| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:05.58 | Director Phipps | Let me let the public in. |
| 00:00:05.68 | Nastassya Saad | Let the. |
| 00:00:08.89 | Director Phipps | Let me start recording on Zoom. |
| 00:00:14.91 | Raylene Gorham | Recording in progress. |
| 00:00:23.84 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxembourg, all public is in. I hand it over to you. |
| 00:00:26.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. I'm going to turn it over to Director Phipps to call to order. |
| 00:00:35.37 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:00:36.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:36.24 | Director Phipps | And good evening, everyone. This regular meeting is being held pursuant to government code section 54953, subsection E. And in light of the declared state of emergency, the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 15, 2023, will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website. With that, I will move to roll call. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:01:03.43 | Richard Graef | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:01:05.02 | Director Phipps | I'm going to go. |
| 00:01:05.25 | Richard Graef | or a grant. |
| 00:01:07.21 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:01:08.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:08.71 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:01:08.76 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:01:08.97 | Director Phipps | or a fellow. |
| 00:01:10.28 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:01:11.72 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. doesn't. Chair Luxenberg. here. We have achieved quorum and all commissioners are present. Thank you, Trevor. |
| 00:01:21.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item in the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion for approval? |
| 00:01:28.19 | Kristina Feller | So moved. Thank you. |
| 00:01:31.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Phipps, if you could call roll. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:01:34.33 | Richard Graef | Bye. |
| 00:01:34.34 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:01:34.38 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 00:01:34.50 | Director Phipps | or thought. |
| 00:01:36.27 | Richard Graef | Yes. |
| 00:01:37.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Kraft? |
| 00:01:38.18 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:01:39.29 | Richard Graef | Excuse me, which date was this for? This is simply, |
| 00:01:44.00 | Director Phipps | This is simply the approval of this evening's agenda. |
| 00:01:47.74 | Richard Graef | Oh, the agenda, I'm sorry, I thought we were at minutes. |
| 00:01:52.15 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:01:54.26 | Richard Graef | Yes. |
| 00:01:55.37 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:02:02.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The next item is public comments for items not on this agenda. Director Phipps, if you can give instructions to any public that wants to talk about items that aren't on this evening's agenda. |
| 00:02:13.66 | Director Phipps | Certainly. 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 the agenda at a future meeting. video or audio of the comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment. or direct the subject to the agenda as in a future meeting. Video or audio of the comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:03:00.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll look and see on the list here, see if there's any raised hands. director fix i'm not seeing any raised hands are you seeing any raised hands Seeing none, sure. Okay, with that, we will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the approval of planning commission minutes. The first is the draft minutes for January 11th, 2023. Are there any questions? I'll look for raised hands for any questions on the draft minutes for January 11th. Seeing none, is there a motion to approve? |
| 00:03:43.69 | Kristina Feller | Motion to approve. second. |
| 00:03:47.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Director Pips, if you could call the roll. |
| 00:03:52.21 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:03:53.24 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:03:54.44 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:03:54.46 | Andrew Junius | I should say. |
| 00:03:54.54 | Director Phipps | Okay. |
| 00:03:54.59 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:03:54.64 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 00:03:54.85 | Andrew Junius | All right. |
| 00:03:54.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 00:03:58.71 | Andrew Junius | You're muted. Richard? You're muted. |
| 00:04:14.03 | Richard Graef | I still can't do that. but thumbs up. |
| 00:04:18.39 | Maria | Bye. |
| 00:04:18.40 | Richard Graef | Oh. |
| 00:04:19.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:04:19.62 | Richard Graef | Or a thumbs down. |
| 00:04:20.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Richard, if you can't get unmuted, if you could just thumbs up or thumbs down for approval of the minutes. |
| 00:04:34.42 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 00:04:34.44 | Andrew Junius | No vote for the minutes. |
| 00:04:35.97 | Maria | you No vote. |
| 00:04:36.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm just... I'm not sure what that is. |
| 00:04:41.88 | Andrew Junius | you're having some technical problems, Richard. |
| 00:04:41.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. Thank you. |
| 00:04:45.27 | Mary Wagner | For the record, we do need an oral roll call vote for action at remote meetings. |
| 00:04:51.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Richard, let's see if we can get your microphone fixed in some way. Um, |
| 00:05:00.76 | Nastassya Saad | Perhaps he can I call back in, so he's on audio on the phone. visual on his computer. |
| 00:05:08.29 | Unknown | you |
| 00:05:09.15 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 00:05:27.44 | Director Phipps | In the spirit of potentially moving this item forward, in the absence of Commissioner Graff's ability to provide oral yay or nay, would it make sense for us to see if we achieve at least three yay votes in connection with the approval of these minutes and move forward? City Attorney, open to any comments. |
| 00:06:02.30 | Mary Wagner | SUGGESTION THAT WE REVISIT THE THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM LATER. YEAH, I THINK THAT WE CAN DO THAT AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION. |
| 00:06:09.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so why don't we put this item on hold and we will take the minutes after the public hearing, but we're going to need to, we're just still going to need to call in to be able to before the next meeting. So we're still going to have to do that. Um... While we're on this item though, I just wanted to ask a question of Director Phipps, the minutes for the January 12th meeting, which were taken, I believe by the city clerk's office, do we have to approve those joint minutes as well? Or then maybe that's a city attorney Rudin question also. |
| 00:06:52.59 | Mary Wagner | Um, I don't see the harm in you approving them. Is that? Thank you. |
| 00:07:02.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We don't actually have them because they weren't sent to us, but once we get them, we have to approve them. |
| 00:07:02.58 | Mary Wagner | We don't have to. |
| 00:07:08.56 | Mary Wagner | Well, we'll address that issue if it... you know, you can't approve them if they're not on your agenda. So I think that's another point for this evening. |
| 00:07:16.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. I guess what my direction is, if you could find out whether we're supposed to approve them and then they can be agendized for our next meeting, but they obviously occur between January 11th and January 25th. So that's why I'm flagging it here. um, Thank you. All right, so Richard, can you try to call in or something. |
| 00:07:45.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... either try to call in or try to do something on your computer to increase the volume or something. I don't know. Does anybody know on Zoom if there's a way to increase the volume? Uh. I know you can change microphones |
| 00:08:06.57 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:08:06.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mm. Thank you. |
| 00:08:07.33 | Director Phipps | nothing we can do on our side. It has to do with his computer. |
| 00:08:12.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and if you go where it says mute on the bottom, and maybe you can pick a different microphone, Richard, try that. No. |
| 00:08:23.41 | Kristina Feller | Chair, can I suggest |
| 00:08:24.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | He's going to call in. Yes, what can you suggest? |
| 00:08:29.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. that somebody reach out and call him like director Phipps or possibly some other staff member. So he's |
| 00:08:37.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | He's calling in right now, he said. He's holding up his phone. So... Thank you. um |
| 00:08:49.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So Maria, if you could watch for if he shows up on the phone numbers. |
| 00:09:24.68 | Maria | Okay. |
| 00:10:02.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Maria, is he calling user too? |
| 00:10:08.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Richard, can you... Speak into the phone if that's you. |
| 00:10:21.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you hear me now? Now we can hear you. Yes. OK. All right. |
| 00:10:25.60 | Richard Graef | All right. Well, you're hearing me through my phone, and you're looking at me through my computer. |
| 00:10:26.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | While you're hearing me on my phone. And you're looking at me Thank you. |
| 00:10:32.32 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:10:32.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can see you through your computer. We can hear you through your phone. So let's go back to the agenda item. We were doing a roll call vote on the minutes for January 11th. And your vote on that is? |
| 00:10:41.42 | Richard Graef | Thank you, sir. Oh. |
| 00:10:57.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Richard? |
| 00:10:57.58 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 00:11:01.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Richard, you're muted again. |
| 00:11:05.88 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:11:05.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I agree. |
| 00:11:06.44 | Richard Graef | Keep. |
| 00:11:06.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:11:06.83 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:11:07.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm clicking on unmute. |
| 00:11:08.42 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:11:08.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There we go. We're good. |
| 00:11:08.69 | Richard Graef | There we go. |
| 00:11:11.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | On the minutes of January 11th, there was a vote being taken, Dr. Fix, that you can continue the role with Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:11:12.03 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:11:12.77 | Richard Graef | Bye. |
| 00:11:21.76 | Director Phipps | Yes, we received a yes from Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Graff? |
| 00:11:21.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | as we go. |
| 00:11:25.39 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:11:25.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | question. |
| 00:11:25.81 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 00:11:26.13 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:11:27.77 | Richard Graef | I abstained because I was not at that meeting. Thank you. |
| 00:11:30.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay? Now we understand the symbol that you were providing. Thank you. |
| 00:11:32.58 | Richard Graef | Now we're going to go. |
| 00:11:39.30 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller? |
| 00:11:40.31 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:11:41.81 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 00:11:44.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to watch that. |
| 00:11:46.47 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 00:11:46.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, let's move on to the meeting minutes for January 25th. Any questions, raise your hand if you have any questions regarding those minutes. Chris Scherzahn. |
| 00:12:02.28 | Nastassya Saad | I only had one note on line 17. It says both chairfellow and Sheryl Luxenberg seconded. I think it's just a typo. to call that out. |
| 00:12:14.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Um... |
| 00:12:19.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are there any other questions? |
| 00:12:19.88 | Nastassya Saad | I assume it means Commissioner Feller and Chair Luxenberg. No, no other questions. |
| 00:12:24.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So can I have a motion with that amendment? |
| 00:12:29.06 | Kristina Feller | motion to approve amendment. |
| 00:12:31.66 | Nastassya Saad | Seconded. |
| 00:12:34.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, we have a motion and a second. Director Phipps, call roll please. Thank you. |
| 00:12:40.37 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:12:40.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:12:41.06 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Yes. |
| 00:12:41.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:12:42.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:12:42.78 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:12:43.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:12:44.86 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:12:46.44 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:12:47.61 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:12:49.09 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:12:50.59 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:12:50.63 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:12:50.64 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:12:50.73 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 00:12:50.75 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 00:12:50.91 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:12:50.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:12:51.69 | Director Phipps | Fair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:12:56.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, next item is our public hearings. And before we do that, we'll go and see if the commissioners have any ex parte communications. So if we could start with Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:13:13.76 | Nastassya Saad | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:13:14.42 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF |
| 00:13:14.46 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 00:13:15.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:13:17.66 | Kristina Feller | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:13:19.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner McGrath. |
| 00:13:21.75 | Richard Graef | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:13:25.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Did you hear me? |
| 00:13:25.61 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 00:13:29.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Commissioner junior, Vice Chair, junior. |
| 00:13:33.69 | Andrew Junius | nothing to declare. |
| 00:13:35.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I have nothing to declare as well. So at this point, we're going to go to the public hearing on 7074 Liberty Ship, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:13:45.13 | Kristina Feller | Yes, just regarding Commissioner Graff, does he not need to recuse from this item? |
| 00:13:52.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was hoping he was going to do that with the extra, but he didn't. So, Commissioner Graff, do you want to recuse yourself for this item? |
| 00:13:54.97 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:13:54.99 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:13:55.38 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:13:55.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:06.01 | Richard Graef | Yes, apparently I need to do that. And I'm sorry I didn't catch that in the... other section there. What do I do here? So you're okay. |
| 00:14:19.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you can leave your sound on because you can participate as a resident of Sausalito, but you, in essence, step out of the room by turning your video off. and just indicate that you're recusing yourself because you will live within 500 feet of the project site. |
| 00:14:46.98 | Andrew Junius | Do we have to vote on that? Thank you. |
| 00:14:48.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... |
| 00:14:49.82 | Kristina Feller | I think he's muted. Sure. |
| 00:14:52.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, let's ask the city attorney Rudin, what specifically has to occur here? |
| 00:14:57.85 | Mary Wagner | Typically it would be the member who would make that statement, but I think it's fine that you've made it for him. Can you hear me now? He's made it clear he would like to recuse himself. |
| 00:15:05.07 | Richard Graef | It's been a year. |
| 00:15:06.17 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:15:10.64 | Mary Wagner | And he is allowed to participate as a member of the public during public comment if he would like to do so, but he doesn't have to. So I think, you know, given that he has stated his recusal, I think the item can go forward at this point. |
| 00:15:26.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, city attorney Rudin. Director Phipps, if you could describe for us the order of events for the public hearing and what people need to do in that regard. |
| 00:15:39.14 | Director Phipps | Certainly, Chair. Thank you. So for a regular public hearing, we start off with a staff presentation. This evening, Tricia Stevens, senior contract planner, will be providing a staff presentation in connection with the item. Following the presentation, there will be questions for staff or members of the Planning Commission. Following those questions, there will be an applicant presentation as desired, 15 minutes per team. The Planning Commission will have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. There will be public comment following commission questions, three minutes per speaker. There will be an opportunity for the applicant to provide rebuttal to public comment with reserve time, if applicable. And there will be a planning commission discussion, deliberation, and potential decision after that. |
| 00:16:33.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. For the planning commissioners, given the number of participants, I will ask for questions from, from, Planning commissioners of first of the staff and then the applicant at that time by raise of hands rather than calling on you to sort of expedite that part And so just raise your hands in the Zoom application or just physically raise your hands. When people have the opportunity to do the three minutes, if somebody indicates something that you wanted to say, you can feel free to say that you agree with somebody and you don't necessarily need to repeat what somebody else had to say. But again, everybody will be given three minutes to say whatever comments they have relative to the project. At the end of three minutes, the mics do go off, so be advised and we will put up the timer so you can see it. With that, I would like to turn it over to Tricia Stevens to give us a presentation regarding item 5A. So Tricia, if you could proceed with that. |
| 00:17:49.84 | Tricia Stevens | Can everybody, just a sec. Can everybody see me and see the screen okay? |
| 00:17:55.90 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:17:56.08 | Tricia Stevens | Yes. Yes. Okay. Good evening members of the commission. My name is Tricia Stevens and I'm a contract planner working on behalf of the city. I have here also Steve Peterson and Daniel Hoffman with DUDEC. They're the preparers of the CEQA document and they're here to help any questions. |
| 00:18:21.46 | Tricia Stevens | I won't go over the agenda since Brandon just did, I'd like to just describe the site and the project first. The project is located on a 3.9 acre site at the end of, Liberty Shipway adjacent to the Schumacher Marina. It's located in the industrial and waterfront zoning districts and in the general plan. And it's currently developed with dry boat storage. And it's adjacent to the Monomarsh and the trail. And to the southeast is the Galilee Harbor and then other industrial buildings to the west and southwest. |
| 00:19:13.99 | Tricia Stevens | The requested entitlements are a design review permit and a conditional use permit for a small food service facility, as well as adoption of the initial study and mitigated negative declaration. |
| 00:19:35.53 | Tricia Stevens | Here are some photos of the existing conditions. As I mentioned, it's in a... The existing conditions are about storage. These are some photos of, um, existing buildings on the side. on the beach of the Schumacher Marina, and then an aerial view showing the mono marsh and the trail system. |
| 00:20:04.70 | Tricia Stevens | Before I describe the project, here's a brief chronology of events associated with the project. I just wanted to highlight that the application was deemed complete in November of 2020. the first circulation of the mitigated neck deck was done in February of 2021. the Planning Commission at a study session in March of 2021, And then the MND was recirculated in October of 2019, It was also reviewed by the Historic Preservation Council Commission in October 2021. The Planning Commission had a second study session on October 20th, 2021. The project was also reviewed by the pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee in January. of 2022. The applicant, hosted a community meeting in September of 2022. And, um, And then the response to comments on the MND were made available to the public in August of 2022. |
| 00:21:33.35 | Tricia Stevens | Here is the site plan for the |
| 00:21:39.86 | Tricia Stevens | IT CONSISTS OF THREE BUILDINGS, BUILDING A, which is one that faces the bike trail and Mono Marsh. and building B which is on the north side. Up here is the Schumacher marina and the beach area. And then building C, is located at the Eastern edge. So this orients you to the general site plan. |
| 00:22:16.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:22:16.35 | Tricia Stevens | I have to pause my... There we go. Here's a summary of the proposed uses and the buildings. There's a total of 45,635 square feet combined in the building. three buildings. Building A. which is 17,679 square feet would have dry boat storage manufacturing and storage. warehousing. Building B. Building A and B are in the industrial district and then we're in ship and then the zoning. Building B, which is close to 17,000 square feet would house manufacturing, repair and maintenance. And, I just wanted to make a quick clarification about medical services. It does show that there might be some medical services. These would not be offices or clinics. There would be any kind of manufacturing related to medical devices, for example, or laboratories. And then building C, which is located in the waterfront district, would have marine industrial and marine commercial spaces with a small 20 seat food facility such as a deli. |
| 00:23:58.79 | Tricia Stevens | I'm going to show you a series of renderings of the proposed buildings. This is building A from the viewpoint of the bike trail. |
| 00:24:17.34 | Tricia Stevens | This is a closeup of building A on the south side. showing some of the enhancements that were made to the building in conjunction with the October 2021 study session. This is a view of building C looking kind of easterly at building C with building A on the right. And this is a rendering of the project entryway from Liberty ship with buildings A and B. |
| 00:24:58.28 | Tricia Stevens | In October of 2021, the applicant had prepared some modifications to the site plan and to the elevations in particular for building A in response to concerns about the architecture. So this slide shows some of the things that were added, including additional planters and recessing of the roll up doors and adding a notch and Um, adding some landscaping and recessed building facade in the middle. |
| 00:25:42.58 | Tricia Stevens | The project is subject to the 2021 general plan And, It is consistent with the waterfront and the industrial designations and the general plan. And some of the key policies in the general plan that are relevant to this project is that the, General plan promotes and encourages new marine industrial uses and promotes new industrial uses that are small scale, low traffic generating non polluting and contribute to the economic sustainability of the marine ship. And also general plan policies also speak to promoting and enhancing public access and enjoyment of the Sausalito waterfront from both the land and the water approaches. In Stasview, the project is consistent with the general plan. |
| 00:26:43.91 | Tricia Stevens | Also, um... The project is consistent with the Marin ship specific plan and the zoning ordinance. We analyzed it against all those standards and policies. And we have to do that. The proposed uses are allowed uses in the zone, the site, The project complies with the height and setback and building coverage and floor area ratio. and landscaping requirements of the zoning code. It requires with, complies with the parking requirements. There are 100 spaces, 90 of which are for the project and includes nine spaces available for the public during the weekdays. With regard to public access, I'm gonna talk about that in a little more detail in just a moment. In terms of the conditional use permit for the small scale restaurant, we feel that it's consistent with the findings for that conditional use permit and that it has a maximum of 20 seats and it's designed to serve employees of the project and that there would only be signage on the building and there would not be any offsite um, signage that directs people to the site. And then in terms of height and bulk and massing, I'm going to talk about that in a little more detail in just one moment. I'd like to talk a little bit about the mitigated negative declaration to comply with CEQA, an initial study mitigated MND, and I'll refer to it as the MND, was prepared and circulated twice and We have the response to the comments made on the environmental document provided in August of 2022. and also attached to the staff report or is it a supplemental memo that addresses further comments? And in summary, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. And In our analysis, there's no substantial evidence of a significant impacts that would trigger the preparation of EIR. And staff has reviewed all the noticing requirements with the city attorney and we feel that all the noticing complies with the requirements and in fact exceeds those base requirements. The M&D program. Uh, addresses a number of topic areas and provides mitigation mitigation measures on number of areas. I won't go through these one by one, But these are the seven topic areas that have mitigation measures. |
| 00:30:24.57 | Tricia Stevens | The first issue that I'd like to address The next part of my presentation is going to go through a number of issues that have been brought up and been raised as concerned by the planning commission and members and and the public, I think by far the most has to do with the mass and scale Um, and Mass and scale are evaluated based on the following factors. First one would be compliance with the development standards for height, floor area and building coverage. And in staff's view that the project complies with all those development standards, THE SECOND, evaluation is compliance with the design review and their marineship specific plan. findings related to massing and Those findings are that the project would be consistent with the general scale of structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and district, and also that the proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views from private property. |
| 00:31:58.04 | Tricia Stevens | And the third area of analysis would be policies related to view corridors. With respect to the design review findings for compatibility with existing structures. A staff's view is that the proposed buildings are similar in scale with other building buildings in the Marin ship and the vicinity. And here are some photos of some of the existing buildings in along Liberty ship way. |
| 00:32:41.65 | Tricia Stevens | With respect to the design review findings, Well, with respect to views, I'm going to First talk about private views and then public views. Story polls have been erected to show the height and width of the proposed buildings. um, And in looking at private views in particular, in particular from Galilee Harbor, The analysis shows that the that some of the views of Mount Tam may be blocked by the project, but some of those views are still maintained and they're intermittent views. The proposed, the project attempts to minimize Um, the obstruction of use from private property, And even though there is still some view blockage. However, in our view, there's no requirement to maintain all of existing conditions. So this, in this photos, this shows the story pulls. in this location and this location. And then this is a rendering of the buildings from from Galilee Harbor. |
| 00:34:08.61 | Tricia Stevens | With respect to public views, the M&D aesthetic section looked at established view quarters in the Marinship Specific Plan and views from public. spaces. The conclusion from this analysis is that public views from the bike trail are actually enhanced by the elimination of the storage area. and that intermittent views of Mount Tam are maintained And then, The specific plan has a couple of view quarters that there's policies that speak to that and view corridor I, our views from Bridgeway towards Richardson Bay and the And the renderings show that those views are maintained as well as views from Dunphy Park. |
| 00:35:12.61 | Tricia Stevens | The next issue that I wanted to talk about was sea level rise and The main general plan policy that informs sea level rise is essentially states that Sea level rise modeling in particular, the BayWave modeling will be used as a base for city documents and plans. The CEQA analysis focuses on flooding and as sea level rises and listed as a CEQA impact, And in your materials, you have the applicant's analysis, including their engineer's analysis of the relationship to the Bay wave modeling and sea level rise projections. And you also have comments from the sea level rise task force as well as the applicants response to the task force's comments. The basic conclusion of this analysis is that the finished floors would be above the meantime mean tide in 2100, and the final result would be by based on, those predictions and it would be five to seven feet above that level and the project would also be above the 500 year flood level. And And the conclusion that we reached from this analysis is that the project would not exacerbate or alter the impact of sea level rise on the project or adjacent properties. And the applicant will be prepared to go into more detail if necessary on this analysis in terms of the project. looking at the different projections for sea level rise for the community. |
| 00:37:24.89 | Tricia Stevens | The next issue I wanted to talk about was the pedestrian bicycle trail next to the next to the marsh and the project provides five connections to the bike trail. And it also includes bollards and lighting along those connection points. Project provides nine spaces available during business hours. and on weekends and evenings. And then there's eight spaces that would be available in the evenings and during the weekends. the signage would be posted throughout the Um, a project using the BCDC signage requirements. |
| 00:38:29.39 | Tricia Stevens | Sorry, it's not advancing here. Sorry, there we go. These are some photos of the bike trail. It extends from the Southeast and it was constructed in about 1990 and it connects to Schumacher beach. And this is a photo of the existing conditions on the bike trail. |
| 00:39:00.16 | Tricia Stevens | In response to the some of the comments that have been received and comments from the planning commission. We looked into the history of the bike trail and existing easements and maintenance responsibilities and the construction of the bike trail was a requirement of the BCDC permits. And then the assignments for maintenance of the trail were made subsequent to that and the subject property, that's before you here has maintenance responsibility for the landscaping next to the bike trail and Um, and the interface, but the the Schumacher Marina property owners, which is a separate property. have maintenance responsibilities over the bike trail itself Um, The pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee did review this and I'm sure it's |
| 00:40:13.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just interrupt you there? I want to understand that particular issue. Is... Who owns the bike trail? Is it been deeded? Is there an easement? Do we have a document that describes all this? |
| 00:40:28.53 | Tricia Stevens | Um, The underlying property is owned by the subject property And there are easements, there's an easement for the bike trail. That's to the benefit of the city to ensure public access, but the maintenance of the bike trail itself is under the responsibility of the of Schumacher Marina, |
| 00:40:54.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do we have documents that describe that? Yes. |
| 00:40:57.72 | Tricia Stevens | Yes, yes, there is documents that do describe that. |
| 00:41:03.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are they within the documents we have this evening or are there additional documents you need to send us? |
| 00:41:08.71 | Tricia Stevens | Um, Some of the... Thank you. history of those assignments of these is pretty convoluted and we did not attach those to the staff report we did provide the Commission with the BCDC permits for this. |
| 00:41:29.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. I'll ask more questions later about that. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. |
| 00:41:33.90 | Tricia Stevens | Okay. And there was quite a bit of discussion at the advisory committee about the trail and some of the blocked views. And the Schumacher Marina property owners, they've recently repaved the trail and they removed or trimmed some of the vegetation that was either dead or that blocked views. And so in the particular case here, the applicant is responsible for improvements that are under their control and there are conditions in the resolution that speak to their responsibilities for landscaping and a open fence and bollards and signage and so forth. |
| 00:42:33.49 | Tricia Stevens | Another issue was... THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND WE REVIEWED THE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS AND WE The conclusion is that this project that's before you today is a separate parcel. Duly approved and recorded in a separate from the other properties in the area, there are existing. easements for joint access and reciprocal parking, which are private, private easements, And and after looking at all this, we did not feel that there's any obligation for this project to address deficiencies on other properties. |
| 00:43:34.29 | Tricia Stevens | Another issue was transportation. |
| 00:43:45.04 | Tricia Stevens | And there was a traffic study that was prepared. that analyze the generation from the project and impacts on intersections and roadways in the area. and the mitigation measures in the MND, are that They're is a need for the extension of the eastbound left turn lane at Easterby Street and Bridgeway intersections and that the applicant would be obligated to pay a fair share amount towards that improvement. And that fair share amount is 84%. You've also received comments from adjacent property owners about the need for other improvements in the Marin ship. in particular pedestrian and bicycle facilities and the need for an assessment district or improvement district is a separate issue from this project. In terms of onsite circulation, we noted that there is a choke point that we're going to be This is sort of kind of upside down here. So I apologize for that. And there is a choke point at the entryway to the project. Um, coming in here. So part of it will be one way for the time being And then And then when these other buildings might be demolished or changed, um, the applicant has will be obligated to widen it to a two-way where they have control over it and this plan here shows the accessible parking being dispersed and accessible passive travel connected to the trail and the beach and restrooms And final compliance with ADA requirements will be confirmed at the time of building permits. Some of the other issues that have come up are the impact on mono marsh and that is addressed in the MND and the response to comments. And the conclusion is basically that there would be There may be some construction impacts. from construction to wildlife and habitat. However, the applicants would be required to use best management practice to reduce those impacts. With regard to historic resources, if the commission recalls that there are some historic railroad tracks in a portion of the property, And that was the reason for the recirculated MND. in October of 2021. And this was also reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Mitty. and that the mitigation basically calls for covering the tracks and providing documentation There are also questions about whether or not storage is an allowed use. And we did go back and look at the definitions of warehousing and distribution and that the proposed storage is in compliance with the allowed uses and that warehousing does include storage Um, Thank you. We also confirm that the floor area ratio conforms with the zoning code. It's a different metric than building coverage and the project complies with boats. With regard to the small boat tie ups, there is a, standard in the a marinship specific plan that calls for small tie ups in conjunction with waterfront development. However, in this case, the project fronts on the Mono Marsh and and We did not feel that it's feasible or practical to provide the tie ups on the subject property. And, so that that would impact the marsh too much. So this is a finding that the planning commission would need to make that it's not feasible to provide the boat tie-ups on this project because of its location next to the marsh. And economic viability was also an issue that was raised and economic analysis project. And it's not normal part of the planning review Um, And that's essentially a separate matter. And the rates, there was concern about the rates lease rates and those would be, um, uh, at market value. as well. Just a few other notes on noticing. We, looked at, went back and re-looked at all the noticing for the original and the recirculated MND and there were mailed and email notices published in the Marin independent journal and posted on the property. And so- I complies and exceeds all secret requirements for noticing the M E MND, and then for the public hearing tonight, all the noticing required by the city in terms of mailing to property owners within 300 feet and posting of the property have been met. And, In addition to that, we sent out a massive list of email notification to interested parties as well. |
| 00:50:31.42 | Tricia Stevens | There's been quite a few public comments and the comments on the MND were included in the response to comments and the applicant sponsored a community meeting. in September of 2022. And the applicant summary of that meeting was an attachment to the staff report And then there were about 18 comments attached to staff report, and then over 40 comments provided prior to the hearing that were distributed. to the planning commission in about just every couple of days. so that you have received all the comments that have been submitted. So staff recommendation for this evening is for the commission. to adopt both resolutions as attachments one and two to your staff report. Attachment one is adoption. of the initial study MND. with findings. And attachment two is a resolution to approve the design review permit and the conditional use permit for the small scale food facility, with the findings and conditions in that resolution. And with that, that concludes my presentation. And I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. |
| 00:52:07.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Stevens, thank you for your presentation. At this time, we're going to have the commissioners I have questions from the commissioners. Before we do that, I just want one clarification on the drawings just so we're on the same page. you indicated that there were changes to the drawings. The drawings, has a series of dates on the drawings, the last of which is October 7, 2021. And then subsequent to that date, we held the study session. And you indicated in the report that they made changes as a result of that, but the drawings don't show that. So were the drawings, do they have the wrong dates on them or do they... |
| 00:52:48.16 | Tricia Stevens | Maybe. |
| 00:52:49.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Or they haven't been changed yet. |
| 00:52:49.19 | Tricia Stevens | or they haven't been. The October 7th is the correct dates. And these were the drawings that were presented to the commission at the study session. And the changes that I described were changes that were made just prior to the October, 2021, planning commission study session, and there've not been any changes to those plans since then. |
| 00:53:18.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So any of the comments we made related to design that did affect the drawings, none of those changes have been incorporated into the drawings is what you're telling me. |
| 00:53:29.61 | Tricia Stevens | The plans have not changed since then. I think the applicant would be the one to respond to why or why not further changes have not been made. |
| 00:53:42.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you very much. At this time, we'll go through and ask questions. I'm just gonna look for raised hands for people, if we could just raise your hand in the Zoom or whatever. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:53:57.57 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Thank you, Trisha. I have a few kind of detailed questions are coming out of staff reports. I'll just try to take them in order. So, I may. find my notes. Um, On page 15 of the staff report, It says, There's a concept that I'm not sure I'm going I'm understanding. It's... And I don't know if it's easier if I share my screen or if you'd like to pull up if we wanna look at the same, but I'll just read it out in the meantime. but I'm on page 15 and it says, The project greatly enhances access to the existing bicycle and pedestrian pathway. And then it says in quotes, opens up the area for greater security. And I'm not, I'm sure I'm following that concept. Could you expand on that just a little bit? |
| 00:54:53.09 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:54:53.10 | Tricia Stevens | Yeah, that reference the fact that the project provides the access points onto the bike trail that currently don't exist with the boat storage. And then in terms of security, by having more people around, people in the parking lot, people accessing. the trail that has more eyes on the trail if you will that results and better security and better, um, public viewing of the of the trail. |
| 00:55:27.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:55:28.15 | Tricia Stevens | Thank you. |
| 00:55:28.17 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, okay, thank you, that makes sense. Um, And then do we know if building A and C are considered to be on the shoreline specifically, this is coming from page, um, 17 where it goes through the you know, compliance and development standards. And there's that asterisk. for height specifically, but I'm wondering if if we consider building A and building C. to be on the board. the shoreline. Um, |
| 00:56:05.11 | Tricia Stevens | you Building A would be on the shoreline of Mono Marsh. It's not directly on the shoreline of the Bay, but it's on the shoreline of Mono Marsh. And building C, |
| 00:56:28.77 | Tricia Stevens | Hold on for a sec. And. |
| 00:56:38.82 | Tricia Stevens | There's intervening property between building C and and the bay and that property is owned by Schumacher Marina. where there's the beach. Um, But if the... Beach is considered to be part of the shoreline. So then, yes, sea would. possibly be considered part of the shoreline as well. |
| 00:57:02.08 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I'm asking specifically because of the a marine ship specific plan. So a little bit further down in the document on page 19, it's mentioning that new buildings on the shoreline should be less than 32 feet unless it's demonstrated. at the 30 foot, two foot height is required. because of the industrial nature. And I just want I could save this also for the applicant if it's better suited, but I was wondering in staff's opinion if that 32 feet. that's being proposed. is A REQUIREMENT. based on that industrial nature. Um, why perhaps we're not looking to reduce that height from the staff report. |
| 00:57:53.28 | Tricia Stevens | Well, the way we looked at it is that this is a marine industrial building and that the height is appropriate for the site. and we did not see that there was extenuating factors that a lower height would be needed in this case. Thank you. |
| 00:58:17.07 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 00:58:17.32 | Tricia Stevens | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:58:17.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Um, I'd also like to ask on page This is the going to look at figure nine. And, Let me jump there myself. So on page 24, it has figure nine, looking north from Galilee Harbor. community to the site. And I think you show these renderings in your presentation as well. I just want to make sure I'm understanding because as far as, My eye can see based on the renderings And it's also probably inclusive with the landscaping plan I don't see Mount Tam at all. So I'm just wondering from the staff report, Is that your, was the interpretation that, The views are not blocked. |
| 00:59:11.36 | Tricia Stevens | Um, When we looked at this and I... Did you want me to share? Let me go back. |
| 00:59:17.60 | Nastassya Saad | I think, I know it's in your, yeah, it's definitely in your presentation. So it just might be useful for all looking at the same. |
| 00:59:18.55 | Tricia Stevens | I know it's a |
| 00:59:30.11 | Tricia Stevens | to that slide just a sec. |
| 00:59:37.95 | Unknown | you |
| 00:59:48.55 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, that's the one. |
| 00:59:53.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:59:53.44 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:59:53.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:59:53.90 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:59:54.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:59:57.95 | Nastassya Saad | So those are the story polls compared to renderings. And the way it's written in the staff report is that the view is not impacted. Um, And I just want to make sure I'm, We're all looking at the same view. And I can leave this for the applicant as well if they're listening. I just, I'm not seeing how this is, conclusion with what's in the in the report. I'm just going to note that so we can not waste time and I'll move on. I do have a rather specific- From our perspective, |
| 01:00:28.11 | Tricia Stevens | Rather specific. It's, |
| 01:00:32.48 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:00:32.49 | Tricia Stevens | that that some of the views are impacted, but they're not completely eliminated is what we're trying to say. Right. Thank you. |
| 01:00:41.01 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 01:00:41.13 | Tricia Stevens | Thank you. |
| 01:00:41.23 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:00:41.27 | Tricia Stevens | Okay. |
| 01:00:41.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:00:41.74 | Tricia Stevens | Thank you. |
| 01:00:41.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I may even need help. asking this question. I'm looking at page 35, and this comes down to the vehicle miles traveled impact. And what it's mentioning is that Um, the city can screen out the VMTs. They don't apply to smaller projects. And then it goes on to say, since the proposed project. proposes a high percentage of local serving such as marine commercial, restaurant and medical offices. It's not anticipated to increase and BMT significantly. And I'm wondering, If, since there's a conditional use permit for the restaurant. And, you know, we're not, we're saying that there are not medical offices, rather potentially manufacturing. Would that have any impact? potentially change the city's the ability to screen out those VMTs. Does that question make sense? |
| 01:01:44.03 | Tricia Stevens | Yeah. Yeah, and I'd like to turn things over to our secret preparers on that one. We have Daniel Hoffman and Steve Peterson here. Great. |
| 01:01:55.11 | Daniel Hoffman | Bye. High Commission. So In terms of VMT, in our initial study, I want to determine that there are two reasons why. Excuse me. we can screen out. The first is that the total square footage of the project. is under 50,000 square feet. And then the other is that those proposed uses are local serving. and they're within a half mile |
| 01:02:21.96 | Kristina Feller | uh, |
| 01:02:22.33 | Daniel Hoffman | high quality transit. such as Highway 101, And frankly, I Thank you. Thank you. To answer your question, Yeah, multiple vehicles to screen out the BMT. |
| 01:02:37.86 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so you're you're saying in your opinion then that, if that restaurant wasn't there and those medical offices as we know won't be there, that won't impact that analysis. |
| 01:02:46.18 | Unknown | I'm not sure. correct. |
| 01:02:57.72 | Kristina Feller | You're on mute there, Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:03:00.88 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Feller. I just had one more question in terms of the circulation, the onsite circulation, page 36. And this was also in your presentation. It's it's mentioning 60 D Liberty way that potentially to be redone to accommodate two way traffic. That's not in scope of it. of this project. the one-way traffic Um, that was mentioned. Is that sufficient according to staff. that we're not relying on the potential for this other project. to come about or not come about for that two-way change and widening the street. Is it as designed without taking into account 60D? um, acceptable. I suppose is my question. |
| 01:03:49.90 | Tricia Stevens | Bye. So, I think that's a good question. So. The one way choke point is considered to be acceptable but not ideal. Um, and it does meet fire district requirements. We just wanted there where it's under the control of the applicant that if that other building goes away that um, That would be adjusted in order to be a two-way two-way street, which would be better But the one way still meets basic requirements. And I could certainly ask Kevin McCowan if he wanted to comment on that as well. |
| 01:04:41.69 | Kevin McGowan | Good evening, commissioners, Kevin McGowan, Department of Public Works. I believe that that choke point is outside of the limits of this actual property. So requiring this applicant to do work on somebody else's property is not appropriate. In addition, these streets are not maintained by the city itself. So when this development, whatever it is in the future comes up, I believe Trisha is correct that we would like to see that section of the roadway widened. And to answer your question specifically, I think Trisha answered it. The fire department thinks that it is clear as far as as its width. And so that's why we're recommending moving forward at this point in time. |
| 01:05:21.80 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:05:21.83 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:05:24.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Kevin. Thank you, Tricia, and thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Those are all the questions I had. |
| 01:05:30.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Questions for Trisha? |
| 01:05:36.34 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg and Tricia. Thank you for all your work on this to date. I want to go back though. Um, to chair Luxembourg's question about the drawings. So these drawings have not been updated since the October 2021 study session. I have to ask why we're here at all. We were very, very clear. I listened to that tape in great detail again today. I listened to the March 2021 video again today. And we have been very consistent and unanimous actually in our comments regarding the monolithic nature. And I'm using that word that we're doing because that's the way it was described. by many this monolithic design that really does have significant view impacts. So I'm wondering why we're here at all if there has been no change to what we've already seen. Have you been working with the applicant and asking them to revise their work? |
| 01:06:50.46 | Tricia Stevens | home. We've asked the applicant whether or not they intend to revise the project based on the concerns I think I'm gonna have the applicant respond, I think in essence is that They, I don't know that they felt like the planning commission gave them specific direction to change things that that would be discussed more at this public hearing in terms of exactly what's acceptable and not acceptable. |
| 01:07:23.05 | Kristina Feller | Well, let me refer them to the October 2021 video, and they can go to hour four, minute 17, where it's actually fairly detailed in terms of what our comments are. And then once again, at hour four, minute 25, where we ask them, again, to listen to the input that we're giving because they didn't listen in March. They came back and didn't listen to what we saw in October and we're seeing October drawings again. I'm not going to belabor this, but I want that to be very, very clear. And I call those times out so anybody else can reference those as well. But this is... disappointment that we are looking at the same thing that we did not respond well to before. So I'm going to move on to my next comments. Regarding the issue with storage that I believe Vice Chair Junius brought up in October of 2021. Um, I would ask that you please go back to the definition of storage because I looked at it after he brought that item up. And, um, It mentions storage yards are certainly permitted, but warehousing, I think has a different meaning than just large bulk storage inside rather than in a yard. And so the accessory storage is certainly acceptable as well. So the question is what the storage is an accessory to. So I'd ask that you look into that. Um, I'm curious about you mentioned on page one of the staff report that the name of the ownership of this project has changed. And, um, That's certainly within the right of an applicant to do the name of their company. But the question is, does that have any implication to any of the ownership of what we're looking at or any of the easements or any other impacts to the project in front of us here or the project sponsor. |
| 01:09:43.85 | Tricia Stevens | Based on the information we received, the applicants have an LLC and they're changing the name of that LLC. I don't know who, what owners are behind that LLC. We understood it to be simply a change in name of the LLC. |
| 01:10:05.08 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I certainly don't want to get into their business. I just want to know if there's any impact to what's in front of us here. |
| 01:10:12.81 | Tricia Stevens | We did not see any impacts to What's in front of us here? |
| 01:10:17.01 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. And then you, I'm happy to see that one thing that the applicant did listen to is the issue regarding sea level rise. But it's not just the sea level rise, it's also the issue of subsidence. And and whether or not this waterfront property or part of this property is waterfront and zoned as such. Is vulnerable to the subsidence and so the question is, is how much of that is. has been included in the MND, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Uh, cause it looks like the sea level rise task force, um, their findings and their input occurred after you closed public comment on the MND. So I want to understand if that's somehow included in there and would impact the MND. |
| 01:11:16.51 | Tricia Stevens | I'd like to see if Steve or Daniel can take a shot at that. |
| 01:11:31.24 | Daniel Hoffman | and take a shot. In terms of this is a a new issue for me, in terms of subsidence, and the direct impact to that on the MND. Um, I don't believe there's an initial study checklist question God. would be impacted from any new information provided. um, from, the last couple months, the recirculation or any of the comments? I received. |
| 01:12:08.50 | Kristina Feller | So are we guessing or do we know? |
| 01:12:12.45 | Kristina Feller | I know. |
| 01:12:12.84 | Unknown | you |
| 01:12:14.85 | Kristina Feller | So there's no impact with any issues regarding subsidence to an MND? |
| 01:12:15.02 | Unknown | There's no interest. |
| 01:12:15.54 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:12:24.26 | Richard Graef | Correct. |
| 01:12:25.88 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, then I wanted to go on, Tricia, you've, I think, um, I want to go back to the marineship specific plan, the general plan, and the general plan update. And general plan I'm referring to is 1995, general plan update I'm referring to is the 2021, because you've contradicted yourself now in this hearing versus the previous two study sessions. You said that in this hearing that we're here together with right now. that it's the general plan update, which is the 2021 document, that prevails. Ian. The previous two, it's the general plan 1995 and the marineship specific plan. And in the previous we actually asked you to modify your table, And the table that I'm referring to, let me just move to it. is, starting in the staff report, Let me just find it. on page, it starts on page 12 and goes on for a couple pages. It's table three general plan policies and you're talking again about the 2021 general plan policy. But, So there's a contradiction here. and an inconsistency. And I want to get this right. And I want to get it straight, not just for this commission, But for everybody involved here, including the applicants. So can you please clarify that? |
| 01:14:10.27 | Tricia Stevens | Yes, apparently... going into the prior study sessions, there was an understanding that the, 1995 general plan would be the operable one based on the date the application. was Deemed complete. However, since then the city attorney has. clarified that it is indeed the 2021. a general plan that's applicable to your findings and hearing today. And, um, We apologize for that confusion, but the bottom line is it's the 2021 general plan that's applicable. |
| 01:14:56.56 | Kristina Feller | So Sergio, do you mind weighing in on that? Because I really want to be absolutely beyond reproach here on this since we've had two previous study sessions about it. AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S THE 2021. Thank you. |
| 01:15:14.80 | Mary Wagner | There's a very simple answer to that, and that is that General plan, specific plan and zoning code that are in effect at the time that you take action on a permit are what govern the permit. With some exceptions. There are some exceptions in state law that vest rights into an applicant at the time an application is deemed complete. Those include preliminary applications under SB 330, Applications for a vested tentative map. approval of a tentative map, sometimes we'll vest rights into an applicant. And then there's rights under a development agreement, but generally those are the exception to the general rule that you apply the laws that you have in place when you take action on a permit. So that's. |
| 01:16:02.56 | Kristina Feller | That's okay. |
| 01:16:03.30 | Mary Wagner | That's the general rule. |
| 01:16:04.82 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. That's very, very helpful. And don't don't go away because I mean, Trisha, you're still referencing the marineship specific plan in our discussions here. So can you explain how you're using that as it relates to the general plan 2021 because we have to get this right. |
| 01:16:28.14 | Tricia Stevens | I'm not sure. I'll take a shot at that briefly and then city attorney can certainly add to that. the project would be subject to all adopted plans and ordinances that are in effect. So we have the general plan and we have the specific plan, which is of course very old. And then we have the zoning ordinance and we analyze the project against all three to inform its compliance |
| 01:17:07.70 | Kristina Feller | Okay. But I just want to level set for everybody's benefit. So thank you. for that. The next thing I wanted to ask you is in the previous October study session, we asked you to provide HPC's findings and certification regarding the rail tracks and how those can be basically covered. and handled. And I didn't see that in our package. And there had been a point made earlier that All of those things convey into what we're looking at tonight. And so when we do make findings, if we do make findings, all of that information needs to be part of what we're making our findings on. So if you could make sure that that's included properly, to this commission that would be really helpful. The other question I had was regarding what you're calling a restaurant. And- Um, I'm looking on page 21 of the staff report. And I want to ask you, If a needs analysis has been completed, that justifies the size of this restaurant. |
| 01:18:33.35 | Tricia Stevens | Well, the findings for under the for small scale restaurants is, um, The occupancy is less than 20 persons, which it is, and that the location and signing does not encourage you by persons outside the Marin ship. There are conditions related to the signing As far as the needs analysis. that was provided by the applicant. And it's essentially based on the premise that there will be 84 full-time equivalent employees on the site. And that based on, the number of new employees and existing employees, that there is a need for a small-scale organization. um, food service or lunches and so forth. Um, So we've relied on the needs analysis and the number of employees provided by the applicant. |
| 01:19:45.36 | Kristina Feller | So have you seen the needs analysis? I did not see it in the package. |
| 01:19:50.74 | Tricia Stevens | It was quoted in the staff report Yeah. |
| 01:19:53.85 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 01:19:53.90 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 01:19:54.03 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. That's why. about it. |
| 01:19:55.67 | Tricia Stevens | I got it. Yeah, the italic area is the analysis that was provided by the applicant on the top of page 22. |
| 01:20:08.97 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, that's what I'm asking about. I mean, it's not... |
| 01:20:13.47 | Tricia Stevens | Exactly. |
| 01:20:14.50 | Kristina Feller | clear what this needs analysis is. That's why I'm asking about it because I'm on page 21 there are three items here and the first is a needs analysis and I'm I have not seen a needs analysis so I'm just asking you about that so we obviously haven't seen it but |
| 01:20:34.73 | Tricia Stevens | Well, the needs analysis is, Thank you. what was submitted by the applicant that's in italics and staff report. So you feel that it's an adequate needs analysis, but that's |
| 01:20:42.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:20:42.08 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:20:42.41 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 01:20:46.07 | Tricia Stevens | the analysis that was provided. |
| 01:20:47.78 | Kristina Feller | It's definitely not a needs analysis, but the question is, The second question I have about it is if there are 84 FTEs that they're planning on in this new development You also mentioned existing staff. Is that for staff outside of this development in the area, but not within this project. |
| 01:21:11.61 | Tricia Stevens | Well, I was just referring to other industrial buildings in the area that may have this need as well. I don't have numbers on... the employees of those other buildings. |
| 01:21:25.41 | Kristina Feller | Well, neither does the needs analysis. That's the whole point is that there doesn't seem to be much justification for it. But let me, in the interest of time, let me just perhaps keep going here. I wanted to... Um, I wanted to go back to the whole issue of traffic and circulation. because Um, And I hope. I hope I wrote this down right because it leads to the question, but there are 706 daily trips to this site. Just this site, not outside of this site, just this site. Is that correct? |
| 01:22:08.93 | Tricia Stevens | Yeah, that's the average daily traffic that would be generated by this project. |
| 01:22:16.32 | Kristina Feller | That is significantly more than what was quoted to us before starting in March of 2021. It's over double. So I'm scared. That's a big, big number for 84 people. FTEs. So in 100 parking spots. So can you can you unpack this for me? Because I'm I can't justify the math here. |
| 01:22:46.39 | Tricia Stevens | Um... I think I could ask our CEQA people to elaborate on that, but most of the analysis done in terms of impacts is really based on the peak hour trips. and that's what most of the analysis is based on, the 59 a.m. peak hour trips and the 71 p.m. peak hour trips. |
| 01:23:17.23 | Kristina Feller | but over 700 daily trips is it's exorbitant. I'd like to really understand this. on your team that can help explain this. Like I said, this is over way over double. It's you know, twice as big as what we, I mean, it's huge. I think we were quoted. Certainly we were about 250 trips before daily trips. So I want to understand what this is, what's included in it, because that is a huge departure for a project that has not been the design has not changed. |
| 01:24:01.56 | Tricia Stevens | We'd have to go back and look and see what that difference is. that you're referring to. We'd have to go back and look at that. So maybe if we can have a little bit of time to, to look at the picture. |
| 01:24:16.61 | Kristina Feller | Of course. um, Then regarding the parking for public use, I'm looking at table five on page 18 of the staff report. Just curious how that was calculated. Like why nine? Is it an arbitrary number? Is it a certain calculation? |
| 01:24:39.78 | Tricia Stevens | It is a certain calculation and I'm gonna maybe need a few minutes to go back and quote that. |
| 01:24:48.64 | Kristina Feller | Okay, yeah, I totally understand that. And I'm going to finish with a final question. I have so many more, but I think you're getting the theme of my questions here. Um, But I'm looking on page 17 at table 4. And then on page 19, where the structures, where there's a italicized piece about the marineship specific plan and that Um, the three buildings won't exceed 32 feet. But I go back to the table on table four on page 17. And the last two lines are about the building coverage and the floor area ratios. And I note that you know, The. the proposed building coverages or, you know, less than half on both A and B and then C. and they're obviously expressed in different columns. So because you have Was there any attempt to try to... redesign this in your interactions with this applicant where they could make better use of some of the other areas that they're allowed to build on. without creating this monolithic Um, you know, expression overall on the site. and we could mitigate a lot of the issues that were brought up consistently in March 2021 and October 2021. |
| 01:26:28.81 | Tricia Stevens | Um, I think that question is probably best asked to the applicant in terms of their thought pattern on making changes or not making changes. |
| 01:26:39.39 | Kristina Feller | I will ask them, I'm asking you if you've had that discussion with them. |
| 01:26:43.67 | Tricia Stevens | In a general sense, we have, we've asked them whether or not They were making changes and They have indicated that they wanted to wait until this hearing to Um, figure out a more precise direction from the commission. |
| 01:27:07.97 | Kristina Feller | more concise than what's already been provided. |
| 01:27:15.70 | Tricia Stevens | Okay. |
| 01:27:16.38 | Kristina Feller | I WANT TO BE ABLE TO Chair Luxenberg, I'm going to stop here. I've got other questions about types, but I'll save that for later. Thank you. |
| 01:27:26.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. At this point, Vice Chair Junius, questions of staff at this time? Okay, I will provide some questions also. First of all, could you find and forward, Tricia, the easement for the bike path and the maintenance agreement with Schumacher Marina to us so that we can see that. In a similar vein, offsite on the plans, they indicate they're moving eight spaces that are public access right now from one place to another place on property they don't own. So is there an agreement or an easement that allows them to move those? FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER PLACE ON PROPERTY THEY DON'T OWN. SO IS THERE AN AGREEMENT OR AN EASEMENT THAT ALLOWS THEM TO MOVE THOSE 8 SPACES? |
| 01:28:17.09 | Tricia Stevens | I... So yes, right to the north of building B, There's some shifting around of the parking spaces. and in order to provide for the access points and the applicant, there is a, an agreement with a property owner to the north in order to allow that to happen. |
| 01:28:44.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you forward us a copy of that? |
| 01:28:46.40 | Tricia Stevens | Okay, yeah. |
| 01:28:47.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Um, I'm going to second Commissioner Saad's concern about figure nine. I also went out and looked at Galilee Harbor's views. And other than that, who took picture number nine? Was that from you or from the applicants? Figure nine. Who took that photograph? |
| 01:29:13.56 | Judy Stocker | Thank you. |
| 01:29:13.57 | Tricia Stevens | Um, |
| 01:29:18.70 | Tricia Stevens | that was taken by the applicant. |
| 01:29:23.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | by the applicant. And so for your information, I don't know if you've had a chance Have you had a chance to walk the, in Galilee Harbor from the dirt path, to the end of the votes? Have you had the opportunity to do that? |
| 01:29:38.23 | Tricia Stevens | Um... I've walked to the entrance, but not all the way through. |
| 01:29:43.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so that photograph is probably the only spot on that thing where you can see Mount Tan. All of the others are, you walk maybe 10 feet to the left or right of that particular point. They put the one spot that there's a clearing, but most of it there's not. So I just wanna make that note, because in the staff report, you're indicating that there are not significant view block Thank you. MOST OF IT THERE'S NOT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT NOTE, BECAUSE IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU'RE INDICATING THAT THERE ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT VIEW BLOCKAGES, BUT THERE ARE. I MEAN, OTHER THAN THAT ONE PARTICULAR SPOT, WHICH STILL HAS VIEW BLOCKAGES, BUT NOT OF MOUNTAIN. MY NEXT QUESTION RELATES TO THIS TRAFFIC BREAKDOWN AND DISCUSSION. square footages that for the staffing and the traffic that are in the um uh that are in the mnd and then there are traffic there are square footage breakdowns that are on the first sheet of the drawings those are not the same so the the square footages on don't match and the square footage is tied to employees and cars. So why are the numbers in the MNND not the same as the first sheet of the drawings? |
| 01:31:08.76 | Tricia Stevens | We'll have to go back and double check that. But in an overall sense that the applicant provided a mix of uses, a combination of marine commercial and manufacturing and storage Um, And that's what the traffic study was based on. That mix of uses may change. And I'm gonna let our CEQA folks talk about that a little bit. the parking is based on the proposed mix of uses. And if that mix changes, say there's more manufacturing and in one building and more warehousing and the other Um, the relationship between the mix of uses and the parking would be looked at with the building permits to make sure that all the parking is in compliance, but with regard to how that affects the traffic study, I'm gonna have our CEQRA prepares Um, address that aspect of it. But in terms of why there's discrepancy, I guess I didn't realize there was one and we'll go back and double check that. |
| 01:32:37.86 | Daniel Hoffman | Yeah, for sure. Are you asking about Another USMIT scenario, I just wanna understand the question a little bit better. |
| 01:32:46.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I have concerns about what was just said about if the uses change. So if the uses change and the mix is different at the time of the building permit, because they haven't nailed down the uses and they don't have enough parking, What happens then? Thank you. They have to come back. |
| 01:33:06.33 | Tricia Stevens | with regard to parking, they would need to verify with each building permit that there is adequate parking based on the uses of their the final mix of uses and the tenants that they have. So they will need to, ensure that when they get their building permit, but the parking complies with the mix of uses that are shown on the plans. Absolutely. |
| 01:33:34.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And. you Yeah, so I'm going to ask the sequel question first and I'll go back to this. The sequel question is at the time of the building permit, the uses are more intense as far as traffic, but the parking somehow complies. what does that do to an approved MND at the time of building permit if the The uses are completely different than what you study. |
| 01:33:58.71 | Daniel Hoffman | Yeah, we actually took a look at this. scenario of a worst case traffic. in terms of uses. And it was concluded that even with that 100% manufacturing or higher ratio a more intensive use is the, trip generation caused with would still be mitigated to less than significant impact. based off of our current mitigation measure of extending the queuing lane I'm not sure. to a hundred and Thank you. It's already. So, to answer your question. |
| 01:34:42.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:34:42.76 | Daniel Hoffman | Uh-huh. the impact would still be less than significant. in terms of the state book question. |
| 01:34:48.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And they still would be required to do the mitigation that was required, even if it turns out it's not completely needed. |
| 01:34:48.73 | Daniel Hoffman | And I, |
| 01:34:56.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is that what you're saying? |
| 01:34:58.95 | Richard Graef | Correct. |
| 01:35:00.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And I mean, the other, I have to remember which, where it was, but there's medical offices shown somewhere on the drawings. And you're saying that it's now medical manufacturing. And so the numbers for medical manufacturing, medical offices for parking would be different. Isn't that true? |
| 01:35:25.11 | Tricia Stevens | they would be less. So the... parking, is probably somewhat overstated because we have clarified that these would not be offices or clinics, it would be more medical manufacturing or lab uses consistent with the specific plan in the zoning. |
| 01:35:52.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The medical manufacturing has different numbers than medical laboratories though. I mean, it's different kind of staffing, So it worries me that we really don't know what the staffing is going to be. But going back to the parking, so let's assume that they've overestimated the parking. I understand the nine spaces allocated for public use and the eight spaces on the weekend. The rest of the spaces, if somebody goes to one of these medical laboratories or whatever and is visiting, are there going to be visitor spaces or are these all going to be labeled as not, you know, reserved parking. And there doesn't seem to be any visitor parking beyond the public parking for the beach, but, or whatever. But is there any visitor parking? |
| 01:36:44.51 | Tricia Stevens | Um, From what I've seen, I have not seen where there would be any spaces designated for employees versus visitors. |
| 01:36:57.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I guess I'll ask the applicant of whether they're intending to restrict these spaces with reserve signs. If it says reserved, then a visitor couldn't park there. So I'm a little concerned about that. |
| 01:37:09.75 | Tricia Stevens | The public, the spaces for people to use the shoreline would be marked. |
| 01:37:16.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I understand that, but let's say somebody's coming to a laboratory and they, you know, they're a vendor or something dropping something off or having a meeting about possible products they can use, where do they park? They shouldn't be parking in the public spaces and they can't park in the reserve places. So we need some visitor parking out of this. And if they've overestimated the parking because of the wrong uses, then it could be addressed there. But just note that as a question, I'll ask that of the wrong uses, then it could be addressed there. But just note that as a question, I'll ask that of the applicant as well. Let me see the list here. Amen. |
| 01:38:01.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're saying that the square footages that are on the plans, are anticipated, but if it changes at the time that they do building permit drawings, they will adjust that and they have to make sure that they work for parking. If they build these buildings and don't have tenants, and they build them on spec. and the buildings get built and they change the use after they're built They already have a building permit. So how do they fix it at that point? from a regulatory point of view. |
| 01:38:42.85 | Tricia Stevens | Well, when they come in for tenant improvements, they would have to provide proof that they meet the parking requirements. |
| 01:38:51.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And if they don't, that that used to just be denied as they would not be allowed to sign that tenant. Is that the way that would go? |
| 01:38:59.69 | Tricia Stevens | That would be my understanding that if they can't Um, demonstrate that that particular use has adequate parking, then that would not be allowed. |
| 01:39:12.52 | Maria | I see. |
| 01:39:13.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, I've got a few other questions as well, but I think, let me see if any other commissioners have additional questions at this time before we move on to an applicant presentation. I'll look for a show of hands or a raise a hand in Zoom. Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:39:32.52 | Kristina Feller | Just a quick question. There's been reference to shadow study or shadow studies, I think plural. Could you point me to where those are? Because I did not see them in any of the attachments and it's possible I missed it, but point them out, that would be helpful. |
| 01:39:53.69 | Tricia Stevens | Okay, they are in the plan set and I'll give you a second. find which exhibit number. I know there's a lot of exhibits in there, Oh, wow. find that. |
| 01:40:06.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:40:08.44 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:40:09.45 | Nastassya Saad | Sarah, at the end, I think it's page 31 in the plans. |
| 01:40:12.56 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I'll look back. |
| 01:40:13.61 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 01:40:13.99 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:40:16.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. At this point on the other raised hands for further questions of Stevens before we go on to the. Seeing none, if we can bring the applicant up to do their presentation, they'll have 15 minutes to to present if we interrupt during the presentation, and that will not be part of their times. We'll stop the timer at that point. |
| 01:41:03.62 | Director Phipps | Can the applicant please raise your hand so that I can co-host you and unmute you? |
| 01:41:17.83 | Unknown | Great African should be, yeah, Brent McDonald. |
| 01:41:19.98 | Director Phipps | whose hand is raised. |
| 01:41:20.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:41:22.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. McDonald, they'll allow you to unmute if you can show your video and if you need to share screen you you're allowed to do that. Can you give your name and your name company and address for the record? Thank you. |
| 01:41:37.04 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:41:39.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're not hearing you. |
| 01:42:14.82 | Unknown | Maria, can we please unmute Diane, Ana? |
| 01:42:25.84 | Brent McDonald | Thank you. |
| 01:42:25.91 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:42:25.92 | Brent McDonald | Can you hear me now? |
| 01:42:26.07 | Kristina Feller | Can you hear me now? |
| 01:42:26.95 | Unknown | Yeah. you're going to be a little bit |
| 01:42:27.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let me see. Yeah, that was a feedback. You need to turn one of them off, I think. |
| 01:42:28.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:42:28.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:42:28.98 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:42:29.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:42:29.05 | Unknown | So, This is listening. |
| 01:42:57.29 | Kristina Feller | Are we good? |
| 01:43:26.96 | Brent McDonald | Do we have video or do we have voice? |
| 01:43:30.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have voice. Sounds good. |
| 01:43:31.50 | Brent McDonald | I'm good. |
| 01:43:33.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do you have yours? You have two videos, so that's fine. Okay, good. |
| 01:43:35.38 | Brent McDonald | And you've got... |
| 01:43:35.89 | Maria | you |
| 01:43:39.23 | Brent McDonald | Good, but we've got one voice. One voice, yeah, that's good. Okay. Hi, commissioners. Good evening. Thank you. And Tricia, I think a great presentation because there's a lot of information, but I think you've got a handle on it now. And I'd like to talk a little bit about the recent Marin ship history. out of the controversy that was going on in the 70s the marineship master plan was released as an eir and in october of 1985 and the revision was released in 89. And I bring this up because the criteria that we're discussing tonight emanated from basically that Marin Ship Master Plan and the EIR that it went under. It came up with the height limit of 32 feet, which is in relationship to the other existing buildings around the Marin Ship. And it also came up with a buildable square footage that differs between whether it's in the industrial zone or the Marin Ship waterfront zone. But one thing to be clear is that this did go to the voters with the Fair Traffic Initiative in 1985. And in short, the Fair Traffic Initiative and the citizens of Sausalito acknowledged that there would be 700,000 square feet of new building area in the Marin ship. And it dealt with the traffic implications of that. This project only proposes 46,500 square feet, and it's about 80% of what the maximum allowable is. The project does propose 101 new parking stalls, and nine of which are permanent public access stalls. There's also nine I believe it's nine, it's eight or nine on the, on the Marina side. So that's a total of 18. And then on the weekends and evenings, there's an additional set of stalls that are allocated to the beach. And how did we come up with that number? Well, frankly, some people were upset that there was even that much parking provided because, as you know, provide access and open up opportunity the number of people using the beach increases and some of the local residents seem to have issues with sharing the property. Many people in opposition to this project come from the Galilee Harbor community over there. One thing that I think really needs to be noted is that at the same time Galilee was gaining their right to exist, was the same time that all this planning was going on. That's what created, you find in the 80s to mid 90s, all of this stuff was put together and there was an understanding that people were going to be allowed to do what was established in those agreements. Hence the reason the bike path kind of goes through different properties because in the Marin Ship Master Plan, it said, hey, if you guys are going to do this, you're going to give something back to BCDC and the public and that's going to be this bike path. So speaking specifically to some of the project specifics, and I heard Chair Feller talk about giving specific direction. I don't find that we've set any basic planning criteria. And planning criteria, by what I mean by that, means, hey, we're going to have three buildings. We're going to have four buildings. We're going to have three buildings oriented in this direction, or they they're going to orient in that direction what we have done is concentrate to being true to the marineship master plan which sets up views running in the east west direction all along i told gallilee that i would be providing a break in the buildings to make sure that they can actually get a view of Mount Tam and they can. And I think it was Commissioner Said mentioned that she couldn't understand where that viewpoint was. Well, some of that has to do with the small scale of the audit. But if you see between those buildings right there, let's see. Whoops. |
| 01:47:21.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:47:57.70 | Brent McDonald | Yes. Yes. Let's see if I can get that here. There we go. Right there between those buildings is a rendered version of the East Peak of Mount Tam. So the view does exist. The views were not concentrating on the private views of the gallery. They were concentrating on two issues, which was public views that may or may not have been mentioned in the Marin Ship Master Plan and the other with being true to the Marin Ship Master Plan. |
| 01:47:58.61 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 01:48:29.70 | Alan Levine | you |
| 01:48:29.71 | Brent McDonald | the Parking was set to the south shore to further buffer the buildings from Galilee. And the circulation and the one-way loop was identified in the Marinship Master Plan was also diagrammed by WAM, the Waterfront Action Group. And so I think that this so-called one-way loop was understood by a lot of people that have looked critically at this project. And let's not forget that the other side of Liberty ship has two-way traffic. And the other issue is that 60D has an easement and is required to actually provide that, and we're required to provide the two-way roadways. There was another issue regarding subsidence. The city of Sausalito has analyzed subsidence in the marine ship and you will find in their documents that this is negligible to zero in their documents and we have surveys that have been done in 2005 and done as recently as 2021 showing that our land is not subsiding And our buildings are going piling down the bedrock. And therefore, the buildings will not be subsiding. I'm going to give a little time to my associate here. And she's going to do some speaking. |
| 01:50:07.56 | Diane Hanna | Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Diane Hanna. I'm an attorney with SSL Law Firm. I'm also a resident of Mill Valley. and lucky enough to do a lot of work in the area, including representing the residents at Golden Gate Village. I wanted to specifically address a couple of the comments that were raised by the commissioners tonight, but we'd also like to reserve some time to rebut to comments from the members of the public. First, there's been a fair amount of discussion regarding whether those property is on the shoreline. From our perspective, we do not think it is for two reasons. One is along the marsh side of it. It there's the property is intervened with an easement by the city. And that's for the public pathway and then ultimately to the marsh. From a land use and planning perspective to us, that almost in a way severs the property interest and makes the property no longer on the shoreline. And then, of course, on the Schoonmaker Beach area, That is owned by a separate parcel. So there is an intervening private parcel between the subject site, and the bay or the waterfront. So I think that addresses some concerns about the height of the building as well as the boat dock. Secondly, and I apologize for speaking quickly because we've got a limited amount of time. I just need to emphasize that private views are not protected by the law, and they're also not subject to environmental review under CEQA. um, As Brent mentioned, the project was designed to be very mindful of those important views that are identified in the Marinship specific plan. And so if you talk about moving buildings around, it risks creating an area of nonconformance with the Marinship specific plan. And so I think the applicant has done everything that they can to try to create views or preserve those views for the residents of the Galilee Harbor. We look forward to being good neighbors with them. But we've got these overarching city set standards of view quarters that we need to maintain. And that's a requirement under the city law as well as CEQA to accommodate those. Um, Lastly, I wanted to address traffic. I think there was some confusion about the traffic numbers that that reference to 700 or 706 daily trips. That's a trip in is one and a trip out is another. So if you're thinking, so I think there was some surprise. It felt like that number had doubled. It wasn't a doubling. It was just, you know, one trip equals, so 350 trips in, 350 trips out. And again, what we're really looking at for purposes of CEQA perspective now is VMT, And for your intersection operations, the key thing is those peak hours. So those numbers have not changed throughout the analysis. Those have remained consistent, but I think there was some confusion about what they mean. And so I wanted to clarify that. Lastly, there's a question about the name of the applicant and if that could create any change in the Obligations of any of the parties? The answer is no. This approval will run with the land, the easements that are recorded against this property will run with the land. The point of the applicant changing the name is to address some, you know, good housekeeping, but I think also to reflect a new name that is consistent with the mission, which is really what they're trying to do here is consistent with the general plan and the Marinship specific plan, create new opportunities for businesses and startups that would like to locate in Sausalito. So. We've got a lot of exciting potential tenants for this site that we think will be of a great benefit to the city. But we can't lock those tenants in until we get going with this project. So thank you for your time. We'd like to reserve the remaining time for rebuttal to comments. |
| 01:53:52.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. You've got four minutes, 56 seconds for rebuttal after after we have public comment, but at this point, We're going to I'm sure the commissioners have questions of the applicant here. And with that, I will look for raised hands either in the Zoom or you folks can put your raised hands down in your Zoom applications. So we're not confused that you want to say something. At this point, we'll be commissioner questions of the applicant. Looking around the seat and. the Zoom application. Commissioner Junius, and you have to unmute. |
| 01:54:38.94 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. And thank you for the presentation. I just a couple of quick questions. Ms. Hannah, to follow on your question, so you really don't have any tenants at this point that have committed to the space. And then let me. |
| 01:54:53.55 | Diane Hanna | Yeah, we do not have tenants that have committed. We do. We are receiving somewhat regular outreach. I think one of the most exciting is the Candela, potential Candela tenant, which is an electric boat manufacturer. |
| 01:54:53.59 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:55:05.25 | Diane Hanna | We've also been in discussions with Holdfast Mooring Anchors, Free Ranch Games, which is a remote controlled machinery shop. Um, What's that boundary? layer. |
| 01:55:19.94 | Brent McDonald | There's no boundary layer technologies. There's zero emission cargo. |
| 01:55:21.48 | Diane Hanna | Oh. Zero emission cargo ships. So some exciting potential tenants that are really trying to capture on some new green technology. And could be an exciting opportunity for the city for some people some neat new technology that is consistent with the longtime goals of the MarinShip specific plan. So. |
| 01:55:44.21 | Andrew Junius | Great, thank you for that. And then one specific question about the plans |
| 01:55:45.49 | Diane Hanna | Yeah. |
| 01:55:48.67 | Andrew Junius | Um, I do want to follow on to one of the Commissioner Feller's comments earlier, again, something that I raised. months ago and the last time this was before us. It does look like the second floor of building A, just to get really specific here, Honestly, it looks like mini storage. It looks like you've got you know, a bunch of little spaces that anybody can put their household goods or rent, you know, a 10 by 20 space. Lock their goodies up. Um, Is that what's intended? I mean, it just seems to me to, I appreciate the fact that you're trying to fit into a pretty you know, in some respects relatively broad use category But You know, it's supposed to be industrial, it's supposed to be marine related in a lot of respects. And I don't know how you're going to regulate the you know, the renting of dozens and dozens of small storage lockers up there. in that in that way. |
| 01:56:45.30 | Diane Hanna | Yeah, well, I'm gonna defer to Brent on that as the project architect, but I'd say, you know, consistent with what we were talking about in the parking discussions. This will be addressed as part of a future tenant improvement project as specific tenants are identified. And so The intent is the project will have users that are consistent with the zoning code, and then they'll go through and, you know, and we're targeting users who would be able to use the site as of right. So once you get into you know, selection of a specific tenant, then you would go through the building permit process to secure those tenant improvements. These will be effectively warm shells or cold shells. |
| 01:57:26.24 | Brent McDonald | Some will be warm and some will be cold. A building is particularly cold. |
| 01:57:27.59 | Diane Hanna | Yeah. Yeah, so it will go through a process with the city and the planning department will have an opportunity to take a look at those uses and make sure it fully conforms with all of the requirements of the code. So with that, I'm going to turn over to Brent. I think I'm gonna, is that the best way to do it? Can you all see it? |
| 01:57:45.54 | Andrew Junius | I think you answered the question. I mean, the dashes look like, I don't know how else you can explain it except that I suppose they'll likely a different, I can't see how the city's gonna approve that layout in terms of storage lockers that you really, you know, you can't really just know who's going in there. |
| 01:58:06.69 | Brent McDonald | But you won't know who's going in there, but Mr. Junius, if you can think of the marina that's down halfway between here and the ferry landing, you'll find on the wood walkway they've got a number of, in essence, sheds. that are all of about this size. So boat owners do have a substantial amount of storage and they have their little pieces and parts to the boat. They pull their engines off during the winter months, et cetera, et cetera, and people do use them. |
| 01:58:38.28 | Andrew Junius | Well, that's an absolutely fair comment. And, you know, I'm very familiar with that because I own a boat in Saucyut Yacht Harbor and I rent one of those lockers. Those lockers, I'm pretty sure they go with the boat slips. So... |
| 01:58:38.33 | Brent McDonald | Well, that's... |
| 01:58:50.07 | Andrew Junius | While there may be a handful of those lockers that are rented to folks that actually service the boats there. the teams that clean the boats, teak the boats, otherwise repair the boats Those lockers are pretty small. and they're rented to people that have slips in the harbor. your facility here, just to, and I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just, you know, to the extent that somebody over at Schoonermacher Yacht Harbor is going to rent a space here to store their stuff. related to their boat, I suppose it's possible, but it's certainly not as convenient as what you're describing at the Yawka River. Just a thought. |
| 01:59:25.80 | Brent McDonald | Just to just to. you'll find that one of the entrances to one of the piers is right off the edge of building C. Right now there's 44 20 to 40 foot shipping containers on the site right now. So there's a substantial amount of storage that is an existing of existing tenants that's going to want to move INSIDE. |
| 01:59:49.68 | Andrew Junius | Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. McDonnell. No other questions, thanks. |
| 01:59:53.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks Vice Chair Junius. Commissioner Pellum, I see your hand. |
| 01:59:59.14 | Kristina Feller | Yes, thank you, Chair Luxembourg, and thank you for the presentation. I wanted to go back to two different things and maybe you can help. explain some of this. We certainly understand what you know, how to analyze trips in and out of sites. That's sort of what we do here at the commission. But the question about the daily trips is why it's over double what was described in the previous study sessions using the exact same analysis and language as what you've described. So that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. |
| 02:00:36.39 | Brent McDonald | I think that either there's been a misstatement or, or you're confused because the traffic studies were issued prior to that and they really haven't changed. So I don't, I'm unclear of why you've had the misunderstanding of the trips. |
| 02:00:52.72 | Kristina Feller | Well, it's not a misunderstanding. I listened to the videos again today. So I'm just trying to level set. |
| 02:00:56.42 | Brent McDonald | I'm just trying to understand that somebody made a misstatement because they've written the TIS has not changed. |
| 02:00:59.17 | Kristina Feller | because there was... That's right. Allow me to finish my sentence, sir. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it so we can level set. Part of what we're trying to do here is make sure that where everyone's looking and understanding the exact same pieces of information. So there's no misunderstanding by anybody. That's why I'm asking the question again. The other thing I wanted to ask about are the tie-ups. You know, there was a discussion And in the previous study sessions about feasibility and that you didn't find it feasible. And I want to make sure we understand what that means, what is not feasible about tie-ups, and what part of the site were you specifically looking at or all of it? |
| 02:01:54.23 | Diane Hanna | Yeah. |
| 02:01:54.35 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:01:55.44 | Diane Hanna | I don't know. I think in terms of the, well, if it's okay, if I could go back to that, that traffic question that you had, because I agree, I think it's important to make sure we're all confident in the numbers. From our understanding, those numbers had not changed. I'm not familiar with the information you have from that prior study session where there was a different number. Could you provide us with that different number or where that came from? |
| 02:02:19.83 | Kristina Feller | Sure, absolutely. Everything is posted on the city website and the video is available there. |
| 02:02:23.93 | Diane Hanna | Okay. |
| 02:02:24.42 | Unknown | you |
| 02:02:27.32 | Kristina Feller | the agenda, everything is on the website. And that's where I went and listened to everything over again. |
| 02:02:34.21 | Diane Hanna | And you heard a number there that was less, that was half of the trips that, you're hearing today is that |
| 02:02:40.89 | Kristina Feller | That's correct. |
| 02:02:42.71 | Diane Hanna | Okay, yeah, I mean, I think what we can say is that the traffic study is part of the record here, and then those numbers have not changed throughout the entire process. I can't speak to those numbers because I'm not familiar with what was said at that hearing. We can certainly go back and and look into that. But in terms of the analysis that's been done to support this decision, that hasn't changed at all through this entire process. So in terms of the written record and the analysis, that's been consistent throughout. |
| 02:03:03.37 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:03:03.38 | Judy Stocker | Thank you. |
| 02:03:03.40 | Kristina Feller | on. |
| 02:03:07.20 | Kristina Feller | So. |
| 02:03:07.97 | Diane Hanna | Yeah. |
| 02:03:08.01 | Kristina Feller | I don't know where that was. That's helpful. I do think it's important that we're clear on it, not just for the commission's benefit, the public's benefit, and obviously the applicant as well. |
| 02:03:19.72 | Diane Hanna | Absolutely. And then with respect to the tie-ups, I think, you know, in terms of the feasibility, you know, the only space arguably where that could happen would be along the marsh. However, there is an intervening city easement between the project site and that marsh. So that's one area of infeasibility. And then the second area of feasibility is as part of that easement, there's a goal and a requirement to maintain that as kind of natural habitat and including a tie up in that location. One, you have kind of an axis of how do you get from this wetland marsh. |
| 02:03:20.09 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely. |
| 02:03:57.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:03:58.06 | Diane Hanna | restoration area up along onto the bike path. And so again, that city easement intervening between the two properties plays a really, really big role in kind of the feasibility and whether this project site could be accurately characterized as a waterfront site. |
| 02:04:17.06 | Kristina Feller | But you're responsible to maintain that land that in the east Bye. |
| 02:04:24.05 | Diane Hanna | No. |
| 02:04:24.47 | Kristina Feller | That's, |
| 02:04:24.91 | Diane Hanna | Thank you. |
| 02:04:25.58 | Brent McDonald | No, screen marker. |
| 02:04:27.23 | Diane Hanna | That is the responsibility of a separate |
| 02:04:31.51 | Brent McDonald | SCOONMAKER MARINA. |
| 02:04:32.43 | Diane Hanna | property owner, Schoonmaker Marina, not not this particular site, which is not this. This site is owned by Liberty ship way. partnership, hold on, let me get the exact name, Liberty Shipway to joint venture. So two separate entities, two separate owners, two separate parcels. |
| 02:04:52.85 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay. And in terms of- |
| 02:04:55.77 | Diane Hanna | Bye. |
| 02:04:55.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just clarify that, just so we get that on record? |
| 02:04:56.73 | Diane Hanna | Thank you. |
| 02:04:59.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This is separate from what? Liberty Shipway, Joint Venture, |
| 02:04:59.96 | Kristina Feller | So, |
| 02:05:06.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | is separate from what? |
| 02:05:06.30 | Diane Hanna | Thank you. Yeah, the project site that we're looking at today is owned by Liberty Ship Way 2 Joint Venture. |
| 02:05:16.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to a liberatorship way to joint venture. And that's separate from what? |
| 02:05:19.06 | Diane Hanna | All right. That is separate and apart from Schoonmaker Point Marina. |
| 02:05:25.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | To make your point Marina. Hold on a minute. |
| 02:05:28.19 | Kristina Feller | Hold on a minute. though chair chair Luxembourg I'm sorry for the interjection but |
| 02:05:31.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sorry. |
| 02:05:31.92 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 02:05:31.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 02:05:33.86 | Kristina Feller | I'm reading again back on the first page of the staff report property is being changed to quote marine ship industry so what is the name |
| 02:05:43.43 | Diane Hanna | Thank you. |
| 02:05:43.44 | Brent McDonald | Yeah. |
| 02:05:44.10 | Kristina Feller | I mean, yeah. |
| 02:05:45.05 | Brent McDonald | Can I speak to that? So the Marin Ship Industries is a marketing as we are marketing to the blue economy and going out and trying to generate interest, which we've had a pretty good response for a preliminary investigation. The legal owners have not changed, but we are changing the name to help with the marketing and to be more on target and on point with groups such as John DeRay and the mayor and other people who have suggested with good intent. And in fact, it's working quite well for us to go out and pursue the blue economies, which is green technology related to water uses. And actually been quite well received and interesting. We're now in a turning point. |
| 02:06:35.30 | Unknown | and- actually, |
| 02:06:41.81 | Brent McDonald | where these economies are now being so-called industrialized or |
| 02:06:43.99 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:06:46.66 | Brent McDonald | manufactured when you talk about Okay. |
| 02:06:49.69 | Kristina Feller | So let's focus back to the name. |
| 02:06:53.05 | Diane Hanna | Yeah, I can help you with that. |
| 02:06:53.39 | Brent McDonald | Thank you. |
| 02:06:53.42 | Kristina Feller | I can help you. Bye. |
| 02:06:54.98 | Diane Hanna | Yeah. |
| 02:06:55.03 | Kristina Feller | The LLC, I'm reading the staff report, the LLC that owns the property is being changed to quote, We're in ship industry. So If you can work with Tricia so we understand what's going on here, that would be very helpful. |
| 02:07:04.68 | Vicki Nichols | Bye. |
| 02:07:04.75 | Diane Hanna | it. |
| 02:07:05.03 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:07:05.05 | Diane Hanna | you. |
| 02:07:08.81 | Diane Hanna | I'm sure. I can explain that to you quickly, and then I can work with Tricia to make sure that's accurately reflected. The property is currently owned by the named applicant on all the original Liberty Shipway to Joint Venture. That joint venture is has initiated is commencing a process to convert from a joint venture into an LLC. So same owners, there won't be a change in ownership. It's just basically and housekeeping. and for marketing purposes. So it's a change in the way that the property is owned, but that is all it is. And that has not been completed yet. That is just. |
| 02:07:47.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And that's something Let me just understand. And you said that's separate from the Schoonmacher Point Marina. Are any of the people that are the actual people that own Liberty Shipway 2 Joint Venture and Schoonmacher Point Marina, are any of the people that are owners of those things in both ventures? |
| 02:07:55.34 | Diane Hanna | Right. |
| 02:08:10.15 | Diane Hanna | You know, I don't know the answer to that. I don't have the list of the individual owners there, but for purposes of what we're doing here, They could all be the same or they could all be different. They're separately owned parcels by separately owned entities. |
| 02:08:24.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You don't know who owns them. You don't know the owner. You're saying that you were on the record here. You do not personally know who the owners are? |
| 02:08:33.07 | Diane Hanna | Right. I do not personally know the owners, but I'd say for purposes, what I think is important is for purposes of today, |
| 02:08:41.44 | Maria | Yes. |
| 02:08:41.74 | Diane Hanna | Under the law, separate legal parcels, separate legal interests, separate legal entities that own those separate legal parcels, and they all have separate rights and obligations. And I can see the city attorney is, come back on camera, so I don't know if if Mr. Rudin. |
| 02:08:59.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will direct the commission. You don't need to do it for us. |
| 02:09:00.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:00.31 | Diane Hanna | Yeah. |
| 02:09:04.54 | Diane Hanna | Okay, I apologize. I just saw him up here. |
| 02:09:05.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just saw him up here. That's a little overstepping. I'd asked you a question that you don't, you say you don't personally know who owns Liberty Way to joint venture. I take you at your work, but that's all surprising. |
| 02:09:17.81 | Diane Hanna | Those are my clients. Those are my clients. |
| 02:09:21.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You do know who the people are. |
| 02:09:24.19 | Diane Hanna | I know who my clients are, yes, absolutely. |
| 02:09:26.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Absolutely. Yes. Are there a lot of them? |
| 02:09:27.54 | Diane Hanna | But I can't speak to the other owners of the other parcels. |
| 02:09:31.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's right, but you do know who your owners are. |
| 02:09:34.24 | Diane Hanna | Of course, yes. |
| 02:09:34.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You don't know if any of those people, because it's going to come up with this question about easements on the adjacent properties. You don't know if any of those people are owners of Schoonmaker Point Marina is what you're saying. You don't personally know. |
| 02:09:51.40 | Diane Hanna | I do not personally know. |
| 02:09:52.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, that's fine. That's fine. We'll go back to Commissioner Feller's questions. I'll have some more on that in a minute. Of course. Because I want to understand what these easements are in the public easement. Commissioner Feller, if you could continue. |
| 02:09:58.59 | Diane Hanna | Thank you. |
| 02:09:59.03 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 02:09:59.05 | Diane Hanna | Of course. |
| 02:09:59.66 | Kristina Feller | on the |
| 02:09:59.93 | Diane Hanna | Bye. |
| 02:09:59.98 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 02:10:00.06 | Diane Hanna | Yeah. |
| 02:10:03.11 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Great. Thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate that. I just wanted to go back Um, you know, to the whole point about All of the input that this commission has provided regarding the design and the views. And they are important. I know certainly under our Salcinoma Municipal Code and ordinances, no one is guaranteed an unobstructed view. but we have not seen any attempt at an alteration of the footprint that's there. We've talked over and over again about master planning the site and if there's a master plan on the site all sorts of things. you know, to, to, also ask, specifically ask in October of 2021 that the applicant listen to us and listen to the input and then see the same drawings again. from our perspective, is a little disappointing, and I hope you can understand that. So I want to give you a chance to respond to that. |
| 02:11:11.26 | Brent McDonald | and I ask you, are the buildings oriented east, west, or north, south? |
| 02:11:15.41 | Kristina Feller | I'm asking the questions here. |
| 02:11:16.94 | Brent McDonald | I'm asking you. |
| 02:11:18.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Because what you are like, please, a little bit of respect here, please. |
| 02:11:19.27 | Kristina Feller | or I'd like you to |
| 02:11:24.17 | Kristina Feller | I'd like you to answer the question. We're trying to get to the bottom of it because I can |
| 02:11:27.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 02:11:27.81 | Brent McDonald | Okay. |
| 02:11:28.55 | Kristina Feller | SAME END POINT. |
| 02:11:28.69 | Brent McDonald | You can see. The answer is that the buildings are oriented in east-west direction, which tends to emphasize a little more blockage to the Galilee side. However, the buildings are in scale for Mike Industrial, and that's the clients that we've been asked to pursue. The response from the people looking at these buildings is these buildings will work because they have high power. They have decent ceiling height. from the people looking at these buildings is, these buildings will work because they have high power, they have decent ceiling heights, and they have enough floor footprint. to facilitate manufacturing. |
| 02:12:09.46 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so do you want to answer the question about any alternative design that you've looked at? in terms of siting or site plan or |
| 02:12:19.09 | Brent McDonald | Well, I have heard that the buildings ought to be set back by a, uh, by a earthen levee. I've heard that the buildings ought to be one story. I heard from you that they should be elevated three feet. So I'm looking for some consistency. And if you want to tell me that you think these buildings are roughly located, but you want me to open up the view corridor, I can do that. |
| 02:12:46.26 | Kristina Feller | Well, I'm just asking you to listen to what we... I am. |
| 02:12:49.77 | Brent McDonald | I am listening. |
| 02:12:51.70 | Kristina Feller | Well, why don't you let me finish the sentence then? I'm asking you to... refer back to the study session in March of 2021 where we gave some pretty specific feedback And then again, pretty much the same feedback in October. And that's where we actually asked you to listen to sort of the input. And that's what we were hoping to see. at the next hearing, which happens to be tonight. Um, you know, we were looking for you to take into consideration what that feedback was because at the end of the day, we have to make specific findings. And if we can't make those findings, what we were trying through the study session process to be constructive. And those words were said over and over again in those sessions. It's meant to be constructive feedback for ultimate success. in what you're doing. And I'm not seeing that there's been any movement at all And that's a little bit disappointing because That was the point of the study session. I would refer you back to both those study sessions. I think my comments stand as as indicated in those two sessions. I can't speak for the rest of the commission, but those would be my comments. |
| 02:14:14.55 | Brent McDonald | From March 21st, the March session, I took my direction from Lily Whelan, who was the former director of planning. And we worked through a number of scenarios and she said, yes, this is what we want. So I'm sorry if they didn't meet your expectations, but I assumed that there was some communication between the Planning Commission and Lily Whalen. But apparently. |
| 02:14:40.74 | Kristina Feller | It was a public hearing. So there was communication directly from this commission to you as well. And that's, I think this is becoming a certain conversation. |
| 02:14:48.27 | Kristina Feller | having a certain conversation for 90 days. |
| 02:14:50.66 | Kristina Feller | I think this is what I'm saying. |
| 02:14:55.34 | Kristina Feller | I didn't hear that. I think we were talking over each other. My point is that it's the planning, you know, it's a public hearing with the planning commission to provide you that input. Study sessions are meant to be constructive. They're meant to be helpful. They're meant to help guide. We don't make decisions in those. They're meant to be, you know, get everything you can out of it as an applicant. I think this is a circular conversation and it's not going to go anywhere, but I would ask that you refer to March 2021 and October 2021. for the input that we provided as individuals and as a commission. Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. |
| 02:15:38.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:15:45.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Mm-hmm. Um, Let me ask, in the staff report, It says, that solar panels were added to building Bye. on page seven, on page, it says solar panels were added to B. Can you clarify? Um, what building solar panels are on |
| 02:16:12.07 | Brent McDonald | There's solar panels on both A and B. THE CONCEPT IS TO BE POWER-NEUTRAL. And in fact, there may even be looking at adding a few more solar panels as we sort of move away from gas because the buildings will be consuming more electricity. But at the time, the solar panel footprint was estimated to be electric neutral. |
| 02:16:41.53 | Nastassya Saad | When you say add more, do you mean to both A and B where they're existing or is Is that going to include potentially C? |
| 02:16:48.47 | Brent McDonald | potentially seek. There's a couple of things. So the bottom line is we will provide solar panels to try and make this thing electrically neutral. The solar panels are also getting more efficient as time goes by. But I suspect with the elimination of gas, which I don't know whether that's fully in effect in Marin, but it's becoming effective in most jurisdictions that there will be a need to add additional solar panels. |
| 02:17:17.14 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. that we might want to make that update. in the staff report. And I'm sorry, I just got annoyed. alert that my connection is unstable. Can everyone hear me easily? Okay, great, thank you. |
| 02:17:29.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, great, thank you. It's slightly choppy, but we're hearing you. Okay. |
| 02:17:32.60 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, otherwise I'll dial in. Thank you. Um, In terms of the three buildings, are you looking at those as individual entities, as in you don't need one to rely on the other in terms of any of those business operations you plan to run. |
| 02:17:51.99 | Brent McDonald | Well, it depends upon the tenant that comes to fruition. If Candela boats comes in, they want as much footprint as they can get. SO THE ANSWER IS THAT THEY WOULD GENERALLY OCCUPY A MAJORITY OF THE BUILDINGS. NOW WE DID, WE HAVE TOLD THEM THAT WE'RE RESERVING SOME SPACE FOR OPEN WATER ROWING AND SOME OTHER GROUPS. BUT ALL OF THIS COMES DOWN TO WHAT YEAR THIS THING CAN BE DELIVERED AND, YOU KNOW, NOBODY IS SIGNING LEASES FOR A PROJECT THAT HAVEN'T BROKEN GROUND. The other ones are smaller. I think the Hold Fast Anchors is quite interesting and is a beautiful tenant for Building B because they are both a technology sort of drone building kind of group that can occupy part of the upstairs and the downstairs is doing these metal helical anchors that are part of the equipment. And I suppose they like the idea of being on the bay because they'll go out and test their equipment, so they're a smaller group. |
| 02:19:06.69 | Diane Hanna | So and but I'd say overall from a project design perspective, it's designed so that it could operate to serve a single large tenant, accepting some of those like the public use or, you know, Thank you. but it could also operate as with individual tenants as well. So there's flexibility embedded within the design. |
| 02:19:29.64 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you. clarifying. Um, that the conditional use permit is not Have you given any thought to what that space is? may become or how it can be. used. It was not to be. Yeah. |
| 02:19:51.60 | Brent McDonald | It would probably be one of the boating groups. Restaurant? No, it's always been a limited food service restaurant or limited food service facility. And there was discussion about why or how or the analysis. Frankly, the owner doesn't, |
| 02:19:55.12 | Nastassya Saad | I agree. |
| 02:20:11.66 | Brent McDonald | We don't really care. If you want to deny the conditional use permit, it will drop the traffic count. It will lower the trips. But I think there is a need for it because you've got Liberty Ship 30, 10, 20. None of these places have a sandwich shop. So there is a need for it. If for whatever reason, the commissioners feel that they don't like the idea of a food service facility that could morph into something else, then deny it. I mean, the ownership really, is neutral. If it's approved and there becomes a purveyor that they can work with, they're all over it. If not, it'll become some type of a waterfront related use and You know, I don't know what it will be. Could be open water rowing could move into that front and being a little closer to the water. I don't know. |
| 02:21:15.01 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, and I just had one more question. I think you can pull up that image that you had, Figure nine is what it's all being referred to. I believe you walked over maybe somewhere. I don't know if you have it handy. |
| 02:21:28.27 | Brent McDonald | Tricia would have to pull that up because I'm not a hundred percent sure what figure nine is, |
| 02:21:28.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:21:33.50 | Tricia Stevens | I think. |
| 02:21:34.10 | Brent McDonald | I think that's the use. |
| 02:21:35.36 | Tricia Stevens | So, Thank you. It's abused from Galilee, right? |
| 02:21:37.08 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 02:21:38.35 | Tricia Stevens | It is. I prefer to. |
| 02:21:38.40 | Brent McDonald | Thank you. |
| 02:21:38.45 | Nastassya Saad | It is. I'd prefer to see what you, thank you, Trish. I'd actually prefer to see what was shown because Okay. |
| 02:21:46.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 02:21:47.61 | Nastassya Saad | cross reference what you showed? |
| 02:21:47.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 02:21:49.79 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:21:51.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Brent, can I ask a question on that? I thought what you were showing was not from Galilee, but it was from the bike path. |
| 02:21:58.58 | Brent McDonald | No, I do have images from the bike path and I can actually show that in the same tour. |
| 02:22:05.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. So what you did show was from Galilee? Yes. Yes. |
| 02:22:08.67 | Brent McDonald | Yes. Yes. |
| 02:22:11.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. If you could show that again. |
| 02:22:25.57 | Brent McDonald | So I think there is some advantage to do it like this. If you can zoom into things, let's see where my end here. Should be. Yeah. |
| 02:22:34.88 | Diane Hanna | Thank you. |
| 02:22:34.91 | Nastassya Saad | Can you hear him okay? Thank you. |
| 02:22:36.77 | Diane Hanna | Thank you. |
| 02:22:36.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:22:36.84 | Diane Hanna | you |
| 02:22:36.97 | Nastassya Saad | So I can hear him, but I'm seeing |
| 02:22:37.24 | Brent McDonald | So I can hear him. |
| 02:22:40.26 | Nastassya Saad | I see you, Diane. |
| 02:22:41.24 | Brent McDonald | Diana on this. Oh. No, if you look at Brandon McDonough, it looks Oh, I see because you and I, Commissioner Segui. Okay. Yep. |
| 02:22:52.85 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, yep, we can see your screen now. Oh, okay. |
| 02:22:57.02 | Brent McDonald | Oh, OK. There you go. So yeah, and I think actually Mount Tan is a little higher. There is a photo simulation, so I think there is a little bit more of Mount Tan, not a lot, but there is a little more there. |
| 02:22:59.42 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:23:12.17 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I think that's clear now, thank you. |
| 02:23:15.62 | Brent McDonald | Yeah. And then that... |
| 02:23:17.25 | Nastassya Saad | I'd love That's, |
| 02:23:19.55 | Brent McDonald | That's just |
| 02:23:20.90 | Nastassya Saad | just go back to what's in Thank you. Okay. That's... I'm trying to understand what your showing versus Well, and our staff report. ASSING. is different than what's in the staff I don't think it's different. I think it's a smaller scale. |
| 02:23:43.85 | Brent McDonald | I don't think it's different. I think it's a smaller scale, but not quite as clear. I think it's a matter of resolution of the printing is that what does |
| 02:23:58.36 | Nastassya Saad | I'm, |
| 02:24:03.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | as long as you're saying. |
| 02:24:03.84 | Nastassya Saad | conceptually it makes sense. I just see the palm trees are physically in a different, different place. Um, I'm all, Thank you. |
| 02:24:10.95 | Brent McDonald | Thank you. You could be correct. Oh, well, in that one, that's an actual picture. Oh, I see what you're saying. |
| 02:24:19.98 | Nastassya Saad | I'm talking about, right, that's exactly correct. |
| 02:24:24.89 | Director Phipps | Yeah, so if I may, I agree that the top figure is a picture. This middle figure above figure 10 is a rendering. And I think that these palm trees are just not ideally located in that. The palm trees that are rendered are actually the elements that are blocking the view, not the buildings themselves. Yeah, I would agree with that. So I think the other... Thank you. RENDERING THAT WE WERE SHOWN EARLIER IS probably more accurate. |
| 02:24:57.96 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, but So, I'm going to go ahead and get a little bit. . and is what we're looking at for the public record and I had not seen that other image until this evening. having a visual discrepancy makes it difficult. But those are all the questions I have. |
| 02:25:15.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. I'll go to Commissioner Junius, Vice Chair Junius, additional questions. |
| 02:25:22.06 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Just to follow up, Brent, I had a few more programmatic questions for you. So, you know, in looking at |
| 02:25:29.82 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:25:32.25 | Andrew Junius | You know, building A, the one farthest from the water, is the most curious one for me. So the dry boat storage, I totally get it. Those spots look big enough. But it seems, I mean, that's the one that's farthest away from the water. the way the current outdoor boat storage works, is people drag their boat on their little wheelie thing A lot of them put it right into the water on the beach at Schutemacher. There is a little a little crane I've seen used near Liberty Ship 85, which is right next to, that La Garage restaurant, there's a way to put a boat in there. But it would, I mean, it just seems to me that the, boat storage is as far away from the water as you can get it. Was there a reason for that? Is that, I don't know, just a curious question. |
| 02:26:17.24 | Brent McDonald | THE ORIGINAL INTENT ALL ALONG WAS TO PUT A BUILDING WITH LESS PEOPLE ACTIVITY FRONTING GALLEE. THE A BUILDING IS THE CLOSEST BUILDING TO GALLEE AND THAT WAS THE CONCEPT. THE WATERFRONT BUILDING HAS A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF CRITERIA. has potential to have a boaters club, the open water rowing has been slated to be in there, traveling companions has been discussed to be in there, groups that are actively dispersing to the water, and the other people have a choice. So if they find it's too far or doesn't work for them, they won't rent the space. So that's, I think, the concept. |
| 02:27:15.92 | Andrew Junius | Fair enough. And then I'm looking, the circulation does look like you know, if you're willing to roll your boat out through the little lanes here, you can still get to the beach and you can still get to that little crane, right? There's no, everything will connect to the existing. |
| 02:27:29.87 | Brent McDonald | Yeah, the crane is on the Schoonmaker side. Around the C building has removable bollards that allow boats to actually drive in, particularly during special events that could occur. But the concept is that these are the boats that are being launched off of Schoonmaker Beach are very small, light craft. In fact, I have my tandem kayak in the yard and I agree with you, it's a little bit of a movement for a double kayak, but not for a single. And then you do have the big wheelies that you use to kind of ameliorate the situation. |
| 02:27:30.68 | Andrew Junius | the crazy. |
| 02:28:15.79 | Andrew Junius | Okay, great. Appreciate that. Thank you for the clarification. |
| 02:28:19.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Commissioner, follow additional questions. |
| 02:28:23.67 | Kristina Feller | Yes, thank you, Chair Luxembourg. I had two additional questions that I just wanted to get some clarity on. The first is, we've asked this question before, but I wasn't clear on the answer. And that is regarding phasing of the work. Are you intending to phase this work? Or is this one, like a one-shot demo new build situation? |
| 02:28:50.30 | Brent McDonald | So the owners would prefer to phase it. However, there's going to be a conflict with the actual way that the, I don't know if it's the building code or the zoning code. The current Sausalito code requires a two year maximum build out time. |
| 02:29:11.14 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 02:29:11.81 | Brent McDonald | So we are intending to comply with that. If we didn't have to comply with that, we probably would build two of the buildings first and one later. |
| 02:29:21.99 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then can you explain a little bit more about the assessment district and what's included in that assessment district? Like which is it all the parcels down there or can you explain who would be assessed in the assessment district. |
| 02:29:39.34 | Brent McDonald | Assess. So there isn't an assessment district. |
| 02:29:44.15 | Kristina Feller | I know, but there was a proposed one. |
| 02:29:44.23 | Brent McDonald | Thank you. No. It's been proposed, yes. And, you know, actually, Diane meant to speak more to the legalities of it's my understanding, you've got to get a certain percentage vote of the property owners to vote. And if they do, then everybody's required to join in. One of the biggest problems with the assessment district, because we did actually try and drum up the interest for it, the major property owner here is the U.S.NER HERE IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM PARTICIPATING IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS. SO YOU IMMEDIATELY GOT A PRETTY GOOD BARRIER TO GETTING THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT GOING. SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN CHANGING. NONE OF THE OWNERS DOWN ON THE POINT ITSELF, SCHOONMAKER OR THIS PROPERTY ARE AGAINST AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. AND I KNOW THAT I BELIEVE IT WAS BRUCE HUFF WHEN HE REPRESENTED, AND BRUCE HUFF DOES NOT REPRESENT AS MANY PEOPLE ANYMORE IN THE AREA, BUT AT THE TIME HIS OWNERS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. BUT AGAIN, THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE WAS THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATING. |
| 02:30:54.09 | Kristina Feller | Well, again, I'm trying to understand where Thank you. what the boundary lines of that assessment district were like what |
| 02:31:01.97 | Brent McDonald | And the listing of the property owners, I believe it's part of the record. I could bring it up here and you can see it. If you guys want to move on to something else, I'll get it up. I have to find it, but there is a map. Yes. |
| 02:31:10.68 | Kristina Feller | and, |
| 02:31:16.20 | Brent McDonald | Okay. It's basically, so I think from the original marineship master plan, I think it would probably be areas one and two combined. So it goes down to SWA and the tennis courts and then cuts across, but I don't think it includes those office buildings that were constructed by Deke, I think it was. So I think it's everything south of those newer buildings that are just beyond SWA. |
| 02:31:16.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Facebook. |
| 02:31:49.14 | Kristina Feller | And |
| 02:31:49.68 | Mary Wagner | But your project... If I may interject here, with respect to the assessment district, that's not something that's within the power of the city to condition approval of this project on. |
| 02:31:50.03 | Kristina Feller | if I, if I, |
| 02:31:58.07 | Kristina Feller | No, I understand that. I'm just trying to get to the question of does, is your project contingent on needing that to make a successful project? |
| 02:32:06.92 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 02:32:07.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 02:32:08.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:32:08.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | up. |
| 02:32:08.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Thank you, Chair Lefsenberg. |
| 02:32:13.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. I'm going to go back to if there are any other questions from the other commissioners. I'm going to go to the questions that Tricia was not able to answer that hopefully you can answer. uh, TRISH IS SUPPOSED TO GET US THIS EASEMENT THAT SUPPOSEDLY THE CITY HAS FOR THE BIKE PATH. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT INCLUDES THE MARSH, DOESN'T INCLUDE THE MARSH, BUT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED Diane, about something you just said in that regard. So BCDC throughout the San Francisco Bay is required public access all over the bay. And Brent just said one of your tenants is looking at this because it's on the bay. So the fact that you're saying that there is no shoreline for this project is just baffling to me these are obviously on the shoreline whether or not the city has an easement which we have this commission has not seen the wording on but i don't think that would prohibit it from uh from this land fronting the water it fronts fronts water, and it has access to the water. And we just talked about how people are gonna get boats out of the water to this project. So I'm a little confused, but are you familiar with the wording of this easement? Do you have a copy also of this easement? with the city. |
| 02:33:39.84 | Diane Hanna | This is... Thank you. |
| 02:33:41.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 02:33:41.05 | Diane Hanna | I... |
| 02:33:41.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I, I, |
| 02:33:42.02 | Diane Hanna | Is that I'm sorry, is that directed to me? |
| 02:33:43.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, can you also send me a copy and I can then compare the copy I get from Tricia with a copy I get from you. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what this easement is with relationship to the bike path. Can you send the commission a copy of that easement? |
| 02:34:03.45 | Brent McDonald | If I may, it's actually a couple of easements. Okay, so you said both of them. There's an easement for the path, and then there's a landscape easement. So I think there's actually three easements |
| 02:34:06.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK. |
| 02:34:13.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | send all of them, that would be helpful. Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.80 | Tricia Stevens | Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.81 | Diane Hanna | Bye. We will. We'll be happy. Bye. |
| 02:34:17.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | happy. Then I also assume, I guess this is a Diane question, that you have an easement. First of all, you can't access this property with the one-way loop problem. So you must have an easement from somebody else to get in here. And also you're moving eight parking spaces, relocating the public parking spaces. So do you have a copy of that easement that you can also send us? It says you have a right to make these changes on property you don't have. |
| 02:34:50.95 | Brent McDonald | Yeah, it's an agreement. It's not an easement to relocate the parking stalls. And then in terms of the roadway systems, the roadway systems easement was set up in the 80s and includes enough width to have a two-way traffic going in through what I call the loop road. I could show you that if you want. |
| 02:35:16.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, just get us the copy of the easement so that we understand. I know. |
| 02:35:20.18 | Brent McDonald | They're on the drawings actually and recorded. Yeah, but we can get you. |
| 02:35:24.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Bye. |
| 02:35:25.07 | Brent McDonald | Yeah. |
| 02:35:25.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to get us the actual easements, the legal documents, not what's on the door. |
| 02:35:28.01 | Brent McDonald | I think that. |
| 02:35:28.33 | Diane Hanna | you're not. |
| 02:35:28.78 | Brent McDonald | Bye. |
| 02:35:30.17 | Diane Hanna | Yeah. |
| 02:35:30.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, my God. |
| 02:35:31.01 | Diane Hanna | And for clarity purposes, the relocation of those parking stalls, that was done pursuant to an agreement. That's not an easement. So. |
| 02:35:38.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. No, I heard Brent say that, so that's fine. So just give us a physical copy of the degree. It can be electronic, so we can actually read that. |
| 02:35:41.37 | Diane Hanna | We'll get in there as well. |
| 02:35:43.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:43.70 | Unknown | . |
| 02:35:43.74 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:35:44.21 | Diane Hanna | Appreciate having that. |
| 02:35:44.78 | Brent McDonald | Thank you. |
| 02:35:44.88 | Unknown | And. |
| 02:35:48.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I heard something, I'm confused about this assessment district. So let me ask this question. Separate from the assessment district, you folks are going to pay 84% of the cost of the traffic improvement that is needed to get a negative declaration. So is that in my understanding, I heard somebody say 84%, maybe Brent told me that? |
| 02:36:14.13 | Brent McDonald | I think Tricia mentioned that. That's great. It comes out to roughly $600,000 and has to do with the queuing lane up on Bridgeway heading north. |
| 02:36:15.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's great. |
| 02:36:27.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So who is the 16%? |
| 02:36:30.14 | Brent McDonald | by the city. I believe any other property owners? |
| 02:36:31.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The city, not any other property owners? Excuse me? Not any other property owners? No. And if the city gets this 84%, is there some understanding that they're gonna build this project and chip in the 16%? Because the money doesn't help if it doesn't get built. |
| 02:36:52.55 | Brent McDonald | And that has been Bruce Huff's criticism of this as a project. And you have a record on that. And I don't know. Anyway, there's a whole concept behind that. |
| 02:37:07.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But is there some discussion that this will happen if you put in the 84%? Is somebody committed or said anything or is that part of this project? I'm trying to understand. We understand the 84% is part of this project. Yes. But what gets it done? Is there something you've had discussions with Public Works or what is happening there? |
| 02:37:23.11 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:37:30.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:37:30.92 | Brent McDonald | Well, yeah, if he's still on the phone, he's the one who probably needs to speak to it because it's a public project. It's not a private project and it's not overseen or administered by us. It goes through the public bid process, public design process, and is implemented. |
| 02:37:48.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 02:37:48.61 | Brent McDonald | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:37:49.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So it's 84% of whatever the final bidding number is. If it's less, you pay less. If it's more, you pay more. Or is a set amount that you're suggesting be put in as a condition on this project? |
| 02:38:01.47 | Brent McDonald | Reasonable questions? Maybe Diane knows the answer. I don't. |
| 02:38:06.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:38:07.44 | Diane Hanna | I know. |
| 02:38:07.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:38:07.58 | Brent McDonald | All right. |
| 02:38:07.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 02:38:07.68 | Brent McDonald | I like that. |
| 02:38:07.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do you know that through the network? |
| 02:38:08.84 | Diane Hanna | Yeah, I did hear someone start to speak, I think, with the city. So I didn't want to enter. I wanted to give them a chance if that's what was happening. |
| 02:38:18.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not seeing anybody speaking on the city side. |
| 02:38:21.42 | Diane Hanna | Okay. Yeah, so this is definitely certainly public works should be able to provide more detail about this, but in this case, the 84% would constitute the project's fair share of that intersection improvement. And then we will have to confirm kind of the source of the remaining funds for that, but that would typically be collected through other developers or projects or as part of permit fees. That would constitute the fair share of the other users, you know, primary users of that intersection. |
| 02:38:57.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. There was some discussion about the traffic impacts and the 770,000, whatever trips per day. Is there a base, does your traffic engineer have a baseline of what is currently the number of trips per day coming in and off Bridgeway into the Liberty Shipway now to compare that number to? |
| 02:39:22.72 | Brent McDonald | Well, I think that the seven, so there was two traffic studies done, one by DUDEC and one by us. And I believe the 706 trips is the DUDEC report. So DUDEC should probably comment. And my understanding is, yes, they take into consideration the existing conditions and the new conditions. Thank you. should probably comment. And my understanding is yes, they take into consideration the existing conditions and the new conditions. And I can't emphasize enough, if people want to lower the traffic count, deny the CUP. |
| 02:40:01.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... Okay, I don't understand why you're coming. Why you have something in your plans that you want us to deny. If you want us to deny, I think that's a little strange to me. But anyways, I'll let that one go. I mean, if you're the architect, you're not the applicant. If your client wants it or doesn't want it, it would be good to know. |
| 02:40:05.96 | Brent McDonald | No, I can't. |
| 02:40:06.97 | Maria | Bye. |
| 02:40:09.94 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:40:15.56 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:40:26.65 | Brent McDonald | We all believe that it's a reasonable use in the right location, but there seems to be an inordinate amount of conversation on the subject. |
| 02:40:26.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 02:40:37.09 | Brent McDonald | It's a neutral, it's a neutral for the people. |
| 02:40:40.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The question I'm asking though is not about that use. My question I'm asking is, I understood that the 700 and whatever is what your project is generating. And so right now there's a certain number of uses per day that are actually happening to Liberty Ship Wharf. And those buildings comprise probably more than your buildings. And it would be interesting to know the number that those buildings, which have X amount of square foot, which is less than yours, are generating right now to compare it to what you're doing. That was, I thought it was a number you might have right on the top of your head, but because it's- |
| 02:40:55.06 | Maria | Yes. |
| 02:41:28.93 | Brent McDonald | They do consider that. That's what sets up the level of service for the intersection. |
| 02:41:35.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you know what the number is? You don't know what the number is? I can. So well, we can ask that of the Dudaxi if their traffic engineers have that number. |
| 02:41:38.72 | Brent McDonald | Okay. So, well, |
| 02:41:39.86 | Richard Graef | Bye. |
| 02:41:46.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But I'll ask that in a minute. This medical offices that is medical manufacturing, is medical something else, and doesn't seem to be some of the ones you're listing for the electronic votes. So do you really have something medical that you have in mind? |
| 02:42:04.39 | Brent McDonald | We were asked to put together a hypothetical set of tenants that produced a maximum traffic impact. When that was asked of us, our statement was, well, we can set up a set of tenants that seems reasonable. But at the end of the day, the tenanting will comply with the zoning and planning code. And as we've seen, this project on my books has been going since 2015. The state of marine industrial has dramatically changed. And so the tenants makeup is changing. And as we said, if we were able to deliver this project in two years from now, in all likelihood, we would have Candela as a tenant. When we can't deliver it in the next two years, every day goes by, Candela becomes less and less likely. That's poor example. |
| 02:43:11.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you were to use Candela, who wants to take most of two buildings, wouldn't the design change, a pretendent fit up? |
| 02:43:22.40 | Brent McDonald | They've seen the design and said it will work. And they like, again, they like the high power. They like the steel and metal construction. They like the high ceilings and it works for them. |
| 02:43:40.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is it where could they have less height, which clearly was an issue that has been identified multiple times, could it work for them if it was less high? |
| 02:43:53.31 | Brent McDonald | I haven't asked that question. You know, I don't know what the answer to that is, but I can also tell you that Candela may not be the, again, the chances diminish every day that you can't deliver it on what at one time was an expectation for them. You know, people, again, it's all comes down to negotiating the deal and you can't negotiate the deal until you've got a delivery date. |
| 02:44:17.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But you could ask that question of whether they need 32 feet for what they want to do. |
| 02:44:22.30 | Brent McDonald | Well, these are two level buildings. So it's not pretty two feet clear inside. And I would say for a manufacturing that's putting a gantry crane over something, these are already probably at a minimum. Yeah. |
| 02:44:35.57 | Diane Hanna | It's certainly the height is very important for maintaining the flexibility and attracting and keeping tenants. especially if we're targeting these manufacturing type uses and storage and warehouse uses. They just simply need the space. that vertical space. |
| 02:44:56.31 | Maria | I see. |
| 02:44:57.12 | Director Phipps | Sure, if I may. I'd like to give Daniel Hoffman an opportunity to weigh in. I see his hand is raised and he may have something. pertinent. |
| 02:45:06.45 | Daniel Hoffman | on the traffic counts. On the track, Thomas. |
| 02:45:08.29 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 02:45:08.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:45:09.59 | Daniel Hoffman | Yeah, so I took a look at the traffic study. Um, Our traffic study does provide level of service analysis, although not requirement. Persepa. is provided for informational purposes which analyzed two intersections at Marinship Way. Bridgeway and Bridgeway and Spring Street. And it was determined for that analysis, that level of service which currently operates at B. for the first intersection would not change. And for the second intersection, currently operates at A. levels of service A, which would not change in terms of grading, so. Hopefully that's. |
| 02:45:52.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION I'M ASKING. I'M TRYING TO GET TO COMMISSIONER FELLOW'S CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER THE NUMBER HAD DOUBLED OR WHATEVER. AND IF THEY'RE SAYING THAT THIS SITE IS GOING TO GENERATE 700 AND SOMETHING TRIPS A DAY, MY QUESTION IS, HOW MANY TRIPS A DAY ARE CURRENTLY, USUALLY WHEN THEY DO TRAFFIC STUDIES, THEY PUT LITTLE COUNTERS OUT THERE AND THEY WOULD HAVE A BASELINE OF HOW MANY TRIPS PER DAY ARE CURRENTLY GOING IN AND OUT, WHETHER IT'S whether it was today or it was done in 2019 before the pandemic, where the buildings haven't changed much. The usage might have changed during the pandemic, but if there was a building count done before the pandemic of what the baseline is adjacent to this property, then we can compare this number and see whether we're off by a factor of two kind of thing. Does anybody have that? Do you folks don't have that kind of data? |
| 02:46:51.61 | Brent McDonald | There was a counter put out before the pandemic. I believe it was 2018. |
| 02:46:55.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I believe. And who would have that information that we could get that from? It's in the TIS study. Amen. |
| 02:47:04.96 | Brent McDonald | Is that attached to our documents that you have? And it is transportation, |
| 02:47:10.02 | Daniel Hoffman | area it's called a test study. It's in Appendix D of the initial study. Um, I don't have the, counts. in front of me at the moment. Um, Yeah. |
| 02:47:25.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You know, somebody could find that piece of information while we get paid public comment, that would be helpful. you |
| 02:47:32.27 | Director Phipps | Oh. |
| 02:47:32.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:47:32.89 | Director Phipps | I appreciate the desire to get as much information as possible. I think what's important for commissioners to keep in mind is that, yes, there are some unknowns as related to ultimate use. However, Dudek and their team have conducted studies in connection with a number of future conditions. And all study area intersections for these multiple future conditions are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service, with the exception of the Eastbound Leftern Lane at the Moran Shipway-Easterby Street-Bridgeway intersection, which there is a solution for. |
| 02:48:12.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand that, Commissioner. Perhaps I'm trying to address the data and whether we have accurate data with regard to trip generation and also as it relates to parking. So I'm understanding the level of service and that I think is a good thing, but I'm also looking to try to clarify why one number was given us at previous study sessions. And I thought that would be a simple number to get. I'm surprising that nobody can get that Thank you. why one number was given us at previous study sessions. And I thought that would be a simple number to get. I'm surprising that nobody can get that simple number and tell me that currently there's 400 and they're projecting 700, and then it's crazy. Or currently there's 1,000 and they're projecting 700, which seems logical. That was all I was trying to do there and verify the data because if we don't have accurate, if we're not getting accurate data, then how can we go anywhere? That's my... |
| 02:49:01.00 | Kristina Feller | Chair. Chair, maybe staff can look for that while we take public comment and we can circle back to that. |
| 02:49:08.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I was hoping Dudak could find that because they probably have that. |
| 02:49:08.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:49:13.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Trisha, you had a comment on that? |
| 02:49:15.66 | Tricia Stevens | I just wanted to add that I went back and looked at the original staff report for the first study session, where we talked about traffic, It had in it the same numbers, the 706 and the same peak hour. So if there was something in the presentation where a different number was put out, then we apologize if there was some misspeaking, but the written work has the same numbers in it. So we apologize if there was a wrong number in the presentation. |
| 02:49:50.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. At this point, are there other, Commissioner have any other additional questions of the applicant before I open it up for public comment? Seeing none at this point, Director Phipps, if you could tell the public how to raise their hand in the Zoom application, I will note for the record, we have received comments prior to posting of this. And since that, all of those have been transmitted to the commission. We have all received those comments. I encourage people as as they speak if the person before you says what you wanted to say you can agree with them and you don't need to completely repeat what somebody else has said but you'll be given three minutes at the end of the three minutes uh i will note that the the electronics turn off the mic so we will put up a a timer so you can see it to make sure that you're managing your time well. With that, Director Phipps tells people how to sign on on Zoom to give comments. |
| 02:50:58.88 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application, and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. And just to be clear, we will be cutting speakers off at three minutes. So please, to the extent that you can, finish your comments prior to the timer. |
| 02:51:31.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:51:31.11 | Director Phipps | collapsing. |
| 02:51:31.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Director Phipps. With that, I am seeing some hands raised. I'll start with my list may be different than others, so I'm just going to go down my list. Mr. Allen Levine, if the Zoom team can unmute your microphone and unmute your video. |
| 02:51:58.62 | Alan Levine | Hello, can you hear me? |
| 02:52:00.31 | Maria | Yes. |
| 02:52:00.75 | Alan Levine | Bye. Okay, so we're going. I'm Alan Feud. I can't see you. |
| 02:52:03.95 | Maria | I can't see you, though. |
| 02:52:05.08 | Alan Levine | Okay, that's okay. Alan Levine and I represent Coast Action Group, and I want to thank you for doing... |
| 02:52:06.99 | Maria | Yeah. |
| 02:52:12.09 | Alan Levine | due diligence and asking the right questions. And the question that Chairman Luxenberg asked about Liberty Joint Venture owners, they are the same owners. I researched it and there's no reason why they can't do reciprocal mitigation, being the same owners and having the same impacts on the general area. Cag submitted comics promptly after the notice, which was late by admission by Brent. He put it up a day later than is noted in the timeline. But most of the issues that are presented by... Coast Action Group have been for public safety. And I think that those are the should be the highest priority. And that has to do with safe access. Public access, as it stands now, is a tragedy. Not all the time, but on weekends, things are crazy there. And but the Marinship Area Plan did notice that there were problems in circulation and public egress and they asked Thank you. But the Marin Ship Area Plan did notice that there were problems in circulation and public egress. And they asked in the plan for that to be fixed at the next development phase. And this is the phase. If people want to launch boats, come to the Skirmacher area with their boat on their car. They cannot find a place to unload unless they park in the fire lane. That is a hazard. And then little kids and people don't know where to go and have to fit themselves between the cars. I want to make it clear that you are losing 20 or 30 parking spaces where building B is going. That's being used by the restaurant La Garage. And where are those people going to park? Are they going to park in, in the public access spaces? That's for that restaurant on that separate property. I think there's a different owner there. So we need safe routes to the beach and places where people can get their boat near the beach and be able to launch. And I really need you to look at that issue. So one of the issues that CAG raised was elevated particulate of concern. There's some contaminated soils or any kind of soils. And I asked for a description of the proposed BMPs. And I think the public is due a description of what they're going to do to keep elevated particulate down. Now, visual resources may not be a secret issue for private views. |
| 02:55:05.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Levine. The next speaker is Diane Poslowski. If Zoom team can unmute her and unmute and unmute and on video or whatever we call it. |
| 02:55:26.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You're still muted. You have to unmute your own computer, I think. |
| 02:55:34.45 | Diane Paslosky | There we go. How's that? |
| 02:55:35.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's good, thank you. |
| 02:55:36.66 | Diane Paslosky | Okay, fantastic. Okay. Good evening, planning commissioners and all the public who's here. I'm Diane Paslosky and I've been a Sausalito resident for 27 years and the executive director of Environmental Traveling Companions, our ETC, for the past 39 of our 50 years in existence. This week I just passed the executive director torch to Amy Good, our new executive director, but I'll be staying involved with the Liberty Ship project as a resident and as it relates to etc. Sea kayak program. Our mission is to make the joy and challenge of outdoor adventures accessible to people with disabilities and under-resourced youth, inspiring confidence, connection to nature, and stewardship of the environment. Every year we serve over 3000 participants in our programs and partner with over 100 agencies and schools, including United Cerebral Palsy, of the North Bay, Lighthouse for the Blind, and Marin Ventures. Our sea kayak program began in 1984 in Sausalito, and it was the first accessible sea kayak program in the nation. And whether it's someone in a wheelchair or someone who's blind or a disabled vet, everyone's welcome to adventure with Etcetera and explore the bay. Our sea kayak program has had its home at Liberty Ship for over 30 years. We store our single, double, and triple kayaks along with soft gear and five 24-foot containers. donated by Mattson Navigation, and we conduct instruction and launch our kayaks from the beach. Liberty ship. has been incredibly supportive as our landlords. And we've had a great relationship with Mike Rainey over the decades. And I want to express gratitude for their generosity in keeping our rents extremely affordable. We would hope that with the potential development of 70-74 Liberty Ship, that the support would continue. and give our kayak program more security for the future. If this project is approved and moves forward, It's our intention to move into storage bays and hopefully even have a classroom for teaching participants more about the bay and how to be wise stewards of the bay estuary. The beach with its protective harbor is perfect for beginning kayakers who can then progress to Richardson Bay and San Francisco Bay over to Angel Island. for overnight adventures, which we've been doing for four decades. Liberty Shipway and Schoonmaker Beach have been our Sea Kayak Program's home and base for thousands of transformational experiences for our participants and volunteers alike. And with continued support from the owners and Harbor master, we would look forward to an affordable long-term base for our accessible kayak program that calls. Sausalito, our home. Thank you very much. |
| 02:58:28.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker I have is Jude Stocker. |
| 02:58:45.85 | Maria | Zoom team, can you unmute? |
| 02:58:47.74 | Judy Stocker | Yeah, okay. |
| 02:58:47.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:58:48.85 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 02:58:48.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:58:49.49 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 02:58:50.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I didn't think I had to say that, but I guess I do. |
| 02:58:50.81 | Judy Stocker | I just think I... |
| 02:58:53.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mm-mm. |
| 02:58:55.47 | Judy Stocker | Okay, well, thank you so much. My name is Judy Stocker and I'm with Marin Audubon and I'm also a wildlife biologist and I'm very familiar with mono street marsh. because for the past several years I've been going in there with volunteers to remove an invasive plant with the support of both Schoonmacher and Galilee Harbor. which has been really, really, really appreciated. So, um, Marin Audubon has been focused on the health and well-being of wetland habitats for over 60 years. in Marin County. And that's what the focus of the comments are. tonight for me and for us. We believe that the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration do not adequately address the impacts to the mono marsh and the associated upland habitats. and to the native species that rely on them. It's a relatively small marsh. relative to other marshes in Marin County and throughout the Bay. But it really is the only marsh in Sausalito And it is a pretty healthy one. Spending a lot of time there, I've noticed quite a bit of wildlife that uses the marsh and a lot of different species of native plants there, including a rare plant that we work very carefully around when we're removing the invasive species. So, um, The tidal marsh itself is really important for the wildlife as habitat, as nursery grounds, feeding grounds, place to take cover from predators. But it also is really important for us It stabilizes the shoreline, it attenuates the waves, it prevents or slows down erosion. It improves water quality, it sequesters carbon, So it's a really important thing to have and it's, crucial to take care of that. one piece of wetland that Sausalito has there. And then not just the marsh itself, but the associated wetlands are very important. I'm sorry, the associated uplands. It's a place for the animals to take cover when the tide is high. It's also serves as a buffer to the wetlands. It's you know buffer to people, dogs, noise, lights. So it's it's important. We at Marin Audubon recommend that the buffer is at least 100 feet from the marsh to where there might be disturbances. And with sea level rise right now on us and going to get more and more obvious and challenging, So the really important thing |
| 03:02:04.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments. You've hit the three-minute mark, and I apologize, but we need to move on to the next speaker. The next speaker I have is six concerned residents. Zoom team, if you can unmute. And if there's six of you or if there's one of you, however you're doing it, if you can give your name and address for the record, that'd be helpful. |
| 03:02:32.80 | Sue Verholland | Hi, this is Sue Verholland, and I'm a resident of Galilee, but I also am a tenant at 10 Liberty Ship. and have been for about 40 years. at that time over in Bay 2, which is now called Sausalito Creative Center. Um, So much has been said tonight and expressed. I appreciate Julie's comments about the Martian will kind of abbreviate some of mind about that too, although I want to emphasize that as one of the things that this project has touted is that it will, as a public benefit brings more people along that bike and pedestrian paths But please be aware that in fact, what happens is people and animals who are with their people will go ahead and go into that uplands portion of the marsh. And what they're doing is they're disturbing the wildlife there as well as the vegetation. you know, with that. So although they're seeing it as a public benefit, it's also something that can lead to the destruction of the marsh ultimately, or wildlife going somewhere else. I want to also, as far as more pedestrian traffic and more bike traffic, and I'm gonna say electric bike traffic, on that public path. of, I don't think all of them are coming from home and walking along that pathway and then returning home. I, you know, I question the numbers on the traffic studies with the fact that perhaps what some people are doing, and I see this every day, is that people are coming and walking their animals, And they're not parking over at Schoonmaker. What they're doing is they're parking at Dunphy Park or in neighboring neighborhoods with that. So I would like you to consider that when you look at the traffic use that this facility brings, you know, along with it and include that as well. with things. I don't really see what the public benefits that it's that it could be doing that perhaps it should consider. For example, it might subsidize boat access at other spots along the waterfront into Sausalito, including the, you know, the public dock down by what used to be Zach's restaurant. And, |
| 03:05:36.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments. The next speaker is Graff. Is that Richard? Richard? Is that Richard Graff? Zoom team, can you unmute and do video? |
| 03:06:02.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You still have to unmute your voice. Unmute your computer, because I think Zoom team did their piece. |
| 03:06:17.09 | Maria | We're still not hearing you. |
| 03:06:23.95 | Maria | You're unmuted, but I'm not hearing you. |
| 03:06:47.82 | Director Phipps | Commissioner, it seems as though we're having the same audio issue that we were experiencing at the start of this meeting. My recommendation would be for Richard to dial in, at which point we can return to his opportunity to provide public comment. In the meantime, if there are additional speakers, |
| 03:07:10.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. He's picking up a phone and calling in. Let me ask, he's the last hand I'm seeing raised, so I'm going to speak to the public that's on Zoom. If anybody else wants to speak, they should raise their hand while Richard calls in. |
| 03:07:30.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:07:30.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | May I take this? |
| 03:07:30.56 | Nastassya Saad | May I take this moment to just- |
| 03:07:31.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | moment to just. |
| 03:07:34.00 | Nastassya Saad | May I just take this moment to ask if staff can unmute call in user three? I just want to switch to my headset. I'm having some difficulty with the internet. |
| 03:07:47.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Zoom team, if you can do that and let's test it. Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:07:53.26 | Maria | and you say something. |
| 03:08:08.02 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxembourg, there seems to be a few more hands up. Do you want to take them first? |
| 03:08:09.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. No, I want you to unmute call in user three. What Commissioner Saad decided to switch from her computer audio to the phone audio. So that's just letting her speak normally. She's not making comments. She just wants to change her audio input. |
| 03:08:41.62 | Maria | Maria, did you do the Zoom part of that yet? Or does she have to do something? |
| 03:08:45.42 | Director Phipps | I don't see her on my screen yet. |
| 03:08:47.98 | Maria | Um, |
| 03:08:52.32 | Director Phipps | Common user three, I believe has their hand raised currently. |
| 03:09:01.97 | Director Phipps | I do believe she has pressed star nine to unmute from her phone. |
| 03:09:07.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There we go. Can we hear you, Commissioner Saad? |
| 03:09:07.78 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 03:09:07.90 | Kristina Feller | has |
| 03:09:08.33 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:09:12.05 | Nastassya Saad | I can hear you. Can you hear me? |
| 03:09:13.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can hear you. Okay, so she's also- |
| 03:09:15.30 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:09:16.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can take your hand down. Richard, have you been able to call in |
| 03:09:24.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:09:24.20 | Maria | Um, |
| 03:09:24.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:09:24.97 | Maria | Bye. |
| 03:09:25.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 03:09:25.06 | Maria | you |
| 03:09:27.74 | Kristina Feller | Chair let's move on to the other raised hands and come back to |
| 03:09:31.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Feller. That's a good suggestion. I have Jay, I apologize, I'm not pronouncing your name right, Jay Hasteman. Jai Heisman, yes. Jai Heisman, sorry about that. Quite a run. |
| 03:09:45.80 | Maria | by the rest. |
| 03:09:46.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the floor is yours. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Super, thank you. |
| 03:09:53.22 | Jai Heisman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:09:53.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:09:53.96 | Jai Heisman | And, Really appreciate the opportunity to express concerns about this project. while I'm generally in support development and using private property for personal profit. I'm also recognizing that there's significant community impact here I live at 142 Filbert, which has a direct view over the property, if you're standing at the property and looking at the hill, You see my building is kind of the first in the elevation. And So, The view impact, as I understand it, is not protected legally And I guess I need to learn a little bit more about that but I do feel like it will. dramatically affect the coastline view for a lot of residents that live in my neighborhood and also in the above neighborhoods. and I should concerns about protecting the ecology of the estuary. and the herons that around the Galilee Harbor. And And... I'm not sure what can be done to mitigate the impacts on that little ecosystem. but I'm also aware that the, number of wetlands are diminishing. Those are really important. fisheries and habitats. I'm concerned that there's not an EIR that's been required because I would assume there would be some kind of ecological impact with such a substantial footprint. um, So... I guess I'm interested if, That is something that can be done that seems that it would be wise. Um, |
| 03:11:58.00 | Jai Heisman | Also concerned about the significant noise impact. I work from home. and increasing habit. for people generally but I see clients and, They do visit my home. And that's going to have a significant impact on my ability to do my business. Um, And I don't know, you know, Yeah. Overall, as a resident here, I'm seeing both short-term and significant long-term impact I know that my immediate neighbors also work from home, And so, Although I don't think they're here tonight. I suspect that they would also share those concerns |
| 03:12:52.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I think that's... Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments this evening. Richard, do you have voice yet or not yet? No voice yet, okay. We have somebody else, so I'll go to somebody else and keep working on it. Raylene Gorham, Zoom team, if you could unmute that would be helpful. |
| 03:13:24.83 | Maria | Welcome. |
| 03:13:25.76 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 03:13:25.78 | Raylene Gorham | Binary. Hi there. Thank you, commissioners. I just want to say that there are a great many discrepancies in this application, and I really appreciate you all doing your homework. I'm gonna try to limit my comments to one glaring discrepancy that I submitted in a letter with visual analysis earlier today. Um, And that speaks to the impacted views of Mount Tam I believe that the appendix A indicates 53 images taken from close range along the bike path on Schoonmaker. property and they're a little bit disingenuous because they're taken at that kind of close range. And then the submission skips to One rendering from Dumpy Park, which is in that most congested corner right behind the bathrooms. and it completely skips Galilee Harbor. And I think that maybe the, Misrepresentation here is that Gally Harper is viewed as, oh, I don't know if I can share screen, I have made such renderings here as views from our public viewing platform behind me. |
| 03:14:42.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the proposal. |
| 03:14:45.43 | Raylene Gorham | Hold on one second. |
| 03:14:45.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Hold on one second, Zoom team, can we allow Ms. Gorham to share screen please? |
| 03:14:54.54 | Director Phipps | I HAVE A HOME. |
| 03:14:57.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, you can share your screen. |
| 03:15:01.00 | Raylene Gorham | Thank you so much. I did spend some time on this representation here. So are you seeing this now? |
| 03:15:09.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... Just as you started sharing the screen, we're not quite seeing the screen yet. |
| 03:15:13.52 | Raylene Gorham | Thank you. Excellent. Thank you for your patience here. |
| 03:15:26.27 | Kristina Feller | Um, shoot, it's been quite unexpected. to know. |
| 03:15:36.17 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:15:47.38 | Maria | Does anybody |
| 03:15:47.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | know how to help with that or |
| 03:15:55.78 | Kristina Feller | we've received these in public comment. So they are. |
| 03:15:59.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we've received your comments. Tricia could put it up on the screen. If it are these from the comments you submitted today. |
| 03:16:09.89 | Raylene Gorham | Yes, they are. |
| 03:16:11.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, if you can help me. |
| 03:16:11.78 | Raylene Gorham | If you can help me share screen, I'm having Zoom issues. Thank you. |
| 03:16:15.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... Tricia, can you just share that comment? Because you have it. today. |
| 03:16:22.09 | Tricia Stevens | Yes. Just one second. |
| 03:16:28.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:16:42.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Ms. Gorham, our consultant will share her screen and it should have what you said today. |
| 03:16:51.20 | Raylene Gorham | Okay, thank you so much. What we're seeing here is just the views from Bridgeway, which are obviously inconsequential, the highlighted oranges, hidden back there, do not, you know, you're looking through properties, you're looking from a roadway, Just to skip to the next image. |
| 03:17:15.75 | Raylene Gorham | To the left, we have, I've placed the 10, focal points of where the images are presented from appendix A, Those are all the Schoonmacher images. The orange images here, one, two, three, are the images of the The impacted views from Mount Tam, from Gauley Harbor along the public path complete with signage of the public shore. It's used by tourists, locals, everyday dog walkers, plein air painters. As an entity, I'm a part of Galley Harbor, we were required to provide a public viewing platform that does not have a view of the boats. It's a view to Mount Tam. People use it all the time. I've included three images from this vantage point, which are not included in this application. Here's one. This is view three. from that public path, looking back at the pipeline, the bike path line, this is view two. You can see the orange shaded area is what I'm just tracing the story poll lines. And this is the third one from the public viewing platform where we have benches where people enjoy the view. That's Mount Tam, it's not depicted. I believe the commissioners have asked for this repeatedly I just took it upon myself to say, |
| 03:18:37.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Ms. Gorham, thank you for your comments this evening. And we also did receive this today. So, well, we've all had an opportunity to see that. The next, Richard, are you sound yet? No? though. Okay, we'll keep going, but you keep working on it. Thank you. |
| 03:18:58.84 | Director Phipps | I'm not sharing it. |
| 03:19:00.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, no, we got it. Oh, good. I hear a song. |
| 03:19:02.67 | Director Phipps | Yeah, excuse me, Chair, if I may, and apologies, not Richard Graff, but I am seeing a phone dial-in attendee with the name Richard Graff, and I'm wondering if we, and yes, I think he's indicating that that may be him. I think if we intend to unmute him, we may be able to get his public comment on record. |
| 03:19:07.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 03:19:07.57 | Richard Graef | Uh, |
| 03:19:23.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yes, that would be good. He's been waiting a while. |
| 03:19:33.57 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graf, you have to press star nine to unmute your phone. |
| 03:19:52.54 | Richard Graef | I'm seeing his hand raised now. |
| 03:19:56.37 | Maria | Yes. |
| 03:20:14.42 | Maria | And that's, oh, I see it, okay. |
| 03:20:16.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | as Henry's You need to do star nines, what Maria is telling you. because she's unmuted the part here. |
| 03:20:27.03 | Maria | So you need to do start on. |
| 03:20:35.26 | Maria | Okay, he's done now. Can you say something and see if you can hear it? |
| 03:20:53.10 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:20:53.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You want to say something, Richard, just so we can see if we can hear it. |
| 03:20:57.34 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I'm seeing it. Chair, I'm seeing his phone dial in still muted. I believe star nine only is to raise your hand. |
| 03:21:06.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, so what do you do to unmute? |
| 03:21:11.48 | Director Phipps | Thank you. There we go. I'm seeing commissioner side say six. Thank you. |
| 03:21:18.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Try star six, star six? Number six, I don't know. Somebody please help. Thank you. |
| 03:21:26.82 | Director Phipps | you |
| 03:21:26.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:21:26.90 | Director Phipps | I'm seeing Richard unmuted on his phone now. |
| 03:21:31.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, can Richard say something and see if we're gonna hear it. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:21:40.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | He's showing us the phone and I don't know what it means. |
| 03:21:42.70 | Kristina Feller | Chair, I think we should move on to the next members of the public with patiently having their hands raised and we can come back. I agree. |
| 03:21:51.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I agree, Commissioner. Okay. My suggestion, one suggestion might be for Director Fitch, Richard to call |
| 03:21:52.18 | Maria | Thank you. I don't know. |
| 03:22:01.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you and then we can hear him through that, but I don't know what else to suggest at this point. But let's move on to some other people. The next name I see on my list is Alexandra Canton. If Zoom team can unmute and allow video. |
| 03:22:27.48 | Alexandra Canton | Hello, can you hear me? |
| 03:22:28.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, we can. |
| 03:22:30.11 | Alexandra Canton | Okay, thank you so much for this meeting and thank you to the commission for doing such excellent due diligence. Three points following up with other public comments I've heard. but one that I haven't heard yet. The so-called bike path, this small path that goes along the marsh is keeping touted as like some, like, public major through fair. And it's not, it was a dirt path until very recently. If you look at the multi-use paths in Mill Valley, um, It feels like it's being described like that. So I'm a little hesitant to think that this is really going to be something, unless there is major upgrades, which could potentially damage the marsh. I don't think that public path is really a sustainable solution for the amount of foot traffic that they're anticipating. Secondly, every single person who visits Sausalito, every single person who walks are the paths beginning at Dunphy across the Galley property and over to the other public paths. That view will be completely impacted forever. This comments is so disingenuous that it's just a few private citizens that are going to be affected by this. You can see Mount Tam from Dunphy Park presently. And if those buildings are there, that is going away. So this impacts literally everyone. And my third comment is about the traffic. Anybody who has come up from that area, up that skinny little hill, waiting to make a left or right turn, the idea that we're going to be adding so much more traffic in that area and that you don't think that it's going to back up onto Bridgeway, back up all the way down that road is, I mean, we're just fooling ourselves. This is going to have a huge impact on our public streets. And I'm really glad that you're taking all of this into account. And thank you again. |
| 03:24:39.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments this evening. Richard, I don't know. I don't think we have Richard yet. |
| 03:24:48.93 | Director Phipps | If I may, for Richard's edification, I have provided an email with my personal cell phone to the extent possible. I'd like to keep that over email and not on the public record. Richard, feel free to give me a call if that is... feasible for you. |
| 03:25:06.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So Richard, you can call Director Fripp's cell phone number that he just sent you and we will hear your voice. You'll see your video, hear your voice through his cell phone. So let's try that approach. because we're running that off. |
| 03:25:22.93 | Kristina Feller | We'll run it down the line. Let's keep going though, Chair, while Richard is doing that. We've got a lot of public comment here. |
| 03:25:28.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, yes, I'd be happy to do that. I see on my list, Sausalito Resident, it doesn't give me a name. So if Zoom team can unmute Sausalito Resident and allow video, and they can give you a name and address from the record, please. |
| 03:25:51.96 | Heather Plotkin | you |
| 03:25:51.99 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 03:25:52.02 | Heather Plotkin | you |
| 03:25:52.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:25:52.09 | Heather Plotkin | Oh, hi. Hi. My name is Heather. This is Heather. I'm a Plotkin. Sorry. Just really quickly, I have collected 51 for the record. And here's a picture. 51 signatures from Sausalito residents opposing this project. I just wanted to point that out as record, and I won't take any more time. I just want to thank you all for doing this. I appreciate it so much. Thank you. |
| 03:25:52.51 | Kristina Feller | Hi. |
| 03:25:53.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:25:53.07 | Kristina Feller | Hi. |
| 03:25:53.69 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 03:25:53.78 | Kristina Feller | My question is, |
| 03:25:54.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thanks, Heather. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:25:55.89 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 03:25:55.92 | Nastassya Saad | Wow. |
| 03:25:56.16 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:25:56.80 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 03:26:20.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments. And that was sent through Ms. Stevens to the commission. Um, I think we have Richard through Director Phipps now. Director Phipps, is that correct? |
| 03:26:41.98 | Kristina Feller | Let's keep going, Chair. |
| 03:26:43.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let's keep going. OK, I'm just trying to get that one done. So let me see. I have Terry Thomas. Zoom team, if you can unmute Terry Thomas, that would be good. |
| 03:26:55.64 | Unknown | Hello, thank you for the, let's see here. Start my video. Okay. I think we're good. Thank you. Thanks for the ability to speak this evening. I have three quick comments that hadn't been addressed from our letters, so just wanted to make sure that they went on the record. They have to do with protecting the marsh. The first is to have native plants be planted throughout the marsh. Right now they're not. And as sea level rises, the refuge for the animals, it's gonna be really important that it can go uphill and into native species. The second is that the pathway be moved inland from the marsh, again, as sea level rises and also just to give more protection to the upland area required for the marsh. The third is that lighting is Dane is greatly bothers wildlife and especially bird species in migratory season. And if they could direct the lighting directly downward, if there have to be lighting on the trail or have small baller, short bollards or try to let to direct the lighting away from the marsh. The other lighting will be the headlights from the cars, and it would be great if the parking spaces were so that headlights wouldn't go into the marsh. Thank you. |
| 03:28:13.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments. uh, Director Phipps, do we have the connection now |
| 03:28:21.33 | Director Phipps | We have Commissioner Graff? On the line through my cell phone, Richard, if you'd like to provide comments. Please go ahead. |
| 03:28:30.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and I'm gonna make, I'm gonna help Richard here as these are comments as a resident, not as a commissioner. No. |
| 03:28:38.50 | Richard Graef | Did you hear me? |
| 03:28:40.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, we can hear you. Now we can hear you. |
| 03:28:42.78 | Richard Graef | Okay. Sorry. |
| 03:28:49.43 | Maria | Thank you. about her business. |
| 03:29:02.80 | Kristina Feller | Mayor, I think we lost him. |
| 03:29:04.08 | Maria | I think really long. |
| 03:29:04.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:29:05.55 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:29:06.07 | Kristina Feller | We need to keep going here. |
| 03:29:06.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:29:10.80 | Maria | Yeah, we can hear you. Keep going. |
| 03:29:13.60 | Richard Graef | Oh, okay. So Microsoft, |
| 03:29:23.79 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:29:30.18 | Richard Graef | in the public view, looking All right. my recommendation would be in any way possible to reduce the size of the |
| 03:29:49.76 | Kristina Feller | We're losing some of the audience. |
| 03:30:06.53 | Maria | Director Fitzpatrick- |
| 03:30:15.98 | Richard Graef | be looking at the size of these |
| 03:30:21.11 | Maria | Okay. |
| 03:30:21.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm hearing it fading in hours. Is that what you're hearing? Is all this hearing now? |
| 03:30:27.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 03:30:27.98 | Director Phipps | Richard, I'm sorry. I'm hearing from commissioners that they're not able to pick up your audio from my cell phone. I think that we need to take I think we should take the opportunity to move on. |
| 03:30:47.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK. |
| 03:30:54.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, we're gonna move on. My suggestion to Richard would be to cut your video and try calling it again with no video and whatever and see if it works. But I will go on to another speaker. So I see Sonia H, if you could, Zoom team can unmute Sonia H and allow her to give her name and address for the record and set the timer to three minutes. Thank you. |
| 03:31:29.96 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:31:32.24 | Sonia Hammonds | Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Sonia Hammonds. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'd like to speak a bit about impacts of this project on the public and how some of those impacts can be mitigated beyond what's in the MND and related to Thank you. usage of the project, which is not covered in the MND. So this development would take things from a huge percentage of our community. As we've heard, it would greatly reduce the aesthetics and character of the public shoreline experience for many residents and visitors who enjoy the waterfront paths. This relates to the previous comments that the information provided about public views is inaccurate and does not provide information from many public shoreline access points that are drastically affected. We're talking about sending 700 car trips per day running straight through where our kids travel on a back road specifically so they can avoid traffic. when they're biking to school and walking to school and to the library. And then there's the horrendously loud Armageddon we can anticipate during construction when driving pilings for three buildings. I don't know if you've ever been around driving pilings, but it can shake you to your core. And that will be an epic impact on the community. So let's talk about community benefit agreements so we can do right by our community. And that is typically done through a very interactive process. And you may recall that many residents have been asking for more opportunities to be involved in this process than three minutes would allow, like, you know, a specific process. session with interactive community discussion. I can share three examples of public benefits that the city could condition the developer to provide. But ensure that with meaningful public input, we could identify even more creative solutions. So one is affordable space for artists. One of the very purposes of the Marinship specific plan is to ensure that fine artists have a place here. Yet fine art is not listed anywhere in the potential uses of this project. So designating affordable workspace for fine artists would be a meaningful way for a development to meet local needs. Work opportunities for artists. We could look at incorporating public art from local artists into building design, which could also address some of the monolithic nature we've heard comments about. There could be rotating opportunities for art exhibits in kind of the lobbies of the buildings. This would not add immense cost to the developer, but it would provide benefits to the community. And as for boat tie ups, if the applicant is not able to provide this public |
| 03:34:36.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments this evening. Next call, next one I have on my list is call-in user four. Can you unmute caller user four Zoom team? |
| 03:34:46.96 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:34:56.89 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:34:56.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Is that me? Yeah, that's you. No, no. Start over. |
| 03:34:58.83 | Maria | Yeah. I'm going to go. |
| 03:35:01.07 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I'll go back. |
| 03:35:02.77 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:35:02.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, we can hear you. |
| 03:35:03.35 | Richard Graef | We can hear you. I'm so very sorry about this technical difficulty. I'm going to go ahead and see I live at 300 Napa Street, We've got Holy Harbor. I've been in business in Sausalito and design business for 40 years. here on the waterfront for 30, So I would like to comment on the overall mass and scale and the visual impact of this project. which is really quite massive. and the orientation of the buildings, I feel, is really wrong for the site. Um, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE applicant seriously consider rotating the buildings, particularly A and B, such that they are at 90 degrees to the bike path, to the pedestrian path, That way you would not be looking at the long sides of the buildings, you would be only looking at the ends. and through space between the buildings. I also think that the building close to the water, the sea, building. It was too close to the water. it could easily move further away from from the water. And I think if there's going to be a cafe that serves the, uh, complex there that perhaps it's facing the wrong way right now. that the restaurant really ought to be facing towards the interior of the project. So I think that's my main concern. And I think there's a really good fix for that. by just uh, rotating those buildings. Um, So that is my primary goal. primary, uh, I think the architectural style of the buildings is not consistent with the Marinship vernacular. and that they could be simpler and perhaps reduced in size. I still have a few seconds. anyway, uh, and so if there were more open space, uh, by eliminating a building. let's say, THAT PERHAPS, some of the outdoor use, storage of boats, and things could still be present on site because I think that's one of the nice things that one encounters over there. is that little bit of rustic charm. Um, So I would not like to throw that baby out with the bathwater. Um, Okay. Those are my main I think I would reiterate that there's some real traffic problems particularly on Bridgeway. And I will close and thank you. |
| 03:38:08.97 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:38:08.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. I'm glad we were finally able to get the audio through next our list here is vicki Nichols. This Nichols welcome to see zoom team, if you can unmute. |
| 03:38:22.69 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:38:28.82 | Vicki Nichols | I'm trying to unmute here, sorry. I wanted to speak quickly. Thank you, commissioners and the public for commenting on this project. This is one of the largest projects we've had in Sausalito for a long time. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the bike path. It's a ped and bike path. This was conditioned under the Sausalito Marine I'm not sure. Schoonmaker Marine in in the 1985 the original permits I've looked at all of these I got a recent update from their shoreline develop analyst she sent me the permits governing this property on 317 in terms of the requirement for the path. The path was required because this beach was added, I'm sorry, I'm stumbling here. I'm trying to talk fast. It had this sand added to the shoreline. So the path was a requirement of BCDC. It is not a class A or anything else. It's more of a path to give public access there. But there's something interesting in the latest thing she sent me, and it was germane to who owns this property. of the parcel we're speaking about tonight. If it is the same owners, They are then required to in perpetuity maintain the pathway and the shore. I can send you this document. The permit is the original BCDC property. permits from 1985. This is like the ninth amendment and it went up through 2013. So the ownership, if it is the same as the Schoonmaker Marina project, also obligates this parcel to be under the same conditions for maintenance of the areas. One of those conditions is about the vegetation in the marsh, which has died over the years. Marin Audubon has been doing the maintenance work they talked about. But- it should be brought to better condition. And it would be, if the ownership's the same, part of this parcels owner's responsibility. The other thing about restaurants in the marineship, under the marineship, we're calling it all kinds of things. It's the marineship-specific plan. These ideas were for more smaller cafes. And this can be determined and conditioned by the number of seats is going to be how large this is. So there is some control. that the commission has as well as getting the applicant what they want. The idea would be, for like was mentioned sandwiches, that a smaller kind of experience for the workers in the area. |
| 03:41:03.39 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:41:04.51 | Vicki Nichols | And then Commissioner Saad mentioned something from the Marinship Pacific plan talking about the 32-foot height limit. That didn't sound to me like that was a guaranteed right. That was a restriction that sounded rather than just going in and asking for that. There could be a determination of the need for that. It's difficult. to make these decisions because you don't have these tenants, but I do support these industrial uses. |
| 03:41:36.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ms. Nichols. Your three minutes has ended, but thank you for your comments this evening. With that, we're going to look and see if there are any other hands raised. Director Phipps, I'm not seeing any hands raised. How are you seeing any hands raised? |
| 03:41:54.31 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:41:54.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and |
| 03:41:54.88 | Director Phipps | you |
| 03:41:55.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Director Thurston. With that, we will close public comment this evening, and we will allow the applicants their four minutes and some odd seconds for any rebuttal that they wanted to have, which they reserve their time for. So Zoom team, if you could put back on the clock the residual time, that would be appreciated. |
| 03:42:17.98 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:42:37.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And if Mr. McDonald and Ms. Hannah, if you wanna come back up, I'm not sure which of you wants to do this section. |
| 03:42:48.71 | Diane Hanna | Yeah, can you all hear me okay? |
| 03:42:50.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:42:51.26 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:42:51.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:42:51.31 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:42:51.33 | Diane Hanna | Okay, great, thank you. Thank you everyone and for everyone participating tonight. You know, we appreciated the comments. and the feedback from the commissioners and the public There was one follow-up item, really more informational, that I just wanted to clarify with respect to the proposed traffic mitigation. and how that would be accomplished. So what the condition of approval there says it's condition 22 is that the applicant would pay its fair share of constructing that improvement. or, and this would be, prior to any issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the site. that they would pay its fair share for constructing that improvement. or they would construct the improvement directly and then be reimbursed from the city based on its fair share of the cost. And so how that would play out would be at the determination of the Public Works Director. So I just wanted to answer that question. that was coming up. In conclusion though, we have been, This project has been pending before the city since 2016 when the application was first filed. This application has been deemed complete since 2020. There has been repeated outreach and collaboration with the city to provide you know, responses and answers to the different questions that have come up. additional studies, expanded studies beyond that completeness determination. And on behalf of the owners, they appreciate the collaborative relationship that they have with the city. We think this is a wonderful project. that will benefit the community of Sausalito, will provide some much needed jobs and has been designed to be sensitive to the governing general plan standards, the zoning standards, the standards set forth in the memorandum specific plan, We know that there's a lot of sensitivity because this is a beautiful part of the city. However, we have a project that is fully consistent, fully compliant with every single governing standard here. Um, And so given that and given the tremendous benefits that we think will come from this project, we are asking for your approval of the project tonight. And so that we can move forward with our proposed tenants, potential tenants to start doing some really exciting and wonderful things here. And we think in the end, it will be an overall improvement to the waterfront and to this portion of Sausalito. So thank you. |
| 03:45:22.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments. Brent, do you have any additional comments? Not at this time, no. Okay, thank you. All right, well, now I'm going to bring it back up to the dais, and we can talk about this project. This is, I'm going to sort of frame what our choices are. Our choices are to, I'm going to the staff recommendation, it's to approve the resolution for the ISMND, and then approval resolution for the design review permit, and then the conditional use permit. Alternatively, we can approve the design review permit and the conditional use permit Thank you. with modifications. We could continue the hearing for additional information and or project revisions or we could deny the design review permit and the conditional use permit and direct the staff to return with a resolution of denial. I'm going to comment on the last one. If we are to deny this project, we do not need to make a decision on the ISMND because it becomes irrelevant in regard to the fact that if we don't have a project, we don't need to determine whether the ISMND meets its standards. So be advised if we were to go to that approach, that we would do the opposite of the first thing, which is approving the ISMND first. With that, I'm going to open it up for thoughts from commissioners on how you all would like to proceed. I already see Commissioner Saad's hand up, so I will go to her. |
| 03:47:01.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:47:06.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I need Zoom team to unmute Commissioner Saad, who's on a cell phone, and I have to figure out which number she is. Is she number five? |
| 03:47:16.84 | Kristina Feller | I think it's answer three, Chair. |
| 03:47:19.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | She's three. Caller three. Thank you, Commissioner Felton. |
| 03:47:21.00 | Kristina Feller | call. |
| 03:47:30.07 | Nastassya Saad | Bye guys. You can hear me? Yes. OK, great. Thank you. I would like to make a motion to I don't think we have enough information to make a comprehensive decision at this time. I think between all of us, we've made quite a few points here, but just to reiterate on what we're looking for. There's a needs analysis. We don't have the easement information. There's an agreement for this parking situation that we don't have visibility into. We have some consensus that some of the drawings are not what we're seeing in our packet. So based on the fact that we just don't have a complete look at what we are trying to make a decision on this evening. I'd make a motion to continue to a date uncertain. |
| 03:48:23.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, before we get a second on that, let me see if there are other comments. Commissioner Fowler. |
| 03:48:30.17 | Kristina Feller | Well, I appreciate Commissioner Saad's point there and her motion. I mean, at the beginning of this, I was actually going to make a motion for denial. for a multitude of reasons, mainly of the 13 findings we have to make. I think there's one of them I can make. And so the question really was, if we get all this additional information, Is that going to make an impact to being able to, for the applicant to make proper amendments, to actually respond to the findings that we have to make. That being said, I think Commissioner Saad has made an excellent point that there's quite a lot of information that we still don't have. I'm going to finish where I began at the beginning of this hearing. And that is I implore this applicant to please listen to the commission. please go back to study sessions. They were not frivolous study sessions. They were meaningful. There was a lot of substance. There was some great conversation. some good comments. And I can point to just about everything that we said. starting almost two years ago, And we really have not moved the puck forward. And the onus is on the applicant now to really respond to the direction and the input and it was in the constructive feedback that we were given. This Commission wants every applicant to have a successful project study sessions are a great way to get there, but if you're not going to listen to what we're asking for or our feedback or input. This is an exercise of frivolity so I would happily second Commissioner sods motion with the caveat that this applicant and I would ask Trisha and CDD staff. Please don't have this applicant come back in front of us again until we can get these loosens tied up. We want to set it up for success. We don't want to not hear this again, but we don't want to hear the same thing. on a different day. And just for the record, So it's clear and there's no ambiguity here. I can't make findings... to three, for five, eight, 10, And 13. |
| 03:51:09.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Vice Chair Junios, any thoughts before we get to motions? |
| 03:51:16.07 | Andrew Junius | Sure, thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Interesting hearing tonight, interesting projects. I will have to say I'm, Um, I was very skeptical early on and in the, you know, I actually, I walked by the site a fair amount. I'm very familiar with, marsh and the wetland. I'm very familiar with the paths. I'm very familiar with how this site lays out. I live just up the hill. from here and I'm down there all the time. And, you know, it's an interesting I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT IT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF OFFICE USE THERE. and non-industrial uses in the vicinity. It's a marina, you know, there's I don't think there's any question that the proposal for the uses appears to be consistent with the zoning, to the extent that Sausalito wants to encourage marine uses, encourage the working waterfront, attract very incredible tenants like Candela. If anybody's not familiar with Candela, I would urge you to go to their website They're a hydrofoil electric boat company I've actually seen one out in the Bay relatively recently. It really would be an interesting and fantastic. hedge for Sausalito to land a tenant like that. That said, It would have been nice and directing these comments, the project sponsor here, the applicant, you know, it would have been nice to have, I understand you're not gonna have leases, but some type of expression of interest, not that we don't believe you, You know, it, It would have been nice for somebody from Candela to have written a letter or your other possible tenants and the other blue technologies you're thinking about. that would have been helpful to get an idea of the interest. Not that anybody's making commitments, If there really is interest for those type of technologies and those type of tenants, maybe it'd be helpful for this commission to hear that because you certainly, This is an extraordinarily sensitive part of the city. And you heard that tonight and you knew that coming in. Of course you knew that. It's and I'm given my background, I know exactly what you're going through. I know exactly how difficult it is to deal with view impacts and deal with public concerns like this. But you got to figure out a way to you know, balance... I want the issues out of it. and having some you know, some additional understanding of of what the uses might be I think would be extremely helpful to me and maybe the other commissioners as well. I have you know, I've been really struggling with this for quite a while in terms of the uses. In my world, it's easy to, you know, when we're usually pretty, the issues aren't usually use-based, right? It's when you have a housing project, you know it's gonna be housing, it's usually in the right place for housing. talk a lot about size and density and things like that, you know, other commercial uses, you know, exactly what you're getting, you know, it's going to be a hotel, you know, it's going to be a retail establishment or a restaurant. here. we're taking a chance in some respects, I hope there's a demand for this type of space, and I hope that the tenants will come if it's billed, but we don't really know that. There is a little bit of concern on my end with respect to that. but, Again, if Sausalito wants to be a leader in the Marine technology world and support the working waterfront. THIS VERY WELL COULD BE A GREAT PROJECT. But I think you're hearing tonight that we're probably not going to be able to get there. So I I'll definitely support a continuance. if that is the will of the commission. So thank you, Chair Luxenberg. |
| 03:55:02.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Well, as you all know, I hit continuance, especially something that's been going on for five, six years. But I understand what the commissioners are saying. We do need some additional information. We need information about easements. We need information about abutting properties access. But this is not, I want to second, this isn't just about we're missing some documents. The design needs some modification. We told, we said this at the first study session, we said it at the second study session. And if this comes back the same way it is, it's not gonna make it, it's gonna get denied. So I encourage the applicant to fix it. I think that the use and the marine ship plan work well. What they're proposing here and the idea of electric boats or the idea of the kayaking and all of those uses are great uses. I think the architecture is the idea that this doesn't block views from Galilee Harbor and they took the one photo from the one five-foot spot on that whole wharf that doesn't get the view blocked was a little disingenuous. So, you know, this is it's never going to beING TO BE SMALL ENOUGH TO DO THIS AND IT NEEDS TO BE TWO STORIES. BUT AS I THINK COMMISSIONER SAID, THIS IS ON THE SHORE LINE AND WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE NOT TO BE 32 FEET WHERE POSSIBLE. SO, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. I THINK THAT THE PARKING, THERE NEEDS TO BE PARKING FOR SOME VISITORS FOR THESE USES. SO SOME ARRANGEMENT WHERE THERE'S VISITOR SPACES AND THERE'S RESERVE SPACES AND SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. SO I THINK THE PLANS NEED, I ASSUME THE PLANS ARE JUST WRONG BECAUSE WE CAN'T HAVE OCTOBER 2021 PLANS AND ALSO LISTEN TO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE STUDY SESSION. SO I THINK THE PLANS NEED TO BE UPDATED AND IF THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION IS TO CONTINUE THIS, I'M VERY HOPEFUL THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK TO US THAT IT WOULD COME BACK WITH DESIGN CHANGES THAT ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS AND COME UP WITH A PROJECT. THIS IS PEOPLE HAVE SA said, this is one of the largest projects we have before us in the last several years. It's centrally located. It's a critical aspect of the marineship. And it's got a great concept in use. And so if some tenant's going to take two buildings and they really wanted them different all of a sudden, then maybe it's a time to rethink what exactly what the buildings are. Cause the tenants that they thought about when they, this was envisioned in 2015 before a pandemic may be different than the tenants that they're going to have today, but they've got a design from before the pandemic. So again, I hope that they take this to heart. At this point, I'd be willing to entertain a motion for the motion that Commissioner Saad said for continuance and I heard a second. So now that we have a motion on the floor, is there any further conversation or discussion? |
| 03:58:25.51 | Kristina Feller | I just want to make sure that staff understands this and can help communicate this to the applicant. And as it relates to the findings that I rattled off, that that was clear. |
| 03:58:25.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 03:58:44.44 | Kristina Feller | as well before we take roll call, just for clarity purposes. |
| 03:58:51.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Let me ask, do you want the findings specified in names rather than numbers? Is that helpful or... |
| 03:58:57.74 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean, I was just going through the 13 findings on the design review. Obviously the ISM and D can't, you know, we can't, that would have to be continued. We can't do anything about it until we know that we have a diet design review that we can approve. Um, And then. You know, I don't I don't currently have much comment on the CUP other than I'm assuming this is like a grab and go sandwich shop and not some fine dining but Um, I just want to make sure that staff understands the comments that we're getting. So because this is continued to a date uncertain, We are hoping that all these comments, which are mainly repetitive from the last two study sessions. will be taken to heart and actually responded to. So, Tricia, do you understand what we're commenting on and what the direction is? |
| 03:59:57.58 | Tricia Stevens | Yes. The main thing would be that you are looking for design changes in order to make those findings and to look at changes to either the height or the orientation of the building to respond to those findings. Would that be a correct statement? I was just trying to get a little more specific on what kind of changes you might want to look at. I know you don't wanna design the project for the applicant at all, but I just... trying to see if it has to do with height or orientation or both. or combination of all. |
| 04:00:43.31 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think it's consistent with the comments we've made at the last two study sessions. We have some issues with the again, I'm going to use the word deliberately monolithic nature, the view quarters that we've talked about. There have been other comments in the study sessions. If the applicant goes back and looks at those sessions, I think there were some comments on the materials looking sort of cheap, there's no sense of a sense of place. This is a significant, you know, development in an area of Sausalito that is a great opportunity to create a sense of place. And we're hoping that there is some architecture and planning that will reflect that. um, for generations to come. So again, I would refer everybody back to that, but let's get back to the comments that we've provided in terms of the findings. I want to make sure that you have that information. |
| 04:01:36.31 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:01:42.73 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Saad made a motion on the floor. I second that motion. |
| 04:01:43.05 | Unknown | saw I made |
| 04:01:47.55 | Kristina Feller | And that's why I rattled off the findings that I could not make. If someone wants to amend that, they can do that. But I'm ready for a roll call when you mark it. |
| 04:01:55.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Fowler, can I, because I'm struggling with, in attachment one, Ms. Stevens has listed findings by letter, not by number. That's why I raised this issue. So if we go to attachment, are you going to the code or are you going to your staff? Where are you getting the number? |
| 04:02:16.97 | Kristina Feller | I'm doing table six, but we can go, we can, we can go. |
| 04:02:21.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 04:02:22.26 | Kristina Feller | Battle it off however you would like. |
| 04:02:23.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't have a preference. I just want to look at it at the same time. So, attachment one has an A, B, C, D, E, F, G kind of thing. So, let me look at table six. |
| 04:02:28.58 | Kristina Feller | And I'd like to- |
| 04:02:32.46 | Kristina Feller | and And Sergio, did you want to give us some direction here as well. |
| 04:02:40.32 | Mary Wagner | So, I mean, as I understand it, the motion is to continue. It is not to deny this project. So you would be anticipating that the applicant takes the feedback that the commission is providing and the direction and comes back at a future date with potential revisions to the project. |
| 04:03:00.49 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yes. |
| 04:03:01.16 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 04:03:02.21 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 04:03:05.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Could you direct me to table six? What page is table six on? I'm just trying to find it quickly. |
| 04:03:11.42 | Kristina Feller | 19. |
| 04:03:14.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks. |
| 04:03:22.44 | Kristina Feller | So as long as staff is clear, I think. |
| 04:03:25.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. you |
| 04:03:25.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. But there's a motion on the floor, Chair. |
| 04:03:26.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, Yeah, can you just reiterate the numbers again? I'm sorry. |
| 04:03:32.67 | Kristina Feller | I had two, three, four, five, eight, 10 and 13. |
| 04:03:41.44 | Tricia Stevens | I do have all those. Thank you. |
| 04:03:42.94 | Kristina Feller | OK. All right. |
| 04:03:43.57 | Tricia Stevens | All right. |
| 04:03:43.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:03:44.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:03:44.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 04:03:44.70 | Kristina Feller | So there's motion on the floor. I don't know if you guys want to amend that. |
| 04:03:48.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, if anybody have any amendments to the motion on the floor, I'm just looking at the numbers here. Thank you. |
| 04:03:56.41 | Nastassya Saad | I don't wish to make an amendment. |
| 04:03:58.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, but the I do want to make a general comment about I don't have an issue with having a sandwich shop that serves the staffing that they have. And 20 seats seems appropriate for the number of staff that's projected. So I know the applicant said something about deny the CUP. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH SOMETHING THAT'S OF THE SCALE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT COMMENT. BUT Um... So we have. I'm just checking the finding list to make sure that if there's any other... um, any other things that they may want to look at. and you're landscaping, and All right. |
| 04:04:56.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I would add 10, which is traffic, to your list. And And as the currently designed, I am a little concerned about the general plan. So I would add one in 10 to your list of concerns for the design reflecting, you know, what is best for that area. |
| 04:05:20.74 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:05:21.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But that's not the findings are part of the motion we're just trying to see general direction to the applicants so they didn't because they last time they said we weren't clear so we give them a complete list of findings that we're worried about they'll, they'll be able to design and redesign this to be better. Anyways, any additional comments or questions on the motion. So it's a date uncertain, which |
| 04:05:48.09 | Kristina Feller | We just need a roll call. |
| 04:05:49.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We need a roll call vote. Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Commissioner, director of Biff's late hour Public here. Director of PIPs, can you call roll call? Thank you. |
| 04:05:59.77 | Director Phipps | Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:06:03.56 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:06:04.76 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graf, excuse me. Commissioner Graff is abstaining. COMMISSIONER FELLER. |
| 04:06:09.50 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 04:06:10.68 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. you |
| 04:06:14.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:06:14.51 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Question passes. |
| 04:06:16.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Next item on the agenda is communications. I'm going to go ahead and So, Commission, city staff, if you could give any updates that you have for this evening, if any. |
| 04:06:39.84 | Director Phipps | No updates this evening for myself. Thank you. |
| 04:06:44.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. City Attorney Rudin, do you have any updates? |
| 04:06:52.81 | Mary Wagner | Uh, no, not at this time. Thank you. |
| 04:06:55.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, we'll move on to subcommittees. Before I do that, I just wanna make a point of information. Next meeting, March 1st, will be in City Hall and we're required by the new law to send out a one-way communication to have a quorum in person. And if you can't attend in person, there are restrictions in the law to allow you to telecommute and what they are, and you can all review that. but I'm gonna be asking... IF YOU CAN'T IN PERSON, THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS IN THE LAW TO A LOT OF LAWYER TO TELECOMMUTE AND WHAT THEY ARE. YOU CAN ALL REVIEW THAT. BUT I'M GOING TO BE ASKING COMMUNITY DEVELOPED OR FIPS to contact everybody prior to that meeting to make sure that we have a forum in person. So, uh, he'll be asking that question as that time gets closer. So, and he'll be doing that for every meeting going forward to make sure that we don't end up without a quorum. So, uh, just wanted to make people aware of that, uh, on the subcommittees, uh, the objective design and development standards, uh, commissioner, fellow and vice chair Junius, are there any updates from the last meeting? |
| 04:07:58.11 | Unknown | I think. |
| 04:07:58.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're meeting tomorrow. |
| 04:07:58.72 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:07:59.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:07:59.87 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 04:08:00.39 | Unknown | . |
| 04:08:02.47 | Andrew Junius | We gotta get to bed so we can meet tomorrow. |
| 04:08:04.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We gotta meet tomorrow. Well, that's good. So that's good. There is a California Housing Legislation Working Group. I'm not aware of any updates on that either. |
| 04:08:14.90 | Andrew Junius | Nothing to update there, Chair Luxembourg. |
| 04:08:17.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, standards and conditions will be coming in the spring. Ferryland side working group, I understand that we're gonna have a presentation before us at some point in March, is that correct, Director Phipps? |
| 04:08:31.35 | Director Phipps | That is my understanding based on communications that I have had with Department of Public Works director McGill. |
| 04:08:36.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, HIAC, I think we can take off this list. Is that- No, we can take that off the list. |
| 04:08:40.84 | Kristina Feller | We can. Thank you. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. |
| 04:08:44.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, no. |
| 04:08:44.89 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:08:44.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:08:45.12 | Kristina Feller | The AC is not over. The housing element is not over. We will be getting comments back. |
| 04:08:47.28 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 04:08:47.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | housing. |
| 04:08:47.76 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:08:51.79 | Kristina Feller | from the state to what was submitted And the working group, Commissioner Saad, you and I will need to be working with the city council working group as our original working group before. |
| 04:08:54.96 | Kristina Feller | OK. |
| 04:09:07.62 | Kristina Feller | I do. Those comments that come in. |
| 04:09:07.64 | Kristina Feller | to receive any of those comments. |
| 04:09:10.72 | Kristina Feller | So even though we met our statutory requirements and submitted and all of that, the housing element is not over yet. |
| 04:09:21.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, could I suggest, I would like to rename this working group because it's really the housing element. Instead of housing element working group now, it's no longer HIAC. |
| 04:09:32.80 | Kristina Feller | That's fine. |
| 04:09:33.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so we'll do that going forward. You are correct. Yes, there's a lot more work to do as comments come back. So I was just commenting on the HEAC part of that, which was dismissed, so to speak, by the city council as having completed their task. Parklets will be having a work, I can report, will be having a working group meeting based on some comments from the city council at one of their meetings. And that'll be being set up sometime in March. So we will be doing that. Master Plan Working Group, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Feller, can you give an update on scoping of that? |
| 04:10:25.19 | Kristina Feller | So we did meet, we are moving forward with scoping what the master plan, the citywide master plan should include. And we're preparing that and we'll coordinate that with Director Phipps. We did send a communication to the city council for their priority budgeting. IMPLORING THEM AGAIN to prioritize this as a quote unquote mission critical issue. It is not a lavish thing that we need. These are basic tools to provide basic services And it's important to have as a decision making tool for all the other mission critical items that the city needs to be making. We, um, We don't have anything to table yet, but that will, um, once we coordinate with Director Phipps, that will come, uh, to the commissioner be circulated through a one-way communication for any comments before that. the scoping goes to there's City Council and the idea behind that is that that scope we can then put a budget to and then Um, identify roles and responsibilities of both city staff, commission, or working group members, and then the consultants. So we're working smart and lean and mean rather than a board of a redundant work. |
| 04:11:52.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, that would be appreciated. I'm glad your folks are doing that. I think it's an important document. And also, I think we'll, if the director of Fixum try to get an estimate before it goes to council, so they have some idea of the budget impact of that. that would be appreciated. Um, with, with that, or do any commissioners have any additional items they want to talk about? Commissioner Feller? Yes. |
| 04:12:19.96 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I would just like to, uh, ask that we please schedule the sea level rise and subsidence task force for a presentation to the Commission. Since so much of our work is coordinated with their efforts as well, we really should be We weren't able to do that at the end of last year, but I think it's really important So where they're available and where we have availability on our agenda, I would like to ask that we include that. And then another couple items that sort of have fallen by the wayside is enforcement. We need to have regular updates and presentations. And if they are presentations, if they could be, perhaps a business item. so that we can engage and also take public comment, that would be helpful. But enforcement is increasingly important And we have received public comment on a couple different projects. that I don't know if there's any report out on those by Director Phipps. Um, but, um, I know that the issues up on South Little Boulevard, uh, continue. And if those cannot be resolved, I think I would ask staff to look into the potential of a stop work order until such time as those issues can be rectified. |
| 04:13:41.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, thank you, commissioner Powell. I will comment that, uh, director of hips and I, he, he is trying to schedule that code enforcement update to, to the commission. And so he, he is very aware of him trying to schedule that for one of the meetings in March. So he's. fully aware of that and is planning to do that as well. Thank you. Uh, director, if you have any more comments on that or, um, |
| 04:14:07.69 | Director Phipps | No additional comments, but I agree. We are working on it. We are aware of the request and we plan to bring it to the commission sometime in March. |
| 04:14:17.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Any other commissioners have any other comments or Commissioner Fowler, do you have any other comments? |
| 04:14:24.14 | Kristina Feller | No, thank you, Chair. |
| 04:14:25.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I know this has been a long evening and we will look forward to meeting in person on March 1. So you all have a good evening. Thank you all. Thank you. |
| 04:14:38.20 | Judy Stocker | Bye guys. |
Diane Paslosky — In Favor: Executive Director of Environmental Traveling Companions, a longtime tenant at Liberty Ship. Expressed gratitude for affordable rent and support from the owners, and hope that the project would provide a continued affordable base for their accessible kayak program. ▶ 📄
Judy Stocker — Against: Wildlife biologist with Marin Audubon, stated the MND inadequately addresses impacts to Mono Marsh and associated uplands, and recommended a buffer of at least 100 feet from the marsh to protect habitat and wildlife from disturbance. ▶ 📄
Sue Verholland — Against: Galilee resident and tenant at 10 Liberty Ship. Criticized the claim that increased pedestrian/bike use would be a public benefit, noting it would disturb marsh wildlife; also questioned traffic study numbers and lack of substantive public benefits from the project. ▶ 📄
Richard Graef — Against: Sausalito resident and designer, commented that the mass and scale are too massive, buildings should be rotated 90 degrees to minimize view impacts, and the architectural style does not fit the Marinship vernacular; suggested reducing size and preserving some open boat storage. ▶ 📄
Jai Heisman — Against: Resident with direct view of the site, raised concerns about view blockage, estuary ecology, noise impacts on home office businesses, and questioned why an EIR was not required given the substantial footprint. ▶ 📄
Raylene Gorham — Against: Galilee Harbor resident, presented visual renderings showing that views of Mount Tam from public paths and the Galilee viewing platform would be completely blocked, and argued the application's view analysis was disingenuous by omitting these critical vantage points. ▶ 📄
Alexandra Canton — Against: Expressed concerns that the bike path is being misrepresented as a major thoroughfare; noted that the project would permanently block iconic Mount Tam views from Dunphy Park and public paths; and predicted severe traffic congestion on the narrow access road. ▶ 📄
Heather Plotkin — Against: Submitted a petition with 51 signatures from Sausalito residents opposing the project and thanked the commission for their thorough review. ▶ 📄
Terry Thomas — Against: Requested that only native plants be used in landscaping, the pathway be moved further from the marsh to allow upland refuge as sea levels rise, and that lighting be directed downward and away from the marsh to protect wildlife. ▶ 📄
Sonia Hammonds — Against: Highlighted detrimental public impacts including loss of shoreline character harm to kids walking to school from 700 daily car trips and extreme construction noise from pile driving She urged the commission to require community benefit agreements such as affordable artist space and public art. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — Neutral: Provided historical context on BCDC permits and noted that if the ownership is the same as Schoonmaker Marina the parcel may have maintenance obligations for the path and marsh She supported industrial uses but suggested the commission could restrict restaurant size through seat count. ▶ 📄