I included a sketch. I hope that perhaps Chris can consider parking off of Sausalito Boulevard with some excavation. and a retaining wall that could help stabilize the hill rather than destabilize it. and ultimately try to minimize unnecessary hillside excavation impacts. And that's it. Thank you so much for your time. |
| 03:02:13.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thank you, Mr. Mon and your your information was received so and that was the agenda. The next speaker is Hunter Hancock. zoom team if we can unmute Mr. Mr. Mrs. I'm not sure if I'm. Uh-huh. Hunter Hancock, yes. Are you unmuted? Can you hear us? Yes, we can. Thank you. |
| 03:02:42.11 | Hunter Hancock | Hi there. Thanks for your opinion so far. A lot of the concerns about single project, you know, being able to assess the whole thing together. |
| 03:02:53.57 | Mr. Dixon | Tell them what I want. |
| 03:02:53.84 | Hunter Hancock | Um, I will. We have sort of the opposite concern of Michelle. We live directly below the property. So we're at 244 Saucelito Boulevard, and If you go out our front door and look at 215, you look right into a green wall. and then upward. The 65 degree slope, that's an average slope, but it starts off at maybe 80 degrees. Um, Uh, Last, let me just sort of start with, I feel there's been a little bit of misrepresentation about our opinion. We met originally with Chris He asked us to not write a letter of support, but to just write, A note that clarified our concerns. And, What we said in that note, I actually put in the note that I sent to the commission yesterday. Um, We were concerned with the aesthetics of the site. because the wall all along Sausalito Boulevard is rock covered in foliage and we really didn't want a large retaining wall situation like I believe it's 37 and 39 Crescent Street. if you guys know that property. It's very artificial. We didn't want that. And so what we said to Chris in our note back last summer was Uh, A retaining wall in a driveway sounds like a lot. And let's see what that looks like and try to make it natural. Um, We haven't heard anything back. other than an original sort of friendly. note. but we first saw the plans yesterday And from a neighbor, not from Chris, from a neighbor. And You know, we didn't, quite the opposite of a letter of support. We felt like it was rather unresponsive to our concerns. because the driveway is even bigger. it's quite a large structure, and essentially between the driveway and the home, You're sort of paving the entire lot. Um, So, You know, we're not against there being a home over there. We, you know, we would point out that In Sausalito, there are many very nice homes that have difficult lots and that have stairs from the street that have say a garage on the street or sometimes just just parking on the street. |
| 03:05:31.41 | Unknown | and an elevator up. So a lot of people have elevators as well. |
| 03:05:34.53 | Hunter Hancock | Yeah, stairs or a hill elevator. I can point out a number of them. I'm sure you know a number of them. Thank you. And if I could just speak to Chris for a second, Chris, the, |
| 03:05:46.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Hancock, your three minutes is up, but also I don't want to get in a situation where you're really giving public comment and it's not a dialogue between you and Mr. Sullivan, but feel free to contact Mr. Sullivan offline for this. |
| 03:05:53.71 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:06:00.02 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 03:06:04.31 | Unknown | But I would like to say one thing as far as just the we are concerned about the hillside across if that came came down that comes right into our home we're right. there. and also the traffic, like Sandra mentioned, is worrisome because it's already very difficult. We have been hit before just pulling out of our own driveway. If there's more there, that also is a little worrisome to us. And so just want to make sure of that. And also I have a very big love for the protected trees, so that does worry me to take down all 16. There are a lot of junk trees, but the good trees are I would love to see about saving some of those. |
| 03:06:46.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments this evening. |
| 03:06:47.97 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. |
| 03:06:48.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Uh, the next on my list here is a Jeffrey Stafford. If zoom team can unmute Mr. Stafford. |
| 03:07:00.56 | Jeffrey Stafford | Hello, can you guys hear me okay? |
| 03:07:02.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, we can. Thank you. |
| 03:07:04.34 | Jeffrey Stafford | Thank you. Hi, my name is Jeffrey Stafford, and I live at 514 South Street next door from 215 Sausalito Boulevard. And I would like to open just by thanking the commission agreeing with their assessments. I also want to say that I do welcome development on the property and, uh, but we respect the owner's right to develop it reasonably I've reviewed materials on the application and have definitive concerns, mainly having to do with the application being split into two, which was covered earlier because we really have no idea what you know, being planned behind the scenes to go on those paths. and just the amount of excavation in part one, if you wanna call it that, is extraordinary. So clearly there are investors involved in this development, so I'm naturally just a bit skeptical of what they might be up to as anyone would be. I'm a practicing licensed architect, so I'm a bit baffled by the ambition of the project. you know, given how little due diligence has been put into something so extraordinary. After assessing the site plans and these plans I don't believe they really work together with the site in a way that feels also, you The approach to the design that I see is making the site into something that it isn't. It's not a flat site as has been covered. It's quite steep. about as cheap as it can get. And so the idea of trying to bring a car up to this home is kind of baffling to me. especially given the history of landslides down the street. And what I see in this looks like a suburban style garage home on a flat site. except that it's not. when you look at the heights and driveway and everything else. layers of massive attaining I strongly believe there are other ways to get access to the home from the street. We can kind of parallel excavation, You get a couple of parking spaces there. We want him to develop something, but we have to look at the reality of what this hill is something more appropriate to the hillside. Um, From what I could gather in the application materials, the site would go from totally stable, which we believe is, because our home is totally stable at the moment, It's a home from 1964 and it's totally level. Um, And so we don't want it to be something that's blasted away and artificially propped up with freestanding retaining walls that are going all kinds of different directions all over the site. This is totally unnecessary. So Kenny Walls should be used sparingly. retaining walls should be part of the home when it's built so that if those walls fail over time that home is the thing that you know the owner would have to deal with before it starts affecting and we're going to be You know, if it's a freestanding wall uphill, that thing starts to lean. It wouldn't affect his property, but it would affect people uphill. So basically in conclusion, this site should be developed as a single project. Excavation should be limited. The tending wall should be used sparingly. find a different way to get up to the site. Um, Use the garage area to basically flatten out the home so it's not three levels, bring it down to two. Um, LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE. WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE OFFICIAL PLAN. THIS IS JUST SOME OF THE PRELIMINARY THINGS THAT WE SAW. off the record from Chris So the home can extend into that space and stay out of our view corridor. The home itself should be an essential part of obtaining And experts are needed in this process. This is not an amateur site. And there should be no... |
| 03:10:12.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There should be no- Just after you reach your three minutes, if you could just, your final thought, if you could. unmute. Hold on one second. Can you unmute him before you can have his final thoughts? |
| 03:10:27.22 | Jeffrey Stafford | Bye. my last point this will be quick is that there should be no rush whatsoever to skip parts of this process at the detriment of others. |
| 03:10:35.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much for your comments this evening. Next person is Stacey Cray, Ms. Cray. The floor is yours. The Zoom team can run if you need one. But... |
| 03:10:47.74 | Stacey Cray | Thank you. And my apologies, but I've been traveling, so I did miss some of this conversation. I came in about three speakers ago. I live at 516 South Street. So two houses away from from the project site. I have been in touch with Chris previously, and he was very kind and actually put up some sort of foe story polls for me. One of my main concerns is is views. But I have not seen the plans. I just got I mean, I got the notice that you all sent out, but I've been traveling, so I haven't had a chance to do a deep dive. And my apologies, but I didn't submit written comments, so I'll be following up with you afterwards to see if you might take late comments from me. In the meantime, I just wanted to support And what the previous neighbors have said, I live directly and look at Michelle and Jeff's home, and I am concerned that any hillside movement over there, significant hillside movement, is going to be a threat to their home, and it's worrisome to me. That site is absolutely almost vertical. There's rope ladder there. You can hardly get up it. I would advocate for the commission to come out and do a site visit and see how steep it is because I think it's impossible to tell. just from, even from photos. Um, I agree there could be a elevator put there and not a large driveway. We have a elevator at our house and so does 514 if that's going to be a less impactful way. Um, I'm also very concerned about loud slides for obvious reasons that don't need to be explained to the commission, I think. And then this is a very bizarre way. I've never seen a house done this way. And, you know, I'm not a planner or anything, but If we're going to have a house there, let's see the plans for the house. Let's do it all at once. I don't understand why it's being split into, and I do have a lot of concerns about this being a halfway done project where we just, what we get is a bunch of scarring and, potential erosion and, you know, a site that's not completed because it's not economically feasible to build on it. So we're left with something that's have done. Thank you. |
| 03:13:01.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much for your comments this evening. Next speaker, Mr. Dixon. Can Zoom team unmute Mr. Dixon. |
| 03:13:15.96 | Mr. Dixon | Oh, hello. the afternoon. Thank you for you guys having this so we guys can talk about this in discussion. I live at 111 Marion. I am directly impacted by whatever the syllabans wish to, Design, I definitely put in a letter to you guys stating it. How am I concerned so I wouldn't go over. on these three minutes, the thing. that's really, hurts is that the minimal impact to the urban fabric. I did go to school for architecture as well. I am a real estate broker. this the mem just the minimalizing the the whole construction, there's so much delicate. habitat there that it needs to be not just thrown under the rug for concrete, but at the same exact time, being considered of the rest of the Sausalito homes, the stairs, there's a different way of doing things that makes sense. And one other thing I do agree with the commission and their decision um, on Chris's Sullivan site civic plan. It says that we're five feet away on this property line when in fact it should be 15 foot minimalized you know at people who live here who want to have privacy, who want to have you know, just a mental stabilization of not being so close and, you know, just just being at peace with where they live at without having to, um, be affected by their views and what they're trying to to push and you know, it doesn't really have to have all this impact to the land I'm just thinking about the urban fabric in general and just the way that It can just be not. harmed. just for the sake of a driveway and don't even have a home to put on it. but the setbacks should be looked at again. The back of his house is the back of ours. So that's 15 feet minimum. He has five feet on his. That's all. Thank you guys. Um, |
| 03:15:36.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Dixon, thank you for your comments this evening. With that, I do not see any additional comments. Director Phipps, do you concur with that? I concur. Thank you. With that, I will close public comment. I will bring it back up to the dais. So at this point, what I would like to do is I'd like to entertain a motion to support the staff recommendation at this time, and then we can have a discussion deliberation. Is somebody willing to make a motion? |
| 03:15:47.88 | Director Phipps | I concur. |
| 03:16:07.49 | Kristina Feller | So moved, I'll make that motion, Chair. |
| 03:16:09.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Is there a second? |
| 03:16:11.42 | Kristina Feller | So I can. |
| 03:16:12.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK, I'll go through the second. |
| 03:16:13.09 | Mary Wagner | I'm careful. Before you guys have a vote, I do recommend that you allow the applicant. a minute or two to respond to any new issues raised in public comment. That is a due process requirement. regardless of whether or not they've run out of time. |
| 03:16:25.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Listen. Well, they ran out of time and used an extra few minutes, but I will turn it over to Mr. Sullivan for suing to your suggestion and allow Mr. Sullivan to Can we bring up the clock, Director Phipps? |
| 03:16:44.65 | Director Phipps | Yes, I requested the Zoom team make that video live. Two minutes. |
| 03:16:49.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Sullivan, you've got two minutes to respond to anything you heard in public. |
| 03:16:56.09 | Chris Sullivan | I'd like to pull up a screen again if you could see that. Longwood. |
| 03:17:01.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Longwood. We'll make sure Mr. Sullivan has co-host functions so we can pull up a screen, but we are gonna keep you to the two minutes though, |
| 03:17:11.09 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 03:17:11.57 | Andrew Junius | All right. |
| 03:17:13.67 | Chris Sullivan | The screen has long water truss at the bottom. It's a text type of document. Could you see that? |
| 03:17:20.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, we don't see anything at this point. Thank you. |
| 03:17:23.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:17:23.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:17:33.30 | Director Phipps | Right? |
| 03:17:34.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:17:34.18 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 03:17:34.23 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 03:17:34.33 | Director Phipps | No. |
| 03:17:34.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to go. |
| 03:17:34.47 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 03:17:34.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 03:17:35.56 | Director Phipps | Mr. Sullivan, we see a Word document, is that your intent? Thank you. |
| 03:17:38.55 | Chris Sullivan | Yeah. |
| 03:17:38.77 | Director Phipps | it. |
| 03:17:39.04 | Chris Sullivan | back. |
| 03:17:39.33 | Director Phipps | you know, |
| 03:17:40.20 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 03:17:40.25 | Director Phipps | Fantastic. |
| 03:17:41.96 | Chris Sullivan | I strongly believe the findings can be made, which go back to a discussion with Rosalind Thompson in February of last year, who encouraged us to make this application. Then we bounced around a bit with I think Mr. Moore took over, Mr. Hota took over, and now a full-time position, fortunately, with Brandon Phipps. But these are the findings we discussed. It maintains the prevailing design character of the neighborhood. It's consistent with the general plan and its land use. and it creates access to a buildable lot. General plans and tents have a mix of single and two-family structures in this zone. There's, in fact, neighbors, the view is improving from the upper lots because As commented, there are a very large number of trees and vegetation that, in fact, block views at the moment and that cannot be removed until a construction permit is granted. That's the city code. and so on and so on. It's our proposal that you can make the findings to build a driveway, So absent a prevention in the city code from doing so, we ask that our application be continued on. Point of note, if I could, there was a big discussion in Mill Valley as to whether a significant, much more significant driveway and retaining walls could be built just opposite the small Whole Foods. And to quote the city of Mill Valley, the city attorney could find nothing in the Mill Valley Building Code to prevent the permitting and building of minor subdivision infrastructure, prior to |
| 03:19:43.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Sullivan, your two extra minutes, which was in addition to probably about 10 minutes beginning here. |
| 03:19:49.75 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 03:19:49.80 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 03:19:51.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we're going to bring it back up to the dais at this point. And if we could stop Mr. Sullivan showing his screen. At this point we have a motion on the floor and a second. I will ask other commissioners if they have any additional comments before I give any of mine. Or anybody else want to raise your hand if you have any additional comments, Commissioner Felt. |
| 03:20:19.67 | Kristina Feller | I'm just really looking forward to seeing this applicants submission of a full project. We, I'm very excited about it and you know, I'm sure that that whatever you design will be lovely, but I'm really eager and excited to see a full application. |
| 03:20:45.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller, Commissioner Sutter, Commissioner Graff, any additional comments? |
| 03:20:51.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:20:51.78 | Nastassya Saad | I think we're dead. |
| 03:20:52.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Sal? Hello? |
| 03:20:56.78 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:20:57.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, Commissioner Grant. Thank you. |
| 03:20:58.79 | Richard Graef | Thanks. Um, Just another thing, I was looking at the plans just a little a few minutes ago. And again, this driveway, if you look at the site plan, The site was really quite small and the driveway itself extends way out beyond the edge of the site. I'm not quite sure how that is handled in terms of encroachment and all that, but it was really kind of shocking to see. how much space outside the property line is. just the driveway was taking. So In any event, I think I concur with everybody else that this medal is incomplete and there's some real issues with losing a bunch of trees. Um, I would support a continuance And I think that we should expect a fully complete site plan, landscape plan, house plan access, all of the above. so that we can look at everything all together. |
| 03:22:17.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner O' I saw your hand up, I'll go to you in a second. Commissioner Graff, we're talking about a approval of the staff recommendation of denial because this is not a continuance because there is no, there's nothing, there is no house. So we would need to deny this and they would come in with a full package. |
| 03:22:37.73 | Richard Graef | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:22:37.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:22:39.48 | Richard Graef | Thank you for clarifying. Yeah, so I would support the denial, of course. |
| 03:22:44.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. Thank you. Commissioner Feller, additional questions, additional comment? |
| 03:22:48.51 | Kristina Feller | No. Just one more comment and it's helped to guide this moving forward is that this is a great project or property. Let's hope there's a project on it for a study session as well, which always greatly benefits. |
| 03:23:03.80 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:23:04.17 | Kristina Feller | an applicant, the community, neighbors, all that kind of stuff, and the commission. So I just want to put that out there as an option. available to this applicant in the future, but I stand by the motion that I made and ready to take a vote when you are. |
| 03:23:22.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. So I want to concur with Commissioner Feller on that. I'm looking forward to the full application as well. I just want to tell you, we cannot evaluate, you know, shadows, height, a bulk, all those things that are needed. Also, if you build this driveway and then decide to change the design of the house, and then you have to change the design of the driveway because you reorient the house a different way it's just cost that you're you know which don't make any sense for you so encourage you to do a full application and i would second uh uh commissioner feller's recommendation if you want to come up with a development of a plan without without the full the absolute design with some sketches or whatever we would be as commission be willing to entertain you to come before us and we'll give you a reaction to what it is so you don't spend you know a month or two designing it and then find out you know we were you know we would suggest you go in a different direction. So we would encourage you to get your, hire an architect if you don't have one and come in with a full package of what it is that you're proposing. And we'd be happy to look at it without it all, you know, all hard lined if you want us to do that. But at this point, we're gonna take a vote on the motion that's on the floor. Director Fitz, can you take the roll? |
| 03:24:49.96 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Sun. |
| 03:24:52.51 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 03:24:53.94 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Kraft. |
| 03:24:54.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:24:55.07 | Director Phipps | Yeah. Commissioner Beller. |
| 03:24:57.52 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 03:24:58.68 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg, Thank you. |
| 03:24:59.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 03:24:59.95 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 03:25:00.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:25:00.13 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:25:00.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:25:00.84 | Director Phipps | Motion carries. |
| 03:25:00.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to move on to the next item on the agenda, which is 145 Santa Rosa Boulevard. And Kristen, that one is yours as well. |
| 03:25:14.04 | Kristina Feller | Sorry. |
| 03:25:14.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 03:25:15.03 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:25:15.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:25:15.76 | Kristina Feller | Sorry, Chair, before you start and forgive my interjection. |
| 03:25:18.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:25:18.19 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 03:25:19.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:25:19.96 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:25:19.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. As I stated at the beginning of this hearing, I'm not within 500 feet of this property, but I am within a thousand feet. |
| 03:25:26.83 | Kristina Feller | And because there is no Dwelling that is being proposed here is just a tree removal. I do not see any conflicts whatsoever under the FPPC. So I will not recuse. |
| 03:25:39.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller, and that's noted for the record. um, Kristen, the floor is yours. |
| 03:25:47.94 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you very much. The applicant, Mr. Peter Johnson, on behalf of Heather Hensley, has applied for removal of five heritage trees, three coastline oaks, one Toyon and one California Bay Laurel. The subject trees are located on the southwest and southeast rear corners of the property at 145 Santa Rosa Avenue. The applicant has stated in the application form they wish to remove the five trees due to two trees leaning over the neighbor's house. and three trees are within a future ADU building footprint. The arborist report was prepared October 11th, 2022 by certified arborist, Zach Vaught, who seems to get a lot of business here. which provides a summary of the health and condition of the subject trees. Generally all trees, were found to be in fair to good to condition. However, the arbiters acknowledged the following. Tree one exhibit symptoms of fungal damage and decay in the lower trunk and it's not likely to thrive long. Tree two is oriented completely over the property line and these are two sizable necrotic areas on the lower trunk. It is the arborist opinion that tree one and two, as it's a reasonable management decision to remove these trees due to the problems exhibited in both of their trunks. Trees three through five are healthy, but he has recommended their removal due to their being in the footprint of a future ADU. The Johnsons are prepared to plant replacement trees for the trees that they are removing. Generally, staff supports the request to remove trees one and two due to the structural issues identified in the harvest report. However, as there is no application filed for an ADU, the applicant is currently in the process of filing and going through the review process for extensive renovation to the home It doesn't appear, there is no evidence here that we have any eminent application forthcoming for the ADU. So we have not recommended approval of the three trees. and the ADU footprint. If and when the applicant is prepared to file for an ADU application, staff will have to ministerially process this in any event. in order to to comply with state law and the ADU. So we can deal with it at that time, if and when the applicants prepared to construct the ADU in the future. So staff has recommended in a resolution that we remove trees one and two and preserve trees three, four. |
| 03:28:22.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Kristen, thank you for your next presentation. At this point, questions for staff. Given the lateness of the hour, just raise your hands if you have a question. |
| 03:28:23.09 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 03:28:23.11 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:28:23.73 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah. |
| 03:28:23.97 | Andrew Junius | Of course. |
| 03:28:37.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No? Okay. So is the applicant here, Kristen? We'll move on to the applicant person. |
| 03:28:42.56 | Kristin Teiche | I see Ms. Hensley right here on our |
| 03:28:46.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see her now, wasn't on the news. cut off on the bottom of my screen. I see her now. Can we unmute Ms. Hensley so she can make presentations? |
| 03:28:56.92 | Kristina Feller | Hi, good evening. I just wanted to, I'll reserve my time to address any public comments. I don't need to speak. to say too much, especially given how late it is. I just wanted to say that we We were not aware that we need to submit our ADU application with the tree removal application. We wanted to see whether the committee would approved the trees before we went through the process of submitting the ADU application, Believe me, this call has made it very clear to me that you should do them. together. So I don't know if you had any questions about that. future application of the ADU, our architect is on the line if you had any questions about that and he could address those. But otherwise, I will reserve my time unless anyone has any questions for me. |
| 03:29:53.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ms. Hensley. Before I open up to commissioners for questions from the commissioners, when do you anticipate submitting on the ADU? |
| 03:30:08.96 | Kristina Feller | Um, Our architect Tom could give a timeline, but we may have already done so or or doing so as soon as possible. |
| 03:30:21.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Akalwar, when do you anticipate the application |
| 03:30:27.04 | Tom Akalwar | So I applied or I should say I signed up for an intake meeting on Thursday, February 9. Okay. Yeah. We'd |
| 03:30:37.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, |
| 03:30:38.21 | Tom Akalwar | Yeah, so the design has been developed over the past couple of years for the ADU and the entire proper project. in conjunction with the main house alteration. we've corresponded with planners. for a couple of years now about that. we're ready to submit that. |
| 03:31:01.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and you're indicating that all of the trees, given the current design, Still all three trees need to come out to make that work. That's correct. Thank you. With that, I'll open up the questions of commissioners just to show hands if you could. Any questions? No questions are open. I'm seeing what Commissioner saw. |
| 03:31:28.24 | Nastassya Saad | I had one question about the trees, not in relation to the ADU, but I believe the staff report mentions that there's going to be an um, significant expansion and development of the site. Do these trees have any impact on those plans? I know that's not in part of the scope and we don't have them, just trying to understand if the tree removal has anything to do with the current existing plans. you |
| 03:31:52.34 | Kristina Feller | No, no, they don't. It may provide easier access, but they don't have anything to do with it. It's all based on what our verse said about |
| 03:31:52.37 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 03:32:02.84 | Kristina Feller | that the health of the trees. |
| 03:32:06.67 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. That was the only question that I had. Thank you. |
| 03:32:08.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:32:11.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:32:11.42 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I just wanted to ask what you're comfortable or if you have a desired tree species that you want to replace the removed trees with. |
| 03:32:25.85 | Kristina Feller | I don't think we had selected those yet. We would work with SAC to come up with the best option for the area, but we didn't have, um, any one specific one in mind other than I I THINK THAT HE MIGHT HAVE INDICATED IT WAS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WERE REMOVING ON THE APPLICATION. |
| 03:32:49.48 | Kristina Feller | Okay, that was one thing I didn't really see was the recommendation of a species type for replacement. So I just wanted to see if you had put some thought into that. Thank you. |
| 03:32:56.31 | Kristin Teiche | or, |
| 03:33:02.54 | Kristin Teiche | I believe the Yarkers did make a recommendation that's in the report. |
| 03:33:02.91 | Kristina Feller | I believe. work. |
| 03:33:06.56 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah. |
| 03:33:07.45 | Kristina Feller | Oh, I'm sorry, Kristen. I must have missed it. I must have missed it. I will look right now. |
| 03:33:16.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Kristen, can you remind us since we're sort of bifurcating this in a way, If they're taking out the two trees, they're going to replace those two trees and then later replace the other three trees. You just remind me what the recommendation on that regard is. |
| 03:33:33.81 | Kristin Teiche | Well, it depends on how this is handled. If we only approve two trees today, as recommended. then you can require replacement trees for those. but in the future when they file for their ADU because of the state law requirements We will have to ministerially approve the tree removals that need to go in order to accommodate the ADU. That's my understanding. So I'm not sure we can require treatment placement. |
| 03:34:03.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You're not sure you can require a tree room replacement under a ministerial review? Is that what you're saying? |
| 03:34:09.64 | Kristin Teiche | Yes. That might be a question for our city attorney. with the state law requirements governing ADUs. It's been very tentative about how we handle that. |
| 03:34:22.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we bring Sergio up and ask, Sergio, even if it's ministerial approval of a tree removal, can they require replacement of the trees, which is what the code requires when they do the ministerial review? |
| 03:34:36.13 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 03:34:42.69 | Mary Wagner | I don't know the answer to that particular question, and I have not looked into it, so I'm not prepared to give an answer. |
| 03:34:50.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Oh, |
| 03:34:54.18 | Kristina Feller | Forgive me, Chair, but Sergio, as you look into that, could you also see if our tree fund in lieu of a replacement would also be applicable in, in the case that a replacement might not be. |
| 03:35:10.13 | Mary Wagner | Yes, ma'am. |
| 03:35:10.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 03:35:11.35 | Kristina Feller | you Thank you. |
| 03:35:11.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chris, and back to the question, if we were, what was the, can you remind me of the staff recommendation on the replacement of the two trees, if we go with your staff recommendation? |
| 03:35:26.62 | Kristin Teiche | The arborist recommended Island Oak, Corcus tomentella, or Coast Live Oak, Corcus agorifolia. |
| 03:35:34.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And is the recommendation for two trees to replace the two trees you're recommending removal of? |
| 03:35:43.26 | Kristin Teiche | That's what I'm saying. |
| 03:35:43.48 | Nastassya Saad | So, |
| 03:35:43.54 | Andrew Junius | I know. |
| 03:35:43.93 | Nastassya Saad | . |
| 03:35:44.74 | Kristin Teiche | I didn't recommend a specific number. |
| 03:35:47.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Commissioner Gregg. |
| 03:35:51.42 | Richard Graef | Yeah. like to change the subject just slightly and get some clarification on Um, when the ADU plans are submitted. for design review. or commission review. Why wouldn't we also be evaluating the tree removal. and replacement. at that time. And I don't understand why that would be done ministerially. instead of by the commission. |
| 03:36:26.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. If they, if my understanding and Sergio can, and Director Phipps can correct me if I'm incorrect in the way I state this, Basically that if they're coming in solely for the ADU, and there aren't any triggers for design review, the ADU under state law has to be done ministerially, and therefore our TREE ordinance might be in conflict with the state law and ADUs meet, and if there is a conflict, the ADU law will prevail. I don't know if I described that correctly. |
| 03:37:01.83 | Mary Wagner | That's a pretty good summation, yes. Thank you. |
| 03:37:04.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Agreed. |
| 03:37:04.75 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:37:05.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:37:05.94 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:37:06.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks for that. So in some respects, it might be better to approve the removal of all five trees and specify their replacement now, if this is imminent. But the question would then be if for some reason the ADU design changed and it only required removal of two trees rather than three, then we're jumping the gun, I think. But at this point, we're still asking questions to the applicant. We still have to open this up for public comment. Are there other questions of the applicant from any of the commissioners? |
| 03:37:44.13 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 03:37:45.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, with that, let's open it up for public comment. If you wanna provide public comment on this item, please raise your hand in the Zoom application or star, is it star nine? Star nine. Star nine on your cell phone. I see one person, the last name is Deville I guess the floor is yours we have three minutes to come |
| 03:38:02.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair of Warren. |
| 03:38:14.25 | Jerome Levine-Derville | Uh, |
| 03:38:17.90 | Jerome Levine-Derville | Good at times. My name is Jerome Levine-Derville. We are the neighbors. At 136 Spencer, just above property at 145 Santa Rosa. And I just wanted to say we agree with the recommendation to delay the approval of the tree removal until we understand the construction project that's justifying it. Currently, there's a project application for a main house major construction, but we haven't seen the ADU application. Overall, we feel that this application is part of a much larger project that seems to be handled through separate applications and permit requests. So our hope and our request to the commission is that these applications be reviewed together so that we can understand the impact of the entirety of the project on the neighborhood, the city, and ourselves. Thank you. |
| 03:39:16.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you for your comments this evening. Are there any other comments for the public on this particular item? Thank you. I'm not seeing any director Phipps, Thank you. Okay, so we'll close public comment and we'll bring it back up to the dais. But before we do that, if the applicant wants to respond to public comment or any additional I forgot how many minutes you have left, but feel free to do that. Ms. Hensley. |
| 03:39:50.48 | Heather Hensley | Um, no, I, I. Do not wish to make any further comment. Thank you. |
| 03:39:55.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. I'll bring it back up to the dais. Let me ask, I have another question of Kristen is, is the house renovation triggering any design review? Is it more than 50% of the walls or any of that? Or is the |
| 03:40:13.09 | Kristin Teiche | The house renovation is extensive. Thank you. I don't want to give you a preview of the plans yet because I don't want to bias anything, It's pretty extensive. and with additions and renovation interior and exterior. So it will trigger design review and other permits. |
| 03:40:32.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, it will trigger, okay. |
| 03:40:32.87 | Kristin Teiche | We have an application filed for the house renovation. |
| 03:40:36.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so they're gonna be coming in at that time. trade permit could be reviewed as part of the House application, possibly at the same time. Uh, |
| 03:40:50.64 | Kristin Teiche | Well, the trees are separate from the house. They're in the rear yard and |
| 03:40:50.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, the... |
| 03:40:55.99 | Kristin Teiche | their removal is not related to the house renovation itself. |
| 03:41:00.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. All right, so yeah, the more we could put everything together. So we see everything at once, like the ABU, the tree removal, the house would be good, but keep that in mind as you review that application. What's on the agenda this evening is this one application. So with that, I'll look for the commission to put a motion on the floor. |
| 03:41:27.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Until then. |
| 03:41:29.14 | Kristina Feller | OK, I'll I'd like to make a motion to uh, to accept the staff report recommendations to allow the removal of Tree 1 and Tree 2. and identify their replacement and and planting at a suitable time. where it is not going to interfere with any other construction on the site so they can thrive and be successful. that those the replacement trees be a larger like 25 gallon or larger type specimen and not a tiny sapling. And then deny the other three trees until such time as we understand what is being built on the footprint where those trees exist. |
| 03:42:40.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there a second? Thank you. Is there any kind of discussion? Thank you. |
| 03:42:47.82 | Director Phipps | Chair, may I just make a brief comment or maybe question to commissioners? I'd just like to be clear on how many trees we're recommending for replacement. My understanding is two. Was that the will of commissioners in the motion? |
| 03:42:47.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chairman, |
| 03:43:05.40 | Kristina Feller | I believe that is in line with the staff recommendation. Yes. |
| 03:43:13.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Fantastic. Thank you. |
| 03:43:13.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:43:13.67 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:43:13.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:43:13.72 | Andrew Junius | Fantastic. |
| 03:43:14.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So we're gonna replace with two trees or pick out two trees, replace with two trees. That's the motion. Any further comments, Commissioner Gray? |
| 03:43:25.26 | Richard Graef | Yeah, in regard to the other trees, tying those trees into this motion doesn't seem to make sense with the fact that they're going to be handled. MINISTERILY AS PART OF THE ADU. application. Where do we stand with that? |
| 03:43:50.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think we stand that, well, I mean, we don't know because it depends on what the house renovation is and whether the ADU ends up coming in with the house or separately or we encourage everything to come in together as best it can, but let's Sergio chime in on this. Thank you. |
| 03:44:07.82 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I mean, the motion on the floor, |
| 03:44:07.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 03:44:10.99 | Mary Wagner | And I can't recall whether it got a second, but the motion on the floor is to approve. the removal of two trees with two replacement trees as required by the city code and deny the removal of the three trees in the alleged ADU footprint. which would be without prejudice, the applicant could reapply for those true removals. when that ADU application is submitted. |
| 03:44:33.94 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:44:37.45 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 03:44:39.09 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:44:39.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. |
| 03:44:39.16 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:44:39.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Do we have any other comments? Seeing none, Director Phipps, could you take the roll please? Yeah. |
| 03:44:52.03 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Hassan. |
| 03:44:55.12 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 03:44:56.17 | Director Phipps | My graph. |
| 03:44:57.60 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:44:57.64 | Director Phipps | you |
| 03:44:57.68 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 03:44:57.92 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner God. |
| 03:45:00.07 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:45:00.13 | Director Phipps | Yes. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 03:45:02.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 7, WHICH IS OUR STUDY SESSION ON 265 GATE 5 ROAD. THIS IS A STUDY SESSION. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. THE INTENT OF THIS SESSION IS TO LOOK AT IDEAS. NONE OF THIS STUFF HAS TO BE HARDLINED. for 265 Gate 5 Road. And at this point, I will turn it over to Cecilia, I believe, Director Fitz. Is that correct? That's my understanding as well, Chair. Thank you. Okay. Cecilia, welcome. Nice to see you again. I will let you do your presentation. |
| 03:45:47.32 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. It's good to be here. With your permission, I would like to share my screen. |
| 03:45:54.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Permission granted. |
| 03:46:01.27 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Can everybody see that? |
| 03:46:02.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:46:04.33 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Right. My name is Cecilia Jaroslavsky. I am the contract planner for this project. The project before you is located at 265. Gate 5 Road. The project site is owned industrial marine ship and the area contains residential uses and houseboats along the shoreline and large industrial commercial uses along gate five road. A variety of retail uses are within the project area. The project was before the planning commission on September 21st, 22. to review the requested discretionary review permit where in the commission requested corrections and clarifications related to project compliance with general plan and marineship specific plan policies and goals and a minimum of one additional plan option. While the applicant has submitted three additional design options, I will only be presenting four plans and the applicant will go into more detail. regarding the designs and materials of their design concepts. The commission may remember this was the originally proposed site plan. consisting of four detached structures on the first level and one larger structure on the second level connecting all first floor structures for a project total of 10,000 square feet. The roofline of the second level originally included three open areas to the ground level. |
| 03:47:35.50 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Newly submitted plan option B included a more consolidated service score as does option C. and eliminates open space on level two. reduces the east-west wing by five feet. and reduces the overhang parking lot by five feet. |
| 03:47:58.72 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Plan option C also included more consolidated surface core removal of some open space on level two. Also the reduction of the east west width by five feet screened deck area and reduced square footage of approximately 260 square feet. |
| 03:48:21.20 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Plan option D. Also includes consolidated service core, removal of open spaces on level two, and reduces level two by approximately 600. |
| 03:48:36.33 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | All submitted plan options meet zoning ordinance requirements and would only meet the approval of a design review permit This is a rendering demonstration of all four option plans. |
| 03:48:53.21 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you, commissioners. Please note applicants, Matt, Bryn and Takahashi have requested that they be unmuted simultaneously to better present their design concepts and to address the commission's questions. That concludes my presentation. |
| 03:49:07.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you know, Thank you, Cecilia. What I'd like to do is do this a little differently. This is not a public hearing. I will see if any commissioners have questions of your staff report, but I think what I want to do is allow the applicant to do a presentation, not necessarily with a clock, but to allow commissioners to interrupt and ask questions during the presentation so that it's a working session as opposed to taking a vote on anything. And at the end of this, we're not going to take a vote. We might want to summarize what our recommendations or suggestions are, but I want commissioners to feel free to ask questions as they're presenting options as opposed to doing a whole presentation and waiting until the end. With that, anybody have any questions at the moment for Cecilia on this? No, so let's unmute both of them simultaneously and they can allow them to co-host and Zoom team, if you can allow them to co-host and share the screen. And who's going for a matter? You're going first. |
| 03:50:16.54 | Matt | Yes, I'll be presenting first. And then Takashi from our architecture team and Max Hausseger, our client, would also like to be unmuted if possible. |
| 03:50:26.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, that would be a Zoom team. If you could accomplish that, that would be helpful. |
| 03:50:32.06 | Unknown | OK, great. And then I will be showing my screen. Are you able to view the |
| 03:50:39.03 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 03:50:39.22 | Unknown | PDF that I have up here. Are you going to set it to? |
| 03:50:43.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:50:47.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:50:51.59 | Matt | Great. Okay. So we'll begin our presentation here for 265 Gate 5 Road. We wanted to begin by discussing some of the items that we discussed at the previous planning hearing back in September. Today, we'll be responding to the general plan and Marinsha specific plan points addressed at that previous hearing. We have met with the sea level rise task force and received approval based on this proposal as of October. We will be justifying our two level building and our material choice during the presentation, but we did submit a hard copy material board in October to the planning department. Hopefully some of the commissioners had a chance to review that. It's the same sharp light. |
| 03:51:31.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask you a question on that? So I didn't see a board. I saw some materials on the bag. |
| 03:51:34.64 | Matt | Bye. |
| 03:51:39.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is that what you're referring to? There was not a board per se. Thank you. |
| 03:51:43.36 | Matt | Thank you. |
| 03:51:43.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, |
| 03:51:43.70 | Matt | Yeah. |
| 03:51:43.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 03:51:44.03 | Matt | Right, that's correct. |
| 03:51:44.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | not a physical void. Okay. I just want to make sure I saw what you're intended. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:51:49.92 | Matt | Thank you. And just wanted to note that that shardwood that was in that sample board or sample bag we call it is the same charge with that was approved by commissioners stock graph for 52. Part of my thing. We no longer show any gravel in our landscaping plans. We'll be demonstrating clear pedestrian accessibility in this presentation, and we'd be happy to discuss affordability at the end of our presentation. Just as a reminder where this triangular shaped lot in the friendship on gate five road in between where Coloma and skate five and bar to landing hits gate five. And currently on site, we have MarinShip Studios. MarinShip Studios is an open studio. It's collaborative. It's made up of multiple artists working in different mediums at different scales. They're housed within this one warehouse building, what has been subdivided into individual studios. There's also a number of accessory structures. And then most of the site is taken up by a large gravel parking lot. This parking lot is utilized currently by the artist extensively to work outside on larger pieces. We wanted to begin by discussing a number of the general plan points that came up with The first one being this sense of place and recognizing the aesthetic and social value of small scale individual activities within the Marinship. You know, the MarinShip is this celebrated neighborhood, You know, originally for shipbuilding, down the line for beatniks and hippies and artists, and now for many industrial workers and artists housed within varying shapes and sizes of different buildings. But it's all about that creation, and that's exactly what has driven our client to this site. And it's exactly what Marin Ship Studios is, where this collective of artists working in different mediums on different scales of projects, but all kind of collaborating and influencing each other. The building currently cannot house all the artists that want to work within Marinship Studios. There's a long wait list. The building currently floods, and this proposal is really meant to provide a space for Marinship Studios to thrive in the future. We are trying to promote the industrial development within Marinship. You know, the Marinship is this celebrated neighborhood of industrial workers, artists, and makers. And that's exactly what this building is designed for. This is an art studio building designed for artists. We have a large freight elevator. We have a number of ramps. We have a number of forklift clearances, large roll-up doors, large door openings to move industrial and artistic pieces in and out. We have a number of, are we using durable materials? We're creating a large subdivisible space that can be divided based on artists' needs. This is a building exclusively for artists and industrial workers. Another point talks about scale and architectural diversity, promoting architectural quality and innovative solutions rather than conformity while honoring distinctive neighborhood characteristics, density and mass. The MarinShip is made up of one, two, and even three-story buildings. Most of them are simple in form and simple in materials, cloud and wood, corrugated metal and concrete. And another characteristic of the Marin Ships is that it floods often. It flooded on the most recent storm. It's only going to flood more in the future. So what we're proposing here is a two-story art studio building clad in wood and corrugated metal. And we're providing the FEMA required 11 foot finished floor level above sea level. which many of the buildings in the Riddership do not. And then you'll hear about it more later, but we're providing an idea or a way for the floors to be raised in the future to keep this building usable for as long as possible. Another design guideline points out that the marineship is urban rather than suburban in character. Many of the buildings immediately surrounding our building, our proposal, are two and three stories. Again, simple in form, clad in simple materials, and meant to house these industrial workers and artists. That's exactly what we are proposing as well. This is a simply shaped, shardwood, and corrugated metal building, meant to house artists that are already on site and offer additional space for more artists to join the friendship studios fold. Another point points out that we're meant to encourage the creation and enhancement of sustainable, beautiful and well cared for public realm. Much of the friendship is made up of simple I'll be at VDUP sidewalks, minimal landscaping, and many of the lots, including our own and our neighbor here, have no sidewalk and no landscaping. Our new proposal seeks to add a five foot sidewalk that would connect with existing sidewalks. We're adding a line of landscaping that would be native and drought tolerant. We're adding seating and we're adding this clear connected pathway through the building towards the bay and between the streets. Another item in the general plan is for sea level rise and that the shoreline is changing and will continue to change in the future. This is a recent photo from January 5th of the large storms we've been having. Our site was completely flooded. It flooded the entirety of the art studio building. All the artists have to be moved out, rent will have to be prorated. And this is something our client really desperately seeking to avoid in the future. That's why we're providing this FEMA required 11 foot finished floor level above sea level. That will be 30 and even 36 inches above the existing grade at points, but it is the FEMA requirement. On top of that, we're seeking to provide fully submersible lower level walls. And the idea with that is that in the future, if sea level rise brings waters above our proposed floor plane, we can actually raise the level one future floor up to three foot six in height, still provide an eight foot six lower level, and keep this building usable well into the future. The last point here is this neighborhood character of the Marinship just underscoring that we and all of Sausalito loves the Marinship. We love that it's quirky and artistic and industrial and a space where things get built and done and make Sausalito the special city it is. And that's exactly what we are trying to continue. Marinship Studios is already this active, creative community of artists, and we're trying to provide a space to allow us to continue. Marinship Studios is already this active, creative community of artists, and we're trying to provide a space to allow us to succeed in the future. So zooming back to our proposal, this is the existing plan. There's a large subdivided one story warehouse that houses a number of art studios, number of accessories structures around the site, and then a large gravel area that's both artists workspace and parking. In all the design options you'll see today, we're proposing to maintain this as the main parking entry and parking area. We're keeping, we're adding new landscaping around the site. We're maintaining lots of covered and uncovered outdoor workspace. And then we're providing this new two-story art studio building. So we have four design options today they're all riffs on what we presented the previous planning hearing. This first option option A, the pedestrian connection we're adding this new clear pedestrian path from gate five road through the building and out to Varda Landing Road. You can see in plan that ties both literally for access and figuratively for views out towards today. and connects across our covered and uncovered outdoor workspaces. We're also providing three larger art studio spaces, And then a number of service cores. This one is a kitchen for artists. And this one is an electrical room in our freight elevator. And those are again connected by these outdoor decks, which are meant to be workspaces for the artists in the studios. Jumping up to the second level, we have this corrugated metal volume. And within that volume, there's one large art studio space that's meant to be subdivided into individual spaces. And the idea is that this way we can provide the most flexibility and the space for the most artists, depending on the scale of room they needed and also their financial ability. We're also providing an additional art studio here, great elevator, and then outdoor workspaces for the individual studios. On the upper level, we're providing ample space for solar panels. These solar panels will be flat and below the level of the roof parapet And we're providing skylights for daylighting for the studios below. Looking at the renderings of this option A, You can see the building is simple in form. It's a charred wood lower level with a corrugated metal upper level that ties in with the scale of other buildings nearby. We are calling out this metal as perforated, and the idea is that lets light and air into these windows while tying them into the mass. And we're also providing extensive windows on the lower level for daylighting of the studio spaces. LOOKING HERE AT AN IMAGE OF THE ENTRY FROM THE PARKING LOT, YOU CAN SEE THE ENTRY IS COVERED, PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE THREE STUDIOS AT THE LOWER LEVEL, THE OUTDOOR WORKSPACE, AND THE CIRCULATION CORRIDOR. AND THAT CIRCULATION CORRIDOR HAS BEEN MODIFIED IN THE SCHEME TO PROVIDE CLEAR ACCESS THROUGH THE BUILDING, CONNECTING GATE 5 ROAD WITH VARTA LANDING ROAD AND THE BAY BEYOND. You can see in this image looking the opposite direction from Bar Landing Road to Gate 5, that clear connection, while providing again ramps and clearance for forklifts, freight elevator, large roll-up doors for art pieces, and covered and uncovered workspace for artists' work and for occasional events. And you can see in this aerial image that we're providing these two simple masses of charred wood and corrugated metal, which tie into other masses of larger buildings in the neighborhood. while providing those the permeability through the building for pedestrian access. So jumping to our next scheme, this is option B, thin bar. So with this scheme, we've reduced the overhang along Varda Landing Road by five feet and reduced the overhang along the parking by five feet to reduce the mass of the second level volume. We're also adding more clear window breaks to break up the field volume we've consolidated the service core. We filled in some of the void space and this all amounts to a 7% reduction in the level two interior floor area and a 13% reduction of the perimeter of level two. So looking here, we have the new proposed scheme with the previous scheme overlayed in red. So you can see that we've consolidated the service core. We've added this one with the freight elevator at the corner along the circulation corridor. We're still providing three larger art studio spaces. And we're still providing this covered and uncovered outdoor workspace for the artists and studios. And we've also shrank the hallway seven feet to kind of condense the building. It should be noted in the next three schemes that we've moved 500 square feet from the upper level down to the lower level, that's about 7%. So here you can see we've, yes. |
| 04:03:51.09 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. I just had a quick question for you as you're going through all of these quickly. Is this... sort of what you're referring to as the corridor. Um, |
| 04:04:05.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, |
| 04:04:06.26 | Kristina Feller | you know, sort of between these artists' studios, does that, is that always in the same location? |
| 04:04:12.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It is an H. |
| 04:04:15.02 | Matt | you |
| 04:04:15.67 | Kristina Feller | Okay, all right, thank you. |
| 04:04:19.11 | Matt | Yeah, so again, the thin bar scheme, we've reduced the overhang by five feet along Varda Laning Road and five feet along the parking. We filled in what used to be board space and made this upper volume more efficient, and then we're still providing this subdivisible larger space and an individual art studio over here with outdoor workspace for those studios. Looking at the renderings you can see there's a significant effect by removing five for the building on each side of the overhead. That allows the building to appear less massive from each end of gate five road. Yeah. |
| 04:04:57.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you explain what, can you, I'm, I'm, I'm very unclear what these windows are doing is, is the coordinated thing over them or not over them on this? |
| 04:04:57.87 | Matt | on the- |
| 04:05:07.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you need. |
| 04:05:08.05 | Matt | Yeah, so it does vary by scheme. But with this scheme, we're showing solid corrugated metal where there are no windows, and then a perforated corrugated metal over the window openings. Why? I think that we're trying to define the volume as this industrial corrugated piece, but we're trying to peel away that to allow light and air into the building. And so... |
| 04:05:36.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so... Bye. the |
| 04:05:40.43 | Matt | It feels like we have a hit. |
| 04:05:40.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Why not have the windows open? |
| 04:05:42.77 | Matt | We have removed the perforated corrugated metal on other options you'll see it in the next option. In this option we're exploring leaving it perforated and it's kind of a design trade off between feeling continuous with |
| 04:05:49.91 | John DeRay | Oh, God. |
| 04:05:50.45 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 04:05:50.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:06:00.14 | Matt | I don't know, an underscored break by leaving perforated or a very clear punch out of that corrugated volume. |
| 04:06:07.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, keep going and I'll see them on the next two options, I guess. Okay. |
| 04:06:11.12 | Matt | Okay, yeah, so this option is a little more subtle with the perforated strips. We'll see a different option later. And then we're still providing these large glazing areas for the Sudius within. Looking from Varda Landing Road into Gate 5 Road, you can see that permeability both in the window openings and in the circulation corridor. And we're still providing freight elevator, forklift space, roll-up doors, and everything that our artists need for their larger art studio pieces. Here in the aerial, you can again see how that reduction in overhang along part of landing road and along the parking reduces the feel of that mass. The vertical strips break up the mass and the building better ties in with the general context. So for option C, two sliding bars, the concept here is that instead of thinking of our level two as one singular corrugated metal bar, we're splitting it into two and we're pushing and pulling those bars to open up the corners and reduce the feel of mass at the edges. We're also consolidating the service corridor again. We're filling in void space. And that all amounts to, again, a 7% reduction in interior floor area of level two and a 15% reduction of the perimeter area. So we have these overlays, the plan is shown in gray, previous plan is shown in red, we're consolidating that service corridor, we have this great elevator, we're providing three art studio spaces, and then an extensive space for work, both covered and uncovered. Looking at level two, we've reduced the overhang in this scheme along Barter Landing Road, but we're maintaining the overhang along the parking area. And that's all to make an area for pushing and pulling these bars. The bar around gate five road pushes left. The bar facing Barter Landing pushes right. That opens up a deck and demassing on this corner. And it also allows the face at the north corner of Barter Landing Road to appear thinner from the street and less massive. We're still providing the subdivisible art studio space here. and a larger art studio here with outdoor work areas to serve those studios. |
| 04:08:31.24 | Kristina Feller | Matt, what are these on the VARTA landing side through through this corridor area. What is that? |
| 04:08:40.62 | Matt | So these are, so Vardalining Road is technically a private road. It's owned by the Clipper Yacht Harbor and it's part of their parcel. And so they have these two existing, I think you see them here. |
| 04:08:47.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 04:08:53.48 | Matt | kind of shotgun style buildings that we actually our client currently leases as art studios. And so it's not part of this proposal and we're not showing it in any of our drawings. But the hope is that once this building is built, we'll be able to demolish these buildings in collaboration with the Clipper Yall Harbor. We have that as kind of like a verbal agreement with them. But it's again, it's not in this plan. That's an idea down the road. |
| 04:09:24.53 | Kristina Feller | So, and there's no, I mean, have you checked on historic context of them? I don't, I don't pretend to know that they have any, but. Because I'm just curious why this whole corridor why you would want this open corridor and it looks straight at that. |
| 04:09:42.33 | Matt | So we have HREs for these, These two buildings, we have not gained historical preservation committee approval that they're historically insignificant, but the HREs lead us to believe that they will be. The reason that it's held here |
| 04:10:00.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | How do you tell me what HRE is? |
| 04:10:03.90 | Matt | Yeah, historical resource evaluation. Thank you. |
| 04:10:06.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. |
| 04:10:07.44 | Matt | Um, Yeah, and so the reason that we're holding this cut here is it actually aligns with the entry into 52 and 60 bar landing, and so it ties into the overall context of the neighborhood. |
| 04:10:24.81 | Kristina Feller | It would be, I mean, if that's part of sort of the your design, what you know, the cornerstones of your design, it would be really Heartful. to see what you're envisioning. I'm not sure that I'm on the same page as you, and that's, probably more on me than it is on you, but But I just, I'm not really clear why you would want to align your walk, that walkway, that corridor with the side of that building. |
| 04:10:59.75 | Matt | So in terms so again, we're hoping to demolish this and we have the A-trades, but not HPC approval, but in the greater context of And let me try to jump up to our site. |
| 04:11:13.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let me just interrupt you for a second. If you demolish it, what would you put there? Nothing? Thank you. |
| 04:11:20.21 | Matt | So that's a great question. It kind of needs to be determined with the Clipper Yacht Harbor. I think the hope would be that we would have some sort of landscaping abutting Varda Landing Road. But the idea, the reason that we're adding the access here, as you can see in the greater context, with this building removed, we're looking straight down the entry and driveway of 60 Bar to Landing out towards the bay. It's the clearest, I guess, possibility of a view that we have from Gate 5 Road. WHEREAS IF WE MOVED IT TO HERE, WE'RE LOOKING AT SHIPPING CONTAINERS. MOVING IT HERE, WE'RE LOOKING AT TALLER BUILDINGS. THIS IS REALLY THE CLEAREST VIEW TOWARDS THE BAY. |
| 04:12:11.17 | Kristina Feller | You know, I'm sure that |
| 04:12:11.34 | Matt | Okay. |
| 04:12:14.10 | Kristina Feller | I mean, you've obviously spent many, many hours pouring over exactly where to place that. So I believe what you're saying, it would just be really helpful to see that view corridor or render that view corridor so there's some clear understanding of what you're trying to achieve with that. And even though CLIPPER owns that, the building there. Are they pursuing or are you assisting them to pursue some an HPC ruling on this? |
| 04:12:50.12 | Matt | We are assisting them, yes. We haven't directly scheduled an HPC hearing, But we do have the HRE and are moving in that direction. |
| 04:12:58.94 | Kristina Feller | We do have the Okay, because I mean, if it's, I mean, maybe your design can stand with or without that, I mean, that's, that would be useful to know that from from you, but if if if this is If getting that removed is a key part to the design, then we'd also need to understand that as well. |
| 04:13:24.71 | Matt | It has been designed to function with this building in place. Um, |
| 04:13:29.64 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 04:13:29.91 | Matt | there's still six feet of pathway. This is currently all gravel fill on Clipper Yawkeras land. And there would still be access around the building. And in theory, if the building was still there and still occupied by Marineship Studios, it would kind of function as an extension of this new building. But the end goal is to get that removed. |
| 04:13:51.19 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I guess just maybe explain the context a little bit better when, since this is just a study session, It's meant just to be some helpful sort of feedback and You've been looking at these drawings for so long and we haven't seen them in a while, It's a fresh set of eyes on them. So that would be really helpful. |
| 04:14:12.85 | Matt | Yeah, thank you. I think that's a good suggestion. Circling back to this option C two sliding bar option. We talked about how we're pushing and pulling to open up the corners. And so you can begin to see that from the renderings. We're providing this opening from the south end of gate five road, where there used to be just solid face. And we're reducing the width significantly that you see from the north end here to kind of downplay the feel of mass from both these angles. You can see how that opening provides light and openness, how we're providing. Or we're designing for fully open windows in this team, no perforated metal over them so very clear breaks and that mass. That reduction of face facing north. And then again, the large windows to bring daylight into the studio's glow. Looking from Varta Landing Road through to Gate 5, you can see how that pushing and pulling opens up the overhang here, allowing for kind of a reduced skill of mass through this connected pathway, while still providing the large industrial roll-up doors, freight elevator, forklift clearance, and covered and uncovered workspace. space. And then looking again here at the aerial, you can see that reduced width at the north end, much more open south end, opens up the, I guess, reduces the feel of mass from those corners and how this new mass ties in with other surrounding buildings. |
| 04:15:58.22 | Matt | And then our last game for tonight is option D, the reduced upper volume scheme. Here is kind of our most significant move. We're cutting out an extensive piece of the level two maps here on the corner, what we feel is the most prominent corner. We're allowing the art studio below to extend beyond that second floor level. And this is actually much needed. A lot of our current artists are really desiring taller spaces to work within. And so this adds kind of an additional height space for the start to below. We are playing with the idea here of some some strong vertical window openings, but then also allowing a lot of the gate five road facade to be just pure industrial corrugated metal, no openings, no perforation, nothing fancy, just very straightforward. And this all amounts to a 7% reduction in level two interior floor area and a 21% reduction in the perimeter of level two. So looking at floor plans, much of the same with this consolidated service core with the freight elevator here, three large art studios and covered and uncovered workspace. The only difference being this double height space, or not double height, but I should say extended height space of this art studio here. |
| 04:17:21.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Why would... Okay. Okay. |
| 04:17:21.31 | Matt | Wow. |
| 04:17:25.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was in the prior, I thought you were showing the upper level and you'd gotten rid of the, subunits, but that's, this is lower level plan. |
| 04:17:37.53 | Matt | Exactly, yeah. So to be... Never mind. Keep going. Yeah, this exchange. So there is that taller space for just a small portion of the floor level. And then looking at level two, we've cut out this large piece of level two. We're allowing a small piece of level one to extend slightly higher than it had previously we're still providing this subdivided our studio space with another private art studio here and then we're providing workspaces outdoor for those studios. |
| 04:18:16.36 | Matt | So looking at the- |
| 04:18:16.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All of these spaces, you don't have doors? Don't people need lockable, secure spaces? There's no doors in any of this. |
| 04:18:26.40 | Matt | Yeah, it could depend on the use and needs of the individual artists, but doors can easily be installed. I know we- |
| 04:18:33.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Your plan is to have no doors? |
| 04:18:37.56 | Matt | I think that the philosophy of Richard studios is that it's collaborative and open, but if the individual artists water the door we easily add it. I know we had spoken last time I think Commissioner graph pointed out on noise issues between individual studios so that that could be a good point that maybe it would be best to have doors to allow noisy activities to be shut behind. |
| 04:19:04.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are these full walls or these half walls? |
| 04:19:09.11 | Matt | So the intent is that they would be partial height. And then if sound or security was an issue, we could add like a glass upper part to kind of allow borrowed light to come through into each studio. |
| 04:19:23.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. |
| 04:19:27.62 | Matt | But then looking at the renderings here for option D, you can see we've cut out this large swap of level two to reduce the field volume from this angle. It's also reducing the mass from this angle And as we jump down here, you can see how that Thank you. Lars Hansen, Large cut pans out at this most visible corner how the lower level art studio extends beyond to give additional height as needed for the studio. Lars Hansen, But then how we're exploring just leaving this space completely industrial and coordinated as opposed to. adding some sort of preparation or opening to allow us to feel more industrial. |
| 04:20:08.26 | Kristina Feller | So Matt, if you can go back to that So on the top rendering here, that sort of double height studio space, where is the finished floor level of that space compared to the corrugated exterior siding. |
| 04:20:25.72 | Matt | Yeah. So the finished floor for this whole glass volume would be the level one finished floor that 11 foot FEMA required area. um, that as is before we raise the floor in the future, like we're planning to be able to do. This is a 12 foot ceiling. |
| 04:20:45.60 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 04:20:46.14 | Matt | So then beyond that, this would actually be a 16 foot ceiling. |
| 04:20:50.93 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:20:51.69 | Matt | for that lower level studio. |
| 04:20:53.47 | Kristina Feller | And did you do any studies or any you know, perspectives or renderings um sort of further up the road as you come to gate five so on i guess it's uh coloma If you are coming towards that intersection, |
| 04:21:06.73 | Mr. Dixon | of the Thank you. |
| 04:21:07.57 | Heather Hensley | Thank you. |
| 04:21:07.66 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 04:21:11.51 | Kristina Feller | Because, you know, this corner that we're looking at sort of in the top rendering and how you jog, I think, into the parking lot is a is really an important intersection. And in that ingress and egress of the parking, and the intersection of Gate 5 and Colomar. So I've had a look at that. |
| 04:21:33.38 | Matt | No. |
| 04:21:35.47 | Kristina Feller | Have you actually rendered that or? |
| 04:21:38.35 | Matt | We have, and I apologize for not having it in this presentation. We were just trying to cut down on our number of slides because we have a lot. |
| 04:21:45.49 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:21:45.54 | Matt | Thank you. |
| 04:21:45.56 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 04:21:45.64 | Matt | This view is taken from the perspective and size is kind of small, but from the intersection of Coloma and Gate 5. But I agree that further down Kalama is also an important perspective. So we can make sure to include that in our next presentation or study it further. |
| 04:22:03.25 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, one of the wonderful things about all these options that you're showing us is that the how you treat Um, you know, this sort of, I guess I'll just call it the southern corner where you enter into the into your parking area. I mean, that's really the beacon. And you're fortunate because there's not much else around it that is competing with it. And so it's a really wonderful opportunity to make whatever statement it is you're trying to make. And you've given us a lot of different options here, just something to think about. because you know, that whole going back to creating a sense of place and some of the general plan requirements that we're looking for and how you announce this building or the use of the building and all those sorts of things. you've got literally a blank canvas here. And I'm curious how you want to treat it. |
| 04:23:10.15 | Carlito Byrne | Amen. |
| 04:23:13.02 | Matt | Yeah, I think it is something we have studied and tried to focus on and it's a little bit of the play of this overhang. I know in the original proposal that overhang was pretty significant. And it was something that was actually exciting to us, but maybe was interpreted by the commissioners as to |
| 04:23:33.07 | Peter McGuire | to, |
| 04:23:33.26 | Matt | you Lashy or modern or not fitting with the neighborhood so in studying these different options, I think we've been trying to play around with how different levels of that overhang feel and what that does kind of announcing the building at this corner. |
| 04:23:50.86 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay. |
| 04:23:56.21 | Matt | So we have that angle and then just wrapping up, this is our last slide. But Looking at this option D with the large remove corner along gate five and Coloma, we're looking back from Varda Landing towards gate five. We're keeping that removal of this corner as well to open up the feel of this connected pathway while still providing all the industrial art pieces we've been talking about with forklifts, freight elevators, rolled doors, whatnot. And then looking at the aerial perspective, you can see the effect of that large cut and box extending beyond as you come from Coloma. the reduced face here at the north end, and then still allowing that porosity through the building, view to the bay, and how all those moves tie into the greater context here. |
| 04:24:53.08 | Matt | So that was the end of our slides as we have them. |
| 04:24:55.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, do you have a summary slide that, or maybe Cecilia can put up that summary slide that showed all four at once? Do you have one that's all four at once? |
| 04:25:07.69 | Matt | I do not, unfortunately. |
| 04:25:10.27 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I'm happy to pull that one up, Chair. |
| 04:25:11.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 04:25:11.87 | Matt | Bye. |
| 04:25:12.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will stop there. |
| 04:25:14.91 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 04:25:15.49 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:25:20.23 | Andrew Junius | Right. |
| 04:25:22.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I guess I'd like to do at this point is ask each of the commissioners, there's, what happened? Hey, there it is, okay. |
| 04:25:37.08 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | They disappear sometimes. |
| 04:25:40.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. I don't know. There we go. |
| 04:25:42.62 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | There we go. There we go, yeah. |
| 04:25:44.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Why is it disappearing? |
| 04:25:46.26 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Well, |
| 04:25:48.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is that part of a... |
| 04:25:48.44 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Let me stop sharing and bring it back up. |
| 04:25:52.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 04:25:54.01 | Nastassya Saad | That's a Question while that's happening. |
| 04:25:56.96 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 04:25:57.47 | Nastassya Saad | I just was unclear. I'm just going back to our from the agenda. attachment nine, Um, GP MSP Compliance Matrix. It has a date, first of all, study session January, 14th, 2023, but I'm just not clear who filled that out. Is that staff or is that the applicant? |
| 04:26:26.51 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I'm sorry, commissioner. What was your question about the major schools? |
| 04:26:30.41 | Nastassya Saad | No worries, I'm looking at attachment nine. Oh yes. |
| 04:26:33.23 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Oh, yeah. |
| 04:26:34.12 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 04:26:35.25 | Nastassya Saad | Was that you, Cecilia? Who filled that out? Okay. |
| 04:26:37.33 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Bye. |
| 04:26:37.50 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 04:26:37.53 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Bye. |
| 04:26:37.73 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 04:26:37.78 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | . |
| 04:26:39.50 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. I was just unclear. Um, on that so. I'm sorry. it. Thank you. |
| 04:26:48.64 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:26:48.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 04:26:48.79 | Andrew Junius | I'll see you next time. |
| 04:26:48.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 04:26:48.94 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 04:26:48.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:26:53.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so I have some thoughts, others probably have some thoughts. I guess the best thing to do is to go around and people can give you ideas and all of our ideas collectively might be in conflict with one another, but we could give you thoughts on it. But I guess I'll start with Commissioner Graff, if you don't mind. |
| 04:27:17.32 | Richard Graef | I don't mind. Thank you. Chair Luxembourg. Well, Well, let me first say that, um, I was expecting some to see some different approaches. Um, but, That's not what we got. We still have the same aesthetic. So, But going with that, I have to say that the option D that you presented. to me, is clearly the best solution that I've seen, it has much of our interest and the way the forms are expressed and the scale of one part to another. It has I like the fact that that large one singular form has been kind of deconstructed. into something that's, you know, a little more... Well, it's a little more fitting to the surroundings. And I have to say that I'm beginning with this new, more more articulated solution I'm getting a little more amenable to the aesthetic that you have here. It's looking a little less corporate and, you know, and look at me and it's looking a little bit more purposeful. And I like that. I like the fact that some of these volumes have been reduced. I like the fact that in the, perspective from the south end of it, where you see the overhang and you can really see the impact of the high studio space at the corner. I think that whole view has really softened the approach. to the building. It's much improved. I'm still a little uncomfortable with the amount of overhang there. maybe still a little bit radical, All in all, I think that that option D is really moving in the right direction. Um, I would question the the opacity of the, of the, um, walls, the upper walls, along Gate 5 Road. I understand Uh, the intent there is to define them, you know, you know. pretty clearly. I'm concerned that that It would be nice to see some sort of window pattern in there that doesn't disrupt the shape, but allows light into the studios. I know there are skylights But I'm thinking, you know, with the use of the perforated Um, metal. Um, and that play of the perforated and the opaque medals, my my, you know, more opportunity for some light coming in from that side of the building. our windows and some of the other solutions. And I think, um, from my standpoint, that uh, this concept. CONCURRENT. Good. handle windows pretty nicely. Yeah, I like the way it's going. I'm getting more used to the to the kind of aesthetic that's going on. The materials actually I do like a lot, |
| 04:31:42.61 | Mr. Dixon | I'm not sure. |
| 04:31:45.25 | Richard Graef | all in all. Anyway, I think this was a good move. Um, Thank you. but we could Talk about it. more. And I would be interested to hear some of the other commissioners response and also the architect's response, but I would say those are my thoughts and my concerns. So yeah. |
| 04:32:20.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Groh. |
| 04:32:20.57 | Richard Graef | I'll pass it on to somebody else. |
| 04:32:22.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So let's call on Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:32:28.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chad Luxenberg. Nice to see you, Matt. And I think, you know, you guys are trying really hard here. And I think you're also trying to do something in concept that's really interesting to support that area and community Um, Sticking with what Commissioner Graff just said, We have provided a little bit more clear direction last time that the mass of the scale was a little bit uncomfortable. I do think that you are headed in the right direction. I am wondering, of course, I'm not a structural engineer here, but to Commissioner Graff's point, I too am leaning towards option D. as the options are presented. But, you know, with the concept around What you have and I believe both the original plan and I believe option B if I'm seeing correctly some of those perforation or something to just break up that mass, I still find it, a little bit jarring in scale, even though it's an acceptable scale, just my personal opinion, but in the essence of light, It was. I'd be curious to know if there's a sort of pick and choose type approach to Because I think each plan has something that's great about it. I lean towards option D, but I do think you know, having that concept of that window, I see in options D, I'm not saying to replicate that over to option D, but the concept of having that, visual to the eye and in the interest of light, I think would be an interesting approach that would make you know, a little bit more warm up to the design that is here. I like that plan of that corridor. And I understand, Commissioner, Feller's point. But as long as what she said made sense to me, you know, to explain its use, It seems like there's a good use throughout the project for it, but if your intention really is to clear that additional building, you know, just be clear about that so we can also have the full concept in mind when we move forward. Appreciate you taking that comment on the gravel and I think the landscaping is also coming into play. I think if I understood correctly, option D is taking out 650 square feet, is that correct? Um, I think that was from Cecilia, but I think you have percentages, but am I clear? Let me word it this way. Option D is the greatest reduction. Is that a fair, correct? |
| 04:35:17.52 | Mr. Dixon | that was for |
| 04:35:27.32 | Matt | So to be clear, |
| 04:35:28.18 | Nastassya Saad | And then- Yeah. |
| 04:35:29.82 | Matt | Each option actually provides the same overall interior square footage. Uh, |
| 04:35:35.10 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 04:35:35.98 | Matt | Options B, C, and D take essentially 500 square feet from level two and put it on the level one. |
| 04:35:45.73 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 04:35:46.15 | Matt | And what we are really Pushing and pulling instead was kind of how this mass feels and appears. in these options. |
| 04:35:54.76 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:35:55.25 | Matt | So option D ends up with having the least |
| 04:35:55.27 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:35:58.90 | Matt | perimeter of level two, if that makes sense. |
| 04:36:01.76 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:36:02.39 | Matt | what we feel like is the eventual feeling of that massiveness of level two. |
| 04:36:09.80 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, okay, I think I understand that. But yeah, I won't belabor it. I also know it's late and I wanna let my other colleagues give some more feedback, but I would, Of all the options presented, I am most in favor of option D at this time. Thank you. |
| 04:36:31.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:36:31.40 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Your fellow is about to just like this. |
| 04:36:31.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There. Yeah. My fellow is imagining just like, |
| 04:36:35.94 | Nastassya Saad | It slips off my tongue, Chair. |
| 04:36:37.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chair. |
| 04:36:38.04 | Nastassya Saad | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:36:38.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I did it too twice tonight, so I understand fully. Commissioner Fallon. |
| 04:36:38.58 | Nastassya Saad | I can. Bye. |
| 04:36:41.06 | Kristina Feller | Well, I, |
| 04:36:44.64 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Matt, thank you and the team for going back and developing some additional ideas here. Um, And I think there are a lot of intriguing pieces and parts to different ones here. I don't want to get into the eeny, meeny, miny, moe. You have to choose one because I think maybe what, It might not be any single one of these. It could be a combination. Um, the The original feedback that that we gave you Um, You know, I'm not sure that that was really fully taken to heart, because I actually still think There's a lot of mass here. However, There are a couple of principled things that I would want to see or have explained a little bit better. The first is if I'm if I'm an artist, And I'm coming to my studio here. Where do I enter? I'm assuming it's through like the parking lot area up those stairs. But if I'm a visitor and I'm coming to an open studio here, Where's the front door? It's very unclear. And of course you've got this interesting sort of challenging site in some ways, in some ways it's actually a really cool site. But that's very, very long. But I think basic things like that, just to, you know, how approachable is, is this building or any building and that that's always a really important consideration particularly I will say, and this is my own opinion, in the Marin ship where you know, unless you really know where you're going or where somebody is, it's not what I'd call a pedestrian friendly area yet or parts of it are but parts of it aren't. You're creating a very pedestrian friendly area. And I applaud that. But it's a little unclear how to navigate where to go, I think, based on renderings here. I like the idea of option C from the standpoint of the windows. I'm not a huge, I'm not really in favor of this marshabiah over the windows. it makes the building look far too massive. far too top heavy. And I know that this sounds like a small little nitpicky thing, but it actually really isn't. You know, birds tend to nest in those types of metal, or should be a coverings. And you're right on the water. We have nothing but birds. So you need to think about that. And I know that sounds like a small little, Thank you. thing, but you will end up having a gigantic bird's nest in this thing if you're not careful. So I'd like to understand a little more about that. Um, it, In option D, you have a really interesting large studio at the corner by the driveway onto this property. Um, which I think could be a really, really exciting space. But the one thing about artists that we have to design for them for is they have a lot of materials And it's messy usually. And it's everywhere. What is that first impression of that main corner entry off that intersection if that's gonna be you know, a gigantic glass house. |
| 04:40:32.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:40:33.08 | Mr. Dixon | I know. |
| 04:40:36.51 | Kristina Feller | And do artists want some, you know, want a little bit more privacy so they can work on something until they perfect it. and have a large unveiling. I don't know. I am not an artist. But I know artists and some like that, some don't. So I, you know, who knows? But, um, Overall, I. I see where you're developing different ideas, but on the same concept. And I think what we had asked for were different types of concepts. And I think that, again, you've got some really interesting things here, but I'm not sure we're quite there yet. I'll let my other commissioner colleagues talk a little more too. |
| 04:41:30.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. All right. I'll start with the good things. The good things, I think the pedestrian access, if that building goes away, is a good thing. I think the first floor, the wood on the first floor is a good thing. I agree with, I mean, the other commissioners are dancing around with it. I'll be more blunt. We expected other options, not variations of the same option. These are all options of the same basic concept. Contrary to, you indicated that this ties in with the scale of the neighborhood. It does not tie in with the scale of the neighborhood. It is extremely massive. And so I think option C and D are improvements in the correct direction. I definitely think you should get the metal off the windows so you can see windows. I think the boxes are just way too big. This is a wonderful concept. This whole artist idea is a wonderful concept. And I understand you need these high ceilings. And so you need this height to in order to accomplish the use. But taking the height and putting corrugated metal around it makes it extremely bulky and massive. I mean, everybody's dancing around that. But that's where my head is at right now. And I think if you break up that mass, you can still have your height and it just won't look as high as it does. I think if you break up that mass, you can still have your height and it just won't look as high as it does. I think the option C windows help, the front part in option D helps, but I mean the corrugated is used in the other buildings, but it's not this high and it doesn't cover the windows. So you had a couple examples of corrugated on Gate 5 Road, but they don't jump out at you as this huge box on top. I think the pedestrian level works pretty well. Um... I THINK THAT you know, the I mean, I just, I think some use of other materials or something to break up this huge amount of corrugated a medal and again, I can't stress enough I love the idea of these artist studios, and I think the architecture, I hate to be blunt, is getting in the way of what the use needs to be. So I think it's more about the artist studios and less about, you know, the architecture. And you need to give better light inside by, you know, not covering up the windows and stuff. So anyway, I think I agree with the other, I agree with the Commissioner Saad on the the pedestrian through, I agree with, COMMISSIONER A GRAPH ON THE FRONT PART OF OPTION D. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FELLER ON TAKING THE CORRUGATED OFF THE WINDOWS IN OPTION C. ANYWAYS, THE QUESTION IS NEXT STEPS. WE HAD HOPED YOU WERE GOING TO COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE EXPECTED HERE WAS SKETCHES, NOT HARD LINED WHATEVER. WE EXPECTED DIFFERENT OPTIONS WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS, not the-lined whatever. We expected different options with different materials, not the same materials just sort of moving it all around. So I'm not sure where we go from here, but we need to get the scale of this thing down, even if we keep the square footage the same way it is. Let me go back to the other commissioners if they have any other thoughts. Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Feller, Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:45:14.76 | Kristina Feller | Not that I mean I already mentioned the piece about HPC knowing full well that's on Clipper property, but I mean I think it's a really. What you described, Matt, with that view corridor, I think is really fascinating. And I think like to know more about it and see what you're seeing through that. I think that's great. You know, I would also want to ask if you if you fully understand sort of the direction and comments that that you're hearing from the four of us tonight and if you have questions about it. |
| 04:45:56.22 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:45:57.20 | Matt | Yeah, first of all, I really appreciate all the feedback. I know it's super late and we're throwing 50 slides at you at four different options. And I think it's all really valid feedback. I think we We understand. The points then. I think, You know, we're trying to play with the volume and push and pull to reduce that mass while still providing you know, the building and the spaces that our client is asking for and trying to balance that. But I think that your comments are on point and I would hope that the next steps would really be that we can take the comments, take the pieces that were successful here from the different schemes, create, you know, a hybrid of all those pieces and move towards an actual planning hearing. |
| 04:46:47.69 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:46:49.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I think if I want to be careful that we, you know, Campbell is a racehorse designed by committee. So I want to be careful that you don't do that. But I would encourage you, you know, to explore some other materials that break up the mass. Because you, you know, this is basically the kind of, the original plan hasn't really changed in materials. Materials are the same. So I'm not sure that these, I'm not sure that the corrugated metal doesn't make the mass bigger. And so if you wanna, you know, and again, the artist studios, the size of the walls, the whole that I think is needed by your use and can work. But you're breaking it up a little bit in D and C, but you're again, the driving force that makes this so bulky is that corrugated metal. And I'm not saying it's not an appropriate use for gate five road, it is. But the way you're using it makes the mass worse, not better, if I can describe it that |
| 04:48:05.06 | Richard Graef | Could we look at the slide that looks at the building from the south end of Gate 5 Road again? Can we pull that slide up? |
| 04:48:16.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:48:20.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:48:20.97 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:48:21.02 | Matt | Be reshare here and unfortunately I don't have it set up the way so we did with all four options. But I could flip through options. This is option D. So that's the... |
| 04:48:31.57 | Richard Graef | Yeah, that's the one that I wanted to look at. |
| 04:48:35.15 | Matt | Thank you. |
| 04:48:35.27 | Richard Graef | Um, |
| 04:48:35.30 | Matt | Thank you. Bye. |
| 04:48:36.13 | Richard Graef | I'm not. Yeah, because that's kind of like one of the main views you get as you approach the building. And I'm noticing that you've got a stripe on the end. Is that the perforated material? Is that what the idea there is? Thank you. |
| 04:48:54.98 | Matt | That is, yes. |
| 04:48:54.99 | Richard Graef | Thank you. That is, yeah. Uh-huh. but that doesn't appear anywhere else except maybe in the corner. Um, I'm just thinking that Um, That's a kind of clever way to... to mitigate the mass without taking it without destroying it. but was just giving it some relief. So anyway, so in this perspective here, What I guess one of the things I'm reacting to is that overhang, if that were a little shorter. without you know, maybe you'd have to squish something around inside to take a little bit away there. Maybe that's PICKING NETS. But I think the view from this viewpoint is, is, you know, really moving in the right way because it doesn't appear all as one giant mass. So I think, I think, Thank you. Thank you. whatever you could do to to lighten the load on that upper form. I've never quite understood. why you had to clad that hall upper level and put a curtain around it. And I was just sort of wondering what would happen if that went away and you... just had your walls and your windows and your roof is Thank you. Or I'm not sure anymore if this is a wall or if it's a if it's a facade. And And Anyway, I'm just kind of winging it here. But Um, Anyway. |
| 04:50:57.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Go back a slide you just showed a second ago when you were getting to this one, and it had the other side and had a big window. Yeah, so you see the big window, you know, how that's all, you know, that really breaks up that corrugated, the window that's in the top, in the middle, on the top of the middle picture. And yeah, that one. And if you go back to the slide that we were just at, if on the top of the middle picture. And yeah, that one. And if you go back to the slide that we were just at, if you could do that a little bit on this end, instead of that corrugated, if you did, you open this window up, then the corrugated isn't gonna seem as heavy. And then if you can do it on the other, you know, both on the end, but also in the middle of their windows down there a little bit. And that'll tie in with this 16 foot area windows. And then the top part looks like it's just on top of the other part and it's like crushing it. And it just seems too massive. If you could break it up and tie the two floors together, I think the ground floor looks pretty good. |
| 04:52:06.90 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think that the top rendering here, I mean, one of the things I think we struggled with before, and I think we are all in different ways struggling with here. Is it this top floor and the lighter color in your rendering, it's so monolithic. And it looks so solid. And so it's heavy, it's brutalistic. It's, you know, it is not, Yeah. I don't know if it's the rendering or if it's accurate with what you're trying to convey, but I think that's the problem. what Chair Luxenberg is talking about is actually the VARTA landing side is more pleasing to the eye. than your gate five frontage. And I'm assuming that in any of these options, there's no impact or effect on parking and parking counts. like the different overhangs or jutting out does not affect the parking? |
| 04:53:09.42 | Matt | That's correct. The parking is the same in each game. |
| 04:53:13.65 | Kristina Feller | Okay. But I mean, even if you go up to your aerial photos or the aerial renderings, I mean, look at the bottom one. It is so monolithic. And it's so top heavy compared to the base of it. And I know that we're not all flying up in the air, you know, looking at it like this, but it's a useful perspective. to demonstrate what we also see from your ground view. It's incredibly monolithic. |
| 04:53:46.90 | Richard Graef | Um, um, Commissioner Fowler's comment I think is well taken. And looking at this kind of bird's eye, where the pass through is, where It almost looks like a separation of those two volumes in between, you know, like that darkened area. I'm not quite sure. what, yeah, that, I'm not quite sure what that means. It suggests a separation of those two volumes, which is a good thing. So I'm a little unclear about how that works. But, um, Um, if that's a true space between those volumes or if there's a niche or something there that really offsets, then you, yeah. Right. then that would do a lot to mitigate that volume. And also I think, you know, maybe some kind of nice, you know, clever, |
| 04:54:51.60 | Mr. Dixon | And now. |
| 04:55:01.21 | Richard Graef | a horizontal row of windows along the sides there, which would be welcome in the studios, I would think. mic really helped break that. Oh. And also, give it some rhythm or something. So I think there's a way to interject windows along the surfaces there that would go a long way to sort of lighten them up. corrugated, Well, you know, What's an option? I don't see, I think that's a pretty good option actually. But I'm interested, I'm intrigued by the, the perforated material. as well. It's kind of an interesting, it gives another richness to the surface. So it's, I don't see any of that happening here except maybe at the end. Anyway, I think there are some opportunities to fuss with this. |
| 04:56:11.57 | Mr. Dixon | Anyway. |
| 04:56:20.44 | Richard Graef | you know, take the onus off of the weight of that upper level. It's still Still kind of heavy, but But I get it. |
| 04:56:35.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Grant. Commissioner Feller's comment about the view from Varta Landing is much more pleasing and not as heavy. So, you know, so that is interesting. And then I don't know exactly what's happening between those two Masses, but if you need a connection rather than metal or whatever, put glass in, like it'd be a glass connection between the two boxes or whatever. So you could see through to the, you can see right through the water. If you're in a building or you're up on the hill or somewhat, you look through the buildings between them or something rather than having anything blocking that view. Because I think there, I'm assuming there's a connection on the second floor. between there so you have to have something but uh but it could be glass it could be open or whatever it doesn't have to be metal so Anyways, are there any final comments? We've gotten hours getting late and we still have another agenda, but Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:57:42.17 | Nastassya Saad | I just wanted to not to throw everything on its head, but just looking at this bottom picture here below, Do you see how the surrounding properties have some angling to their roof, So I'm just wondering, and it's not anything to answer now, but if you'd be open to considering some slight angles. And I feel like that might also help make it less. massive in its at its face. It looks like a big lock. I mean, to me, with the corrugated metal especially, It looks like almost like a shipping container, which I also I find almost interesting just given its proximity and you know, what the intent is, Um, But if you'd be open to potentially softening some of those corners. I feel like that might just, aesthetically bring it in line with its surroundings, as well as just breaking up that that more top heavy box feeling. would be. just an opinion. That would be my final comment. |
| 04:59:00.28 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I just want to You know, we, we, I think chair Luxembourg said it once tonight. I know we've said it in other in another hearing, but. the whole The idea behind this development, being an artist, village and co-op is incredible. And I can't wait to see it built. Bravo in terms of the whole idea behind this development. But The fact that you that that the The idea is to develop or build Um, you know, an artist village, Let it feel like a village. That's why I think we're so, our eye is probably drawn more to the top image than the bottom image. is that the top image is more digestible. It has intricacies. It's not monolithic or it doesn't look like just a gigantic warehouse or shipping container as Commissioner Saad's reference. I don't want to keep saying the same thing over and over again, but I'm saying it in different ways to make sure that Matt, you and your team Um, appreciate or understand the context of our comments or what we're really trying to get at and we don't want to get into designing anything from the dais ever. You're the professional here to do that. but Do you have any questions back to any of us? |
| 05:00:39.88 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:00:39.91 | Matt | I'll see you next time. |
| 05:00:39.95 | Kristina Feller | Oh. |
| 05:00:39.96 | Matt | Um, |
| 05:00:40.55 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:00:41.63 | Matt | Given given the time of the night, I think that we found this not not necessarily. I think I think your comments are clear and I think I really appreciated this study session where it's a little more informal and you're able to point to individual items that were successful or areas where we could improve. So I think that feedback's been clear and pretty helpful. |
| 05:01:05.53 | Takashi | This is Takashi. I have not said anything. And I know it is late, but I would like Just add a couple comments. Commissioner Feller, I really do appreciate your several questions and comments. Um, Because I think part of maybe Um, The hurdle for the design team actually is a matter Um, presentation. I think there are certain reasons why We have defined things. And some of those things are not maybe the aesthetic choices that some of you commissioners would make but for instance the monolithic quality and I wouldn't say heaviness, but the tall spaces being on top, is in response to this idea of this artist village and trying to create these studios are maximizing for creating art. If you go to, for example, Minnesota Street Projects, in the dog patch. Those are largely windowless spaces. for the display of art that are top-lit, and they're extremely effective. And I too am not an artist, but I have many artist friends And those oftentimes, not always, are the kinds of spaces that they want. We have, however, And this is in response to the beautiful view that we also have in Marinship, provided some art spaces, as you point out, on the back side. So... That is a, we're creating a variety of spaces, but we're also creating spaces that take advantage of the view. They're doing double duty. And so windows on. the street side, the front side would be less effective in that regard. So we were trying to create a variety of art spaces. And we were trying to make the upper volumes, we're trying to maximize say the upper volume That is partially in response to sea level rise. So as Matt pointed out, the ceiling heights on the ground level are more than adequate today. And eventually they will be lower and we're still, you know, accomplishing worst case scenario, eight, six, Those are perfectly habitable spaces. But what we're trying to do is Um, accommodate higher ceilings on the upper floors that would not be impacted by sea over ice. And I think part of the massiveness or the monolithic quality, that was, you know, that was intentional, frankly, that we were. it was sort of a nod and not a literal nod, but sort of a conceptual nod to both the scale of some of the industrial buildings in the area, the shipbuilding history of the Marine ship. the boathouse history of the Marinship. Not to say that that floating volume was a direct sort of imitation or literal sort of mimicry of any of those. but they were sort of It was a singular more monolithic, Um, move that was sort of a conceptual nod to that history. And that's also the reason why we chose to corrugate it. in my mind, um, It's not, I can understand the brutalist comment in terms of like the sheer sort of singular move but it was not meant at all to be a heavy material. and perhaps it's Perhaps we're wrong, perhaps it is the quality of the renderings Um, but I just wanted to add some of those things. And I think the option D, which I think it does in a lot of ways successfully sort of navigate this balance that we had uh for this desire of a more singular move on the top floor with this desire to create a little bit more interest create a little bit more nuance create a little bit more subtlety in response to the scale of some of the other buildings in the Marinship. what we actually like about it. And there was a comment about, you know, It's great to have an artist's space in a glass box. I think it could be, it's not for every artist, but it could be a great selling point for the Marin ship to show that there's great art being made in this facility. So I was going to say one of the you know, silver linings of coming up with this game was like discovering that, oh, we could have a great space on the ground space as a beacon with a tall ceiling. and create another sort of variation on the, variety of art spaces that we're creating. In the last, I was sort of compelled not to speak, the reason why I was really compelled to speak Commissioner Fowler, what's your last comment about the village line community-like aspect of the interior of the project. And that I really appreciated that comment because that is exactly what we're going for. So we wanted to create something on this side that was in response to the history It was a bold move, a strong move. I think it is better now that it is broken down. But we actually like that it is fairly monolithic and fairly blank. And it's a little bit of a mystery, but once you enter the compound, that you discover that there is this vibrant, active village that is not That is that is in. direct contrast, say, to that more blank facade that is happening on the street side. So I don't know if any of those ideas resonate or any of those reasons. make some of our decisions make more sense. I hope they do. but we also very much appreciate all these comments that you all have made this evening. will take them all into consideration. And hopefully we'll arrive at something that everyone one day will be proud of. to have in this community. |
| 05:07:07.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Takashi. I don't think it's the renderings. I think the monolithic choice you made is something we're objecting to. So I strongly encourage you that option D needs further refinement and breakup. I think that on the, we're not saying you need windows. We're saying if you have windows, you shouldn't cover them up and make it more monolithic. If you don't have windows, then you can break up the corrugated with another material or a different color of corrugated or something. But I think that your concept of this monolithic thing is what pretty much eight months ago or whatever it was, we objected to it then, we're objecting to it now, and we're looking for you to come up with some other options that aren't as monolithic. So, I think you've heard us tonight, so hopefully you're coming back and you're not just gonna repackage option D and think it's okay, cuz it's not. |
| 05:08:10.66 | Kristina Feller | I do appreciate very, very much, Takashi, your comments back. And thank you for them. Thank you very much for them. you |
| 05:08:19.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:08:20.01 | Takashi | Thank you. |
| 05:08:20.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. With that, any commissioners have any additional comments before we move on to another item? Does Max want to say something or does... Time to ask. |
| 05:08:37.73 | Andrew Junius | I am. |
| 05:08:37.98 | Max Hausseger | Thank you. |
| 05:08:38.37 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:08:38.40 | Max Hausseger | Yeah. |
| 05:08:38.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:08:38.88 | Max Hausseger | Um, I don't know. I think The residential side of the, at Varta Landing is, really pleasing to the eye right now and Everyone who lives in the friendship doesn't want foot traffic. They don't want tourists. They don't want retail. They like light industrial things. That's why they live there, but they live. on the eye pleasing side of it. And our building has done an amazing job of Um, keep giving artists the privacy that they need. You know, and we have people that are successful artists that have a following. They don't want to tell people where their studios are. They don't want to, they don't want studios in an artist village that a bunch of people are going to. |
| 05:09:12.10 | Mr. Dixon | They don't want studios. |
| 05:09:15.53 | Max Hausseger | even if it's gated or something, they're going to try to walk up into. And. Yeah, I think... I think the renders do, because you see the building all at once, do make the second floor feel more massive and more heavy. But that material actually does reflect what it's reflective, so whatever the... light conditions are. the color of the sky that day. It's we actually chose the lightest material we could think of without doing something like all glass or uh, some more reflective like mirror mirrored material. because we're really, really, really conscious of not wanting to design something that looks like an office building, something that looks fancy, something that doesn't look like the Marin ship. but still accomplishes all the things that we've been talking about over and over again, like sea level rise, making taking advantage of the inspiring views, and Yeah, I guess. and I'm glad that there are things that you liked about option D. I also could see why that feels a little bit more like Marin. But I also just I don't know, I live behind the building and feel like I know the friendship and all the artists that are currently there, all the people that live around me and Uh, Yeah, there's a lot of different potential opinions on what is. It's light industrial. We designed something light industrial. And that's why you haven't seen the materials change to wood or something like you see in Mill Valley. Um, or some other fancy material like you see in downtown San Francisco. Um, So... Yeah, I guess. the words I'd like to leave people with is, you know, if you design things with overhangs instead of eaves like buildings have in California since mid century. and you design things with industrial materials that are sea level rise resistant. Like what is the future of marineship? What is light industrial? And what kind of space do artists and innovators and makers want to live in are all questions that we need to be constantly thinking about. Um, And yeah, the more you add windows and glass and office building and expensive materials. Also, the smaller we make the building, the less affordable it's going to be because we'll have less space to rent to artists who are giving really subsidized rates. So we didn't even talk about affordability today, but We're trying to make something robust and sizable that works with our formula of renting to artists and makers and innovators. Thank you. That's all. |
| 05:12:01.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. The square footage is the same though, right? That's what Matt said, right? I mean, you didn't reduce the square footage, right? |
| 05:12:11.47 | Max Hausseger | We did not reduce the square footage, but I think a lot of the feedback today was reduce, reduce, reduce, and, um, |
| 05:12:17.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I don't think we're saying reduce, reduce, reduce. I think we're saying break up the mass of the second floor with materials. We're not saying take away your square foot. We're okay with your small footage and we love your concept. |
| 05:12:30.15 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 05:12:32.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't want you to get the wrong idea. the monolithic thing of the corrugated metal. If it was different colors or something, we're not even saying you have glass. We're saying if you have glass, don't put materials over it, which just costs more money. I mean, we're saying let the glass breathe. But if you don't have glass, then |
| 05:12:41.44 | Mr. Dixon | Thank you. |
| 05:12:41.45 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 05:12:41.79 | Mr. Dixon | Thank you. |
| 05:12:54.97 | Max Hausseger | even if it Bye. Yeah. I mean, just to be fully transparent, I have I did see options with more glass windows and you know, we had an office building. It quickly starts to look more like an office building. And like I said, I live in the marineship. I have, I feel like, a passion for light. I think light industrial is really, really magical. zoning, which is why we bought the land in the first place. So we're just Maybe we have different perspectives on what light industrial means and looks and feels like, but I understand we can try and make it feel less monolithic and less massive or lighter weight. But yeah, I just wanted to also say that Yeah. I was just echoing things that Takashi said, but from a person who lives there perspective and also yeah just someone who really really lives in and loves the marineship and loves this idea of light industrial and so then thinking of things like like making it look like Mill Valley or making it look like downtown San Francisco. I feel like we've spent five years on this plan. during which time our building flooded for the first time. even though we've spent a ton of time and blood and sweat and tears to get it to a point where it didn't flood like it used to. Yeah. I'm a little bit at a loss to be honest, but I'm, EYRC sounds like they're confident they can make more adjustments. Yeah, I just, wanted to put that out there. |
| 05:14:32.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just suggest you had a slide with the heat placed on it and two other buildings. If you were to compare the scale of what you're proposing to that, it's not about light industrial. I think it's the scale, it's the massive scale in the vault of the building, not the square footage, not the height. |
| 05:14:51.15 | Max Hausseger | Right, but we are. We are looking at the future of the partnership, which needs to be higher up. If you took the Heath building, if you took the building next to us and put it at the flood proof levels, it would be the same. |
| 05:15:02.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to say this again. We're not looking to cut your square footage or cut your height. We're looking for you to take the materials and in some way reduce the mass looking of it, not the actual size of it. We think it's too monolithic. Your architect had a concept to make it monolithic. That's what we're objecting to, not the height, not the size, not the square foot. you |
| 05:15:31.18 | Kristina Feller | Chair Luxembourg. |
| 05:15:31.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm so excited. Okay. |
| 05:15:34.54 | Kristina Feller | if I could maybe make a request of Matt and Takashi and Max or maybe Cecilia, you can make a note of this. is the material, I know you've dropped materials off at City Hall. But, If you have actual photographs of built buildings that use the same sort of screening marshabia materials that it's actually built that might help communicate better than the rendering. of how we can get you know, what the frit is on the perforations. I don't, it would probably help explain how you're using those materials, because how we're looking at them in a rendering, maybe that is part of the problem, but I just think it might be useful if you've seen it somewhere else, which is where you're getting the idea or there's some application, from the manufacturer that you're looking at that we could actually see that, you know, daytime shot, nighttime shot, that might be helpful when we all see each other again. |
| 05:16:54.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, any final comments before we move on to the next, Commissioner Grail? |
| 05:17:01.36 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Everything being said, I'm going to trust the designers. I think they've listened to us. As far as the monolithic, I think there's a danger of trying to deconstruct it too much. I think there's going to be a fine line. to where Um, the form of the building might get lost and then you get a salad. So we don't want that to happen. It's just maybe some finessing somewhere that's going to take the edge off of the the monolithic I was wondering what, What was the finish? I looked at the corrugated material sample and it looked like a paint finish or a powder coat finish or something. what is your Is that the color you're looking at, that kind of putty color? Or what about like galvanized or zinc or something like that, you know, kind of has, we'll get a patina. Just a thought. No more to say. You guys are doing great. |
| 05:18:29.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, with that, hopefully you've got some guidance. Hopefully, you know, I would suggest you, maybe you bring in a preliminary to the CDD department who knows what we're looking, or has some idea of what we're looking for before you hardline it and all that, so that you're not, we're not sitting here in a public hearing going over this yet again. So why don't you, you know, touch base with CDD before you're, to, you know, once you take all these comments in they'll tell you that hopefully they can tell you you're heading in the right direction. With that, if we don't further comments, let's move on. I think it's item eight. Thank you, Commissioner. |
| 05:19:15.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you. |
| 05:19:17.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you for the feedback. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:19:22.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:19:22.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:19:22.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:19:23.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:19:23.11 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:19:23.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. uh item a uh brandon do you have any stuff updates at this late hour |
| 05:19:30.92 | Director Phipps | No, I'm gonna keep it brief. Council meeting earlier this week, I presented an update on Parkletts. Next step is to follow up with the working group. And that is what I will do. Jeffrey, we've already had a opportunity to connect and Christina, I think I mentioned that in our discussion earlier today, that'll do it. |
| 05:19:46.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. M. Okay. Thank you. Sergio, do you have any comments from legal? |
| 05:19:56.17 | Kristina Feller | I don't think he's here. |
| 05:19:57.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | He's not here. Okay. Well, he doesn't have any comments then. We have our various groups. The odds was before the council yesterday. Do you have a director, do you have any update on odds on timeline or whatever? Thank you, Chair. |
| 05:20:18.80 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Again, I'll keep it brief. Update on odds is that Bob Brown is working on it. And we are going to bring a revised version of the odds to the Planning Commission, I believe at the earliest sometime in February. |
| 05:20:34.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you for that. |
| 05:20:37.87 | Kristina Feller | HOLD ON, THERE'S MORE. |
| 05:20:37.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Hold on. |
| 05:20:40.25 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:20:40.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:20:41.92 | Kristina Feller | The city council has also requested that we develop further more detailed odds for SB 9 or single family to include. So that will be a separate parallel. effort. |
| 05:20:58.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, yeah, that was mentioned earlier in the housing element presentation, I believe. Okay, so that we're talking about February for odds, California housing legislation. Hopefully they haven't created any new laws given that everybody's trying to finish the housing element. Extendary conditions, we're going to do that sometime in March. Ferry Landside Working Group, is that Commissioner Feller? |
| 05:21:29.10 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. So we've requested that Director McGowan bring the revised plan back to the planning commission for planning commission review and approval. We've encouraged him to encourage his team to stay within the scope and not have a lot of scope creep. I think there's been a lot of scope creep in what he's been trying to get done. And we gave him some options for circulation that would achieve everything. So at this point, I would just ask perhaps Director Phipps, send him a reminder to bring that back to the Planning Commission. |
| 05:22:14.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All. Director Fischer. |
| 05:22:15.56 | Director Phipps | If I may, just briefly, Director McGowan and I are very much in touch on that. Presentation should be pretty much ready to go from the perspective of DPW. So we should bring that to a Planning Commission agenda in short order. Looking at the calendar, you know, we could come before commissioners as early as the meeting on 18th. |
| 05:22:42.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I was going to say, because there's not, you know, you were trying to do 70-74 on that one by itself. So, yeah, that might be a good meeting. Yeah, I agree. |
| 05:22:52.03 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I agree with you, a big compliment. |
| 05:22:54.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:22:54.15 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:22:54.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, that'd be great. He agree that we already talked to it late tonight. Mark, as we've already talked about, Master Plan Working Group, Commissioner Feller, Commissioner Saad. |
| 05:23:06.17 | Kristina Feller | Well, we haven't actually met yet, have we, Commissioner Saad? |
| 05:23:06.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | week. |
| 05:23:09.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 05:23:11.53 | Nastassya Saad | We are waiting to meet. |
| 05:23:13.78 | Kristina Feller | We're waiting to meet. We, I mean, we've gotten a little bit of obfuscation from the city manager on this, but We're going to go ahead and meet and hopefully Director Phipps, you can meet with us when we do that. The purpose of of the meeting is to actually scope what a master plan scope would be for professional services and and try to get some metrics in place for budgeting for that. So I think once we have our housing plan completed, let's put a date on the calendar for us to meet. |
| 05:23:51.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think it would be good to get a, if we get, if you get a scope, then we can get an estimate and then we can, it would be hell, yeah, because they're just gonna say, well, what does this cost? So I think the scope is critical, so. All right, so that will put that on the agenda for not to put that in general plan for that to be happening probably more February March. And then we can, when is the commissioner fellow, do you know in the budget, When do they establish their budgets? Because I would have to be, you need funding. |
| 05:24:27.47 | Kristina Feller | I think they have a retreat... next month. yeah, I see Director Phipps shaking and said they have a retreat and budget is on there. I think we would be able to develop a reasonable range And I'm sure we can pull some sample scopes of you know, what that buys you in essence. Um, I need to double check when that retreat is but so I can report back at our next meeting. |
| 05:24:57.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, that would be great. And we can, if we have, we can target it so that we have a, we have an estimate with an outline of the scope, if not the actual scope. before they start to make budget decisions. But it's probably gonna be a tight year on money, |
| 05:25:10.53 | Takashi | on. |
| 05:25:13.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | we might be able to get this going or at least get it in process or get an RFQ out or something like that. |
| 05:25:21.54 | Director Phipps | Commissioners, the council retreat is scheduled for February 10th. |
| 05:25:27.19 | Kristina Feller | So we have one meeting before then, don't we? |
| 05:25:29.81 | Andrew Junius | No. |
| 05:25:30.92 | Kristina Feller | We don't need a planning commission meeting for the working group to put a budget request together. I mean, that should come through staff anyway. |
| 05:25:41.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, no, we don't need a meeting for that. We just need a... |
| 05:25:45.01 | Kristina Feller | Is that right, Director? Thank you. |
| 05:25:46.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 05:25:47.53 | Director Phipps | I would have to speak with city manager Zapata as to how he would like the mid-year budget and the special council retreat to be coordinated. As far as my ability and willingness to attend a meeting with members of the working group, very much enthusiastically. |
| 05:26:06.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for that. |
| 05:26:08.89 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:26:08.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So it sounds good. Are there any other items anybody has? We're finishing before midnight. |
| 05:26:17.58 | Kristina Feller | Three minutes. |
| 05:26:17.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | which actually Gotcha. |
| 05:26:19.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:26:19.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's not too bad given what we had to cover tonight. So I did tell Director Phipps earlier today that he was saying, well, what time will this go to? I said, well, we did have one meeting, one to two in the morning. So hopefully it won't be that. So anyway, thank you all for your efforts, Commissioner Fowler and Commissioner Saad, especially on the housing element. And again, this has been a long night, but I think we got it done as best we can. We'll see all of you again on. |
| 05:26:23.47 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:26:35.58 | Mr. Dixon | Thank you. |
| 05:26:35.60 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 05:26:35.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:26:35.96 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:26:35.97 | Mr. Dixon | Thank you. |
| 05:26:51.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Monday night, or Monday afternoon, actually. It's like 3.30, this meeting's at 3.30. |
| 05:26:55.13 | Nastassya Saad | 3 o'clock. |
| 05:26:56.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You got it. |
| 05:26:56.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:26:57.08 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 05:26:57.29 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 05:26:58.20 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:26:58.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, three o'clock on Monday. |
| 05:27:00.27 | Kristina Feller | The motion to adjourn. Yeah, second. |
| 05:27:01.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. All in favor. |
| 05:27:04.78 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 05:27:05.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you all. Have a good rest. Bye guys. Good night. Thank you. |
| 05:27:05.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Right. |
| 05:27:06.84 | Kristina Feller | Bye, guys. Good night. |
| 05:27:07.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:27:09.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Bye. |