| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:02.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What's the question? |
| 00:00:04.06 | Kristina Feller | Chair Luxembourg, recording is paused. You might want to record. Recording in progress. |
| 00:00:07.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | recording Okay, they took care of that. Thank you. |
| 00:00:14.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, thank you all. This is the March 29th of 2023 meeting of the Planning Commission. Director Phipps, can you call the roll? |
| 00:00:24.97 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair Luxenberg and good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Planning Commission. staff members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito's Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. Before I call roll, I'd like to ask Commissioner Feller if she is attending this Zoom meeting virtually pursuant to AB 2449 just cause or emergency circumstance provision. |
| 00:01:00.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director Phipps. I am attending via Zoom based on the emergency requirements. |
| 00:01:07.94 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much, Commissioner Feller. And can you please let us know if there's anyone over 18 participating in the room with you? |
| 00:01:14.53 | Kristina Feller | There is not. There's nobody in the room, in fact. |
| 00:01:18.57 | Director Phipps | Wonderful. Thank you for your confirmation. And with that, I will move to call roll, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:01:24.64 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 00:01:24.68 | Unknown | here. |
| 00:01:25.39 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:01:27.39 | Unknown | Here. |
| 00:01:28.07 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:01:29.38 | Unknown | Here. |
| 00:01:30.45 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. present. Chair Luxenberg. Yeah. |
| 00:01:34.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 00:01:34.06 | Director Phipps | I'm sorry. |
| 00:01:34.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:35.04 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:01:35.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | achieved. Thank you, director Phipps. At this point, we want to go to the approval of the agenda. Uh, are there any comments or questions about the agenda? Director Pitts. |
| 00:01:47.07 | Director Phipps | Yeah, if I may, Chair. And I'd like to request and I'm seeing city attorney. |
| 00:01:54.93 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, we are missing an item of business. In order for... Uh, Commissioner Feller to participate under the emergency circumstances exception. The commission actually has to vote to allow her to do that. So there needs to be an affirmative vote. So moved. |
| 00:02:13.07 | Nastassya Saad | Is that good? |
| 00:02:15.22 | Director Phipps | Thank you, city attorney. I'll move to call roll. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUND. |
| 00:02:18.57 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:02:18.59 | Singe Saliki | Yes. |
| 00:02:19.28 | Director Phipps | Mr. McGrath. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:02:23.06 | Singe Saliki | Yes. |
| 00:02:23.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:24.90 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Juniors. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. Okay, fantastic. So if I may back to approval of the agenda. Thank you. I'd like to request Commissioner approval of a modification to this evening's agenda in connection with item 7a that is very landside improvement project phase one director McGowan and I had an opportunity to discuss this item. And based on those discussions, in addition to public comment received, as well as questions from commissioners, we both feel a continuance is appropriate at this time to allow staff additional time to prepare a thorough plans for Commissioner review to respond to comments received in connection with the proposed project and to hold an additional subcommittee meeting. So with that in mind, I would like to request the Commission continue item 7a to a date uncertain staff will bring this item to the Commission when it is ready. |
| 00:03:24.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Can I entertain a motion from the commission with that amendment? |
| 00:03:30.09 | Kristina Feller | So moved. Second. |
| 00:03:31.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and who is and |
| 00:03:32.69 | Kristina Feller | Second. |
| 00:03:33.84 | City Attorney Rudin | and chair, unfortunately, because we |
| 00:03:34.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | because the item has been agendized. |
| 00:03:36.15 | City Attorney Rudin | If the item has been agendized, you will need to take public comment on that item. |
| 00:03:39.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That was what I was doing. Uh, I was always ahead of you there. Thank you. |
| 00:03:43.46 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:03:44.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:03:44.06 | City Attorney Rudin | . |
| 00:03:44.55 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:03:45.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:03:45.14 | Director Phipps | City Attorney, should we call roll prior to or following |
| 00:03:49.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:03:49.36 | Director Phipps | coming. |
| 00:03:49.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No following public comment because we need to have comments in case we change the vote. Thank you, Chair. So at this time, both in the room and on Zoom, if somebody wants to make public comment on this item, they can do so at this time. I'll have Director Phipps look for, raise, raise, Director Phipps, if you can explain the Zoom procedure for now, and that way we'll have it for the night, that would be good. |
| 00:04:17.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:04:18.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and for the people |
| 00:04:18.98 | Director Phipps | the room certainly thank you chair video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker if you would like to make a comment in person please fill out a speaker card and bring it to staff so we can call on you when it is your time to speak alternatively you may just raise your hand and we will call on you if you would like to make a comment virtually in the zoom application please raise your hand 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 Thank you. your hand 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. |
| 00:04:53.03 | Director Phipps | Looking in the audience for raised hands, seeing none. Looking in the meeting room for raised hands, chair seeing none. |
| 00:05:01.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mayor Mrakas, M.D.: Thank you director Phipps now you can take roll on on the motion. |
| 00:05:06.33 | Director Phipps | make sure. |
| 00:05:06.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Saunders. |
| 00:05:07.60 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:05:08.17 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:05:08.98 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:05:09.86 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:05:10.72 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:05:11.85 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:05:13.25 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion carries. |
| 00:05:18.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda is public comments for items that are not on the agenda. At this point, I will turn that over to Director Phipps to ask for those comments. |
| 00:05:30.88 | Director Phipps | 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. Commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff. or direct the subject the agenda is to a future meeting and i've already gone over the procedures to provide public comment in person as well as to raise your hand in the zoom application thank you chair |
| 00:06:02.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh, The gentleman on the first row, if you could come up to the podium and give your name and address for the record. Thank you. |
| 00:06:15.53 | Nels Zalander | Good afternoon. My name is Nels Zalander. I'm a field representative for the NorCal Carbures Union. I speak on behalf of the working class construction workers of the community. It is important that the future construction has area standards. By area standards, I mean prevailing wage, health care, local hire, and half-skilled apprentices. Workers need to be paid prevailing wage so they can make enough money to take care of their families, especially with the cost of living in the Bay Area increasing with inflation as time goes on. They also should have healthcare for the workers on the project, just in case someone gets hurt. Nobody should be paying for their own injuries due to getting hurt on job sites that happen all the time. We should also include local hire We want workers to be able to work in their own communities so they can get back to their families to be able to raise their own children. too many workers out there driving hours to get home. is not holy hurts the time with their families. but it adds to more traffic on the roads. We should also include apprentices on future projects from apprenticeships that teach professionalism of the trades. Having trained apprentices makes job sites safer and produces quality work. All we're saying is we want all future projects to be safe workers to be taken care of and have successful projects for the community and can utilize and enjoy. Thank you for your time. |
| 00:07:34.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:07:34.42 | Nels Zalander | your comments this evening. |
| 00:07:35.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:07:37.41 | Director Phipps | than the other. Mr. Chair, looking for additional raised hands in the audience, seeing none. Looking in the Zoom application, seeing no raised hands. |
| 00:07:46.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We'll move on to item four, which is approval of the planning commission minutes. I'll look for a motion to get it on the floor. |
| 00:07:57.95 | Kristina Feller | So move. |
| 00:07:59.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | second. Okay, thank you. Are there questions or comments about the minutes? Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:08:08.75 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair. Just one quick note for item number six. It's page three of five. approximately line 12. This had to do with the sea level rise presentation that was provided to us by Council Member Kelman And I just want to make sure that the notes indicate that The planning commission directed staff to move forward with including or exploring how to include the sea level rise. assessments into applications and we requested the funding again from city council to for mission critical work to update the suslita municipal code and ordinances. I just want to make sure that, um, Sometimes our notes are very detailed and sometimes they are general, but I think this because there's a direction A directive of the Planning Commission, I'd like that included in the meeting minutes. |
| 00:09:06.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We are you making an amendment to the motion to include that? |
| 00:09:09.36 | Kristina Feller | I'd like to make that amendment, yes. |
| 00:09:11.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We make her the motion accepting of that. |
| 00:09:13.63 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:09:15.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Absolutely, yes. Okay. Other comments, commissioner Felder? |
| 00:09:19.62 | Kristina Feller | No, thank you very much, Chair. |
| 00:09:21.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, Any other comments from other members of the commission? I have one. In page four, line 31, it should say that demolition should not occur until the building permit is issued. It says demolition should occur before building. Well, obviously demolition should occur before building, but the intent there was demolition shall not occur until the building permanent is issued. So if you make that amendment, is that the maker of the motion accepted in that? |
| 00:09:50.39 | Nastassya Saad | DEFINITELY. |
| 00:09:51.57 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 00:09:52.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With those two amendments, any other amendments? No, Dr. Phipps, can you call the roll, please? Oh, wait. Do we have to take public comment on minutes? |
| 00:10:03.78 | Director Phipps | I believe so, Chair. |
| 00:10:04.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, we'll open it up for public comment on item four, approval of the Planning Commission minutes. Seeing none, can you take, Director Phipps, can you take the role? Thank you. |
| 00:10:18.57 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:10:20.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:10:20.46 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:10:21.30 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:10:22.43 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:10:23.33 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:10:24.42 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:10:25.38 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Motion passes. Thank you. |
| 00:10:31.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Moving on to item five, communications. At this time, Director Phipps, could you give an update from Planning Commission and with the city staff of the CDD department? Thank you. |
| 00:10:43.56 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:10:43.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much, Chair. |
| 00:10:45.04 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Regarding CDD staffing, I'm very happy to report that CDD has made good progress since our last meeting. Specifically, CDD has received acceptance of two job offers, one for the position of associate planner and one for the position of community development technician. Additionally, CDD has one new hire. in the position of assistant planner that has already been fully executed. His name is Matthew Mandich. You may recognize that name. He was formerly a staffer in the Department of Parks and Recreation, and he is currently in the process of transitioning out of Parks and Rec into CDD. This transition will take a number of weeks based on additional staff needs within Parks and Rec. But following the transition, he will become a full- time bonafide CDD staffer. We look forward to working with Matthew and I look forward to bringing him before this commission when appropriate. Finally, CDD has selected a preferred candidate for the position of senior planner. and is in the process of providing a formal offer letter for applicants consideration. That is it for CDD staffing. Very pleased to share that progress. I additionally want to communicate this is outside of CDD, more in connection with higher level city staffing, but positions that may impact CDD. We recently, today was actually their first day, brought on a new hire. I believe their title is Res and sustainability manager her name is Katie Thao and she is working under CDD's direction or excuse me under city management's direction we're also happy to have her and look forward to working with her I believe that she will be a great staff member to work with in connection with SLR |
| 00:12:07.23 | Nels Zalander | you |
| 00:12:07.34 | Maria | that's the best. |
| 00:12:07.38 | Nels Zalander | Bye. |
| 00:12:47.98 | Director Phipps | And there may be some overlap with some of the planning commissions actions and projects that go before him go before them so that doesn't for my staffing updates thank you very much chair and Commissioners. |
| 00:12:59.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Are there any questions for Director Phipps on his update? Seeing none, city attorney Rudin, do you have any updates that you would like to provide at this time? |
| 00:13:14.05 | City Attorney Rudin | No, thank you. Thank you for asking. Thank you. |
| 00:13:16.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. With that, we'll do report outs from subcommittees. The first is the Objective Design and Development Standards Subcommittee, which is Commissioner Feller and Vice Chair Junius. Should we hold that till the item or? |
| 00:13:31.62 | Andrew Junius | Well, the update is we're having a big study session today. So let's get to that as quickly as we can. |
| 00:13:37.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Mr. Feller, any comments? No. No. California Housing Legislation Working Group, Vice Chair Junius and myself, Vice Chair Junius, |
| 00:13:47.18 | Andrew Junius | Just a quick observation and update in news today. It looks like Marin's, the county's housing element has been kicked back. Uh, from HCD. look too difficult, but it is kind of a little bit of a surprise and unfortunate for the county, but I think they'll work it out. So good luck to the county planning department. |
| 00:14:05.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Next item is standard conditions for approval for resolutions, which once we have the staff coming on board sometime, maybe April, we can start to address that issue. Would that be acceptable, Director Phipps? Very open and supportive of that, Chair. Thank you. The Ferry landslide working group, that item has been moved to back to the working group, Commissioner Fellow or Commissioner Junius, any other comments on that? |
| 00:14:38.58 | Kristina Feller | I don't have any further comment on that, but looking forward to getting back into the working group. get this prepared to bring to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. |
| 00:14:49.16 | Andrew Junius | Agree, thank you, Commissioner Filler. |
| 00:14:51.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Bo. Housing Element Working Group, are there any further updates, Commissioner, fellow Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:14:59.43 | Kristina Feller | No further updates that I'm aware of. We still have not received any final comments from our final submission. And director Phipps, if I, if Commissioner Saad and I can ask if you've heard anything through your channel or through our consultant Uh, from the state. |
| 00:15:21.24 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Commissioner Feller for the question. I will keep my response short. No, we have not. |
| 00:15:26.67 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:15:29.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is parklets, Commissioner Fallon and myself. We're waiting for the staff to do the CDD part of that, but I know city attorney's office was supposed to do some draft process information. Have we received that yet? |
| 00:15:45.61 | Director Phipps | City Attorney Rudin and I are working on bringing that ordinance forward, but it is not ready at this time. |
| 00:15:52.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Director Phipps. Next item is master plan working group, Commissioner Feller, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:16:02.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. We have not had another meeting. We still have some feelers out with some local professionals and looking to make those connections to continue working on the scope. We also have not heard back Anything further from City Council on the funding that we've requested. So a little bit of a holding pattern, but Commissioner Feller and I will meet when we can again to keep moving forward. |
| 00:16:31.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Appreciate that. The last item for this evening on communications land side task force, Commissioner Fella. |
| 00:16:44.40 | Kristina Feller | Yes, thank you chair. So I corresponded with director McGowan on this item and we're anticipating a meeting with the task force in mid April, I think dpw has been a little bit busy. with some of the storms that have passed through Sausalito. And the consultant Miller Pacific is working through the landslide task force report and reviewing our recommendations. And so they need a little bit more time to do that. So tentatively we're supposed to meet around April 16th or 17th at 1pm. So we have a placeholder on our calendar and I will keep everybody updated when that meeting is actually confirmed. and the scope of what those discussions will be. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. And I want to thank Director Phipps. It sounds like some incredible progress with CDD staff, and I'm delighted to hear that. And thank you for all your hard work. |
| 00:17:51.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. With that, we'll open it up to public comment on item five, communications. Is there any public comment? |
| 00:18:04.45 | Director Phipps | Seeing no raised hands chair and seeing no raised in the chambers or in the zoom application. |
| 00:18:09.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. We'll move on to the study session. First item on the agenda today is 6A, Objective Design and Development Standards, the acronym ODDS. At this point, I'd like the members of our working group, both Vice Chair Junius and Commissioner Fellow to give an intro to this because they've been working on this for the last 18 months. |
| 00:18:36.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. I very much appreciate the time. And I wanted to start, of course, by thanking Bob Brown and Commissioner Feller and the OptiCoast team to get us to this point. It's really been quite a journey. And so before we turn it over to Bob, I think Christina and I would like to say a few words about, you know, to introduce the matter and give a little bit of context to the public and members of the commission who are I'm just now digging into this. Um, you know, From a personal standpoint, the process we're going through right now with respect to the housing element and the objective standards that we're going to talk about tonight. And all these related laws coming out of Sacramento related to housing production are really the biggest changes I've seen as a professional land use attorney in the last 32 years. It's really kind of stunning. The requirement that cities in California establish a set of objective rules for multifamily housing projects represents a significant departure from our past procedures. planning commissions like this one and city councils all over the state are no longer going to have the discretion to reduce or deny projects that otherwise comply with zoning. and we're talking about and similar subjective land use jargon are no longer really gonna be part of the conversation when it comes to projects that propose two or more housing units. All of this, of course, arises out of our continuing housing crisis in California that's been plaguing the state for many years. I do want to point out that the process is going to shift a great deal of work. and responsibility. for project processing and approval to the planning staff. I'm confident that Director Phillips and his entire staff are up to the challenge but let's not be shy about this. It's gonna be a challenge. I very much hope that property owners, developers, and all the design professionals we work with on a monthly basis We'll be patient as we make this important change in our process. We all need to be working together to make this transition successful. What's happening today is really the first phase of rolling out the objective standards. As you're gonna hear from Bob and Commissioner Feller, The objective standards for larger projects are really not going to be what we're talking about today. Today is a study session for smaller projects and we encourage the public developers and architects to review these standards in the coming weeks and months and give us feedback. We need and we welcome your feedback. Let's also be clear that having objective standards while providing the housing development community with much more certainty will not solve the housing crisis alone. This is still a complex process. general economic uncertainty, high interest rates, labor and material costs, as well as the absurd barriers created by the California Environmental Quality Act all combined to make housing difficult to build in California. So as the ancient proverb tells us, A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. And we've taken a few of those first steps, but we really do have a long road ahead of us. And now I'd like to turn it over to Commissioner Feller. Christina, been wonderful working with you, and I can't wait to continue working with you on this. |
| 00:21:21.08 | Kristina Feller | Vice Chair Junius, you're an incredible partner in this, and I want to thank you too, and Bob and the OptiCoast team that we couldn't be here tonight without you and yes, this is just the beginning. This is not the end at all. And so I want to first acknowledge a lot of the public comments that we've received on this this evening. And I want to thank everybody for that because it also helps us orientate everybody a little bit better. this evening. First and foremost, this is a study session. There is no action being taken by the planning commission this evening. And one of the many reasons we brought this forward as a study session is exactly to have this conversation and to start the conversation, orientate everybody to make sure that it's clear what these objective standards are and what they aren't. And so I think that that's most important this evening. Um, The importance of the odds is stressed a lot by this planning commission, which is why we have agendized this topic for the working group to report out on, at every single public hearing that we've had. And so even if everybody has not seen this very large document yet, It has been our intention all along to make sure that everybody is aware what we're up to and before we bring it in front of everybody. Um, This this process started way back in in before I think even before 2019 with the county of Marin Marin county has a whole toolbox on objective design and development standards. And we're fortunate that both Bob and Opticos were involved in that development as well. the city of Sausalito when we started this here with the working group took a look at the Marin County toolbox for objective design and development standards, and also recognized that much of the body of work in that toolbox did not necessarily apply or do justice to Sausalito. It was very generic, it wasn't very specific to some of our unique situations and topographies and all of those sorts of things here. So that really started this entire process. Um, We've also taken the time as we've developed to where we've gotten to tonight, Uh, we've tried to beta test and really look through and think through the application of these objective design and development standards on Sausalito. And there have been many conversations with Southern Marine Fire and other partners that need to be part of this. um, And you will get into more detail as we move forward here. But I also want to point out that this is not for, what we're talking about this evening are not single-family home SB9 lots. That is something completely different, and that will be a separate phase of objective design and development standards. The odds are being developed to be a parallel code until such time as we can update the entirety of the Sausalito Municipal Code. And that starts in pieces and parts and not holistically. So we did approve or we did recommend an SB9 ordinance to the city council that they did hear and approve last year. And so that does have objective standards in it. It is not full blown, but I just want to be clear that what we're talking about tonight are really R2, R3, zones for the time being. um, Vice Chair Junius, I always love your perspective on these things. You look at it through a completely different lens and I think together, along with this incredible consultant team, and certainly the hard work of our city attorney Rudin we've come up with a really good starting point for this conversation. with that. I'd like to turn this over Bob Brown, you're the emcee for this going forward. And thank you for meeting with us so often And with such detail. So thank you. |
| 00:25:51.74 | Bob Brown | Thank you very much to commissioners Feller and Junius. Again, you've been wonderful to work with over these many months. So I would like to try to cover some of the ground that we've covered together and share that with your fellow commissioners and the public. I'd like to share my screen if that's possible. Can everyone see that? |
| 00:26:11.84 | Mr. Brown | . |
| 00:26:12.73 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:26:13.13 | Mr. Brown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:13.42 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:13.44 | Mr. Brown | Very, very good. Okay, slideshow. |
| 00:26:19.01 | Bob Brown | Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So tonight, The Commission's already had two previous study sessions on the preparation of the objective design and development standards over the past 18 months. So some of this tonight may be a bit of a refresher. Some of it may be new, particularly to members of the public. So my presentation tonight will cover a number of topics, hopefully pretty quickly, but we'll talk about why we need to adopt the odds and Commissioner Junius touched on that. What are odds? What do they constitute? And what development projects will the odds apply to? Again, Commissioner Feller started talking about not applying this to single family and we'll go deeper. We'll talk about the process that we have used with the subcommittee in developing the odds. We'll talk about, again, how those odds were originally created, the county toolkit, how that emerged. And then I'd like to spend the bulk of the time describing the draft document. Again, it's a pretty sizable document, a heavy lift, and it's a very different format in terms of zoning. It's a form-based code, which is quite different than most cities in California are used to. So we'll spend most of our time there. And then we'll talk about the next steps. Again, this is just a study session. So where do we go from here? We'll entertain questions and then public comment and feedback. So as was stated, we're not looking to adopt the odds this evening, just to familiarize you with some of the details of this document, answer questions and receive any feedback you might have. I wanted to point out I'm joined this evening by Singe Saliki, who is the senior designer from OptiCoast, who has been working with us. OptiCoast is the architecture and planning firm out of Berkeley that prepared the form-based code that we'll be discussing. So why are we going through this very significant effort to adopt what is essentially a new zoning code for housing projects. Well, it's because new state laws limit local discretion on granting entitlements for new development proposals that include two or more new housing units. The intent of the legislature is to move housing projects along more quickly and with more certainty for the applicant and to increase statewide housing production. As Commissioner Judy has mentioned, there's a lot of other factors that go into producing housing, but the state has definitely focused on delays at local permitting. So that's what we're responding to. So there are many objective development standards in your current regulations. but dealing with issues, particularly around building design, view impacts, even things like grading standards, the current code contains many subjective criteria or defers a lot of this to discretionary design review. So that can no longer be relied upon for some of these new housing projects. Let me dig a little deeper dive into some of these new state laws and how they apply. Again, they apply to projects that include two or more new housing units. So we're not talking about application to additions or alterations to existing buildings. or to new non-residential projects Those would continue to be regulated by your current zoning code. Projects that meet the many criteria of SB35 and AB2011 now must be approved ministerial. And those can only be based on whether the project beats all the adopted odds. So no public hearings, no CEQA. If these projects don't fully comply with the odds, they don't qualify for ministerial review. And at that point have to go through your normal discretionary review processes. Projects that qualify for the Housing Accountability Act, the HAA, which has far fewer qualifying criteria, These are subject to discretionary review processes such as design review or use permits, but they cannot be denied or have the density reduced if they comply with your adopted odds. You can impose design related conditions. but these can't reduce the density or make the project infeasible. And if all that isn't challenging enough, we still have the state density bonus law. which may also apply. So projects that include a defined minimum number of affordable units are allowed to receive concessions and waivers from the adopted odds which in my opinion rather defeats the purpose of going through this process of creating detailed design standards. Again, That's the application of these many state laws, which are in some cases, you know, cumulative. So here is how the state defines objective standards. The ones that involve no personal or subjective judgment by public officials, They're verifiable by reference to an external uniform benchmark. that are knowable to both the development applicant and the public officials. So again, things as Commissioner Junia said, things like compatibility with the neighborhood, or, you know, as defined by the city engineer. Um, or that proposed to limit view impacts, those things are considered not objective. So they cannot be applied. |
| 00:31:51.82 | Bob Brown | So again, to go through and clarify the projects that the odds will apply to. Again, they apply to projects that include two or more new dwelling units, These could be in a multifamily development, a supportive or transitional housing project, an emergency shelter, Thank you. or in a mixed use project where at least two thirds of that floor area is residential. The odds would also be applied to additions or modifications to projects that were previously approved under the odds. So in the future. since it would be very difficult to review a project originally approved under one set of standards and then have the modifications reviewed under other standards. The odds is only being applied in the current draft to the existing multifamily and commercial zoning districts. So it's only applied to R2, R3, CN, CC, and CR. It does not apply to single family districts. So a new single family home and ADU or a new SB9 project on an R1 lot will not be affected. The odds also as currently drafted don't apply to industrial and waterfront properties such as Marin ship, which currently don't allow housing. And the odds won't apply to new non-residential development or additions or modifications to existing multifamily developments where two or more units aren't being added. |
| 00:33:16.33 | Bob Brown | So the city initially addressed the state laws requiring that we identify objective standards by adopting resolution 6059. Again, about a year and a half ago, which was an interim set of odds that were taken directly from your current municipal code regulations, those which are entirely objective. So we culled down the current code and listed all of the currently objective standards. So that's what we've been operating under if any of these state qualified projects have come in for processing. So these include, you know, numeric things like your height limits, your setbacks, etc. The planning commission created the odds ad hoc subcommittee back in May of 21 to help craft a new set of odds that would replace those interim ones and would to a greater degree address building design. than the current regulations that really don't. And we've had study sessions now with the Planning Commission twice, with the Historic Resources Commission twice, and with the Council, I believe, three times along the way. The subcommittee made a decision early on that we would work to customize the objective form-based development standards that were prepared by a consortium of cities in Marin County and the county as well. although San Rafael didn't participate. And that was done using state grant funds that all these jurisdictions received. So that work resulted in what's called the Marin County Odds Toolkit, because it contains regulations that jurisdictions can pick and choose from, as Commissioner Feller said. and customized to their unique conditions. So the committee process though was unfortunately impacted because in parallel, the city was preparing the new housing element. The odds was originally based on codifying the existing development parameters in the city's code. So as written currently, it does not account for the higher densities and greater building volumes that will be needed to apply to the identified housing opportunity sites from the new housing element. intent is to hold off on adoption of the odds until the housing element catches up in terms of implementing the needed zoning changes so that will be a later phase of our work |
| 00:35:37.47 | Bob Brown | So let me backtrack for a second and talk about how this, the original toolkit was prepared. Opticos, which I mentioned is a firm out of Berkeley, was hired to prepare the toolkit due to their pioneering experience writing form-based codes, which were thought to be most applicable to trying to translate design criteria into objective to find standards. They started that process by surveying typical building scales and styles in all the jurisdictions in Marin County. They held a public forum back in 2020 to get a sense of what the community priorities were. And they had input from all the cities and towns that participated. And they finalized that toolkit back in 2021. To date, Corte Madera and Belvedere and Marin County have all adopted their versions of the odds toolkit San Anselmo is in process and Mill Valley and Nevada have committed in their housing elements to do so. And I would mention that in the county and Corte Madera's housing element submittals to HCD, you know, they did include their draft of their odds, again, based upon the same toolkit, and had no comments from HCD. So there seems to be general acceptance there that these are acceptable objective standards. at least in terms of meeting the housing element requirements. So customizing the toolkit for Sausalito's unique conditions, we started by selecting toolkit zones that best fit Sausalito's existing zoning parameters in terms of density and floor area. The draft odds, as written, refers back to the general plan, maximum densities and FAR, so it doesn't change those. And it also refers back to the list of allowable uses in the zoning code. So those will stay the same as well. And in terms of picking and choosing which standards to apply, the subcommittee determined not to incorporate the sign standards from the odds. Again, not having two sign codes be applied to the city. And they elected to not incorporate the architectural standards. And I'll talk a little bit more about that in a few moments. So it's important to point out the odds essentially becomes a parallel zoning code for the state qualified housing projects. This is less than an ideal situation for staff and applicants to have to operate with two very different code formats and regulations. However, since there is an intent to significantly update the existing zoning code in the future, The city after having some experience in applying the odds may choose to prefer it as a format and could choose again later to revise the current zoning code to be more comparable in terms of a form based code. And this was provided to the planning commission. This is a portion of a table that we prepared that shows the major zoning parameters in your current code and compares those to the drafts and the odds. |
| 00:38:47.30 | Bob Brown | So now I'd like to focus on, again, describing the draft odds itself. And these are some of the basic objectives that are embedded in this form-based code. So the intent is to reduce the visual scale buildings by limiting the maximum building size and dimensions. to limit the visibility of parking so it doesn't dominate the building frontages. to require pedestrian oriented and active street frontages. That's very important for form based codes, how the buildings relate to the public realm. Address development on slopes, which again, it's a big, big issue for Sausalito. and limit privacy impacts when you have adjacent building windows. So those are some of the major intents. in terms of this code. And I think that this graphic is helpful to understand the scale of development that the odds aims for. The OptiCoast gained national notoriety or promoting what they call the missing middle housing types. That may be a concept you've heard about in recent planning conferences over the last several years. It's been a topic that planners have endorsed. So these are housing types that are closer in scale to large single family homes rather than mega apartments or condo complexes. So that's what is trying to be illustrated here. And again, a big concept that the odds incorporates is trying to break up buildings into smaller components rather than large buildings. So what these diagrams are showing is that if you have larger sites, what this code requires is that you break up the larger parcel into what they call development sites. So a parcel can have multiple development sites based upon its size. And each development site then has to meet these individual criterias for individual buildings. Again, the intent is not to have a mega-sized building, which would really blow out the scale of a community like Sausalito. |
| 00:41:02.55 | Bob Brown | So in rough terms, this is how an applicant would go about using the draft odds. to determine the maximum volume of the building that they can build. First, they would go to the applicable zone, the odd zone. And there are regulations for building placement, size and height standards. You would then use those and also select one of the allowable building types from that particular zone. And then you would then start working on the building form and design. So they would pick what's called a mass and composition option. from the selected building types. and select a frontage type to address the relationship of the building to the street. And then at that point, you would apply any architectural standards, which again, we have not incorporated in the odds, but we'll talk about in a few minutes. |
| 00:41:57.43 | Bob Brown | So the draft odds includes three zones that we've named for simplicity, neighborhood, small scale, the neighborhood medium scale, and mixed use small scale. So the mixed use small scale is applied to the commercial districts to allow mixed use development and the other two zones are applied to your multifamily zones. And these were applied using your existing zoning map and also the development characteristics of these multifamily and commercial areas. And this is a very, very unreadable version of the odds zone map, but that was included in your packet. So what the zones regulate, they regulate the allowable building types. They regulate the maximum development size site per building type. So that's again how you end up with multiple development sites on a bigger parcel. They regulate the minimum and maximum building setbacks. They don't want buildings to be set too far back from the street. They want buildings to define that street edge. but still allows some space. They define allowable setback encroachments. maximum height limits. The minimum percentage of the building facade that's adjacent to the street. Again, they don't want big gaps between buildings or parking lots between buildings. and also include auto and bike parking requirements and locations. And that is strictly for the residential zones. For commercial, we refer back to the zoning code for the number of spaces. And they also define what frontage types are allowable. So a couple of very important regulations in the draft odds that I wanna highlight. One has to do with building heights. So the current draft sets those maximum heights at two and a half stories. meaning that the third floor space has to be embedded in the roof structure with dormer type or shed windows to reduce the apparent height of the building. And it also imposes a 32 foot maximum height, similar to what the city has now, as well as adding a maximum even parapet height. So again, to scale that building down towards the edges. And those maximum eve height range from 22 to 26 feet, depending upon the zone. And the draft does mimic the existing height allowances for slope lots in your current code, allowing a maximum height up to 40 feet on slope lots. The odds draft also proposes to modify the current multifamily parking requirements to encourage housing. So it reduces studio and one-bedroom units to one parking space per unit, down from 1.5 currently. And two-bedroom or larger units are reduced to one and a half spaces in the multifamily zones and one space per unit in the mixed-use zones. And the parking requirements they set for commercial would stay the same as the current zoning. There are also provisions in the draft for bike parking that you don't currently have, and also for use of mechanical stackers or tandem spaces, again, to try to be as efficient as we can with parking. The next chapter, chapter four, deals with allowable land uses. And I said before, this simply refers back to the use tables in your current zoning code. Chapter five contains general development standards that apply in all the odd zones. So these include regulations that would address screening of things like mechanical equipment, loading areas, et cetera, design standards for parking lots and loading. adjustments for steeply sloped sites. standards for the public right-of-way, and also privacy criteria for views from windows that are in close proximity to another building. |
| 00:45:59.08 | Bob Brown | Chapter six has standards for 11 different defined building types, ranging everything from a single family home to duplexes, to triplexes, multiplexes, courtyard developments, et cetera. So these building types regulate things like the maximum dimensions for each of the building types, minimum size of the open space required. pedestrian access, Massing types that are suited for each building type to give a sense of the volume. and also the variation in these building forms. Chapter 7 has regulations for the frontage type that the applicant selects. And these regulate things like the minimum size and dimensions of these things like porches or stoops, allowable setback encroachments. the minimum and maximum heights for these frontage improvements above grade or above sidewalk, And then it also contains additional standards for storefronts in the mixed use zone that address things like the minimum amount of glass area, the minimum base of the building below the glass walls, etc. So these are all incorporated in the frontage types. |
| 00:47:30.03 | Bob Brown | So chapter eight contains or would contain architectural standards. So let me kind of give a little background here. because this is a fairly important topic. So the Marin County odds toolkit, contains very, very detailed standards for six different architectural types. Um, And again, the intent here is to make sure that these buildings are well detailed and also are authentic to the particular style. So the HRC did not react well when they saw these and recommended that they not be incorporated and the subcommittee agreed with that. believing that these were too prescriptive and too stylistic for Sausalito, which has a bit more of an eclectic design character. So again, they were removed from the draft. But this is something that opticos has heard not just from Sausalito, but from other jurisdictions. They have since then gone back and developed a new set of streamlined architectural standards that they call style neutral. So they're not any of those specifically defined styles. Instead that they cover a handful of basic design tenants that Optico's fields are critical in achieving successful design. An example that they prepared for the city of Campbell was included in your packet, but I wanna caution you that some of those standards for Campbell would not be applicable to Sausalito. Campbell allows substantially larger building types. So some of them just would not be applicable at all. But let me just describe some of the things that these do address. And I think the important point here is that all of the other odds that we've talked about address the building form, the scale and form of the building. What they don't address is really what the facades look like or how the facades are articulated and detailed. So lacking these, again, you'll have a defined box size, which again has some size and variations, etc., which are all fine, but you really won't get into the design of the facade much at all. So some of the things that these streamlined architectural standards include are modulating the street facing facade to create some ins and outs, some height variations so you don't end up with a basic box in the case of wider buildings. It has a means of creating vertical differentiation between adjacent buildings or between modules of a larger wider building. It addresses how to treat corner elements. which are important in terms of holding the design of the corner, the sense of building scale there. and how to organize what the odds calls building bays or how the windows and building openings are arranged sort of logically along a facade. And finally, these streamlined architectural standards contain some basic criteria for window treatments, balconies, exterior material choices, and colors. So one question for the commission to consider tonight is whether when we come back with a revised version of the odds, you'd like to explore the possibility of incorporating some or all of these streamlined style neutral architectural standards, which again has come up really since the subcommittee process. almost close to being done. Chapter 10 deals with larger sites. These are sites over three acres or with lot dimensions over 700 feet. And what it does is requires the preparation of a walkable neighborhood plan to really get at pedestrian access and street access. It requires maximum block sizes, so you don't get a mega-sized development. It has to really be broken up. into sort of some form of grid requires a minimum amount of civic space and has design criteria for different types of civic spaces. It has connectivity standards for streets. and also include some stormwater management standards. And lastly, Chapter 11 deals with administration. And again, for our particular odds, it really defers to the zoning code's current permit procedures and zoning administrations. |
| 00:52:02.48 | Bob Brown | Oh, chapter 12 definitions. There are 124 terms using the odds that are very well defined. And there's also a very good section that follows definitions that shows how to do measurements for things like slope sites, for building height, for facade zones and bays, for primary buildings and the maximum sizes of what they call wings that are projections from the primary building module and also for computing open spaces. So next steps for the odds process. So after completion of the housing element and preparation of the implementing zoning changes that will come out of that. The odds will have to be revised and finalized to apply to the higher density housing opportunity sites again. The current odds that you're seeing are really based more on your current code zoning parameters. The subcommittee has been working also on view preservation standards from defined public vantage points. These would be from locations in parks, stairs, and specific open space locations. These need to be finalized so they're not really ready for prime time yet. But again, the intent is to bring those forward as well. And as Commissioner Feller mentioned the council has authorized the preparation of design related odds to add to your SB 9 regulations. And then of course, any of these ordinances will have to go through public hearings before the planning commission and the city council. And with that, Singe and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. |
| 00:53:52.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Brown. At this point, we'll have questions of commissioners before we ask other commissioners to weigh in. I want to start with a hypothetical for you so I can understand one of the critical aspects of how we're going to implement this in the short term. So let's take a site in an R2 zone where somebody wants to demolish a duplex and build a brand new duplex. Duplex is the maximum you can put in an R2 zone. And my first question, which is sort of broad one, which is why I want to ask it, is under the odds there's a 10-foot front setback under the current R2 zoning, there's no front setback. So my question is, is this an either or situation? In other words, somebody comes in and they want to build something under SB 35. They decide to use the odds. They go through a ministerial process per SB 35 and it's employed. Alternatively, let's say they don't want to, they want to have a five foot front setback so they don't want to use the they want to go going to go through the standard discretionary review process the way we're implementing this because as i read the materials uh as currently drafted it's not clear whether it's an either or situation or you have to start with title today and then go whatever. So my question is, what was the intent in the draft? |
| 00:55:26.58 | Bob Brown | Yeah, if an applicant chooses to utilize these state laws, SB 35, for example, giving ministerial approval, then they have to meet all the odds. If they choose not to, then they can go through discretionary processes and have those standards potentially modified. |
| 00:55:44.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so for the draft, if we could clarify that a little bit, making sure that that's clear. My second question is, the Housing Accountability Act addresses two or more added units, which is slightly different than the words I saw on the screen tonight. In the case of an existing duplex that you demolish and you build new, you're not adding any units. Would the odds still apply? |
| 00:56:13.38 | Bob Brown | My interpretation is that they do apply to any housing project that includes two or more units, but I would defer to the the city attorney if he has a different interpretation. |
| 00:56:24.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Attorney Rudin. Thank you. |
| 00:56:27.69 | City Attorney Rudin | So I think ultimately that depends on what we want to adopt. you know, if, you may want to revise things differently if this applies to all building projects in the R2 zone, for example. The Housing Accountability Act, obviously, which I think is sort of the impetus for this particular effort applies to projects that involve the construction of two or more units. So if you're just adding one more unit, to a lot that has an existing unit. That's not a project subject to housing accountability. but for the purposes of streamlining the city can have a process where it has objective standards and if you comply with them, You will get your approval. So, the scope of that is ultimately up to the policy makers, whether you wanna have that or not. |
| 00:57:23.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, what does the current draft say? Or it's just that we'd have to clarify that like we'd have to clarify the other men. |
| 00:57:30.18 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, we would need to clarify that because there is nothing in the current draft about how it applies. There is no applicability section currently written. |
| 00:57:38.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. No, there's a, in the odd section, there is an applicability section. It's chapter three, I think. |
| 00:57:47.32 | Bob Brown | Yes, there is. And what it does say is that it applies to the creation of two or more units. So the question was, if you have an existing development that's being demolished and you're having a net not having a net increase in units. You're building a new two unit project to replace a project that has been demolished. The question is, would there be is the applicability based on the net number of units or the fact that the new project is two units or more? |
| 00:58:15.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, so that chapter, I think we need to clarify when we get to that point, if we can't. I have some other questions, but I'm going to open it up to other commissioners first if I can. See, I'm looking for raised hands. So Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:58:35.13 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair and Bob, thank you for the very detailed walk through for both the Commission's benefit and for the public. just in terms of getting familiar with it, with the document and sort of some of the ideas behind how we've gotten to where we are today. um, But I do think, and I know Vice Chair Junius is familiar with this coming from me, It would be very beneficial to everybody if you could walk us through and explain our thoughts and methodology at this point about how we're gonna address view corridors because currently there's no preservation of views whatsoever if there are no objective standards adopted. So someone could block your entire view. And our current municipal code certainly does not guarantee an unabstruck. But there are view preservation considerations in our current code. So can you walk everybody through that? Just because I actually, I think this is an important piece that we need comment on from both the public and the commission. |
| 00:59:51.44 | Bob Brown | Sure. Yeah, the subcommittee spent a great deal of time talking about view preservation standards. And we've also spent time looking nationally to see if there are other examples out there that are objective. And we found nothing. So the current view preservation is really done through design review. And one of the findings in your design review is that it does not unreasonably you know, impact views from adjacent properties. That is subjective. So we try to think about ways that we could objectify that. And so it involved a number of things. One is very clearly defining what views you're protecting, views of what. Um, and then from where? Um, you would have to be very specific about where you would analyze a view impact from. It can't be every point on a property and how many properties surrounding So that has to be defined. There has to be a methodology in place for how you, for example, take photographs from these view vantage points and how you then do the modeling of potential development that would intrude into that view corridor. Um, And then you have to define what constitutes an impact. So if you defined a viewscape in a certain size, a certain area from a particular property, what amount of view blockage would you define as being significant and not allowed? So you get into all that, and then... To further complicate things, when you're dealing with some of these state laws, you have a very short time. Staff has a very short time to determine compliance. And so when you would be looking at a submitted view analysis from an applicant, you would have to verify its accuracy, you know, through the use of story polls, etc., within a very short timeframe. And we talked a lot then about what input would neighbors have. again, to verify the accuracy from their particular vantage points and how would those vantage points be analyzed from neighboring properties, they would have to grant access to a consultant. to do these analyses. So all of that convinced us that it would be very, very difficult to accomplish this kind of analysis and verification in the 30, 60 day timeframes that you will have to verify compliance with the objective standards. So the subcommittee's direction, after looking at all this for quite a while and consulting with the city attorney, was that the best bet, at least at present, would be to try to do this from identified public vantage points. Those are things that we can identify the location of, You know, we and applicants would have access to those points. There are far fewer of them. And so that has been the ordinance that we've been drafting and working on. It's not finalized yet. But that was the direction that we took. Again, it's a really thorny issue and no other jurisdiction has cracked that nut to my knowledge. |
| 01:03:17.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Bob, for explaining that. Thank you, Chair. Those are my questions at the moment. |
| 01:03:23.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Other questions of other commissioners? At this time. Thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:03:31.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you to the subcommittee. It's a lot of information. You guys have done a ton of work. It's all evident here and thank you to Bob and thanks for the presentation. I was just curious and it was, a comment made I think during the presentation, but in the concept of THE I just had it, if you'll excuse my notes. Forgive me. |
| 01:04:15.88 | Nastassya Saad | The architectural design standards, excuse me. Thank you for bearing with me while I found that. In terms of looking what the city of Campbell is in our packet for that attachment, there are a lot of details in there. Do you think that adding something like that, we know, as you mentioned, not everything would apply based on the scale of what's in Campbell, but some of those details like the cornice and the design details, in your opinion, are those too specific to add? Would that give any... reason to HCD to push back on anything for the housing element or is that unrelated and kind of a fair game for us to consider here. |
| 01:05:01.99 | Bob Brown | No, I don't think they really limit development potential much. Again, they're trying to get a little modulation in building facades. You know, we're talking a few feet here. We're not talking significant setbacks. Um, Again, a lot of what was in Campbell for taller buildings, you know, address things like, you know, establishing a, a defined base to a building and a middle and a top and the cornices and all that. that would not be necessary here. We're only talking, you know, three-story buildings at most here. Again, there are some things, how you do window trim, et cetera. Some of those things are probably reasonably applicable here. Again, the concern is having no architectural standards for the facade would mean that you defined a box, but you have no control over how that box is then articulated. |
| 01:06:01.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for clarifying. And then just the detail on the parking, I believe it said, you know, 1.5 space, but I thought I also read that it would be lowered lower whole number, is that... Correct. Or how would you define 1.5 as a required space for a unit? |
| 01:06:22.77 | Bob Brown | Well, yes, they do get rounded, but again, we're talking two or more units. So if it's two, you're talking, you know, potentially three spaces, larger complexes. If you do have a fractional unit, then yes, you do do rounding. |
| 01:06:38.95 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. And can you just clarify too on the bike? Because I thought the bikes concept parking was really interesting. Is that separate from the required, like the 1.5 or two spaces for a unit? Yes. Or can those be combined? Okay. |
| 01:06:51.47 | Bob Brown | Yes. No, no. |
| 01:06:54.04 | Director Phipps | parking is in addition to. |
| 01:06:55.55 | Nastassya Saad | in addition to. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:06:57.33 | Director Phipps | And just to clarify regarding the parking question, Commissioner Saad, we round up, we do not round down. |
| 01:07:05.88 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I might have, I thought I read that it was rounded |
| 01:07:07.62 | Andrew Junius | I think. It was rounded. I was actually whispering in your ear down, so apparently it's up. Oh, but I thought, I didn't hear you, but I thought that was... |
| 01:07:11.42 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, but I thought, I didn't hear you, but I thought that's what I read. I thought that's what I had read, but thank you for clarifying. |
| 01:07:17.19 | Director Phipps | If I've misspoken... |
| 01:07:17.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:07:19.79 | Director Phipps | I apologize. |
| 01:07:20.77 | Nastassya Saad | No worries. We can sort that out. But thank you. Thanks for all the information. Those were all the questions I had. |
| 01:07:26.52 | Bob Brown | Thank you for bringing that up. I'll go back and check and make sure we're rounding in the same way. That would be good. Thank you. |
| 01:07:31.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and... |
| 01:07:31.94 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:07:32.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you I know. Other questions to commissioners? Thank you. |
| 01:07:34.82 | Richard Graef | of... |
| 01:07:35.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Switch to the graph. |
| 01:07:36.32 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Excuse me. So I'm looking at this and I'm wondering, are there any triggers anywhere that would, require an applicant to go through a design review process. In other words, maybe they might satisfy all of the kind of requirements of the of the odds. program. there might still be some real more subjective issues. And I'm wondering how does one deal with that or can you? |
| 01:08:22.92 | Bob Brown | Well, it depends upon the state law that an applicant is trying to utilize. And again, they're each different. They don't overlap well. or play well together. But for example, Housing Accountability Act projects, which are those which are two or more new units period, they don't have a lot of other eligibility criteria. Those can go through design review and you can add design conditions as long as those conditions don't. in reducing density. or making the project infeasible. Um, And even the newest AB 2011, which again calls for a ministerial process for some reason includes language about allowing design review. but only design review around using the objective standards. So I don't know what the heck that means. And then again, projects that are allowed ministerially under the state laws, if they don't comply with the odds, then they're thrown into the discretionary design review process. So it really depends upon the state law that an applicant is trying to use. |
| 01:09:30.27 | Richard Graef | How do we weed our way through that maze to get there? |
| 01:09:35.83 | Bob Brown | That would be the staff's role in, again, working with what the applicant has submitted and what they've stated they're accessing in terms of state law provisions. then the staff will have to make that determination in terms of compliance and process. |
| 01:09:51.93 | Richard Graef | Mm-hmm. Okay. there was some discussion Briefly about whether or not to include guidelines about architectural details, and I want to support not having too many guidelines on architectural details because I think, There's just, there aren't enough options that you could never document them all. And so what I've seen in attempts to do that are pretty limited. So I would suggest that. you know. not having them. or very, very minimum. Um, So that just brings up other sort of subjective things like compatibility and colors of this proposal work with the neighborhood or the materials. So I just, my big concern about this is that we lose control over our environment. |
| 01:11:01.91 | Bob Brown | That is the state's intent. |
| 01:11:05.14 | Richard Graef | . Okay. No more questions. |
| 01:11:09.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Grau. Commissioner Junius, additional questions? |
| 01:11:13.00 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, thank you, Chair. A few observations and then a couple of key questions. I certainly appreciate Richard, your perspective here because this is a a lot for the architects in the world to swallow. But I will, I'm interested in hearing what you think about this. You know, in some respects, The first time I ever saw this a year and a half ago, I almost fainted, right? I mean, it's, it's, the actual giant toolkit for the whole county is just massive. and we're just taking a piece of it And it's a lot of detail. It's a lot, frankly, for architects and property owners and developers to deal with. There's no question about that. But in some ways, if you look at it from a different perspective, I think what's really happening here is, the reason why Marin took this course is that as the, As the state takes our discretion away, to talk about neighborhood character and talk about context and talk about things like that. the only way to do that is to try to build that kind of context into the code itself. Right. And so you may not agree with it all, but in some respects, I'm not sure a lot of architects in the world would look at this and say, oh my God, you know, this is going to look like St. Louis or Boston or someplace else. Yeah, exactly. It's I think to some extent, hopefully most of it will still kind of fit. And that's, I think the general goal here. So in that respect, I slowly came around to, you know, realizing, well, you know, this is probably for the best in terms of Marin County and small cities and towns like ours. because The flip side is that If there's no objective standard and you are a project protected by the Housing Accountability Act, The architect can do whatever he wants. So we could have five standards Height, bulk. you know, FAR or whatever. And then the architects would have a field day. and do whatever they wanted. We couldn't do anything about it. So, And in some respects, it's also kind of an infinite scale between those two points. This I think is a bit is that the heavy end and virtually no controls is at the other end. And I think part of the process we're gonna be going through you know, for the next months and probably years is fine tuning it. We're going to see things. People are going to come to us and say, that just doesn't work. you got to change that rule. And so we're going to be massaging this, I think, for quite some time. The other thing I'd like to point out is that Bob made a really, important point about the, the con conflicts may not the right word, but the overlap of a lot of these different state rules. It's been an evolution. Things like the state density bonus have actually been around for a very long time. They just haven't been used because cities wouldn't cooperate with using them. And so and rather than Fight in court developers didn't use them, but now it's a lot easier to use them. The state density bonus is being used all the time. And there's no question that the rules we're talking about today, are going to run into a state density bonus process and abilities that the state density bonus gives to property owners and developers. but I don't think it's quite that bad because The state density bonus itself, the way it approaches these kind of overrides is through these terms called concessions and waivers. And if those were you know, can't be proven up properly and aren't really needed. You know, the, hopefully some of these objective standards will still survive You know, the... the the the wave of state density bonus powers. Another interesting observation. And then, you know, finally, I think the view thing is really interesting. I think we were all kind of you know, resign to the fact that ultimately private views really can't be protected in a subjective or in an objective world. But we're going to do the best we can on the public views. I think those are very important for Sausalito. And I do have a question. So thank you for letting me spout off. This is again, as a land use professional, this kind of stuff is just fascinating. So I could probably talk for hours, but I do think that, that one of the things I'm still not quite clear on, and again, probably part of the evolution process. Bob, give us your thoughts about Um, You look at the odds and it frankly looks like a game of, what was that game, City, where you build a city? sim city it's like it's like they were using sim city right well we don't live in sim city we live in a very you know, hilly, slopey, curvy streets. Every lot's not a square, right? So in some respects, I think there's going to be a lot. I think one of the things that the staff is going to have to address almost immediately is what happens when somebody tries to apply the objective standards and their lot just doesn't fit 17 of them, right? And so I wasn't, I was never quite clear as to You know, are there variants procedures that were in the toolkit? Could you speak to that for a second? |
| 01:15:55.72 | Bob Brown | Sure, but first of all, I want to make the point again, in terms of slope and difficult lots, this doesn't apply to single family. a great majority of your really challenged sloping lots are single families. So we're talking here about the multifamily areas and the commercial areas, which generally aren't slope. Um, So yes, If an applicant could not comply with the regulations based upon unique characteristics then yes, they wouldn't be able to meet the odds and they would be put into a discretionary review process, which could be design review, it could be variance, et cetera. Um, And, I will say that the odds package, the toolkit, had a chapter on adjustments to standards. And there were, it was an attempt to try to make what is essentially is a variance into an objective criteria for variance. But I think that's a good thing. The city attorney had real reservations about that, and I can understand why. Because again, you could easily, I think, make the case that what was supposed to be objective standards of unique situations really required individual judgment on those. So we've taken those out. So again, a project doesn't comply with the odds. there then in the discretionary view processes. |
| 01:17:24.77 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. Appreciate that, Bob. Thank you. |
| 01:17:27.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. I do have a couple of questions. I've asked you these, so I know you know, we've talked about the answers, but I just want to get them on the record. So in your staff report, you talk about waiving parking requirements per state standards for within a half a mile of the ferry terminal. But as I read itb 35 definition of public transit and also i think some of the adu laws allows for um allows for public transit to be defined as bus stops in other words you don't you're defining the ferry terminal as a high, high speed transit facility. But bus stops and other types of basically the bus stops on Bridgeway and up at Spencer would qualify under SB 35. I don't think they qualify into the others, but if you could clarify that and then the documents will need to clarify that as well. |
| 01:18:32.14 | Bob Brown | Right. Another example of the state laws being very dissimilar and having different criteria. So yes, SB 35 is very generic as it talks about proximity to public transit, whereas all the other state housing laws that deal with multifamily and mixed use, they are based on high high quality transit corridors and public, what do they call them? Major transit stops and those would include the ferry terminal, you know, train stations and the bus lines that meet a minimum standard for frequency of 15 minutes or less. Yeah, we will, since you brought this to our attention, I've notified Opticos and as we refine the draft, we'll have to make provisions for the the SB 35 projects. |
| 01:19:37.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, just before you do that, Vice Chair Jerry, I see the way you put it into the statute for the parking, it just says subject to state standards. So I don't know that what you have wouldn't allow for staff to do that correctly. So I'm not sure that the language in the documents needs to change. I'm more flagging it for staff and the public because we have had cases with adus and we are applying different standards but there's a reason for it so i just wanted to make sure that somebody doesn't accidentally apply the wrong standard to the wrong law is but i think what you've got is probably fine as defined because it doesn't actually all it said in the parking is subject to from the state or something like that. Actually, I don't know. |
| 01:20:25.98 | Bob Brown | So the parking tables do include a footnote that specifically refers to the state definitions for the high quality transit corridor and the major transit facilities. So we'll have to modify that footnote at least. |
| 01:20:41.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, that would be appreciated. Commissioner and Juniors, you had a question on that? |
| 01:20:44.81 | Andrew Junius | Appreciate you indulging me, chair. Just to really be clear, just so everybody that's not that familiar with some of these laws, certain of them are actually more process laws, they're intended to facilitate you know, moving housing projects along faster. And there's kind of a weird distinction between how you qualify a project or a site for SB35 treatment, for example, and then the actual design controls, which is what we're talking about tonight, that are going to be imposed by the local jurisdiction about exactly what the building looks like. So there's no question that there's a little bit of overlap. But I think a lot of these things that when you're talking about SB 35, for example. I would consider most of the most of the objective criteria More as, you know, project program. requirements to qualify for SB 35 treatment and site qualification and then you move on to like, to how the building is supposed to be designed. It's a lot of confusion, a lot of conflicting and, and, and, and I hate to use the word conflicting, but a lot of. a lot of overlap, but keeping in mind that the odds are really kind of a, It's a hyperbolic. you know, prescriptive code that tells you what the building's supposed to look like. And everything else is really, more about you know, getting the project through and where it's going to go. So that's the way I see it as a land use professional. So, but thank you for the time. |
| 01:22:07.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Vice Chair Junius. Mr. Brown, the other question I had asked you, one of the drawings for neighborhoods small showed a requirement of a 10-foot setback for interior lots and a 15-foot setback for corner lot. And the first was the drawing appeared to be wrong because it showed the same setback. So if you could have us, since Opticus is online, I believe, have them explain that and also the rationale of why the corner has an increased setback, if they could. |
| 01:22:47.81 | Bob Brown | Yes, I did check with Opticos on that. I would say that the intent was not to have that diagram be a scale diagram, because, again, it indicates what those widths are in a table. Senge, I don't know if you want to unmute yourself and... and discuss the rationale for the front versus the street side setbacks. I think it's the case, the chair is bringing up that the street side setback is greater than the front. Is that the case? I don't have the, code in front of me. |
| 01:23:19.94 | Singe Saliki | Bye. |
| 01:23:20.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, It allows for a 10 foot setback on internal lots, 15 foot setback on a corner lot. And I don't know if that was for visibility for cars or I just want, there's probably a rationale for it. |
| 01:23:36.14 | Singe Saliki | Yeah, I'm not sure what zone are you looking at? |
| 01:23:42.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was looking at neighborhood small and there's a diagram. It shows a straight line across, but then in the chart that's right below it on the same page, it shows a setback. It says corner is 15, interior is 10. But then the drawing shows an interior one and then shows a straight line that the corner has the same setback. So clearly a drawing is wrong, but I understand the rationale behind that. |
| 01:24:10.06 | Maria | Yes. |
| 01:24:13.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can look up a page number if that's helpful to you. Yes. It's a little bit small. Can we bring that up on the screen, Bob? Sure. Let me... |
| 01:24:18.24 | Maria | Yes. |
| 01:24:25.03 | Mr. Brown | Share my screen again. And here's the actual code. Um, I'm gonna roll down here to the zones. |
| 01:24:36.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the song. It'll be like this. I think that's the page. So zoom in on that one a little bit. |
| 01:24:40.99 | Mr. Brown | coming on that. |
| 01:24:43.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think it's the next page. Let's see. There we go. Yeah, right there. So as you see in the chart, five says interior, 10 foot minimum, 20 foot maximum. And then it shows age and it shows arrows that show the 10 foot and the 20 feet. But then on the corner where it says 15 foot minimum and 25 foot maximum. |
| 01:24:43.10 | Mr. Brown | And I think... Oh. |
| 01:25:05.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that has a straight line. So clearly the drawing is just incorrect. |
| 01:25:09.90 | Singe Saliki | That's right. Yeah, on the corner development site, because it's on the street and this is a This is a neighborhood zone. I believe we're wanting to allow larger setbacks so that you can have different frontage types that would would not eat into the buildable area. They can encroach into the setback. |
| 01:25:40.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | On the corner lot or in the interior lot? |
| 01:25:43.48 | Singe Saliki | on the corner, on the corner. |
| 01:25:45.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You'd have greater setbacks, which means you'd have less building, not more building. |
| 01:25:50.11 | Singe Saliki | Yes, but the greater setback is to allow frontages that would encroach into the setback rather than eating into the buildable area. So the setback is where the building facade should land. And then if you have a frontage type like a porch, the porch can encroach into the setback. |
| 01:26:14.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is that the chart on the right? And now I'm looking for that. |
| 01:26:21.65 | Singe Saliki | Yes, that's the diagram that's shown on the right hand side. |
| 01:26:26.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But where does it say you can encroach more on the corner. |
| 01:26:30.09 | Singe Saliki | It was. Where Bob is pointing, private frontages can encroach into that setback. Thank you. |
| 01:26:36.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:26:36.40 | Singe Saliki | That would have been... |
| 01:26:36.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would apply to all lines. You can go five feet rather than or rather than two feet, so that's three feet, but you're taking away five feet. Right. So we're still setting it back farther. What was the rationale for that? |
| 01:26:54.46 | Singe Saliki | I'm not quite sure why that's greater than the interior setback, honestly. Wow. |
| 01:27:01.48 | Bob Brown | It's a good point. And we can come back to that with the subcommittee and take another swing at that. |
| 01:27:05.69 | Singe Saliki | you |
| 01:27:05.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:27:05.85 | Singe Saliki | Thank you. |
| 01:27:05.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:27:06.05 | Singe Saliki | Bye. |
| 01:27:08.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. If you could research the history of that, that would be helpful. Cause you know, there's all these prescriptive numbers and that one just doesn't, there's, I don't understand the |
| 01:27:11.43 | Bob Brown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:27:18.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We've got a lot of numbers here, so we really should understand the logic for them. Good point. Um, With that, are there other questions of commissioners at this point, Commissioner Feller? |
| 01:27:32.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I wanted to go back, Bob, to the any historic districts We didn't really touch on that and we did meet with HPC. a couple of times and had a very good dialogue with them. But in you know, in our housing element there are opportunity sites that fall within sort of the downtown and historic zones. And so I think it'd be really helpful and beneficial to explain a little bit better and I'm not 100% clear on this myself, to be honest. about how these odds apply to those areas. |
| 01:28:18.22 | Bob Brown | Well, again, there's some differences between some of these state laws in terms of what they exempt. So SB 35, for example, is not applicable when you have a proposal to demolish a listed historic building, either local or state or federal. um, Beyond that, Again, the HPC did not want architectural standards for let's say your downtown area that would you know, relate to Tudor buildings or Victorian or whatever, they felt, again, it was more an eclectic mix. So we would do without those. And we would simply rely on the odds to address any new buildings that are adjacent to a illicit historic structure or might modify an existing historic structure if they're adding two or more units or converting commercial space to a project that adds two or more units. So again, we would just be relying upon the odds as written |
| 01:29:25.22 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF |
| 01:29:25.25 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:25.34 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:29:25.47 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 01:29:26.47 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, and to that point, because you brought up the housing element, one of the programs that's required in the housing element is a program of rezoning to increase, you know, the allowed development on opportunity sites. One of the requirements of that program of rezoning and housing element law is that the completing rezoning has to allow for multifamily as a use by right. as long as 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households, which means the city cannot apply any form of discretionary design review. Uh-huh. |
| 01:29:57.28 | Maria | Okay. |
| 01:29:57.69 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. So that basically, yes, Bob is correct. The odds will apply. |
| 01:30:00.18 | Maria | Thank you. Bye. |
| 01:30:02.65 | City Attorney Rudin | It'll be important as you know when the city adopts its rezoning that At that same time, the odds for the rezoned sites are also dumb. |
| 01:30:12.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 01:30:12.47 | Kristina Feller | I'm glad you mentioned that. Thank you. |
| 01:30:15.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Fowler, can I add a question on that issue? So since the odds refer to the underlying zoning, and if we change the underlying zoning, the odds still apply. I mean, you might want to use a different neighborhood, small neighborhood, medium neighborhood, large. But the odds themselves don't have to change necessarily just because the underlying zoning changes. Because basically the underlying zoning starts the basis for the odds, if I understood how Bob started this. So if you start with whatever the underlying zoning has and we make the underlying zoning more dense in some way, then the odds still can apply, right? Right. So... |
| 01:31:02.27 | Bob Brown | So- |
| 01:31:02.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:31:02.98 | Bob Brown | The odds will have to change, though, because we would have to have a different zone that we would apply to the housing opportunity sites. I imagine you're going to use some sort of a housing overlay for those housing opportunity sites. So for those sites, the odds will have to have probably a denser, taller zone to allow more building volume and density. So we'll have to come back to that when the city starts devising how they're going to implement the housing opportunity sites through zoning. I see. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:31:38.70 | Kristina Feller | I- Chair, I wanted to know if the city attorney wanted to add to that, because that was a good question. |
| 01:31:40.82 | Bob Brown | I wanted to. |
| 01:31:41.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:31:47.54 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I mean, I think Bob has it more or less correct. You know, the city's zoning has to be consistent with its land use element and its housing element. When you change the zoning, you know, the provisions of the odds that conflict with it. potentially a rendered void. So you have to update the odds as well. You can't have conflict. Because... This is one of the concerns of having a parallel title to the zoning code is that you have to make sure that they remain in sync at all times. You can't have conflicts between the two of them. Because one of the issues is that when you have conflicts in your zoning standards, your default And the standard that people have to comply with is just the standard in your housing element and your land use element. So both of your standards go out the window if they're not in conflict. |
| 01:32:34.32 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:32:35.11 | City Attorney Rudin | Potentially. unless you can argue for some reason they're not in conflict. But I mean, it is an issue with having a parallel zoning code essentially is, you know, it makes things very complicated and it It's very time consuming to make sure that... that they're all up to date and that there's zero conflicts. |
| 01:32:55.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for that. Yes, come Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 01:32:59.85 | Andrew Junius | That raises a really interesting question and something that hasn't really come up yet, you know, My. about form-based zoning in general, is it truly which is, prescribing the form of the actual building And, you know, a true form-based zoning really doesn't care how many units are in the building. You know, for example, Larger cities like San Francisco THEIR OWNERS ARE basically, what's the word they're using? D-densifying, you know, their There are no density limits. It's like whatever you can fit in, whatever you want to fit in that building, You know, you fit into it. I think one of the problems here is maybe not a problem, but one of the things that just came up was the fact that we have, we are still gonna have zoning districts that basically limit the, you know, have a cap on residential density. and, But in these, objective standards have to work with that. And as the densities change, well, then we gotta make sure that the objective standards defeat the purpose of the density changes. It is kind of interesting. I think, frankly, it would be easier if we didn't have density limits that we would just be worried about you know, the use it's a residential building and then it's a it's this big and you know, somebody wants to do three family-sized units or six studio units. It's kind of up to them. Um, but that's a, that's a different conversation, but just to point that out, that, that, that might simplify things. |
| 01:34:25.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Other questions at this point? So what we're going to do is we're going to open this up for public comment, and then we'll come back to the commission for rather than questions, just thoughts on where we go from here. |
| 01:34:41.42 | Director Phipps | If I may, Chair, prior to public comment. I'd like to ask a question. Firstly, would like to thank Commissioner Feller, Vice Chair Junius, Bob Brown, City Attorney Sergio Rudin and Singe Saliki and the Optico team for the fantastic work and all of the effort that has gone into the odds thus far. It really is a pleasure having you all working hard on the odds and I look forward to working with you and finalizing them. The question that I have is related to the get out of jail free card, Bob, that you had in one of your earlier slides. First point to me is that it seems like the more robust the odds become, the more likely the city is to receive pushback from developers related to the odds as being overly stringent and rendering a project infeasible. And that goes back to Vice Chair Junius's point, you know, as related to balance between having total control and if we go beyond a certain threshold, you know, it's like Sisypus and the boulder, it rolls all the way down the hill and we lose all control. And as related to context, in our efforts to create and preserve context via adoption of particular odds, it seems to me that Those represent more robust versions of odds, and they may represent elements that make a project infeasible or certainly provide an opportunity for a developer to give that pushback, which to me, you know, gives them kind of a choice between a discretionary review if they're not meeting the odds that have been adopted or nothing at all. So my question is, how, I guess, could you please walk us through, you know, what the process would look like within the CDD, um, in connection with a development that is pushing forward this get out of jail odds as infeasible argument. |
| 01:36:40.04 | Bob Brown | Well, again, this might be better for the city attorney, but my understanding is that, again, if applicants provide the minimum amount of affordable housing that's dictated by the state density bonus law. They have a retitle to a certain number of concessions and then an unlimited number of waivers. And there's slightly different criteria that the applicant has to prove as to why those are needed for their particular project. And again, that becomes then city staff, including legal staff and planning staff, their responsibility then to try to you know, parse out exactly the rationale for the applicants concessions and waivers requests, It's a very difficult process, sometimes involves looking at their pro forma, which is, again, proprietary, very complicated. um So, you know, it's a challenging process, but it does provide the ability for an applicant to, you know, deviate from the odds and maybe, you know, not very... significant ways and you know specific small criteria that they don't meet as a means of you know retaining compliance you know with the odds for for qualifying for the state housing laws so I don't know if the city attorney wants to weigh in to a greater degree. |
| 01:38:08.12 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I mean, first, you know, Bob is correct that applicants are entitled to a certain number of concessions with respect to local standards based on the number of affordable, the number and percentage of affordability of the units. there's a pretty complex formula in the state density bonus law. Additionally, if the city has adopted local development standards that would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density, with the concessions or incentives that the developer is entitled to under state density bonus law, the local jurisdiction is not allowed to apply those standards full stop. So, They just they can assert that. Obviously, the burden is on the city to justify its decision in continuing to apply that. You know, again, there would be some analysis on the staff level. as to whether or not that actually physically precludes the construction. Um, and in terms of both the enforcement and the decision, I think a lot of it would depend on what kind of project it is and what sort of process they're applying under. So for example, SB 35. it allows a project to go through ministerial design review at a public hearing. But for example, if that was put before the Planning Commission, The Planning Commission can't deny a project that complies with the objective standards. And then at that point, the only thing that would be left for the planning commission to decide would be whether or not A CITY STANDARD physically precludes the construction, whether whether it is waived by operation of state law. again, basically you'd be relying on the analysis of staff Now, if you had an SB 35 process that didn't involve public hearing, or if you're considering a project under one of the new streamlining laws that basically prohibit a public hearing that decision would entirely be made by staff because it would have to be. So. |
| 01:40:13.15 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Sergio. |
| 01:40:14.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:40:14.28 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:40:14.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:40:14.50 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:40:14.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. At this point, unless there's any other questions from the commission or from staff, we'll go for public comment. Director Phipps, if you could, why don't we take the room first and then Zoom second. |
| 01:40:30.87 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Looking to the audience for raised hands, indications of interest. I am seeing our historic preservation chair, Vicki Nichols, Please do, Chair. |
| 01:40:47.80 | Vicki Nichols | Good evening, commissioners. I've been a long time since I've been up here on this side. I wanted to talk, I was listening on my, I was actually driving and listening to the meeting. And I think what I was hearing was in chapter three and it was about architectural standards. And you did hear from, Bob Brown, who spoke with us at least twice our commission, and I think it was reviewed by you as well, that in the historic overlay district, we were not wanting to use the foreign-based danyards. I don't know if I heard correctly tonight, but I heard Bob say something about OptiCo said, heard this objection from other jurisdictions and come back with a rethinking of this, and it was gonna be brought back to you for future consideration. I would hope that we'd get a bite at that and just be able to look at that before it comes back to planning. and I would also wonder since we're talking about specifically an overlay district if we didn't have odds down there in that district our Well, our odds could be based on, since it is a documented district, could it not be based on Secretary of the Interior standards, which are as objective, I guess, as you can get. They're prescribed. I mean, I don't know how that fits in, but this is a registered district. And in terms of the zoning, and I'm hearing that you're not going to do anything with odds until you do the other updates. There's a lot of things that odds can help with. And if you don't have that and you're relying on the old zoning last year, it took, years to get all the zoning done. So I don't know about the capacity of staff, but could you not adopt a portion of them and then you know, maybe not do all of them. Maybe you can't piecemeal it, but I think you should look at doing that. You're not going to have any control. or review, I should say. And and then the opportunity sites, did I hear chair or Commissioner Feller say that there was an opportunity site near the historic district or was that just run in from her comments about the historic district? I don't believe there's any opportunity sites within that overlay district. |
| 01:43:23.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:43:23.33 | Vicki Nichols | Just curious. |
| 01:43:23.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm just curious. We'll let you finish your comments and then we get to comments from the commission this weekend. |
| 01:43:27.36 | Vicki Nichols | I think. I think that's pretty much it. I was thinking of them and then writing them down when I ran in here, my battery was running out. Thank you. |
| 01:43:35.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. |
| 01:43:36.39 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:43:40.51 | Director Phipps | Chair, I am seeing no additional raised hands in the audience, but I am seeing a raised hand in the Zoom application. That is Mr. Rex. If we could unmute Mr. Rex and allow him to provide public comment. |
| 01:43:56.83 | Director Phipps | Mr. Rex, you're on mute. |
| 01:44:00.47 | Mr. Rex | How's that? Can you hear me now? |
| 01:44:02.45 | Director Phipps | Wonderful. |
| 01:44:03.29 | Mr. Rex | Yeah, hi. Thanks for letting, giving the public a chance to speak. I attended some previous study sessions, so this isn't my first round. And I, first of all, I hear a lot of things that I like. I certainly appreciate the extensive study that's gone into this and the thoughtfulness is certainly better than builder's remedy. I think you're right. We're looking for something in between what we have or nothing at all. AND, AND, But I have some serious concerns that I wanna express. I'll try to keep it short. I'm repeating comments. Some of the comments I've made at previous study sessions that I haven't seen Thank you. adequately addressed. First of all, it's the process. I don't think we have enough eyeballs on this one. I don't think you've heard from architects and the design community. particularly the local ones sufficiently I think the subcommittee Well, I greatly respect the work, two members of the Planning Commission, professional planner and attorney does not replace the perspective of architects and particularly local ones that understand Sausalito's uniqueness. I ask that before you have another study session You have a vetting. YOU HAVE THIS DOCUMENT AS IT IS BE VETTED BY A LOCAL PROFESSIONAL GROUP. AND I THINK IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, IT WON'T, IT'LL BE A WEAKER DOCUMENT AND IN EFFECT, AND NOT AS EFFECTIVE. THE, WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH COOKIE-CUTTER, HOMOGENIZED DESIGN. I THINK WITH ODD'S IMAGINATION WILL GO OUT THE WINDOW. and everything will start looking similar like every other city. And that's a real shame. Um, I, Firmly disagree that we can't have private view protection. That will be a disaster without it. I know and I can show you how we can make it objective. And if we don't, we'll have lots of lawsuits, OK? You can't put buildings right in front of people's primary view. and destroy their property value and they won't stand for it. And if you can't figure it out, then we need to work harder with more eyeballs and brains because it must be figured out. The architectural standards, I also don't agree with. That needs more thought and a professional group can provide that. uh, uh, there's tenets to good design and we need that. Story polls are measurable, neighborhood noticing is measurable, that too, Is it? And the last thing I want to say, if you give me one second, is that We meet odds that this would be incorporated into our housing element, our zoning ordinance, and the historic tower. |
| 01:47:20.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and there are other comments, other reasons. |
| 01:47:25.00 | Director Phipps | Chair seeing no additional raised hands in the chamber of the Zoom application. |
| 01:47:29.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, at this point, we'll close the public comment portion of the hearing, and we'll bring it back up to the dais. So at this point, I want to start off with a sort of an overall comment that, I mean, I think we do want to move ahead with going back to the committee, but trying to, I don't think we'll get a full comprehensive zoning for the whole city before we do odds i think we need to move figure out a way to move ahead with with this uh and how you address the issues that have been raised but i don't think we want to wait on that i also want to uh second uh commissioner graff's uh thoughts on uh the architectural uniqueness of sausalito so i think we need to, I think the form-based zoning, I think is gonna be really helpful. That's why the odds needs to move ahead. But at some point we want to allow some creativity for what the uniqueness of Sausalito is and not necessarily be so perspective all the way down to the architectural style and whatever. So those are just some immediate thoughts. With that, commissioners, hands up with commissioner Junius. |
| 01:48:44.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. One final comment just to respond to Mr. Rex, who I have an enormous amount of respect for, and I know he's done lots of work in Sausalito. But as I said in my opening remarks, We welcome your comments, Mr. Rex. We welcome architects to comment on this and give us thoughts and tell us what they think. That's what we're doing here. Get out there, Michael, and get your architects together and let's hear from you. Number one, And then number two, I absolutely challenge you to figure out a way to objectively deal with private views. I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen, but if there's some magic out there that |
| 01:49:14.31 | Maria | So, |
| 01:49:20.78 | Andrew Junius | you know, a year and a half worth of thinking and arguing and pulling our hair out. We missed. We'll bring it on. So, and that's it. Thank you. |
| 01:49:31.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | other commissioners Mr. Feller. |
| 01:49:35.54 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair and thank you for the public comments this evening. Again, I want to reiterate the written comments that we received before this hearing and those individuals that that also spoke on Zoom and at the microphone tonight. We definitely, to echo Vice Chair Junius, we really do need to hear uh, from everybody, from everybody that wants to comment on this. This is a process. It's not a single event. Um, So we welcome any feedback. as it relates to HBC and the comments by chair Nichols I I would. Definitely encourage a continued discussion with HPC. about Bob, any additional ideas from other jurisdictions you might have, it's really important. to ensure that HPC is comfortable with this this process in these documents private views. I mean, we've really been struggling with this. This is why we have come up with taking GPS coordinates from public view corridors because they are objective. They're not subjective, what I call a living room or a master bedroom or what have you is different and someone can renovate a home. So the public views are critical It's something that We absolutely are doing everything we can to preserve But doing that objectively is very difficult. um, So I think that that's important. And I rely very heavily on Opticos as well, who as Bob mentioned, is top award-winning design firm at Berkeley. And we have some tremendous talent and expertise that I think is very helpful to the working group. And so I do rely on that very much from an architectural standpoint. folks at practice in Sausalito. It is a very unique place. And that's why we're also working and have been beta testing. the odds as they've been written so far But, you know, we're We open we want we need more ideas and more thoughts so so please don't even wait for our hearing if if you don't want to. It's a huge document. It takes some time to read through. So please reach out to us or through Director Phipps with any additional comments or thoughts, ideas, We're all ears. So thank you very much, Chair. |
| 01:52:25.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. I also want to state for the record, as you mentioned briefly, we had a number of public comments. They've all been posted to the agenda. All commissioners received those comments. So anybody that sent in comments, your comments were received and read by the commission. So with that, other comments from the commission at this point? Thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:52:50.74 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, thank you to everyone for all the work and all the public comment. I agree, I think, from part of one of our asks as well was to... look at the architectural design standards. And I do think there's an opportunity to fold some of that in well. I think the Campbell attachment that we have, excuse me. should be woven in, and I'd like to look at it in more detail to see what parts are not applicable for us, but I think we should take advantage of having some of that. um, in our odds just to be able to provide a little bit more the uniqueness and character, like some of you have mentioned, so I would just be in support of that. And definitely, definitely in support of the concept for the private views of that can be figured out, I trust the work of mine. Subcommittee and Opticos, but as Vice Chair Junius said, if somebody else can highlight that, I think we should be open to that, but definitely should continue to work out any public view vantage point that we can. I'm very sorry for my voice. So I won't belabor the speaking, so you don't have to listen to me, but I think there's a lot of great work here and I think we're not in a bad position. So thank you to the Subcommittee and Opticos for everything. |
| 01:54:11.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Any further comments? With that, I think we will close this item and go on to the next item on the agenda. Again, Mr. Brown, thank you very much. Excellent staff report. Excellent work on your and Opticos' behalf. Thank you so much. Thank you. |
| 01:54:30.62 | Unknown | Thanks, Bob. |
| 01:54:31.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Next item is public hearing. 7A has been continued. 7B is 265 Gate 5 Road. And at this point, Director Phipps, if you can explain the process for a public hearing. |
| 01:54:49.35 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you chair. This is a regular public hearing the process will begin with a staff presentation. The planning Commission will be able to provide questions for staff based on their presentation. There will be an applicant presentation 15 minutes for the team planning Commission will follow with questions of the applicant. There will be a public comment period, three minutes per speaker, applicant rebuttal time with the reserve time, if applicable, and a planning commission discussion deliberation and decision. Thank you. |
| 01:55:23.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:55:23.05 | Director Phipps | future. |
| 01:55:24.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much at this point. Cecilia, the floor is yours. |
| 01:55:31.35 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you, Chair. My name is Cecilia Jaroslavsky. I'm the contract planner presenting this item before you tonight. With your permission, I would like to share my screen. |
| 01:55:46.62 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Is everyone able to see that? |
| 01:55:48.35 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:55:49.26 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Great. The project before you is 265 Gate 5 Road. The level project site is a triangular parcel with the southeast side property line totaling 171 feet and the northwest side property line totaling 33 feet. The front property line is 300 feet and front Salon Gate 5 Road. The rear property line is 333 feet and butts Vard Landing Road to the rear. The site contains 31,010 square feet. |
| 01:56:25.57 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The site contains several small artists studio spaces. |
| 01:56:34.77 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | This is the view of the project area on gate five road facing west and from gate five road and Varda landing intersection facing east. |
| 01:56:47.53 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The project site is owned industrial marineship and the area contains residential uses in the houseboats along the shoreline and large industrial commercial uses along gate five road. A variety of retail uses are within the project area, the project was before the planning Commission on September 22 2022. Where in the Commission determined a study session and additional plan options would be appropriate and before study session on January 25th 2023. |
| 01:57:20.62 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The applicant submitted three additional plan options, plans B through D presented at the 1-25-23 study session, Generally, the Commission felt plan option D was more appropriate design for the district. and expressed concerns regarding the utilization of the stairs located at the rear property line. the visual clarity of the pedestrian entryway Thank you. the location size and number of windows, the opacity material of the exterior of the second level, the overhang of the structure at the east end of the project site and the massing appearance of the second level. The planning commission also requested clarifications related to project compliance with specific plan policies and goals including scale, sense of place in public realm. |
| 01:58:13.32 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The project includes the demolition of the existing one story 4598 square foot commercial structure and the removal of existing one story shipping containers and to one story sheds the site does not contain any trees so no trees would be removed. |
| 01:58:32.54 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The Commission may remember this was the originally proposed site plan consisting of four detached structures on the first level and one larger structure on the second level, connecting all first floor structures for project project total of less than 10,000 square feet. The project includes the installation of a five foot wide sidewalk, |
| 01:58:55.47 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | on Gate 5 Road along the Southern property line and extending from the East property line to the West property line, which is the front of the project site The vehicular entry exit is from Gate 5 Road and would contain 20 standard parking spaces, nine foot by 19 feet, two of which would be handicap accessible. pedestrian entry, was at three locations and the ground level included a large open space area. A new transformer is required by PG&E to upgrade the existing utility. and installed at the southwest corner of the project site to be connected via an underground line to the existing vacant utility pole at the southeast corner of the project site. Construction staging would be located within the northeastern corner of the project site. |
| 01:59:46.72 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The original roof plan area contained 7,602 square feet. |
| 01:59:55.06 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The original roof line was 48 feet, seven inches deep by 156. feet six inches long and the roofline of the second level originally contained three areas open to the ground level. |
| 02:00:12.61 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | At the study session, the commission generally preferred plan option D, which included a more consolidated service core and reduction of level two by 650 square feet. but the commission was also concerned regarding the stairs at the rear of the property line. |
| 02:00:35.34 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | For the study session, the applicant submitted updated plans the proposed sidewalk. installation, number and location of parking spaces, New PG&E transformer and construction staging have not changed. Vehicle egress would remain from the south and the east of the project site. The general location of structures would remain as well as a variety of open for small or large meeting groups, including a 3,478 square foot open deck area within the Northern area of the site. Pedestrian access would be from the front and side property line. Plans continue to include consolidated service score by relocating some of the space on the second level into the ground level. the second level. incorporates greater setback of 15 feet at the front. |
| 02:01:35.28 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | This demonstrates the updated roofline of the project showing two areas open to below and a reduced front setback of 15 feet at the front. |
| 02:01:47.07 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Shown in the previous slide, a 15 foot setback has been incorporated At the second level fronting on Gate 5 Road, eliminating 691 square feet at this location on the second level, as well as the elimination of the rear stairs. However, the setting back of the front wall at the second level would have a visual result of the elimination of a much larger area. at this location. |
| 02:02:16.81 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The section runs lengthwise across the front of the project, the maximum of the height, of the project is 32 feet at the second level and includes a pass-through area on the ground floor and roof decks. |
| 02:02:34.26 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | In addition to setting back the second level by 15 feet at the front, The applicant has addressed the massing concerns by varying the roof levels of the building at the front. while the second level would be 32 foot tall, above natural grade, building B would be 23 feet tall, Building C would be 29 feet tall and building D would be 17 feet tall. |
| 02:03:03.10 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The slide demonstrates the story pole as seen from Gate 5 Road and the rear Edvarda Landing Road. |
| 02:03:13.51 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Based on commission comments, the applicant has modified the materials to address concerns raised at the previous hearing, and the applicant will speak in more detail on this. |
| 02:03:26.38 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The slide demonstrates renderings of the project from Coloma street along gate five road. and directly from Coloma Street facing the project site. |
| 02:03:40.42 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The slide demonstrates renderings of the project from gate five road. |
| 02:03:50.62 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Since the publication of the staff reports, staff has received emails concerned the project would obstruct the Coloma site view corridor does not comply with requirements does not comply with SLR requirements and is being piecemealed for review under CEQA. However, there's no construction within the Columbus Street View corridor. The project complies with the maximum allowable height The seed level rise task force has reviewed the project and determined the project to be a thoughtful an innovative approach to SLR adaption planning, I believe those are attachments four and five in your packet. The project also complies with CEQA in that the project stands on its own merit, completely independent of other projects and should not be tied to any of the projects in the area. The project is also outside the BCDC jurisdiction. Staff has also received 15 emails in support of the project. |
| 02:04:55.48 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | would comply with the app applicable general plan and marineship specific plan goals by installing a usable public right-of-way improving and upgrading and underutilized parcel in modifying mass and exterior materials. to eliminate the office appearance of the structure. |
| 02:05:18.53 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The project is consistent with general plan policies, the design and location of all structures compliments the surrounding neighborhood by maintaining the prevailing character of the area is consistent with surrounding scale and does not require the approval of any additional development exceptions. Staff recommends the commission approve the design review permit with conditions of approval. Alternatively, if findings for denial can be made, The commission may deny the project. Thank you, commissioners. I am available for questions. I also believe the applicant is in attendance there as well. |
| 02:05:56.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Cecilia, thank you very much. There were a number of questions that I had that you had them address in that revised plan that was also posted, so I appreciate that. You did say one thing tonight that I'm confused about. You said the project fronts on both Gate 5 Road and Varda Landing Road, and those long rectangular buildings, are those in the right-of-way, or are they on Varda Landing Road? |
| 02:06:25.82 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I'm not sure what buildings are referring to chair, which long buildings. |
| 02:06:29.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | buildings. If you look at the, Maria, can you use your little pointer thing? No, no, go back to the picture you had. The one you had up was perfect. |
| 02:06:45.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, so go to the left a little bit, Maria. Right there. There are two buildings on Varta Lander Road between the project and the road. So unless those buildings are in the right-of-way of Varta Landing Road, then this doesn't have, it's not fronting on Varta Landing Road. |
| 02:07:07.84 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | This rendering chair is Vardala is, I'm sorry, is Gate 5 Road. This is what we're looking at is the front of the property. |
| 02:07:16.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I understand that, but she was pointing to the building at the she can't see them. There's a there's a building with a a sloped roof that's white in the bottom left corner behind the building between the building and Varda Landing Road. |
| 02:07:22.23 | Maria | you |
| 02:07:22.25 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I'm sorry. |
| 02:07:22.33 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 02:07:22.41 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yeah. |
| 02:07:22.63 | Maria | Yeah. |
| 02:07:22.82 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 02:07:22.84 | Maria | Yeah. |
| 02:07:22.97 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 02:07:22.99 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 02:07:35.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do you see that building? It's a long rectangular building. |
| 02:07:38.77 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Is this down located at the corner? On the left hand side. |
| 02:07:42.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. So if those buildings are on Varta Landing Road, then this doesn't have frontage. If these buildings are in the right-of-way of Varta Landing Road, then I guess this has frontage. But you said that they'd add frontage. So I wanted to know what the basis of your comment was. |
| 02:07:44.12 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Oh, thank you. |
| 02:07:59.52 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The rear property line is located along Varda Landing Road. So that would be considered having frontage back there. |
| 02:08:07.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so you're saying that these buildings are in the right-of-way. They're not. Do you know what buildings I'm talking about? |
| 02:08:14.29 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yes, and I believe that those are all private property. It's my understanding that all of these parcels are private property. |
| 02:08:14.49 | Nels Zalander | Thank you. |
| 02:08:14.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:08:14.76 | Nels Zalander | I believe. |
| 02:08:20.80 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | So this is a landlocked area. And the applicant can speak more to that. |
| 02:08:27.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'll ask that of the applicant. |
| 02:08:29.34 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 02:08:29.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the uh uh without uh questions so we have raised hands for many questions from the commissioners at this point Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:08:41.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Cecilia, for bringing this back to us. I just had a quick question about the story polls. And I want to refer to the previous story polls that we had on previous designs and story polls for this design. Is there a difference between the locations of those story polls or the heights of those story polls? |
| 02:09:10.63 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | There is some modification, but I would also defer to the applicant on that. |
| 02:09:16.07 | Kristina Feller | You visited the site though? |
| 02:09:18.18 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yes. |
| 02:09:19.26 | Kristina Feller | So you're not sure where the old polls were, the new polls are? |
| 02:09:24.47 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Well, I have photographs of the original poles that were installed. We could compare them. But I can't specifically tell you if I remember where the old poles were. |
| 02:09:36.17 | Kristina Feller | And I'll certainly ask the applicant, but I think it's what you're referring to as building A, which is the tallest and most horizontal building. Is that shaped Um, larger longer and higher, or has it always been 32 feet? I was trying to get back to the older plans to confirm that. I said, the |
| 02:10:07.67 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I could take you back to the, original plans and do a comparison if that would help. |
| 02:10:15.64 | Kristina Feller | I just, I don't need to look at the plans. I just wanted an answer if you knew. |
| 02:10:21.66 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yes, the larger structure that is the two story structure is at 32 feet. That's the longest structure. That's the structure on top that connects the four lower structures. |
| 02:10:36.24 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I'll ask the applicant. I think we'll maybe get a better answer from them. The second question I have is about all the undergrounding and the PG&E because I just wanted to confirm Um, You know, there are a lot of power. There's a lot of polls down there. Can you just point out which ones will no longer be there and what's being undergrounded. |
| 02:11:05.86 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The new poll will attach to an existing vacant poll on the other side of the property. and will be undergrounded in between. And I will defer that also to the applicant for more detail. |
| 02:11:20.40 | Kristina Feller | So you don't have the new design superimposed in a photo? where we can see the- |
| 02:11:28.55 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I do not have that, no, Commissioner. |
| 02:11:30.02 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. Thank you, Chair. I'll save the rest of my questions for the applicant. |
| 02:11:36.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. While we just, Cecilia, now that you have this up there, the rectangular buildings I was talking about are on these drawings. So if the property line is on Varda Road, there's a building between it and the passageway of the road. Do you see what I'm saying? |
| 02:11:58.51 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yes, I do. |
| 02:12:00.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so you don't know whether those buildings are in the road. |
| 02:12:06.12 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | this is all private property. And so Varda landing is also private property. And I, I've, would defer to the applicant to explain the detail of the connection of all of those private parcels |
| 02:12:19.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. Okay, thank you. Other questions of the commission? So. So at this point, we will have the applicant come up, if you could, and give your presentation. Your building materials are on the table there if you need them, and you'll have 15 minutes to do your presentation. Thank you for coming to see you. |
| 02:12:55.80 | Director Phipps | Commissioners, please bear with us as we upload a presentation provided by the applicant. |
| 02:13:34.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you could give your name and address for the record, thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:13:37.18 | Matt Innings | Yes, my name is Matt Innings. I'm with EYRC Architects. And actually, our client, Max Hatziger, will start us off with a short comment. |
| 02:13:59.38 | Maria | Mr. House, I think they're on mute. |
| 02:13:59.75 | Director Phipps | I think. |
| 02:14:08.49 | Director Phipps | We will make you co-host so you can unmute, Max. |
| 02:14:12.90 | Max Hatziger | Thank you. I think we're all quite familiar with the project at this point, so I will keep it short. But my family and I purchased this property. almost seven years ago now. I grew up in Marin and spent a lot of time surfing near Saucelito cycling, but I only found out about the historic and still very prospering arts community When I was about to graduate from college, I started working in Sausalito throughout college. And when we found this highly neglected property, it seemed like a really great opportunity to contribute to the area that I felt a lot of influence from growing up and the approach we took has been very iterative and gradual. We really wanted to get a feel for what the community wants and what kind of artists were there and what kind of artists were attracted to the area. And also we are really attracted to the area because Sausalito has a very rigorous and strict approach to what kind of development should happen in this community, which is exactly what we love. And we also love the light industrial aspect. So it's been a long conversation with the city learning all the rules and to watch the new general plan updates unfold. And it's all been very informative and very interesting to not only try and come up with something that is good architecture and good design, but to also really understand what is Marin, what is Marinship, what is the arts community that has existed there since the 60s want, what feels in line with the legacy, what is the arts community that has existed there since the 60s. and what is the meaning of light industrial. And I think through the study sessions and the last hearing and the revisions and the conversations with the city, we've arrived at a proposal that You know, I don't think it's, I don't think anything that we've presented in the past has been bad and that we've just made it 100% better, but I think we've made something that pleases a broader demographic and pleases more stakeholders in the community. And so I look forward to the presentation from URC today, which I think will answer a lot of the questions that were just being asked. So yeah, please enjoy and thank you for the time again. |
| 02:16:39.41 | Matt Innings | Thank you. Great. With that, I'll jump right in. If we jump to the next slide. |
| 02:16:58.38 | Matt Innings | Great. So just as a reminder, we're at 265 Gate 5 Road in the Marinship neighborhood of Sausalito as Coloma Street and Varda Landing Road hit Gate 5. If we jump to the next slide. So currently on site, we have Marinship Studios. Marinship Studios is a collective of artists working under one roof or on one property currently within this large subdivided warehouse building and a number of storage containers. The artists on site really utilize the large outdoor gravel space for work and also parking. We jump to the next side. At our previous planning hearing study session, we presented a number of options that attempted to reduce the appearance of mass and volume along Gate 5 Road. The Commission seemed most in favor of option D, which removed the mass at the corner of gate five road and began to kind of chip away. along, I guess, the entirety of the road and that mass appearance. They also preferred option C's clear break of windows and doors along that gate five road facade and how it reduced the appearance of monolith. And so really, in general, the comments were reduce the monolithic appearance, break up the mass, and maybe even allow different materials to break up the mass. So we really took that to heart. And that's exactly what our design change and new proposals seeks to do. And I think is pretty successful in doing. So if we jump to the next slide. This is an existing site plan. of our property. There's the large warehouse and small shipping containers all along that large parking and outdoor area. Those will be removed. If we jump to the next slide. Here's our proposed site plan. You can see here from above that we've kept the parking in place. We've kept the large outdoor covered and uncovered work area, the landscaping, the new sidewalks. But what we really did is drastically reduce the appearance of mass along Gate 5 Road by shifting that second level volume back into the middle of the property And that'll be really apparent in the renderings how that really breaks up that monolith so if we jump to the next slide. This is the previous floor plan that we presented at our original planning hearing. You can see that we had two large art studio spaces and then a exhibition slash art studio space down to the southeast to the right of the screen. As well as a number of service spaces and then this large covered, our covered and uncovered outdoor work area. We also had a stair to Varda Landing Road, a stair to Gate 5 Road, and a stair that connected the parking lot to the interior of the building. In our new proposal, if we jump to the next slide, In an attempt to reduce the mass of level two, we've moved 760 square feet from level two down to level one. And also by reconfiguring level two, we've drastically reduced the footprint of level two by making it more efficient and from that square footage shift. And that equates to almost 1900 square feet of footprint reduction on level two. So we still have the two large art studios. We still have the exhibition space and art studio space. a more consolidated, efficient service corridor there in the middle, and still that large covered and uncovered outdoor workspace area that our artists love today. If we jump and we have sorry removed the slightly confusing stair on Nevada Landing Road. Just to jump in and clarify, that is a private road on private property. The road fits within an existing easement, which is kind of that arc that you can see dashed on our road there. So the buildings themselves are not in the road. So we don't technically front Varta Landing Road. So here we have an overlay of our previous floor plan on the new floor plan. You can see that we've expanded that exhibition and art studio space on the right of the screen. We've cleaned up the art studios by consolidating the surface corridor. And we've kind of maintained the character of the building by keeping that covered uncovered workspace. If we jump to the next slide. This is the previous level two floor plan. That floor plan provided this large subdivisible art studio space with art studios that can serve a variety of artists and their different spatial needs. But it was quite large. It was 49 feet wide and had a number of large open volume areas that made it a little less efficient. And the kind of waterfall effect of that was it felt pretty massive. And so in our new scheme on the next slide. We have drastically reduced the bar of our level two down to 31 feet in width. We're still providing a subdivisible art studio space with an additional art studio to the left. We're still providing a service corridor, but our core, sorry, but it's much more consolidated. You can see that in yellow. And we've really reduced the amount of void space within that bar. And all of this equates to pulling the building 17 foot six off the setback line and really reducing the appearance of that mass from the street. So if we jump to the next slide, you can see the overlay of what the roof line of the previous proposal was. versus the roof line of our current proposal. And so that equates to almost 1900 square feet of reduction in that red area. So if we jump to the next slide, just to hammer it home from the roof, previous proposal 49 feet in width, large area with voids. If we jump to the next slide, Our new proposal is only 31 feet in width. and really reduces that appearance from the street. So now if we jump to the next slide, Um, and I guess one more. We have a number of renderings. And in the renderings we're going to do the same thing compare the previous to our current so this is from the previous planning hearing. You can see the kind of monolithic corrugated metal level to the houses that subdivisible art studio space is 49 feet in depth and pushed all the way to the setback along gate five road, but in our new proposal, if we jump to the next slide. we have pushed that volume back into the center of the site and really reduce the feel of the building along Gate 5 Road. Again, that's pulling 760 square feet from level two down to level one. And it equates to in footprint and almost 1900 square foot reduction. We're also breaking up the volume by allowing that ground floor studio to have a taller ceiling and break up that height right at the corner of Coloma. In the middle, we're pulling up that service cord to break up the appearance of that mass. And then we're also really allowing the windows to break the metallic skin and further kind of reduce that monolithic appearance. So if we jump to the next slide. you can see that overlay there and the reduction that we're providing. If we jump to the next slide, looking from the north end, looking south along Varda Landing Road and Gate 5 Road, this is the previous proposal, that 49-foot width, with a rather monolithic feel along Gate 5 Road. But if we jump to the next slide, you can see how our reduction has not only pulled that level two mass off the road, but really allowed those charred wood volumes to further break up the appearance of that linear bar. If we jump to the next slide, you can see that overlay. And then if we jump to the next slide again, we'll slide further down the road. This is on gate five, looking towards that entrance at gate five. Our previous proposal was fairly flat along that. We had corrugated metal over all the windows, and we were all the way out at the setback. Whereas our new proposal on the next slide, It really pushes that volume back. It clearly breaks up the volume with our window and door openings. And it really allows those charred wood volumes to break up the appearance of that bar. If we jump to the next slide, you can see that overlay again. And then if we jump to the next slide, We can see our entry from Gate 5 Road. Previously, the building came all the way up to the setbacks. It's a little bit of a shaded entry, maybe a little unclear where that entry would be. Whereas the new proposal, if we jump to the next slide, That pushed back bar allows light, underscores this break, makes it much more clear. and really reduces the appearance of that volume. um, One thing that I'll just explain again that we've explained before is that our building is seeking to be resilient to sea level rise. And so first of all, we're providing a FEMA compliant 11 foot above sea level finished floor. So that does pull our finished floor in some areas up to three feet above grade currently, but that is a FEMA requirement. And then above that, you can read this really clear line in our building between the cedar base and the charred wood upper part. And so the idea is that as sea levels rise beyond that 11 foot mark, that our base is actually kind of acts almost like a bathtub. It's totally impermeable, the water. And so the idea is that we could actually raise our finished floor up to that transition point between the cedar and charred wood. and effectively stay resilient to climate change and sea level rise by providing something above future levels up to approximately about 100 years from now, depending on by by best estimates, it's hard to predict. So if we jump to the next slide, you can see that overlay again. Jump to the next one. So this is looking from Coloma. You can see our. 49 foot wide building monolithic appearance to the next slide. That significant reduction really breaks up that bar with materials and clear breaks and windows. And I think much better blends with the neighborhood and surrounding context. If we jump to the next slide, you can see that comparison. Uh, If we jump to the next slide, We're gonna look from farther down Columbus Street. This is the previous proposal. You can see that bar was completely unbroken and rather monolithic. Whereas the new proposal, if we jump to the next slide, really pushes that volume back. allows the charred wood to come up. and breaks up the volume and brings it to a mass and kind of volume that better fits the neighborhood. If we jump to the next slide, you can see that comparison. Sorry, we're running through these. One more. If we go to the next slide. We're looking from Varta Landing Road. These are the two buildings that we were talking about previously that are on the private property that we call Varta Landing Road, but not within the, I guess, right of way that's provided by the easement there. But we are looking from there. through the buildings into the previous proposal, which again was rather monolithic. and had these void spaces that were less than efficient. So if we jump to the next slide, Our new proposal more clearly breaks up that facade, allows artists views out into that amazing Bay view that we will have, and just breaks up the appearance of that monolithic structure. So if we jump to the next slide, you can see the new windows overlaid on the previous proposal showing that it's much more broken up. And if we jump to the very last slides, just from the aerial view. Again, this was our previous proposal, 49 foot bar, larger space that we've now put on level one and with these large voids within it that made the building less than efficient and the overall waterfall effect was it It was a large volume. With our new proposal on the next slide, We've really pushed that bar back. We're more clearly breaking it up with these charred wood volumes. And we think that it ends up fitting better with the context. And hopefully you do too. Thank you. |
| 02:29:30.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your presentation. At this point, we'll have questions from the commission. Look for any raised hands about questions from the applicant. Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:29:48.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And thank you for the presentation. And obviously, you literally went back to the drawing board based on our comments and came back with certainly what I I think is a far superior design So thank you for that. But the first question I have is back to my my PG&E question. Because in looking at a lot of those renderings, which are very, very helpful, the perspectives, and you're looking to underground. Can you walk me through which of those PG&E polls are being removed. and the utilities are being undergrounded. |
| 02:30:33.40 | Matt Innings | Yes, I don't know if it's possible to go back to the renderings because I think you can kind of see it. But just to explain at the northwest corner of the property where Varda Landing Road meets Gate 5 Road. |
| 02:30:46.40 | Kristina Feller | Let's let's sorry to interrupt, but let's yeah, there we go. |
| 02:30:47.61 | Matt Innings | Sorry. um I think if we go even further back to, sorry, I believe it's actually the very first rendering. But there currently are two power poles on site, neither of which will be removed. There's a poll at the northwest corner where Gate 5 meets Varda Landing Road that you can see in the bottom left of the screen right now. |
| 02:31:12.71 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:31:13.21 | Matt Innings | The pole is currently occupied by another property's transformer. And so this is actually perfect right here. And so we can't pull from the pole that is closest to our transformer. It's occupied and in use by another property. The pole that we will be using is visible right here where Coloma hits Gate 5 Road, just to the left of the blue building. So I don't have a maybe yeah that one that doesn't have a transformer on it. that is vacant. and we can attach to it. where we will not be removing any poles, but we will be undergrounding from that pole. So there's currently wiring running to that pole. We'll underground from the pole. We'll go north along Gate 5 Road to our transformer, and then from our transformer to our building, all undergrounded. So we aren't undergrounding other people's power lines. We can't underground the entire neighborhood. We're basically taking from the moment we receive power on site, we will be undergrounding. |
| 02:32:16.71 | Kristina Feller | So, and that's, thank you for the explanation, but who are you sharing that PowerPole with that you're referring to here? |
| 02:32:25.69 | Matt Innings | So the current poll that is unoccupied, I don't believe it attaches to another site. |
| 02:32:33.17 | Kristina Feller | So why is that not being removed? |
| 02:32:36.47 | Matt Innings | because we need to access power from it. |
| 02:32:40.54 | Kristina Feller | So there is power on the pole. You can't underground the whole thing, but you have a different transformer. So where is this poll connecting to? |
| 02:32:51.59 | Matt Innings | That poll connects to the larger grid of the neighborhood, to my understanding. So we currently receive power from that poll, and it runs above ground, I think, to the existing warehouse. We'll be taking the power from the same pole and undergrounding it the moment it's on our site. |
| 02:33:05.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:05.21 | Kristina Feller | We'll be too. |
| 02:33:10.71 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Have you explored taking down the whole pole? |
| 02:33:16.48 | Matt Innings | We spoke pretty extensively with PG&E, and this was what they suggested. |
| 02:33:25.87 | Kristina Feller | Have you asked PG&E to remove the poll? |
| 02:33:31.42 | Matt Innings | From what I remember, it wasn't possible. We could certainly go back to PG&E and ask them. But my understanding was that we couldn't remove this poll, but from the moment the power gets to us on the site, we could underground it. |
| 02:33:45.17 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right, I appreciate the explanation. um, And can you just confirm for me that... you know, with how you've redesigned this You have the same square footage that you did previously. You've just moved it around a little bit. |
| 02:34:03.80 | Matt Innings | Exactly. Yeah. So our cumulative square footage is almost exactly the same. It's a slight reduction. I want to say it's like 13 square feet less. But essentially, it's the same square footage. We have moved 760 square feet down to level one that used to be on level two. But what we're really trying to do is reduce the appearance of volume and that mass and monolith along Gate 5 Road. |
| 02:34:12.48 | Nels Zalander | but. |
| 02:34:20.31 | Nels Zalander | Peace. |
| 02:34:30.50 | Kristina Feller | And then I had sent a question ahead to Cecilia, but I'm not I I don't think it got circulated to the rest of the Commission. And if it did, I apologize. We we had quite a number of emails coming in in the two hours before this hearing started. But I wanted to know about the intention of the hours of operation. And you talk about this exhibit space as if you know, you're maybe doing some evening type of exhibits and I don't know if that's that's correct or just the wrong assumption, but can you just talk us through that and the intention of the use of some of these spaces. |
| 02:35:10.52 | Maria | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:35:10.81 | Kristina Feller | other than sort of daily studios, obviously for artists, which I think is wonderful. |
| 02:35:10.83 | Maria | Bye. |
| 02:35:18.12 | Matt Innings | Yeah, I can let our client Max jump in if he'd like, but I think generally the intent is that this is a working art studio. This is not an event space. There will be no regular scheduled events. That being said, The intent is that if an artist rents the space, they will have access to it 24-7. But currently within the Marinship Studios lease agreement that our client has with all the artists, there's pretty explicit guidelines that we sent out. I'm not sure if you had a chance to read them. But that we will follow the Sausalito rules essentially around noise. And so that after a certain time every day, and I think it's different Monday through Friday, on Saturday and on Sunday. But we basically... around noise. And so that after a certain time every day, and I think it's different Monday through Friday, on Saturday and on Sunday, but we basically won't allow them to use loud power tools, no loud music, a lot of noises. And so the intent is that it is accessible to artists. It's exclusively a working art studio with very occasional events, if ever, and that we will take steps to reduce noise in the evening. |
| 02:36:23.75 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you very much. And thank you, chair. That's all I have right now. |
| 02:36:30.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Other questions, Commissioner Saad? |
| 02:36:35.95 | Nastassya Saad | Hey. Thank you for the presentation. Nice to see you guys again. Can you clarify on the parking spaces? Because in the staff report, it says that there are two spaces that would be electric for electric vehicles. I can't recall if those were there from the previous design. And then two, I think, handicap accessible. Is that correct? So two of each? |
| 02:36:54.93 | Matt Innings | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:37:00.20 | Matt Innings | I believe it's two of each, and those were in the original proposal. |
| 02:37:04.19 | Nastassya Saad | Great. um, And then. I Thank you for clarifying on the... Commissioner Feller for the undergrounding I had the same question. And Also within the staff report, I just, this is the point of clarification so I understand, because I believe it said that the second level building a connects to building B. But then I think I also read that the second level of building B connects to C and D. Can you comment? Do they all connect or? |
| 02:37:39.89 | Matt Innings | I, um, So I haven't really been using the A, B, and C, and D in our drawings, so I'm a little unfamiliar with it. But the |
| 02:37:50.09 | Nastassya Saad | I think it's that you've got that big |
| 02:37:52.14 | Matt Innings | Yeah. |
| 02:37:53.22 | Nastassya Saad | Building on Varda, yeah. |
| 02:37:55.60 | Matt Innings | Sorry, the second story volume spans across all three or four, I guess, of the lower individual pieces. And the second story volume is accessed via an exterior stair, Um, along Gate 5 Road, an exterior stair close to the parking lot, and then a freight elevator. next to the exterior stair. |
| 02:38:17.53 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so there are two ways to access from the outside to get to the upstairs. |
| 02:38:24.39 | Matt Innings | Yes, two stairs and one freight elevator. |
| 02:38:26.44 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you, I just need that clarification. |
| 02:38:31.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Other questions? Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:38:38.85 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 02:38:39.07 | Singe Saliki | you can throw that |
| 02:38:40.30 | Maria | you Thank you. |
| 02:38:43.01 | Singe Saliki | Thank you. |
| 02:38:46.64 | Unknown | Sorry, Chair Luxembourg, we can't hear |
| 02:38:50.24 | Richard Graef | I didn't have my microphone on. |
| 02:38:50.42 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:38:53.41 | Richard Graef | Forgive me. Could we go back to the elevation or the renderings on Gate 5 Road? Um, There's a... an area that I don't quite understand. But I would like to get some clarification. go down closer to the building, of course the wrong building, Yeah, sort of keep going. Yeah. Well, yeah, that one, that's a good one. Okay, the center... charred wood volume. just to the right of that. There's some what appears to be glazing. And there's a Thank you. there's a pass through or a visual opening to the right of that volume between that and the like gallery space. And I can't quite figure out how that's configured. In other words, Yeah, right there. Is there a better view of that? I even couldn't quite figure it out from the drawings. |
| 02:40:05.91 | Matt Innings | Yeah, we could either look at the plan or we could jump a couple renderings down. Maybe we jump a couple renderings down. I think it's one beyond this. |
| 02:40:16.10 | Richard Graef | So it's, |
| 02:40:17.82 | Matt Innings | One more? |
| 02:40:19.22 | Richard Graef | Yeah, right there. From there, you can kind of see it. |
| 02:40:19.71 | Matt Innings | From there, you can kind of see. Sorry, I don't have the laser pointer, but essentially, |
| 02:40:21.53 | Richard Graef | I don't like that. |
| 02:40:25.06 | Matt Innings | On both level one and level two, that's meant to be like a service core. And so on the lower level, there's like a artist service kitchen, just refrigerator, microwave, table that artists can eat it. And so that gets this little bit of glazing on the corner. |
| 02:40:44.95 | Richard Graef | That's at the lower level or the upper level? |
| 02:40:46.69 | Matt Innings | That's at the lower level. So there's glazing there. There is glazing. And so then on the upper level above that, that is the access to the restrooms on level two. So maybe now if we partner that with going back further up in the presentation and just looking at the floor plan. |
| 02:41:03.60 | Mr. Brown | Okay. |
| 02:41:03.92 | Matt Innings | just to kind of underscore that. |
| 02:41:09.71 | Matt Innings | So on level two, if we go one more. Sorry, I can't zoom in, but perfect right there. |
| 02:41:18.01 | Maria | and |
| 02:41:19.95 | Matt Innings | Great. So the yellow is essentially the service core. The right portion of the yellow is bathrooms. And so as that little hallway access the bathrooms, there's a corner window there to provide some light. both to provide some light to that. corridor. |
| 02:41:36.59 | Maria | Yeah. |
| 02:41:36.66 | Matt Innings | Yeah. |
| 02:41:36.71 | Maria | Bye. |
| 02:41:36.76 | Matt Innings | but also to kind of break up the mass and feel of that charred wood volume. And then, so if we go to the ground floor, which is up in the presentation. |
| 02:41:51.44 | Matt Innings | Perfect. then that little red square is the artist support kitchen. And so there's also a corner window there. |
| 02:41:58.75 | Richard Graef | Okay, so the glazing goes all the way down. |
| 02:42:00.64 | Matt Innings | It does, yeah, it runs. Okay. |
| 02:42:02.34 | Richard Graef | Okay, it almost looked like the glazing stopped and it was open and from the renderer. It's a little hard to figure that out. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. And I had another question about the corrugated material. What is the size of the corrugations? |
| 02:42:23.25 | Matt Innings | So I think that the typical sizing |
| 02:42:25.56 | Richard Graef | Yeah, we do. |
| 02:42:32.43 | Matt Innings | Thank you. |
| 02:42:32.45 | Maria | Yeah. Uh-huh. All right. |
| 02:42:40.87 | Matt Innings | So I wanna say that the typical sizing is 3 quarters of an inch. in corrugation height. And so I think that's what we'd be proposing. |
| 02:42:50.72 | Richard Graef | Uh-huh. Okay. Um, Like that, like that. That's for later. That's all the questions I have right now. Thank you. |
| 02:43:06.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner graph any other I don't see any hands. I do see Commissioner Feller. Yes |
| 02:43:14.60 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair. I just wanted to Um, confirm and this isn't |
| 02:43:21.86 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 02:43:21.89 | Kristina Feller | maybe directly for the applicant, but I think we got 18. public comments written in for this hearing. I want to make sure that the applicant also had the benefit of seeing all the public comment that we've received in writing before we take oral public comment here. Um, So I guess Matt, I'll ask you first or the team, Have you read the public comments we've received? And in addition, Cecilia, can you just confirm |
| 02:43:51.51 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | and, |
| 02:43:54.39 | Kristina Feller | how many we have and that the design team has received everything. |
| 02:43:58.95 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yes, I did let the applicant know how many comments came in. I don't think I sent all of them directly to the applicant and I can confirm how many they were of each. |
| 02:44:12.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chris Steininger, Cecilia, were all those posted on the agenda? Are you commenting on comments we came in previously? |
| 02:44:20.80 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Those were comments as they were coming in. I forward them to director Phipps for forwarding to the planning commission. So they were coming in continuously this afternoon. |
| 02:44:32.40 | Kristina Feller | Can you, Cecilia, can you read out the names of who issued the public comment. I wanna make sure that the applicant has had the benefit of these comments as well. Can you just read them into the records? |
| 02:44:49.29 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Absolutely, Commissioner, bear with me and I will pull them up. |
| 02:44:54.74 | Matt Innings | Yeah, and while Cecilia is doing that, I believe that we've seen all of them. I think there were eight. Was it 18? There was 15, four, and three against. And Cecilia did forward me directly the three against. So we were privy to those. |
| 02:45:09.64 | Kristina Feller | Okay, excellent. I'm going to ask you to comment on those in just a second. But I want Cecilia to read these into the records since we have quite a few. Okay. |
| 02:45:18.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's okay. Hold on a second, director of FIPS has a comment. |
| 02:45:20.56 | Director Phipps | Yeah, if I may, Commissioner, I have some concern as related to timing associated with how long it will take to read these items into the record. They are attached to the agenda and as such are part of the record. So just like to make that comment and some of the comments we received are fairly robust. So I'd like to be sensitive to that based on your request to read everything into the |
| 02:45:43.94 | Kristina Feller | No, no, no, I maybe misspoke Director Phipps. I'm not asking for Cecilia to read the actual comments. I just want her to read the names So we know because we're getting these comments before we have time, almost while we're about to start the hearing. So I'm just asking for the names. I'm not asking her to read everything. |
| 02:46:04.89 | Director Phipps | Understood. Thank you for the clarification, Commissioner. I'm happy to support a... I have no critique against the reading of the names. |
| 02:46:13.34 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Uh, great commissioner. I can start now if you would like. Please. Okay? Yoder, Y-O-D-E-R in support. Scremin, S-C-R-E-M-I-N in opposition. Slushinger in support. Sanchez. and support. SACR and support. Rock it. and support. Harry. in opposition? Nemo. In opposition? Nelson in support. McKinney in support. the Coke. and support. Kessler in support Kennedy. in support. Gilbert. and support. Evangelista and support. She ain't. in support. Can to. support. Burn him. and support. |
| 02:47:32.45 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I believe that was the entire list. |
| 02:47:36.35 | Kristina Feller | The only one I didn't hear was the working waterfront. I've got my list. I don't know if it's the full list. |
| 02:47:46.64 | Kristina Feller | Didn't they send a letter in? I believe we received it. |
| 02:47:51.54 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | the working waterfront. |
| 02:47:53.04 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 02:47:53.12 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 02:47:53.14 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Working Waterfront Coalition sent in a letter about this project. I believe they do. |
| 02:47:59.32 | Director Phipps | And commissioners received that letter, correct, Christina? |
| 02:48:02.35 | Kristina Feller | Pardon? |
| 02:48:03.86 | Director Phipps | COMMISSIONERS DID RECEIVE THAT LETTER. |
| 02:48:06.76 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:48:06.79 | Unknown | different. |
| 02:48:07.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:48:07.10 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:48:08.56 | Andrew Junius | It was for the odds, wasn't it, Commissioner Fowler? I thought I saw a comment from the working waterfront on the study session. |
| 02:48:17.59 | Kristina Feller | I thought it was on this project, so maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm just, I want to double check because there was so many emails flying around. So thank you. Director Phipps. |
| 02:48:26.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If I could, Commissioner Fowler, let me clarify. You have it posted for the odds, but it is for this project. So it has been posted to the agenda, but it is not posted to this item. So we need to move it from one item to this item. But it's out there. Everybody had access to. |
| 02:48:44.64 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. And so thank you, Director Fibbs. Thank you, Cecilia. I just want to ask then back to the applicant, if you've had a chance to review those that are in opposition of this and if you have any comment that you would like to make specific to those comments in opposition. |
| 02:49:05.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller, if we could, I would like to allow public comment from any additional public comment and then they have 12 seconds to respond to anything. So I would do that altogether. I think that would be useful. |
| 02:49:18.56 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. That sounds great, Chair. Thank you. That's all I had. |
| 02:49:27.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Other questions? No, but, okay. So at this point, we're going to open it up for public comment and both in the room and on Zoom, and Director Phipps, if you could run that, please. |
| 02:49:43.77 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Firstly, looking for raised hands, interested speakers in the audience. Seeing one raised hand, please proceed to the podium. State your name and your address. |
| 02:49:57.20 | Marcel Hatziger | I'm Marcel Hatziger, so I'm related to Max, the applicant, and I don't want to give a big long speech or anything, but one thing I think might be useful is to just let you know that this project is actually the sixth art-related project that we've done the last two decades. And we haven't really done any extracurricular activities other than our day jobs that were not art related. And I thought that might be interesting to know because some of the feedback we've had is, how do we guys know that you're not gonna convert your art building into an office building and you're secretly building an office building. The evidence, um, uh, that we are in fact building an art building is that we have done nothing but that since 2005. We built Sam the Butcher Art Gallery in Ross in 2005. It's still an art gallery today. We built the Embark Gallery at Fort Mason in 2015. We ran it for five years. We had the director of the National Portrait Gallery on the jury of the juried shows that we did there for five years, did about 30 shows, and then COVID kind of shut us down. Thank you. but that gallery also still exists. Talk to Fort Mason, they'll tell you it's the nicest space that they have at Fort Mason. Then we built an art history database that we've been working on for 10 years. I went on ChatGPT the other day. And I asked it's ChatGPT to rank all broadly based art history databases written in colloquial language, and our website came out as number eight on that list, which is very gratifying if you consider the really heavy hitter institutions that also have art history databases. And then, most recently, Marinship Studios 2017, 20 plus artists. There's a show on today at the Civic Center. It's been up for a couple weeks. It's going to be up for another month. It's exclusively artists from the Marinship Studios right here in San Salido, whose work is hanging at the Civic Center. And then the most recent project has been Black Mountain Ranch. where we grow art supplies. Basically, we grow flax to make paper, indigo and marigold to make pigments. And the County of Marin is doing an art show that, um, is gonna use the materials that we grow at our ranch That's also gonna be at the Civic Center. We've had some failures. We've failed to bring the Smithsonian to Fort Mason, even though we worked on that for three years. At the end of the day, there was just not enough money their requirements were too tough. And, um, The other failure I have to admit personally is I was a trustee at SFAI and SFAI There's no more. Anyway, I thought that would be useful background and countered a narrative that we're secretly making an office building. |
| 02:52:53.36 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you for your comment. |
| 02:52:58.59 | Director Phipps | Next speaker, if there are no additional hands, interested speakers in the audience, I will look to the Zoom application seeing Mickey Allison. Mickey, we will request that you unmute. I will give you the permission to unmute. You have three minutes. And please state your address for the record. |
| 02:53:15.88 | Mickey Allison | I'm Mickey Allison. I'm at 45 basic quad dock. And I walked down the dock I mean, it's what Sausalito all the time. Unfortunately, I have actually seen flooding in the parking lot area. up to well over ankle height. And my pants would have gotten soaked if I had walked in there and walked through that area at that time. concerns me. And I think you really need to think about how you're going to keep the car safe When you have a building that's higher and it does flood in that area because EVs do not do well, nor any car. electronics if they get wet. I'm also, I'm not in opposition. I'm asking questions. How many artists are actually proposed to be in that building? And is it going to be really truly affordable for them? That is one of the big concerns I have. you have a certain thing about take back, but I looked at me with a three square feet times the rentable square footage, you are going to have to look for $29,856 per year. And I just don't know how that's gonna figure out That's just to gain your costs and pay for this thing. So that bothers me and it makes me a little bit nervous. I'm also really concerned about the sculptor. He does beautiful work. Working outside, it's noisy if you're working with rocks and trying to sculpt rocks. Where is he going to be? Because you don't have a space for him and I don't want to see him get lost. So that's... where I'm at and I just I'm a former member of the Sierra Club Marin Group. And so I just sort of checked in on this just to try and make sure that. This was a good project. And overall, it seems like it, but there are certain things, especially that flooding, because that area, that intersection where you're going to have the parking lot was flooded. several times. Thank you. |
| 02:55:38.55 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment. Looking to the next speaker in the Zoom application with their hands raised. I am seeing Don. Don, please state your full name and address for the record. We will request that you unmute yourself. We'll give you that authority. And you have three minutes. Thank you. |
| 02:55:54.68 | Don Anderson | Hello, Don Anderson at 247 Gate 5 Road. So just across Varda Landing from the Northwestern tip of this property. I've only been here 25 years. but that's long enough to have seen two other owners of this property approach, developing it with the big 10,000 square foot, two story, 30 foot, tall block. And I've only known the house hires since they bought into this neighborhood, but I have full confidence in them. I do believe that they are the right people. They've gotten further, and I know they're going to see this through. This is a really good project. and we welcome it in general, but I did have one of the architecture itself that I'd like to bring to pull back into question. If it's possible for whoever sharing the screen to take a look at the elevation. 10.03, A 10.03. The one from Varda Landing looking over the two old World War II era army barracks buildings. If it's possible to share that screen, that'd be great. But for the applicant and for his architect, I would I would like to see that second deck, the deck that overlooks the waterfront I'd like to see that deck brought down in height. It doesn't mean you have to lower your ceiling height. I know you've got the entire second floor at the same level. But just like you did with the with the over the deck on Gate 5 Road, doing a metal railing with a more transparency, I think would be a more appropriate approach towards that. I'm a little concerned that that deck is seemingly accessible from the general public. That is to say, anybody can go up on those stairs and hang out on that deck any time of the day or night, and it does seem like a bit of an intrusion. on the lower portion of the site, the more waterfront portion. So that's the only comment I have. I'm impressed with the process. I think the city, the applicant architect have done a really good job Thank you. of articulating the mass in a way that's much more sensitive to the neighborhood. So that's the shot I was looking for. If you look at the two decks there, The one on the right with the transparent handrail allows the Thank you. the viewer to see through to the landscape behind The other one. Why not do it the same? Why not keep it transparent? It's showing up on the elevations as being six feet higher than the other deck. I'm sure that's mostly in the guardrail, but I would like to see that transparency. uh mirrored over both of those decks that's the only thing i would comment Otherwise, I think this is a good project. |
| 02:58:54.02 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. |
| 02:58:58.50 | Director Phipps | looking to the Zoom application, Stacy Nemo, we will request you unmute. You all have three minutes to speak. Please say your address for the record. |
| 02:59:08.93 | Stacy Nemo | Thank you. I'd like to present my screen. If you could give me a moment before you start the clock. My address is 6550 Lima Street. And, So far, it's disabled from sharing. |
| 02:59:28.61 | Director Phipps | Stacy, if you could try again, we believe we've given you the privilege. Thank you. |
| 02:59:33.35 | Stacy Nemo | Okay. here. So I have a collection of some friendship buildings that also happen to be office buildings. They all share a similar vernacular. One is 2658 Bridgeway on the left there. That's a Facebook building. And then Dan Morgan's office building. And on the right is the proposed building. I think that it has a great possibility to be an office. I think the only way you can really guarantee it's not going to become an office is with a deed restriction. I believe the House of Heroes intent is clear at this point, but in the future, there's no guarantees. One of the things that has been stressed by the staff is not impacting View Corridor. You see here from the architects rendering it actually goes directly down Coloma Street. It does impact the view corridor. You don't see the ridge line. You see a large overhang, a pretty fine metal structure, 160 feet long. And most of this volume is from some very tall ceiling heights, this 14 foot tall ceiling, it's about two and a half times the size of a human and it's impossible to heat and cool and just doesn't make a lot of sense to have it so high up there with so little potential occupancy. If it was oriented in the other direction, perhaps facing the water instead of parallel to the shoreline, it might make a little bit more sense and would certainly block a lot less view. The building's also considerably higher than all the buildings in the area, even though the architects sort of said that it's similar. You can see the buildings in red that are over 23 feet tall. This is based on from the road up. There aren't that many of them. And you can see, again, nice clean view line down the Columbus Street corridor. Here it is again from Google Earth at the top. This is 23 feet above the road height. You can see a majority of the buildings are 23 feet above. You see solar panels just breaking through here. And then the peaked gabled roofs of, I believe that's 250 and another building down the street. This one is a little taller, but it's also blocked by the marina there. So there's not much you can do with the view anyhow. But as you can see, most of the buildings are only 23 feet above the road. Sorry, I already showed that slide. Or maybe, maybe I didn't. Sorry, here's the here's the illustration of the view corridor. And you can see the building hanging into the roadway. And if you were walking down the street here, your view corridor extends to the buildings on both sides of the street here and is blocked by the building itself on the second floor up top and then by the fences along the property line. The fences kind of have to be there because the building is going to be raised over the property behind it. There's also a culvert which goes down the property. Culvert's outdated and held together with a patchwork of things that have been put together by previous owners and overflows. This is what Mickey was talking about, overflows during the king tides and went overflowing to the parking lot as well as into G.J. Healy's work yard. |
| 03:02:37.37 | Director Phipps | for your comments. |
| 03:02:42.81 | Director Phipps | Chair looking to the Zoom application, raised hands, seeing none. Looking to the audience once again, raised hands, seeing none. |
| 03:02:50.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. At this point, we'll close the public hearing portion for public comments. At this point, the applicant, you have 12 seconds for rebuttal, but I will also give you some leeway to answer Commissioner Feller's question, including any comments you just heard. Just try to keep them tight, if you could. |
| 03:03:14.19 | Matt Innings | Yeah. So thank you for all of the comments. Addressing them briefly, we are within our height limit of 32 feet above existing grade as much of the surrounding neighborhood is. Um, we are very clearly outside of the Coloma street view corridor, which is very clearly defined and in our plan. We looked into raising the parking lot But in terms of adding fill, further complicating subsidence, it just didn't pencil out. And we're working directly with the Sealover Rise Task Force and with our civil engineer who's very experienced in the area and along the bay on how to best address flooding and direction of stormwater on site. |
| 03:04:07.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. With that, that concludes the applicant's presentation, and we'll bring it back up to the dais. At this point, Commissioner Juniors. |
| 03:04:19.16 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. I'd like to start open the dialogue here with the commission just by saying, You know, this is the third hearing that we've had on this project. I think it's a good project that's going gotten better. I wanna congratulate the design team. and the ownership for working through the process. I feel you've done an outstanding job |
| 03:04:38.33 | Nels Zalander | you, |
| 03:04:39.94 | Andrew Junius | in addressing our concerns. I'm very much getting the feeling that we can get this over the finish line tonight. So I really, really hope that my fellow commissioners work hard to bring you an approval tonight. I mean, this is a really good project with community support. You've done what we've asked you to do. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't get this across the finish line today. And I'm going to make, I'm ready to make a motion when the commissioners, have finished their discussion, but I hope we can get this approved tonight. Thank you. |
| 03:05:09.26 | Director Phipps | If I may, Vice Chair, just want to say thank you for that perspective and just restate based on the staff report that staff is strongly recommending this be a decision-based hearing. Staff is strongly recommending against a continuance. Thank you. |
| 03:05:27.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Genius, and thank you, Director Vips. Commissioner Grant. |
| 03:05:36.64 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Thank you. I Well, I knew you could do it. I like the building now. I like it a lot. I still have some reservations about a couple of things that I'd like to talk to you about. One of them is the scale of the corrugations. I think that's going to be lost in the... very large form that it's cladding. And I would urge you to consider larger corrugation. I'm reminded of some projects down in Monterey, where at the Monterey Bay Aquarium for Juan, where We used Um, I don't know, cementitious material. but larger. And the scale of it, it really works nicely on large volumes. I'm thinking that that's so delicate. that it's gonna be lost. It's just gonna go away. So he won't get that. texture. So concerned about that. I know it's a minor detail, but I'd like you to think it over. The other... Could we look again at the rendering along Gate 5 Road, Um, I think, well, when it gets up, hopefully. |
| 03:07:17.78 | Director Phipps | Please bear with us for a moment, Commissioner, as we upload it. We actually, We have to remove the zip drive, Insert it. and reselect the file. So give us one moment. |
| 03:07:29.16 | Matt Innings | the one thing I miss about Zoom |
| 03:07:31.67 | Richard Graef | Bye. Okay, well, my comment is going to be on the three charred wood volumes. Even though there's a rendering down from gate five row that I wanna... Look out. Yeah. Probably not that one, but a couple further that one probably. |
| 03:07:57.68 | Maria | That one probably. |
| 03:08:00.88 | Richard Graef | This one. Yeah, right. I mean, that's a handsome building. But I'm a little concerned about They that runs along Gate 5 Road, is that although you have created some spaces that go through that does, Those facades are all on the same plane. And I was going to ask you if you would consider somehow, and I think you could do it without really losing any space, by just tweaking things a little bit, the two volumes on that end and this end, including the exhibit space, if they were pulled back a bit, you would get a little bit more of the in and out. I know you can't do it on the center one because that's got your service core in it and that can't move. But those other ones I think could and you probably could do that without really losing anything. So that was my critique on that. Otherwise, I think you've done a great job of listening to the commission. and you've got to pretty handsome building there. And so I'd like to see it done too. That's really all my comment. |
| 03:09:38.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:09:43.77 | Nastassya Saad | I do think we can get this over the line. I don't actually have too much to add. I think I'm going to... I respectfully disagree with the overall concept from the start. I was not a huge fan, but I do really appreciate that you did take all of our feedback into account. And with that, I would be happy to support when we get there a motion to approve, even though I'm ultimately not a fan. But, you know, it is an artist's space. And I think to some of the public comment, I think we don't need to get into the conversation about office space. I don't think it's necessarily worth our time. There's already restrictions in place in that area. It's industrial. And I think the intent is quite clear. I think it's designed in a way that it is, successful for artists, hence the blockiness and the height. And so I like the corrugated metal. I think that's a great idea. I don't have that design eye to know that this metal piece in front of me looks great. But I do think that, because I think in the old in your old drawing or D from the last time, If I remember correctly, you had the lightness on the bottom and the darkness on the top. There was some switch in your colors. And I think this complements the space a little bit better, however you've chosen those materials. I would support Commissioner Graff in terms of the plane because I still see quite a bit of mass, but I do think that setback has really hit what we were trying to achieve. So thank you to the design team for going back. So I think those are my comments. I'd be happy to keep moving forward. |
| 03:11:32.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:11:32.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Sog. Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:11:35.58 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And again, thank you to the design team for taking taking our comments to heart and coming back with a far superior design here. I'm prepared to second Vice Chair Junius' motion when he's ready to make it. Thank you. |
| 03:11:56.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. So my comments are as follows. I so wish we had done the study session before the previous hearing, because I think you've come a long ways and you've listened in this project. I mean, the concept has always been a great one. I think the architecture now matches the concept. So kudos to that as well. So I, you know, credit you and the rest of your team, as well as working closely with the owner on that. With that, I'm going to turn it back over to Commissioner Junius to form a motion. |
| 03:12:32.12 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. I do think we can respond to Commissioner Graff's excellent design comments, as long as the architect is nodding yes, that that can happen. So let me throw something out there and kind of work this through. I'm at this point comfortable with those comments being given back to the staff. so that the staff can work with the architect. I mean, there are very clear comments much larger, you know, pitch on the corrugation. I think if that's something you're willing to agree to, I think the staff could work with you on selecting the final piece for the corrugation. And then the, you know, the setback, did you have a thought on how we could agree on a one foot, two foot? I mean, you know, I do think that maybe it would push into the volume at some point, and there may be some floor area issues, but do you have a thought about how much that might work for you and And Commissioner Graff? |
| 03:13:30.81 | Matt Innings | Yeah, we would be happy to study it. It is actually fairly tight to the setbacks. The piece that's to the far left of the screen is up against the easement. So we can't, if we push. Back along Gate 5 Road, we're losing area. We can't grow on the other side. The service corridor aligns pretty well right now. And the exhibition space, I think, is probably the best candidate. That being said, we are looking for a large, efficient building with alignments that makes it easier to build and brings us closer to providing something that is affordable for artists. But I think studying it after the fact or working with staff would be a great idea. |
| 03:14:08.18 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. I mean, Commissioner Graff, would you be fine with the staff working with the architect to attempt to achieve what you were talking about with respect to the plane changes? Okay, great. So I would move to approve the project. with direction to the planning department staff to work with the architect on a larger corrugated metal scheme for the cladding on that part of the building and to attempt to make minor modifications to the volumes fronting on Gate 5 Road to separate the various elements of the building. |
| 03:14:47.69 | Kristina Feller | I'll second that. |
| 03:14:48.82 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:14:48.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And Commissioner Feller who second that as well. Any further conversation from the commission? |
| 03:14:54.74 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. I just wanted to note that I think in terms of what you're trying to achieve with the sea level rise, it's so important, especially for that area. So I just wanted to commend the project from that aspect specifically. So we appreciate any work that takes care of a very real need that we have in South Slito down there. That's it. |
| 03:15:19.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. If there are any other comments, Director Phipps, can you take the roll please? |
| 03:15:25.12 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you very much, Chair. And before I do that, I'd just like to echo some of the comments from Commissioners. This is a fantastic project. I think that you have done a wonderful job working with the Commission and responding to comments. I also think that if this project is approved, it will represent a fantastic case study for future development in the Marin ship. So I really want to give kudos to the design team as well as Max and the property owners for their visionary approach to this project. With that, I will move to call roll Commissioner Saad |
| 03:15:53.94 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 03:15:54.02 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 03:15:54.75 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graham. |
| 03:15:56.07 | Maria | Yes. |
| 03:15:56.86 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:15:59.05 | Maria | Yes. |
| 03:16:00.52 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? Yes. Motion passes unanimously. |
| 03:16:05.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | like, Thank you. Thank you all. Next item on the agenda is adjournment. |
| 03:16:11.54 | Andrew Junius | Move to adjourn. |
| 03:16:12.62 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:16:13.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:16:13.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:16:13.48 | Unknown | Second. Aye. Aye. Aye. |
| 03:16:15.20 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:16:17.13 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:16:17.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:16:17.58 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Commissioner. |
| 03:16:18.93 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:16:20.81 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. There you go. I'm using the dial. |
| 03:16:23.98 | Mr. Brown | you |
Mr. Rex — Against: Criticized the lack of input from local architects and design professionals. Disagreed that private view protections cannot be made objective, warning of lawsuits. Argued the ODDS would lead to cookie-cutter design and called for more vetting by a professional group. Also questioned the incorporation of the ODDS into the housing element and zoning. ▶ 📄