| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:01.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This is the July 12th meeting of the Sausalito Planning Commission. Call to order. Uh, Can you take the role, Director Fitz? |
| 00:00:12.05 | Director Phipps | Yes, happy to, Chair. Recording in progress. A few words before I start. Good evening, Chair Luxenberg, Planning Commissioner, 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. |
| 00:00:14.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | progress. |
| 00:00:14.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:33.39 | Director Phipps | I am seeing no remote attendees. So with that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:00:38.51 | Catherine Green | Here's the first time. |
| 00:00:39.35 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graf. |
| 00:00:41.46 | Catherine Green | Here. |
| 00:00:42.37 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. Here. Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Luxenberg. Here. We have achieved quorum. |
| 00:00:43.53 | Catherine Green | Here. |
| 00:00:50.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Look for motion to approve. |
| 00:00:56.27 | Kristina Feller | so moved. Thank you. |
| 00:00:58.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, |
| 00:00:58.98 | Director Phipps | Director Phillips, can you call roll? Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Assad? Yes. |
| 00:01:01.98 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:01:02.38 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Graff. Yeah. |
| 00:01:03.85 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:03.99 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Filler. |
| 00:01:05.30 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:01:05.64 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:01:10.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda is public comments for items not on the agenda. Director Phipps, if you could give instructions for that. And also, I think Commissioner Feller is going to acknowledge some items that came in that through email that are not posted, but are items not on the agenda. |
| 00:01:30.78 | Director Phipps | Very good. Thank you, Chair. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the Commission may refer items not on the agenda to staff or direct the subject be agendized at a future meeting. Video or public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker if you would like to make a comment please raise your hand in person or in the zoom application and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak to raise your hand from a phone press star nine each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. And I'll pass the mic back to you, commissioners, to discuss any items of public comment that you've received. |
| 00:01:37.74 | Mary Crowley | Thank you. |
| 00:01:50.46 | Mary Crowley | not |
| 00:02:22.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps, Commissioner Feller. If you could read just for the record what the items are, we don't have to read the item in its entirety. |
| 00:02:30.37 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. I just want to acknowledge, too, E-mails that were received at the planning commission's email address. Schoonwalker public beach access and public safety issues issued by an a levine at msn.org. And also slow progress on project on Sausalito Boulevard from swhite678 at outlook.com. I would just ask if staff could attach these later date to the agenda so they can be viewed by the public should should be needed. |
| 00:03:08.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. We'll open it up for any of the public that want to comment for items not on the agenda. |
| 00:03:17.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item. On the agenda is planning commission minutes for our last meeting. I did not see those posted. Are those still in progress? Director Phipps. |
| 00:03:31.42 | Director Phipps | I believe that we have received them. We just weren't able to get them posted on this agenda. So for the next meeting, we will include two minutes for your review. |
| 00:03:40.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Director Phipps. Moving on to communications, Director Phipps, CDD presentation. |
| 00:03:50.69 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. No presentation in the communication items this evening, but I do have just one item that I wanted to touch on and bring you all up to speed on. So earlier today, Assistant Planner Mandich and I attended the first Property Business Improvement District Steering Committee meeting at the Visitor Center at 22 El Portal. And the meeting, as was the last meeting, where we kind of ideated this investigation stage, the meeting was well attended by business owners and property owners within and around the city's downtown commercial district. Next step for the steering committee include refining the draft survey boundaries for the event investigation stage of this process via the formation of a PBID boundaries task force. |
| 00:04:24.90 | Mary Crowley | Thank you. |
| 00:04:37.29 | Director Phipps | and distributing the survey to property owners within that area once it's confirmed in order to receive their response feedback. So we are off and running on the investigation stage. Look forward to providing future updates as we make more progress. And that does it for my communications to commissioners this evening. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:04:56.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Attorney General, City Attorney Rudin, do you have any comments this evening? |
| 00:05:06.14 | City Attorney Rudin | Uh, no, I do not. Thank you. |
| 00:05:07.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We'll now have report outs from any planning commissioners, including not limited to a number of our working groups. Ferry Landside Working Group, Commissioner Fellow, Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:05:20.99 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And I will ask Vice Chair Junius to also add his remarks to this as well. Earlier this week, we did meet with Director McGowan. Director Phipps and also the consultants working on this project. There was a little bit of a mix up in terms of the consultants availability. Originally, we were supposed to meet with them on Monday. That got moved to Tuesday. However, Vice Chair Junius, you did meet with Director McGowan on Monday. Just to note that it is anticipated that this will come back to the Planning Commission later this month for a design review. So we're looking at phase one only of the ferry landslide improvements. |
| 00:06:10.39 | Andrew Junius | Nothing to add except we'd really love the community to come out and give us your thoughts about this. This is an extremely important project for the waterfront and for the ferry area and we'd really love to get your input. So thank you. |
| 00:06:23.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you both. Housing element working group, Commissioner Feller, Commissioner Saad, have there been any new developments? |
| 00:06:32.63 | Nastassya Saad | There are no new developments unless Director Phipps has anything further to add, but I think not. |
| 00:06:39.58 | Director Phipps | Nothing on my end, Commissioner Saad. Thank you for the question. |
| 00:06:44.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next one is Parklitz, Commissioner Feller and myself. We are Director Phipps. I understand you've gotten some information from the city attorney's office on this at this point. And we'll be scheduling a working group meeting either sometime in July, but more likely in September. Is that where we're going? |
| 00:07:07.61 | Director Phipps | Well, I think I want to confirm with the working group members regarding their availability for a working group meeting. I would love to look to August, but if availability is not there, then we will push to September or a later date. But Assistant Blender Mandich and I are working on cleaning up, taking another bite at the apple based on some of the input that we received from city attorney, which was extremely helpful and really got us off and running in the right direction. So once we make that additional cleanup, take that additional bite, we will be able to hold that working group meeting in earnest and make additional progress. with the intent of bringing this back to the Commission for final approval. |
| 00:07:50.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can, if it's on Zoom, I can do it in August, and I might even be able to do it in person in August. |
| 00:07:57.34 | Kristina Feller | I'm available at your discretion whenever we need to schedule a meeting. It's a priority. And just for the benefit of the public, Director Phipps, the purpose of this is to generate an ordinance, a revised ordinance to our municipal code. And so that is what this parklet program is meant to do. So the public is clear on what that is. |
| 00:08:21.29 | Director Phipps | Agreed. And thank you, commissioners, for making yourselves available. |
| 00:08:25.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I will add to that, and this is to replay, during the pandemic, an emergency order was put in that's established a number of parklets. And the idea here would be a permanent program by ordinance. So the intent is to relieve the emergency order and put in a permanent program. Next item master plan working group, a commissioner fellow, commissioner son. |
| 00:08:51.10 | Kristina Feller | No, no progress to note since our last hearing, although we still do need to set some time aside with city attorney. Rudin and director Phipps yourself. I think that there's some discrepancy in terms of what the master plan is versus the general plan. They are not the same thing and not intended to be. So we'd like to move forward with that in earnest. |
| 00:09:16.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then Landslide Task Force, Commissioner Filler, any updates on that? |
| 00:09:23.74 | Kristina Feller | We have not met again since the last time I reported out on that. However, Miller Pacific is working on their scope of work. And we did meet with Miller Pacific. And so we're looking forward to an update once they've had a chance to survey. |
| 00:09:40.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. And now if any commissioners have any other working groups or items to bring forward, this would be the time. Thank you. |
| 00:09:49.05 | Shauna Rasnergan | Not at this time. I have just one item. |
| 00:09:50.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:09:52.36 | Kristina Feller | Just in terms of looking forward, Director Phipps, sometime in the fall, it would be great to get an update on our tree fund and how what our balance is in that fund and and if that is working or if we need to revisit that for the benefit of the city. So just something to look forward to sometime in the fall. Thank you. |
| 00:10:16.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. At this point, we'll open it up to public comment for item five communications. Director Phipps, if you could instruct in public on how to comment on that. |
| 00:10:30.82 | Director Phipps | you Certainly. If you'd like to make a public comment, please raise your hand in the chamber or in the Zoom application, and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands, seeing none, Chair. Looking to chamber members, chamber attendees, seeing none. Back to you. |
| 00:10:48.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. At this point, we're going to move on to item six, public hearings. I'm going to ask each of the commissioners if there are any ex parte communications, starting with Commissioner's side. |
| 00:11:00.99 | Nastassya Saad | No ex parte communications to declare. |
| 00:11:03.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Jr. |
| 00:11:05.19 | Andrew Junius | no ex parte communications. |
| 00:11:07.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:11:11.74 | Kristina Feller | I'm not. |
| 00:11:13.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner and fellow. |
| 00:11:14.88 | Kristina Feller | No ex parte. |
| 00:11:16.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I also have no expert communications. First item is item 6A, 426 Pine Street, Director Phipps. |
| 00:11:26.51 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. So as shown on the agenda, staff is recommending this item be continued to a date uncertain due to the applicant's request to rework their proposal. And I just want to confirm with City Attorney, I don't believe a formal decision on the continuance is required by the Commission. Happy to do so if required, but just want to confirm your understanding of appropriate process. |
| 00:11:49.71 | City Attorney Rudin | No, it's not required. But I would recommend that since this is on the agenda, you do have to take public comment on it. |
| 00:11:59.04 | Director Phipps | Certainly, and we intend to do that this evening. So, in the absence of a requirement for the condition to approve the continuance, I think that it's understood that that is what staff will be doing. And for members of the public, as mentioned, the applicant has requested that we exclude this item from today's agenda as they're reworking their proposal. and if I could just add before passing it back to you chair regarding public comment I want to make the point that all public comments received at this meeting in connection with this item ought to be taken with a grain of salt, as the comments you will likely hear in response to, excuse me, the comments you will likely hear in connection with this item will be in response to a previous submittal, and it may not reflect the applicant's future project submittal, which, again, they're currently reworking with their design team. Once the redesign is received by staff, we will conduct an internal review prior to placing it on a future planning commission agenda, and when the item is posted on a future agenda. it will be provided with a full plan set, full staff report, resolution, and other required associated documents. Thank you very much. |
| 00:13:16.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Let me just clarify. We do not need to take an action on this because we don't have to move to continue. It would just be continued. |
| 00:13:27.89 | Director Phipps | I believe that that's what city attorney confirmed. Happy to, can we double check with city attorney? |
| 00:13:34.52 | City Attorney Rudin | Yes. Short answer is yes. If you take no action, it is by virtue of the fact that it's still a pending application going to be continued to another date. |
| 00:13:36.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:13:36.38 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 00:13:36.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:13:36.48 | Director Phipps | Bye. |
| 00:13:36.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:13:43.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Attorney Rudin. Also, a new notice would have to be, since it's a date uncertain, there would be a new notice issued for this for whenever that is. Is that correct? |
| 00:13:54.74 | Director Phipps | Correct. This item will be re-noticed to members of the public. The notice will be redrafted and redistributed as appropriate and within the appropriate timeline. |
| 00:13:54.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:14:05.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. At this point, I'm going to open up item 6A, 426 Pine Street for any public comment. uh director phipps if you could call on public that would be appreciated yes |
| 00:14:17.75 | Director Phipps | Sir, gentlemen in the blue, button up. Please come on down, state your name and your address for the record, and you will have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:14:36.97 | Unknown | or Bonita Street, they're two lovely properties on the same block. Um, I just want to be clear on expectations. I have an email from the attorney claiming they're going to have minimal interior adjustments and no exterior adjustments. They're working on plans that are essentially the same. So I think the feedback you're receiving today will likely apply to any future application. But first I want to introduce myself. The applicant introduced me as a New York City living landlord. And in fact, whenever we spoke, I was not in New York City. I'm a long time. My family has four generations of sailing history in Sausalito, and I care deeply about Sausalito. I raised two young kids. in this home, I met my wife, uh, uh, when Divino was in its breakfast heyday, having a Pomodoro, a mocha, um, and, um, I've had many wooden boats. My grandfather wrote four novels, Ernest Kagan from Sausalito. He donated the main mass to the Wanderbird. For those of you that remember that ship, my father had his funeral at Christ Church. So I am deeply committed to Sausalito. And the suggestion that I'm a New York City landlord that doesn't really care about anything but the money really isn't fair. This is a proposal, and I have every indication that the next thing down the line will be the same. It changes a one-story property to a three-story property. It's described in the notice as putting one lower floor and one upper floor, but the lower floor is only two feet lower than the current floor. So it's really going two feet down and then adding two stories on top. Further, it's a complete demolition. It's not a remodel and expansion as was described in the notice in the paperwork. You can dig out the remaining walls. If you work really hard, you might find a wall that stays. This is about the destruction of a fantastic cottage. the plan that's proposed violates my son, my privacy, and my view. Not everything has to be a water view. This has a beautiful view of the rolling hills and it will cut it out. I encourage you to look at my email that went to the commission, which has pictures of how these story polls will dominate, dominate the morning sunlight that flows into this property. Finally, I... In the calls, I tried to be patient with the applicant, but it was a little bit like when someone comes and says, they'd like to kind of your hand off to feed their dog. And you're like, oh, I don't want to have my hand taxed off. And they say, look, we're going to work with you. We could use a sharp ax or a doll ax. You know, oh, well, I guess I prefer the sharpbacks. and, you know, the things like changing colors and the like don't fix the problem. It's a fundamental violation of my rights. And I wish you look at it that way. Thank you for your time. |
| 00:17:33.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. I just want to note for the public that we have received all the emails that, just so you know, that planning commission, each of us gets all the emails that are sent to the city. So we have received all those. |
| 00:17:47.91 | Unknown | Love you. Ask one more question. |
| 00:17:50.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... |
| 00:17:51.00 | Unknown | about process. |
| 00:17:52.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:17:52.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:17:53.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 00:17:54.09 | Unknown | The question is, Thank you. who comes to visit my property? Because the planning department is saying it's not their role to visit a bordering property, only the property where the plans are. So they're not visiting my property. And I invited the planning commission and got no emails back. So from a process standpoint, |
| 00:18:12.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:18:12.59 | Unknown | Yeah. And also who orders a sun study on a property? I don't understand how this works. |
| 00:18:17.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to thank you for that. This is not where we take questions, but I will say each of us goes out and looks at sites that are on our agenda. So we do look and projects we are able to see from the public way sometimes most of what we need to see. So just whether you've seen us or haven't seen us, that doesn't mean we haven't seen your property. So just so you're aware of that. Thank you. With that, Director Phipps. |
| 00:18:46.56 | Director Phipps | Looking for additional raised hands. With the beautiful blue hat, come on up. And please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. |
| 00:18:59.18 | Mary Crowley | Yes, my name is Mary Crowley, and I'm at 1709 Bridgeway, a long time. Sausalito Maritime person and I'm speaking on behalf of Conrad Gann's property, which I spent a lot of time in when he and his wife and kids were living there. And, you know, I'm very familiar with the historic buildings in that whole neighborhood as being sort of part of the, very connected to Waterfront and part of the Sausalito I've known for a long time. I have a project where I'm cleaning plastics out of the ocean. So I actually just flew back from a trip and went by and saw the story polls and can really understand the issue there. So I just would like everybody to take into consideration the neighborhood and most of the houses and the effects that this large scale change would have. Thank you. |
| 00:20:18.20 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment. Looking for additional raised hands. Gentleman in the brown jacket. Come on down. Please state your name and address for the record. |
| 00:20:29.24 | Ray Swanson | Good evening, my name is Ray Swanson, I live at 422 Pine. And I personally am a bit disappointed that this issue was taken off the agenda because I and several other neighborhood people set aside this evening to sort of resolve this. So that's disappointing. I'm not quite sure what the internal review process is. Apparently you said this is going to be reviewed internally. But I would hope that this internal review takes into account and the character of the houses on the street as they exist now. and the character of the new project that's proposed. I understand this may change, but the proposed project was a largely glass exterior, completely out of character with any of the older houses on that street. People have their own aesthetics. I understand how that might be attractive, but it simply doesn't belong in that neighborhood. Aside from the issues about scale and blocking sunlight on Mr. Gann's property, I think that's an issue that several of us in the neighborhood feel strongly about. |
| 00:21:34.06 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Additional raised hands. Gentlemen in the blue jacket, come on down. And please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. |
| 00:21:46.36 | Jeffrey Conan | Thank you. My name, Commissioner Chair, is Jeffrey Conan. I'm a resident of 325A Pine Street, former resident of 414 Pine Street. I'm going to attempt to argue against the fundamental aesthetics of this project. Based on the code. So this project is currently designed does not meet the general purpose or thresholds of the criteria laid out in our municipal code. Chapter 1054 design review. procedures and should be denied approval based on the following. David Ayrton-10.54.010 letter A states that the general purpose of this code is to promote the preservation of Sausalito's unique visual character. Nothing in this project design objectively does that. Newtown of Sausalito has a prevailing and unique visual character worth preserving. even if this project is categorically exempt from the CEQA guidelines. Newtown's prevailing and unique visual character is described as a folk Victorian district. where as Kate, a neighbor across the street, has so beautifully laid out in her presentation deck that you have all received, mentions that the scalloped shingles to adorn facades, the horizontal shiplap siding, clappered wood shingles, wood casement around the windows, are all visual elements that are found on that block and in that district, which there is none of in the proposal. The design here is of a modern home prioritizing streamlined forms over ornamentation, sharp lines, standing seam metal roofs with peeled back areas to show just the skeleton of the architecture or design. It obnoxiously crowds the site, taking all available light and footprint straight to the city sidewalk. And it places a gate to the front with 100% occlusion of light, which no other home on that block has. All the other homes on that block have an openness to their entry, to a staircase, to a beautiful door. It's inviting, which this proposal is not. The design also further exhibits no attempt to adhere to a guiding principle within the code 10.54.030 which means the relationship of a building to its surroundings is of greater importance than the quality of design of the individual structure, which I hope that you can- |
| 00:24:55.27 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. |
| 00:24:57.52 | Jeffrey Conan | Thank you for your time. |
| 00:25:00.56 | Director Phipps | Looking for additional raised hands? Thank you. Let's see. Let's go. Lady in the back with the black sweater. Come on down. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:25:15.59 | Catherine Green | Hi, my name is Catherine Green. My husband and I, Dennis Green, live at 421 Pine Street, so across the street from 426. You have received a deck from me, so I'm not going to go into all the specific details. And Ray and Jeffrey have outlined a lot of the issues that we have with this current structure. We understand that this is the current structure and there is going to be a future review. But I think what I would like to just add to the conversation or to the record is that We live on a very special street. And I don't want to see or we don't want to see the integrity of our street change. There's an adage, keep it salty, Sausalito. And part of that was it was that phrase was developed by residents who really wanted to keep Sausalito unique to how it is. And there's nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong with modern architecture. Yeah. And yes, we have modern homes here in Sausalito. but not on our street. I, I, We love modern architecture and we have no problem with the home that Jake and Georgia have created. um, But it just doesn't make sense in the context of our architecture. Thank you. |
| 00:26:43.26 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. Looking to the audience for additional hands. Please, come on down. Put your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. |
| 00:26:53.79 | Alice Merrill | I'm Alice Merrill. I live at 117 Caledonia. These guys are really good friends of mine. They're wonderful people. And I hope that they don't pick up and leave because of what's going on. I also truly believe that Sausalito's little sort of funny little neighborhoods are important. And the reason that they're still here is because we've cared about that and made that be a priority as well as, as making it a little bigger. The houses around their house are much, much bigger. if they could just work with the architecture of the street. You know. I know it's a little house and it probably is too small for them, but I just hope that they will work with a different architect or a new concept because I don't want them to leave. don't want that design in that neighborhood. |
| 00:28:00.85 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you, Alice, for your comment. Yes. Look into the white, the white vest sweater. Come on down. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. |
| 00:28:14.53 | Lorraine Klein | My name is Lorraine Klein and I'm a resident of 425 Turney Street directly behind us. And I'm here on behalf of my landlord, Stuart Rabinowich. And I don't know how I'm not very eloquent, but I lived in Mill Valley for eons. And I moved here to get away from this, tearing down the heritage and the history of a town without any caring about history. the families that live there, the history that's there. And to that, I say, go buy a house you like. that looks like that. But you don't have to build that here, you know, and it just breaks my heart. I live right behind it, the noise, the trucks. And then I see all those windows and I see nothing but light pollution and all of my privacy gone. It looks right down in my yard. So I know that self-centered and I don't really know these people, even though I live behind them. But I just really don't like this design. So thank you. |
| 00:29:18.79 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. Looking for additional raised hands in the audience. Yes, please. Sir, come on down. Please say your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:29:31.69 | Jake Beyer | My name is Jake Beyer. I'm actually the owner of this home with my wife and three kids, ages five, three and 10 months. And I appreciate commissioners all your time tonight and Brandon as well and neighbors. I just wanna state for the record that I have spent along with my wife and design and build firm, probably over a hundred hours. working with Conrad. |
| 00:29:54.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Excuse me, can you address the planning commission? |
| 00:29:58.43 | Jake Beyer | So I've spent an incredible amount of time |
| 00:29:58.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, |
| 00:30:04.32 | Jake Beyer | working with Dennis and Kate, owners of Carl the store. Jeff, I shook his hand after he sent a letter of objection in. And I said, hey, let's work together as neighbors. You and me, let's talk this out. I sent him an email. He never followed up. Kate and Dennis, I can't count how many times I asked for feedback. And just after a year, A week ago, I received an email from them saying, you know what, we didn't think you were going to make it this far. So we didn't feel like we had to be honest with you about how we felt about the project. So now we're going to object to it right before our hearing. And Ray, he even... That is true, Kate. And Ray even signed a letter of support for us. We worked in great depth trying to find out with all these neighbors. So it's frustrating. It's disheartening. And Conrad... We spent over four hours on Zoom together. 20 hours of communication. 20 hours of revising our plans to try to find a common ground that we could work together. There's one thing about everyone in this audience that is true. They don't have young kids. And for some of them, it's just an investment property. We have longstanding clubs that need young members. We have a struggling public school system. We have a book that was published about how it took seven years to build a house in Sausalito. And this is why. The future is not about mist shaped siding. It's about kids. It's about an engaged community. and people who are welcoming. and work together and communicate openly. And that is not what is happening here tonight. |
| 00:31:54.41 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. |
| 00:32:00.64 | Director Phipps | White gray sweater, please step forward. Difficult to call folks out without knowing names. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:32:09.69 | Shauna Rasnergan | My name is Shauna Rasnergan and I'm also in ownership of 104 Bonita and 428 Pine. So just to add to my husband's comment, We raised our children through elementary school. in this house of 428 Pine. It's where I met my husband. And it is in my heart so deeply. So it kills me to be here tonight. Our children are now in college and in relationships, which is crazy. and about to have grandchildren of their own in the next decade. And we have had a vision for this property as a family complex where our children can raise their children. And in fact, we had even asked the 104 Benita tenant to leave. so that we could remodel that and then make it into our retirement place. We had asked him to leave. He was going to leave, and he didn't. And we reversed it because we were so freaked out by this project. This is a family compound that we want to give to our children and our grandchildren. And that is the meaning of it. This is not an investment property for us unless you count the investment of family and our heart and love that we've created here for the last two decades of our marriage. Thank you. |
| 00:33:29.64 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. And seeing a raised hand in the back. Come on down. Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:33:43.04 | Dennis Green | Good evening. My name is Dennis Green. I'm the husband of Kate Green. We live at 421 Pine Street across from Jake in Georgia and their family. I just want to tell Jake that everybody loves him and his wife and his family. They're fabulous. We love them. We're not asking them to leave the neighborhood. We're not trying to get into a personal vendetta, yelling and screaming or being vicious at each other. We want them to stay. We just don't like the structure. It doesn't fit. doesn't fit the neighborhood. Doesn't fit. who we are, the look of the street, Sausalito in general. So, I just want you to take into consideration that this is all about the structure. It's not about personal vendetta between me and Jake and anybody else in this. It's just about the structure. If you look at it and you think the structure fits, And I understand. And from Jake's point of view, I understand his. where he's coming from. Thank you. It's his property. He could do whatever the hell he wants to do if he wants to build an Eiffel Tower on it. But being a homeowner on that street, I think it changes the whole look, the whole feel of the street. We're not asking them to move. We're not asking them to go to Mill Valley. We're not asking them to build somewhere else. I would just get an architect who understands what the heritage of Sausalito and particularly Pine Street means. And let's get this thing done, get it over with. This is uncomfortable for all of us. Thank you. |
| 00:35:24.47 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. Looking for additional public comment? Seeing none in the chamber, looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none, back to your chair. |
| 00:35:38.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:35:38.30 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:35:38.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 00:35:38.53 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:35:38.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. My understanding is this item will be continued and re-noticed. We don't need to take any action, so we can move on to item 6B. Is that correct? |
| 00:35:47.54 | Director Phipps | Correct. |
| 00:35:47.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, thank you all. Item 6B, 2650 Bridgeway. I'll turn it over to you and Matthew, director. |
| 00:35:57.92 | Director Phipps | Great. Yeah, this item is a tree removal permit application at 2650 Bridgeway. And we have assistant planner Matthew Mandich joining us this evening to present and assist in answering any questions. Matthew, the floor is yours. |
| 00:36:12.49 | Mary Crowley | Matthew? |
| 00:36:27.28 | Matthew Mandich | Hello, Commissioners. Permit here before you today is a tree removal permit for 2650 Bridgeway Boulevard. Next slide, please. To see an image of the two trees that are being requested to be removed. These are two Deodor Cedars located in the front of the property right along the public right-of-way there. You can see the trees labeled as one and two. Both trees are a significant size. Tree one is a 15 inch DBH diameter at breast height while tree two 17 inch. Both trees are over 30 feet with tree one being 30 and tree two being 35. Got a vicinity map right there that gives you an idea of where this is located along Bridgeway right next to the intersection of Coloma just a bit down from Molly Stones and across from the the whiskey springs um senior compound the applicant has requested that they wanted to remove the trees to uniformize the street view and match the neighboring plums the arborist report uh here's just some highlights from that there was some defects identified which was the topping of the trees to prevent them from running into the overhead electrical wires um the load on the defects has been considered minor. History of failures, none. Likelihood of failure, improbable. Pest or diseases, none. Vigor, normal. Overall risk rating has been described as low, and the overall residual risk also low. Tree one was appraised at $8,319, where tree two was appraised at $10,208. Next slide, please. Moving on to the recommendation, because these trees are healthy, they are heritage trees due to their size. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the requested tree removal permit due to the fact that we are not able to meet any of the findings. They cannot be made from a key section on this, which is SMC 1112030B1. Also, in the subsequent section in B3, if heading or topping can be done to avoid the removal of these healthy trees, this is also grounds for denial. So that is the recommendation, and I'll leave it open for any questions. |
| 00:38:30.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Matthew. At this point, before we have the appellants presentation, are there questions from staff? Thank you. |
| 00:38:39.92 | Shauna Rasnergan | I have not. |
| 00:38:40.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. With this point, is the applicant here or on Zoom? |
| 00:38:44.82 | Matthew Mandich | The applicant told me they would be here, but I do not see them in the audience. And I did not see them on the Zoom application before leaving the post over there. The applicant's name is Dan Morgan. I don't know if they're on now, Brandon. |
| 00:38:57.91 | Director Phipps | Not seeing a Morgan in the audience. |
| 00:39:02.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks. |
| 00:39:06.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are there additional questions for staff? |
| 00:39:07.24 | Director Phipps | other than, |
| 00:39:09.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any additional questions for staff? Thank you. . |
| 00:39:13.47 | Kristina Feller | I'll ask a question here. Out of curiosity, did you communicate with the applicant what staff's recommendation was would be and were those was there any further comment or any suggestion of any other ideas? |
| 00:39:31.44 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, I did inform the applicant that I would be recommending denial on this. And I actually gave them the opportunity to withdraw the application if they so desired. Applicant chose to move forward with the application. And here we are. |
| 00:39:45.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:39:48.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, at this point, I think maybe the applicant will show up shortly, but at this point, we'll open it up for public comment. Thank you. Yes. |
| 00:40:04.04 | Margaret Fawcett | Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. You have a letter for me. My name is Meg or Margaret Fawcett, and I live at Whiskey Springs, 72 Cypress Place. I just wanted to bring to your attention, which I hadn't brought up in my letter. that I was very involved, as were you. in maintaining the cedars across the street at Whiskey Springs and especially at the Coloma pump station Um, And I worked with Kevin Rahman to get the Cedars cared for and protected during all of that. And they complement the Cedars on the opposite street, which are at issue tonight. And to such a degree that you guys, not necessarily all of you were on the commission at the time, put a condition of approval that if, Two of the cedars on the corner of Coloma and Bridgeway failed because of the construction over a period of five years, they would have to be replaced. with as big a cedar as possible of the same variety. So to be taking down healthy blue cedars across the street makes no sense to me at all. They are good for the warming climate. I think they originally come from the Atlas Mountains. I think they're also called Blue Atlas Cedars. And I just hope that you deny the request for the removal. Thank you. |
| 00:41:29.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:41:29.82 | Margaret Fawcett | Thank you. |
| 00:41:29.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | much. Thank you very much for your comments. At this point, are there any anybody on zoom that wants to make public comment? |
| 00:41:37.68 | Director Phipps | looking to the Zoom application for raised hands, chair, seeing one raised hand, and that is Carolyn. Carolyn, if you could please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:41:40.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | share. |
| 00:41:54.20 | Carolyn Revelle | Have I unmuted myself? |
| 00:41:57.26 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:41:59.28 | Carolyn Revelle | And as my video going, I can't see it, |
| 00:42:01.61 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:42:01.66 | Carolyn Revelle | Yeah. |
| 00:42:02.62 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Sorry. Not anymore. |
| 00:42:05.07 | Carolyn Revelle | Okay. Bye. There. Okay, thank you. I'm Carolyn Revelle. I'm a member of the Sausalito Beautiful Board, and I agree with the letter sent by our President Morgan Pierce urging that the Heritage Blues Atlas Cedars be retained. |
| 00:42:07.21 | Director Phipps | They're bad. |
| 00:42:20.02 | Carolyn Revelle | The arborist report finds the trees in good health and condition and finds no factors suggesting the need for their removal. These striking evergreen trees enhance the Bridgeway corridor year-round, and compliment as Meg Fawcett just said, the evergreen trees at whiskey springs across the avenue replacing them with deciduous plum trees that will take years to reach maturity as proposed by the applicant. is a poor substitute. I therefore concur with the staff recommendation that the tree removal permit be denied. Thank you so much. |
| 00:42:54.99 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Carolyn, for your comment. Much appreciated. I am looking to the Zoom application once more for raised hands on this item. Chair, seeing none. |
| 00:43:04.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Back to you. Thank you very much. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing portion of this and bring it back up to the dais. Commissioners, what's your pleasure. |
| 00:43:14.48 | Kristina Feller | I can start. Commissioner Feller. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to make a motion to deny this application and follow the staff's recommendations as I can not make the findings either. |
| 00:43:16.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner and Fellow. |
| 00:43:28.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:43:28.55 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:43:29.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Any further discussion? |
| 00:43:30.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:33.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Director Pips, can you take your role, please? |
| 00:43:37.63 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Filler. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. |
| 00:43:40.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Yes. |
| 00:43:45.80 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. |
| 00:43:48.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | PB, David Ensign, He This is a public hearing on ADU, JADU Municipal Code Edits and amendments to Title 10, Zoning of the Sausalito Municipal Code, including, among others, Table 1022-1, Sections 1044-080, Section 1044.085. Director Phipps, I see Kristen, so I assume you're doing the presentation. |
| 00:44:24.12 | Kristin Teiche | I am. |
| 00:44:24.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to see you this evening. |
| 00:44:25.59 | Kristin Teiche | Nice to see you all. So I'm sure you all read the stock report, so I'm going to be very brief. On January 2023, Senate Bill 897 went into effect amending the state regulations governing JADUs and ADUs. Afterward, the State Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed our current regulations and issued a letter to us in April of 2023. informing us of all the various sections that were out of compliance and needed to be amended. And in response to that, both the city attorney and staff collaborated to amend the zoning regulations applicable to ADUs and JADUs to comply with state law. The three items we're amending is 10.22-1, which is a table identifying all the uses permitted in residential districts. And per the state law, we had to remove JADUs from the R2 and R3 zoning districts because they're not permitted in those districts in the state law. We are also amending sections 10.44080 and 085. and as I'm sure you saw with the sections I provided you with all the strikeouts and then the clean copy, this is largely just a brand new. 080 and 085. And as I'm sure you saw with the sections I provided you with all the strikeouts and then the clean copy, this is largely just a brand new. section of code. There are some things that have been brought forward but largely there's a lot of things that were struck out and removed. Um, It's really important to note that per state law, we cannot impose subjective review standards or conditions on the issuance of permits, and that we must approve these units ministerially by staff. So, for instance, if an application comes in that doesn't comply with these standards that we have now proposed, in compliance with state law, we would advise them how to amend the application to be able to comply with a ministerial permit. If you have more questions regarding what level of city review or discretion the city has, and if we can impose any requirements for discretionary review, the city attorney is available tonight to answer those questions because they're pretty limited, and I think it's best if he addressed that. So, Moving forward here tonight, I recommend that you consider the amended code sections. And if you like, I'll stay here and we can talk through them. And you can just want to walk through the clean copy, perhaps, which would, I think, be easiest. Take any public comment on the zoning amendments as proposed. Provide us with any additional direction if you'd like to see further amendments. And then hopefully adopt or recommend approval of the draft or adopt the resolution recommending approval of the ordinance. |
| 00:47:05.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much and the very thorough, thorough report at this point. I'm going to take questions rather than walking through unless somebody wants to do that. We'll just take specific questions if we have them. Let's start to Commissioner Saad, do you have any specific questions? |
| 00:47:20.87 | Nastassya Saad | I do. I just had two questions and I'll say the last comment, I think, for our discussion, but I'm looking at the clean copy here. |
| 00:47:33.34 | Nastassya Saad | I think it's for, it's under the parking exemptions. Okay. Um, I just, could you clarify for me D and E? So under the parking exemptions, an accessory dwelling unit shall be exempt from the parking requirements. In any of the following instances, many are listed quite clear. Not understanding D, the accessory dwelling unit is part of a proposed or existing primary residence or structure. does that make it a Jay. |
| 00:48:01.03 | Kristin Teiche | ADU or, or? No. You can have an attached accessory dwelling unit. it can be incorporated into the house. |
| 00:48:08.96 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so that, okay, just for the attached. Okay, great. And then for E, the on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant. That's out of state law. Okay. Do you just understand that though? Is it, is it that you just don't have to? offer it or |
| 00:48:26.12 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 00:48:26.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:48:26.95 | Kristin Teiche | Well, they're just giving you a list of criteria we have to accept as exempting a proposed applicant from providing on-site parking. And that is one of the state exemptions. Okay. I can, I can, I guess, let that one more on my. |
| 00:48:40.50 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:48:40.52 | City Attorney Rudin | And I can provide some clarity on that. Oh, yeah. Could you? |
| 00:48:43.30 | Nastassya Saad | Wow. |
| 00:48:44.22 | City Attorney Rudin | It's a scenario that is unlikely to happen in any sort of reality except for I'm sure it's in... the state law because of some jurisdiction trying this and that, |
| 00:48:53.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:53.97 | Mary Crowley | I'm not sure. |
| 00:48:55.59 | City Attorney Rudin | As I read the statute, it is that if you have a parking program where you require on-street parking permits, and you refuse to offer them to the accessory dwelling unit occupant, you are not allowed to require parking. for that development. So it's a very odd circumstance and I can't imagine it happening in practice nowadays. |
| 00:49:17.66 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Okay, thank you. And thanks for all the clarification being state law won't argue it but appreciate that and then maybe it's going to come up for a discussion but under the height limits which I think is also on this is coming from the staff report. |
| 00:49:32.97 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:49:33.41 | Nastassya Saad | on page four that this is the discussion around the 25 feet because of the elevation. Could you just help me understand because I'd... Thank you. That last sentence there, the commission may consider a more restrictive height measurement to minimize impacts, such as measuring... from grade at any point below the addition, would we then need to define that point below the addition? |
| 00:49:55.09 | Kristin Teiche | Mm-hmm. We would have to make that clear in this code section that we want to measure height that way. Okay. |
| 00:50:02.95 | Nastassya Saad | you Okay, great. So that's an option there. Okay. Those were all the questions I had, actually. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. |
| 00:50:07.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Junius, any questions? No. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:50:12.86 | Richard Graef | I have a couple of questions. some of them, I don't know if, we can find an answer to, but um One of them has to do with the height. and you're able to get a couple of extra feet of height, if you're within a half a mile of some transportation. What is that all about? I mean, what is the relationship of the height of the building to how close you are to Transportation. Do you have any clue about that? |
| 00:50:44.20 | Kristin Teiche | I am sorry I can't speak for the drafters of the state regulation and what they were thinking, but. I didn't think so. |
| 00:50:53.28 | Director Phipps | And I think that the primary point here is that whether or not we understand the perspective that that language takes, it is an expressed requirement in state ADU law. I got that. I got that. Okay. |
| 00:51:02.03 | Richard Graef | I got that, but I don't know how far we can go with our, you know, um, critique of the selenium. Well, that answers that. Um, The other is Commissioner Saad mentioned the at which the height is measured. I think that's something we can discuss, and we may have some discretion. Is that correct? Uh-huh. And another one here that was not real clear to me and, and, uh, It had to do with passageways. And- It said in there, and I forget where it was because there's so much. that in certain circumstances, a passageway is not required. And my understanding is passageway is how you get to the unit. And if, How can they say you don't have to have a passageway Yeah. |
| 00:52:02.99 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:52:03.00 | Richard Graef | that |
| 00:52:03.04 | Kristin Teiche | I think I brought this up as well. |
| 00:52:05.65 | City Attorney Rudin | I can feel this one, and that is because passageway is defined in the state law in a way that makes That is contrary to what you would commonly understand it. In the state law, passageway means a pathway that is unobstructed, clear to the sky, and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. |
| 00:52:25.21 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:52:25.33 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. So that is how it's defined in state law. And state law says you cannot require a passageway. |
| 00:52:32.18 | Director Phipps | And if I may, and there's an example of this is an ADU that may be interior, you are allowed, expressly allowed to have a foyer within a main house that has a separate entry to the main house and the, you know, attached or interior ADU or JADU that would violate the definition of passageway if it were allowed. So the passageway, therefore, is not allowed, or excuse me, it's not required. |
| 00:53:01.02 | Richard Graef | So you can't get there from here. Right. |
| 00:53:03.65 | Kristin Teiche | They are allowed to have a separate entrance or required. So they will have to have a form of access. |
| 00:53:05.09 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Or required. |
| 00:53:12.97 | Richard Graef | Of course. We just can't. |
| 00:53:13.83 | Kristin Teiche | We just can't require that definition. |
| 00:53:16.91 | Richard Graef | Uh... Okay. That's all I have for right now. Thank you. |
| 00:53:24.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:53:26.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to start with a question, like a procedural question. Because since this is an amendment to the ordinance, Is this really getting the Planning Commission Um, to take an action and then just do Our recommendations go to the city council and then there are two readings at the city council level or does this count as one of the readings. |
| 00:53:50.60 | Kristin Teiche | No, there are two readings at the council level. There'll be a primary reading and hearing, and then the second is usually... kind of waved and |
| 00:53:59.09 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. Thank you. |
| 00:53:59.88 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah. |
| 00:53:59.93 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So I've got a couple questions and I'm looking at the staff report so that that's sort of where I've started. So on floor area limits, the last paragraph you talk about that staff has some discretion for larger units. or that you can allow for larger units. |
| 00:54:21.87 | Kristin Teiche | The state allows you to permit larger units. We did not go there in the recommend in the proposed text amendments. We stuck with the maximum square footages. Well, almost. I think we can have up to twelve hundred square feet in state law. We did not go to twelve hundred square feet. We kept it at a thousand consistent with the prior regulation. |
| 00:54:44.45 | Kristina Feller | Okay, perfect. And then under the height limits, I know there's been some discussion about this, but Um, In your staff report, you're saying if the permitted height limits raise concern regarding the potential impacts on adjacent properties, we can consider a more restrictive height measurement. Have you sort of beta tested that and do you have any recommendations to the commission in terms of how to how to actually make that measurement if we do want to be not just more restrictive, but a little bit more prescriptive. We are a city that is largely on slope. |
| 00:55:21.82 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:55:22.03 | Kristina Feller | and not on flat. And I think it's really important that we're clear about this and that clarity extends to any particular property, regardless of slope. So I'm curious if staff has demoed that or beta tested that. |
| 00:55:41.47 | Kristin Teiche | Well, the reason I brought it up is because your current regulations require us to average the height. based on contact with grade. We average the two points of contact and then measure from there. |
| 00:55:47.73 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:55:53.30 | Kristin Teiche | So the one option you really have to be a bit more restrictive would be to measure to the grade itself at any point through the addition and then and hold them to 25 feet above grade as opposed to above an average. I don't think we can get a whole lot more restricted than that. You can't ask them to measure too below grade. So... |
| 00:56:07.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:56:13.88 | Kristina Feller | Of course. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good point. I just, I think it's not just restrictive. I think it's prescriptive. I think it's a little bit more clear. So just in comment, I would probably favor getting some language around that. So there's clarity moving forward and consistency. So I'm moving on to it. This is still like the height limits for detached. It talks about |
| 00:56:14.54 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah, yeah, yeah. |
| 00:56:22.27 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:56:31.18 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:56:41.96 | Kristina Feller | um the you know this 18 feet um is permitted uh you know if you're one half mile from you know walking distance from it says a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor And you're seeing the ferry landing And the ferry terminal is the only major transit stop, right? But that's correct. And there's no high quality transit corridor. |
| 00:57:01.69 | Catherine Green | That's correct. |
| 00:57:04.98 | Kristina Feller | not even up on 101 that you would that that would qualify just to be clear. |
| 00:57:10.03 | Kristin Teiche | Well, it isn't just a matter of people getting in their own individual cars and driving. It's a transit, so it has to be a train, a bus system, the ferry system, something that is available and it has to meet a definition. And we do have maps available to us from the transit authority here in Marin that has identified where these stops are and the ferry district is the one they've identified. |
| 00:57:37.43 | Kristina Feller | So just to be clear, the bus stops, those transit routes up on 101, on both sides of 101, don't count as a high-quality transit corridor. |
| 00:57:47.57 | Kristin Teiche | I believe not because they don't pick up within enough, um, Within a scheduled appointed time slot that meets the high quality transit. |
| 00:57:58.54 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I believe the definition for high-quality transit corridor is a corridor with fixed route service. I think it's particularly geared towards buses with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. I believe it's 30 minutes on the Bridgeway corridor and up by the freeway over there. I think it's worth saying, however, that bus routes change. at any point these corridors these transit corridors may become high quality based on future actions taken but at current they are not |
| 00:58:20.56 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:58:29.09 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you for that clarification. |
| 00:58:30.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just clarify at this point, because we've had this conversation. There are no high-quality transit corridors currently in Sausalito, and there is a major transit stop, which is the ferry terminal. So for those two items, the only one that qualifies for a major transit stop is the ferry terminal, so a half a mile from there, and there are no high-quality transit cores. Just so we're not debating, and the wording can change, and the bus routes can change. But to comply with this requirement, if somebody were to come in after this amendment's adopted, it's a half a mile from the ferry terminal, just in layman's language. |
| 00:59:14.90 | Kristin Teiche | Right. And they can also increase it to 18 feet if they are trying to match the pitch of the existing roof line on the primary residence. |
| 00:59:22.78 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So the other question I had on parking requirements, and I think I know the answer to this, but I don't want to guess. is that that half mile walking distance is an actual walking distance, not as the crow flies for clarity to the public as well. |
| 00:59:38.68 | Kristin Teiche | Correct. |
| 00:59:40.96 | Kristina Feller | It's the actual route that you walk. Thank you for clarifying that. Um, And so I just, in the single family residential parcels, am I reading it correctly that there could be a total of three ADUs? You talk about |
| 00:59:58.25 | Kristin Teiche | Under the state's interpretation of their current zoning or regulations, we have to allow an attached ADU, a detached ADU, and a JADU on a single-family property. Right. |
| 01:00:11.94 | Kristina Feller | And then are there any considerations that we should be thinking of about how to handle encroachment permits or legal non-conforming parcels, making them conforming once they go through an ADU process. |
| 01:00:30.50 | Kristin Teiche | I'm not really following you. Do you mean the parcel itself is too small or do you mean that it's overbuilt? |
| 01:00:36.39 | Kristina Feller | Well, many of our parcels in Saucelita are already overbuilt. So once you add ADUs to it, of course, that square footage doesn't necessarily count against that calculation, but I'm assuming that it's an opportunity to make those parcels legal nonconforming rather than just nonconforming. Is that correct? |
| 01:00:40.09 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 01:00:40.10 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:00:57.92 | Kristin Teiche | Well, we don't. They simply are legal. It's a legal addition that we must approve ministerially, and we can't count it against the floor area or the lot coverage. |
| 01:01:11.69 | Director Phipps | And that would be... |
| 01:01:12.11 | Kristin Teiche | If it meets the exempt criteria. Right. So no greater than 800 square feet, at least four foot setbacks from side and rear, and then 16 to 18 feet in height if it's detached. If it's attached, it can be up to 25 feet in height. Thank you. |
| 01:01:27.61 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:01:28.08 | Kristin Teiche | Um, Thank you. If it doesn't meet that exemption criteria, though, they do have to meet all the zoning requirements for fuller area and law coverage. |
| 01:01:30.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:38.71 | Kristina Feller | Great. Okay. Thank you. This is a great report, by the way. Thank you for digging into this. Really appreciate it. |
| 01:01:42.32 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 01:01:47.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. I'd like to adjourn that you do have a question |
| 01:01:50.29 | Andrew Junius | I appreciate that chair. This is for either you, Kristen, or the city attorney. I'm not sure who wants to try to tackle this. In the JADU section under subsection F, it specifically states that the city shall not require as a condition of approval of a permit for a JADU, the correction of non-conforming zoning conditions, which I get, or building code violations, or unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and are that are not affected. |
| 01:02:17.56 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:02:17.81 | Andrew Junius | So, You know, I think that's a fascinating section. I get it. I'm supportive of it in general. It does appear to add some discretion to a sliver of this process because somebody in the city's building department is going to have to figure out whether something that they come across, you know, is a threat to public health and safety versus just a code violation. And I'm curious if you've talked to anybody at building or any of the inspectors or thought, you know, thought that through further. |
| 01:02:46.82 | Kristin Teiche | No, actually, we have not. But I think that code violations that are a threat to health and safety are fairly well spelled out. Do you agree? Sergio? |
| 01:02:56.13 | City Attorney Rudin | I think that they will be They will generally be pretty egregious and obvious. I will say also that the language that is being quoted directly out of the ordinance is also directly out of the state JADU law. So I'm not terribly concerned about us putting it into our local requirements because it is required by state law. Obviously, I think there is some discretion on the part of the building official that is going to need to be applied to determine whether something presents an actual threat to public health and safety. I don't see a way around it, but it is mandated by state law. So. |
| 01:03:34.62 | Andrew Junius | And thanks for the clarity that that is pretty much the exact language from the state law. So I think that helps to some degree, but is an interesting issue. And I appreciate your comments. Thank you. |
| 01:03:44.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. I have a couple questions. I've sent you them in advance, so you know they're coming. These are actual changes. I just want to confirm wording, so I'm going to go through them fairly technically. In 10-44-080-D5, you've deleted throughout the rest of the ordinance everything related to amnesty accessory dwelling units. So I think we need to delete the words and an amnesty accessory dwelling unit in the first sentence and the words or an amnesty accessory dwelling unit permit in the second sentence because to be consistent. |
| 01:04:21.55 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. We already did that to the draft. Thank you. Okay. Your notes were great. |
| 01:04:24.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, your notes were great. I looked I looked online and it wasn't there yet. So |
| 01:04:30.26 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:04:30.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | was that there wasn't an updated version. |
| 01:04:32.68 | Director Phipps | If I may clarify, Chair, that language is reflected in the ordinance, the document that you will be taking action on this evening. We did not reflect it in the clean line or red line simply because we didn't have time to get it up. But we have reflected it in the ordinance. |
| 01:04:45.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:04:45.75 | Mary Crowley | Thank you. |
| 01:04:45.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:04:46.14 | Mary Crowley | Thanks. |
| 01:04:50.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I looked at a clean version and didn't see it there. So that's- |
| 01:04:51.61 | City Attorney Rudin | Okay. Director Pipps, I will say I do see it right now in the ordinance that is published on the agenda. |
| 01:05:00.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, that's good. Thank you, city attorney. Take care of that one. The second one is 104480E3. That thing, there seems to be missing a word. It needs the word for an efficiency unit. Is that now in the revised draft? Thank you. Okay, we don't have to go into that. I think I concur with Commissioner Feller, Commissioner Saad, on this change to have specific language for height and was looking in sending news in advance for the actual wording do we have actual wording i know that's not going to be in the clean draft but i would like to do this this evening can either you or attorney rudin give us how we would phrase that uh I mean, it's basically what you're suggesting, which is it goes from grade, but I wanted the language to make sure that we had it correctly, to make sure it's clear. And there wasn't any ambiguity about what grade, because it's obviously different than typically how we would measure height. |
| 01:05:01.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:01.55 | Director Phipps | Thank you, city attorney. |
| 01:05:02.24 | City Attorney Rudin | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:05:52.78 | Mary Crowley | had it correct |
| 01:06:03.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:04.04 | Kristin Teiche | Right. |
| 01:06:07.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | can we just do from any point? How do we, what's the language? Can, in the next five minutes, Attorney Rudin, can you draft that one sentence so we can do this this evening instead of having to continue this item? |
| 01:06:18.35 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:06:22.58 | City Attorney Rudin | Yes, and I will be Perfectly candid with you. I don't think that you need to come up with the language tonight on the dais. I think what you need to do is direct us in terms of what recommendations you would like to present to the City Council. And that can include just the concept that you want to be having the measurements of the height be determined from grade. Um, Again, you can make any recommendations you would like on this ordinance. Those recommendations are going to be transmitted to the council. And, Additionally, you know, the, at the council, the council is gonna have the opportunity to you know, consider your recommendations to make changes to change provisions of this as well. So |
| 01:07:04.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So are you saying that if we were to do that this evening, that somebody from staff is going to develop that language before we get to council so that they're not looking at a concept, but they're actually looking at language? Because that's what I'd hope for for tonight. And that's what I don't want to send this to the council with a concept. I want to send it with actual language. language i'm okay to allow staff to draft it but i don't want it uh going with a concept i want them to just see the language and they can agree with it or not. |
| 01:07:19.37 | Mary Crowley | Yeah. |
| 01:07:38.10 | City Attorney Rudin | Agreed. I would be working with Director Phipps and staff to actually implement that suggestion into the draft ordinance that would be presented to council. |
| 01:07:47.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, that would be appreciated. The next item is 10.40.80 E11A. There is a concept of public transit. Public transit is basically any bus or any type of transit, and that refers to the exemption for parking. And it is a half a mile and it is by walking, not by air. But it would be helpful if we could have a definition of public transit because it is not defined by state law. And it is different than these other two items. So we have an ordinance that has three different wordings for transit. And basically the first two that apply to the height require basically the ferry terminal is the only eligible item currently unless the various transit agencies change their lead times between buses. But for public transit, it is not defined, but it's sort of common sense so i would like for the uh thing that goes to the um to the thing that goes to the council a definition of public transit which can be sort of the common sense definition but when you look under definitions public transit there will be words there the other I'd sort of originally asked for that, but you have put a reference to the state law for each of those, but you don't have a reference of what public transit means for this one. So is that possible? |
| 01:09:27.18 | City Attorney Rudin | Yes, I think we can add something. |
| 01:09:27.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know. Thank you. Okay. uh the next item i had the same uh concurrence with uh commissioner sod on 1040 080 e11 e which is the we don't have on-street parking permits in sausalito this makes absolutely no sense and even if it made any sense i don't really see why that's an exemption because somebody could use that as an end around however given it's in the law and we don't want to get another letter from hcd saying we've taken something out that's in the law even though it doesn't apply uh i'll let it go but i i just want to be on the record of it it really makes absolutely no sense um with that those are my questions at this point are there other questions from commissioners commissioner graham |
| 01:10:12.28 | Richard Graef | Thanks, Commissioner, Chair Luxenberg. Back to the measuring height, so that we're clear on the language. When we say grade, There are many different ways that grade is defined. When we're saying grade, are we talking about grade at the lowest fortune? We are. Yes, we're talking about grade at the lowest. At the average or at the back. |
| 01:10:35.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, we're talking about granite at the lowest. Right. Okay. So current code allows grade to be the average. We're suggesting grade that would make the minimal amount of height. So however that's worded, that's why I'm concerned about the language. Okay. Because it could be interpreted backwards. That's why I'm very concerned about how it's drafted. Yes. |
| 01:10:40.11 | Richard Graef | Good. Okay. |
| 01:10:59.69 | Kristin Teiche | I've seen it drafted to say natural or created grade, whichever is lower. To make it very clear, so you don't have people trying to excavate down and say, but I'm measuring from natural grade. |
| 01:11:12.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, something about, I like adding the words, whatever is lower, that would make it clear to me. So something along those lines would be helpful. |
| 01:11:18.59 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah. |
| 01:11:21.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, man. |
| 01:11:22.16 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:11:22.28 | Jake Beyer | the world. of the |
| 01:11:23.07 | Andrew Junius | Okay, that's not what I understood. So let's talk about this for a second. You know, I could see, first off, you know, I've always understood grade to be kind of the average grade when you have a sloped street, you go to the middle of the street, you know, the, you know, the, the, the lot is 150 feet wide. and you don't measure at the bottom, the lowest part, you don't measure at the top, you measure right in the middle. And I think what you're proposing might create a situation on a very steep lot where you measure from the bottom and they get a six foot building. So we can't have that either, right? So. City Attorney might want to comment on that. |
| 01:11:56.35 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I will say because the state law is silent on how you are supposed to measure height and height limits, that does give the city some discretion to craft a reasonable standard. You know, measuring from average grade or measuring from the average grade is pretty common. I don't have any concerns about that and everybody knows how it works. if the city wants to create something else where we measure from the lowest, you know, point of natural grade. I think that we can, Or alternatively, you know, you if you're on a hillside, you know, you're measuring from grade, you may end up having sort of a sloped looking building. you know, as it continues with its 16 foot height limit going up in a line parallel to the grade, which presumably you don't want as a design So, you know, again, I think that The policy question of how you folks wanna measure it is I think up to you. to figure out. As long as it results in the ability to actually construct a project, it should pass muster with HCD. |
| 01:13:07.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. We'll handle that when we get back to discussing the policy item. |
| 01:13:14.18 | Kristina Feller | We should take public comment. |
| 01:13:15.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, so, but do we have any further questions of staff at this point? Okay, I want to thank Kristen. You, I know this is a joint effort of a lot of people and very excellent job putting this together. A complicated ordinance obviously was put in in the first place, but when the law hadn't changed. So this was hard to, not that hard to do because the state was sort of directing it but very thorough job on all of your parts. With that I think we'll take public comment on this item. |
| 01:13:38.29 | Mary Crowley | How are you? Thank you. |
| 01:13:43.91 | Mary Crowley | to it. on all of your podcasts. |
| 01:13:45.03 | Unknown | It's... |
| 01:13:46.14 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 01:13:50.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director of it. |
| 01:13:52.84 | Director Phipps | Chair, thank you. Looking to the Zoom application, seeing no raised hands. Looking to the chamber for raised hands, seeing none. |
| 01:14:00.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:14:00.99 | Director Phipps | to you. |
| 01:14:01.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. At this point, we will close the public hearing, and I would like to, well, given that we need to do this and it's a requirement of HCD, even though I don't normally make motions from the chair, I'm going to move that we approve, we recommend to the city council to approve these changes. and I'm going to suggest starting with some amendments and then I'll look to others to add those. But let me define these first since the amnesty accessory one is already in we don't need to do that and the word four is in so we don't have to do that uh i would recommend we add a definition of transit stop, and I would recommend that we add something about natural grade or however the language is used, whatever is lower, and put it to the CD department and the city attorney to come up with a reasonable standard that is potentially more restrictive than the average hike. with that as a second. Thank you. |
| 01:15:13.74 | Andrew Junius | And with that. Did we discuss for a second? Because I want to just add one other comment. Yeah. |
| 01:15:17.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to be looking for any other changes or additions. So, yeah. But the motion is now on the floor. So I'm looking for any amendments or changes or conversation about that. |
| 01:15:23.68 | Andrew Junius | Well, |
| 01:15:23.97 | Mary Crowley | to the United States. |
| 01:15:29.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice-Chair General. |
| 01:15:30.43 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. So, yeah, I get it. I mean, I know Sergio is going to be able to handle this, but it seems to me that. We go in that direction, but as long as there's kind of a safe harbor that says so long as the minimum height of a structure is no less than X, which would be whatever minimum the state law allows us to push it down to, should be fine. So I'm okay with that. |
| 01:15:53.90 | City Attorney Rudin | And as a practical matter, the height limits that are presently written into the ordinance are the lowest height limits we can adopt under state law. So just for reference. The question of how you measure those heights in practice is something that is left to the discretion of the cities. Um, So I will point this one to Brandon and the staff as to, what staff are prepared to suggest at the commission. |
| 01:16:22.23 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, thank you. I mean, again, I think there's just a way to write a safe harbor and to make sure that It's a buildable structure with a minimum height limit of such and whatever it is. So thank you. |
| 01:16:31.52 | Kristina Feller | I agree with Vice Chair Junius on this, and I want to make sure that I mean, that's the whole point of adding this is that it's clear it can be. applied equally on any lot Yeah, we don't want to get another letter from HCD. That's certainly true. But, you know, considering that the majority of our parcels are on slopes of some kind, I do agree that this is important to include. And I would look for the lowest point. So whether we define that as If sloped or over a 30% slope, that's on the downhill slope side, and you measure from there. or some other mechanism, I think we could probably finagle that this evening. As long as you're clear, Sergio and also Director Phipps on the intention. Yeah. Okay. |
| 01:17:27.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, it's something to the effect of it should not be, the measurement of height should not in any way affect something that would meet building code or some reference that means they might not get 25 feet at all points along a slope, but they will be able to build whatever they want to build. I don't have issue with a sloping roof though it might look nice but uh uh you're concerned about the the the you know there are shed roofs there are things that could actually look rather attractive with that but but yeah i think the the intent is that we want somebody to be able to build but not necessarily using the average grade on a slope that ends up with a height that looks like that's really 35 feet high, basically is the intent. |
| 01:18:21.12 | Kristina Feller | So I think at this point, because there's a motion on the floor, I just want to make sure that City Attorney Rudin is clear and Director Phipps are clear. on the intention that we've expressed here and, I would feel very comfortable. with you drafting language around what we've explained here this evening. And Vice Chair, are you okay with that? |
| 01:18:41.86 | Andrew Junius | Yes, very much so. Thank you. |
| 01:18:42.80 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. THE FAMILY. |
| 01:18:43.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, so that's the height issue. Any other comments, amendments, changes? |
| 01:18:47.88 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. May I ask a procedural? So if staff drafts that language, do we get to review that prior? No. |
| 01:18:55.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 01:18:59.04 | Kristina Feller | I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable with that. |
| 01:19:01.37 | Nastassya Saad | My intention also was restrictive. So the lowest point and just, okay. |
| 01:19:08.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, to state the obvious, if it's less restrictive than the average, then something wasn't right in the language. |
| 01:19:17.28 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:19:17.90 | Kristina Feller | I think we got it. I think there's clarity here and emotion on the floor. |
| 01:19:18.02 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:19:22.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, are there any other amendments or discussion about this issue? |
| 01:19:26.81 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:19:26.97 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:19:27.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:19:27.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:27.86 | City Attorney Rudin | COB, Dan Burke, So chair, just so I can restate and looking through the ordinance that is in the packet it still does mention the amnesty accessory dwelling unit permit so. |
| 01:19:27.99 | Unknown | So. |
| 01:19:38.39 | City Attorney Rudin | As I understand the motion, it would be to adopt the resolution that is before you tonight and to modify it to also include recommendations to remove mention of the Amnesty Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit Program in 1044-08-D5, to add a definition of public transit to 1044-080C To add the word for before efficiency unit in 1044-080-E3, And in 1044.088, to add a provision, discuss how height will be measured with the intention that it be measured from the lowest point at grade or whatever can be more restrictive than the average height, which is how it would otherwise be measured. |
| 01:20:19.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, that's my understanding and further that this will go to the city council with a clean version with all of those items incorporated. |
| 01:20:29.88 | City Attorney Rudin | Correct, thank you. |
| 01:20:31.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay. Director of Pips, can you take a role? |
| 01:20:35.63 | Director Phipps | Yes. Happy to. Commissioner Saad. Thank you. |
| 01:20:38.09 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:20:38.33 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Filler. |
| 01:20:40.22 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:20:41.06 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. Thank you. |
| 01:20:42.16 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:20:42.24 | Director Phipps | Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. And thank you, commissioners, staff, city attorney, for all the excellent work on this. I think it's fair to say that we are all... Experts. on the new ADU state law, and we look forward to implementing it. |
| 01:20:59.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, the next item on the agenda is adjournment. Thank you. move. Second. All those in favor, aye. Thank you all. We will see you two weeks from tonight on the 26th. |
| 01:21:12.22 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Have a great evening. |
| 01:21:14.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... you |
| 01:21:16.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:16.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:21:17.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:17.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 01:21:17.85 | Unknown | Amen. Oh, yeah. I don't know. Dr. Gertrude, it's going to be on the floor. |
| 01:21:30.66 | Unknown | REGULATIONS. |
Mary Crowley — Against: Spoke on behalf of Conrad Gann's property; concerned that the large-scale change would negatively affect the historic neighborhood and its connection to the waterfront. ▶ 📄
Ray Swanson — Against: Disappointed the item was removed from the agenda; urged the internal review to ensure the proposed glass exterior does not clash with the existing character of the houses on the street. ▶ 📄
Jeffrey Conan — Against: Argued the design violates municipal code design review criteria and fails to preserve Sausalito's visual character; cited the folk Victorian district features absent from the modern proposal. ▶ 📄
Catherine Green — Against: Resident across the street who wants to maintain the street's integrity; believes modern architecture does not belong in that specific neighborhood context. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — Against: Expressed affection for the owners but stated the design does not fit the neighborhood; hoped they would work with a different architect. ▶ 📄
Lorraine Klein — Against: Concerned about loss of heritage, light pollution, and privacy due to the large windows overlooking her yard; opposed the design. ▶ 📄
Jake Beyer — In Favor: Owner of the property; described extensive efforts to collaborate with neighbors and expressed frustration over last-minute objections; emphasized the need for young families in Sausalito. ▶ 📄
Shauna Rasnergan — Against: Owner of a neighboring property; said the project threatens her vision of a family compound for future grandchildren; expressed deep emotional attachment to the neighborhood. ▶ 📄
Dennis Green — Against: Stressed that the opposition is strictly about the incompatible structure, not personal; urged the applicant to hire an architect who respects Sausalito's heritage. ▶ 📄
Margaret Fawcett — Against: Opposed the removal of two healthy cedars at 2650 Bridgeway; noted past community efforts to protect similar trees and argued they are valuable for the warming climate. ▶ 📄