| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The December 13th regular meeting of the Sausalito Planning Commission, I call that to order. Director Phipps, if you can do the introduction and call them. |
| 00:00:09.80 | Director Phipps | Yeah, thank you, Chair, and good evening to you, Planning Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito 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. With that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Saad. Here. Commissioner Graff. Here. Commissioner Feller. Here. Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Luxenberg. Here. We have achieved quorum. |
| 00:00:29.55 | Kristina Feller | here? |
| 00:00:32.84 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:00:39.42 | Director Phipps | Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:00:40.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much, Director Phipps. Next item is approval of the agenda. I'll move to a motion. |
| 00:00:45.61 | Kristina Feller | so moved. Second. |
| 00:00:47.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Dirk. |
| 00:00:47.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:48.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and I think that's |
| 00:00:48.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:49.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you please call |
| 00:00:49.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:50.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:50.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:50.27 | Director Phipps | Yep. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:00:52.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:00:52.07 | Unknown | you |
| 00:00:52.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:00:52.28 | Unknown | you |
| 00:00:53.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Yes. |
| 00:00:58.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, God. Next item is public comments on items not on the agenda. Director Phipps, if you can give instructions, please. |
| 00:01:05.83 | Director Phipps | Yep, happy to. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens on items that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the Planning Commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct the subject to be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right, Matthew Bandich and Maria Hernandez. If you'd like to make a comment 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 their time has elapsed. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:01:54.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do not see anybody on Zoom. Do we have anybody in the audience that submitted a card for this part of the agenda? |
| 00:02:00.22 | Director Phipps | Looking for raised hands, seeing none. Looking for raised hands in the Zoom application, seeing none. |
| 00:02:08.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will close item three. Going on to item four, Planning Commission minutes for November 15, 2023. I look for a motion. |
| 00:02:19.13 | Richard Graef | Approved. |
| 00:02:19.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Are there any comments or changes? Corrections. |
| 00:02:20.68 | Richard Graef | to. |
| 00:02:26.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Phipps, please call the roll. |
| 00:02:29.14 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Son. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:02:31.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:02:33.73 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:02:34.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:34.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:34.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:35.06 | Director Phipps | Vice-Churchinus. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. |
| 00:02:37.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:02:37.96 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 00:02:39.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is item five, communications. Director Phipps, is there any update today from CDB? |
| 00:02:47.25 | Director Phipps | There is. Thank you. One communication item this evening. As I believe commissioners are aware, the position of assistant planner became unfilled as a result of Matthew Mandich's recent promotion to associate planner. Congratulations to Mr. Mandich. He will be presenting later on this evening. In order to fill that open position, staff have been working in collaboration with HR to solicit interest in the role of assistant planner. With that in mind, I am pleased to report that CDD is conducting our second round of interviews for the position this week, and we'll be issuing an offer to our preferred candidate, hoping sometime next week prior to the holiday break. So with that in mind, if all goes well, we hope to have a new assistant planner in office in the early first quarter of 2024. And I look forward to introducing them to you and for you to meet them. That does it for updates on my end. And back to you, Chair. |
| 00:03:42.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much and congratulations to Mr. Mandich. And I hope you are able to finalize the assistant planner. Commissioner. |
| 00:03:55.03 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:03:55.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:03:55.69 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. I just want to note that this is technically my last meeting of my second round of second term on the Planning Commission. |
| 00:03:55.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:03:55.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. Thank you. |
| 00:03:55.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know. |
| 00:04:12.43 | Richard Graef | I was asked by the city if I would be willing to continue to serve until a replacement has been appointed and to my knowledge, one has not unless I have not heard. I'm assuming that if there's nobody in line to step up, then I'll continue until there is. |
| 00:04:32.85 | Paul Van Hook | not. |
| 00:04:39.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I had thought your term went through January 31st, but I guess... Thank you. |
| 00:04:45.50 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:04:46.26 | Kristina Feller | I was with the same impression, Sharon. Oh, really? Yes. |
| 00:04:46.28 | Unknown | I was. Oh, really? |
| 00:04:49.37 | Richard Graef | Staff shares that position. It's January. |
| 00:04:49.59 | Unknown | The staff shares that position. |
| 00:04:51.07 | Kristina Feller | You have at least two more meetings in January, at least. Oh, sure. |
| 00:04:51.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:04:54.13 | Richard Graef | No kidding. How did I? Excellent. |
| 00:04:56.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Excellent news. |
| 00:04:57.67 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:04:57.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:04:57.77 | Richard Graef | you |
| 00:04:57.82 | Kristina Feller | Excellent news. |
| 00:04:59.04 | Richard Graef | Yeah, okay. |
| 00:04:59.60 | Kristina Feller | Okay. But glad you're willing to stay on. |
| 00:05:02.70 | Richard Graef | Yeah, yeah. |
| 00:05:03.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to go to the THE END OF |
| 00:05:04.03 | Richard Graef | Maybe by the end of January, we'll have a new commissioner. |
| 00:05:04.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Maybe. |
| 00:05:12.94 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:05:12.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:05:12.98 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:05:13.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Thank you very much. With that, are any other commissioners have any items to report out on? |
| 00:05:19.81 | Kristina Feller | I have one item to report out on and ask Vice Chair Junius to pitch in here as needed. We have a. a scheduled objective design and development standard meeting this coming Monday with staff and the consultant. It is not a public hearing, but we are moving that item forward. |
| 00:05:39.22 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:05:39.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Looking forward to it. Thank you. That is good news. With that, we will close report out from the commissioners and open this up for public comment. Is there any public comment on item 5? Don't see any raised hands and don't see anything on Zoom. We'll close item five, move on to item six. Item six is a business item. This is the calendar for next year, which was posted on the agenda. We do need a draft resolution to approve the schedule. The schedule is our typical schedule, which is the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month, with the exception of August, where we don't have any meetings, and November and December, we're only scheduling one meeting. And I'm looking for a motion for that draft resolution that was in the past. |
| 00:06:36.73 | Kristina Feller | I'd like to make a motion here for discussion with my colleagues here. to approve the January 10th meeting and leave the rest of the calendar, because I've not had a chance to look at conflicts, I know I already have one later in January for statutory. meeting I'm required at, would the rest of my colleagues here be willing to approve the January 10th and bring the rest of the calendar for the entire calendar year back for further discussion on that date? Thank you. |
| 00:07:17.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would think it would be better, quite honestly, to approve a calendar and then we can modify it on January 10th. I know that the Community Development Department worked very closely with the City Clerk's Office, and this calendar is tailored to also what they believe the City Council's calendar is. And so it would be helpful to have this on the record, and then if we need to modify, we can change the meetings, but at least we'll have for the public, a set of meetings at a minimum, I think we should do six months, but ideally we just do the whole calendar and then we can modify. |
| 00:07:53.43 | Kristina Feller | Well, I'll make a motion to approve the January 10th date and ask for the rest of the calendar year to be on that agenda. I have not had a time to remove certain conflicts from my calendar, and obviously this takes priority, but we all work, and so I'd like that opportunity if that's acceptable to the rest of my colleagues. |
| 00:08:15.21 | Director Phipps | If I may, Commissioner, we also have the option to schedule a special meeting on January 10th in lieu of approval of a resolution. And I'll just make the point that we don't have a resolution prepared which approves a single meeting on January 10th. So we may be required to bring this item back at the next meeting, which if we follow the regular meeting schedule would be January 10th. So with that in mind, we can always schedule special meetings. Just want to provide that to counsel. |
| 00:08:50.82 | Unknown | you |
| 00:08:50.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:08:51.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:52.24 | Nastassya Saad | I think I'll second the motion just out of respect for my colleague, but I don't disagree. I also haven't had a full time to go through the entire year, but I'm definitely comfortable with January. So if it's not withholding anything from CDD moving forward, I'd be happy to second that motion. |
| 00:09:12.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so we have a motion, but we don't have a resolution, and we can't have a meeting scheduled without a resolution unless we do a special meeting. So do we need to amend this? Can I ask the city attorney who's on Zoom, whether we have to amend this to be a special meeting for January 10th? |
| 00:09:31.32 | Annie Branham | Yes, hi, Commissioners, Annie Branham from BBK. What I would suggest is that the motion, if the maker of the motion is open to it, be a motion to schedule a special meeting. for January 10th, at which time this item will come back for full adoption. |
| 00:09:46.30 | Kristina Feller | I mean, I'm willing to accept that. I don't want to put the rest of my commissioners out, but there are conflicts on calendars, and they're not always easy to move without a little bit more time than two working days to do that. before this hearing. This wasn't published until the end of last week, so it's hard to do that. So if everyone is okay with that, then that way we don't have to, you know, approve something and then go back and change everything. |
| 00:10:15.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So my understanding is the motion is now to do a special meeting, not a regular meeting of the planning Commission on January 10th and we will at that special meeting have a calendar for the rest of the year. |
| 00:10:30.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:10:31.95 | Nastassya Saad | I accept that for the second. |
| 00:10:34.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and I guess take roll call vote, director please. |
| 00:10:40.83 | Director Phipps | Yep, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Sond. Yes. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:10:42.56 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. or, you know, Yeah. |
| 00:10:46.01 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice-Chair Genius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. Yes. |
| 00:10:46.75 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:10:46.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:10:51.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, next item is public hearing. And at this time, we'll look for any ex parte communications from Commissioner's side. |
| 00:11:04.60 | Nastassya Saad | Nothing to declare other than walking by both properties. |
| 00:11:10.52 | Andrew Junius | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:11:12.99 | Kristina Feller | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:11:14.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Nothing to declare. Nothing to declare as well. |
| 00:11:15.00 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:11:18.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, first item is item 7A, and this is a request of the Planning Commission to approve a tree removal permit to allow the removal of one queen palm tree from the northeastern edge of the property adjacent to the public right-of-way at 25 Alexander Road. And I understand Mr. Mandage is going to do the presentation about this project. |
| 00:11:42.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:11:56.61 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you for that, Commissioner Saad. Can we all hear me? Yes, fantastic. Hello, commissioners, good evening. The permit before you today is a tree removal permit for 25 Alexander Avenue. Next slide, please. Just give you an idea of the location here. It's on Alexander coming into town. If you're heading north, nearby the waterfront, and right before Alexander turns into 2nd Street, you can see the parcel there outlined in yellow and the house identified there with a red dot on Google Earth. Next slide, please. So this is the site plan that we have. It's removal of one queen palm tree. It's a heritage tree with a 20-inch DBH diameter at breast height. It is located on the northeastern edge of the property adjacent to Alexander Avenue, and it is impacting a wooden retaining wall that is adjacent to the avenue and the bike lane. Next slide, please. These are some images of the tree itself. It's pretty hard to see from the street. Kind of have to go back and have a look at it from the opposite side. There's the retaining wall right there that it's impacting in the second image. And then here's another image of the bike lane and also a little biker there, if you can see them there. And the tree is definitely leaning to the left side. It's been succumbed by ivy. It's in poor overall health. And the arborist has recommended removal due to potential hazard to passerbys and to the property and the retaining wall. Next slide, please. findings pursuant to our trees and views findings here in 11-12030. In order to grant removal, we need to make some of the findings here A through D, and we can do two of those right there, which I've highlighted, to ensure public safety as it relates to the health of the tree, potential hazard to life and property as stated by the arborist, proximity to existing proposed structures, in this case existing, and utility sewers, in this case the road. And also D, to pursue good professional practices of forestry or landscape design as the tree is succumbed with ivy in poor health and has a sizable lean. Next slide please. There's the issue of replacement, of course, whether or not the tree should be replaced or there should be fees taken into the tree fund after the tree is taken down. Staff recommends that there be no replacement of the tree given the steep slope and the location of the site. Also due to the fact that there are two large bay laurel trees that would benefit from the removal of the tree, their canopies would be allowed to expand, gives them room to grow, excuse me. And I don't believe it's necessary to impose a fee on the removal of this tree next slide please so recommendations that recommends the the planning commission approve the requested tree removal permit through the adoption of the draft resolution staff does not recommend replacement or deposit into the tree fund and the only significant conditions of approval are that the encroachment permit be sought from DPW to do any work in the public right away. Thank you. |
| 00:14:52.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Mandage. Congratulations on your promotion and, again, an excellent job on the staff report. At this point, we'll have questions from commissioners. Got any questions? |
| 00:15:02.88 | Kristina Feller | I have a couple questions. |
| 00:15:04.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Phillips. |
| 00:15:05.91 | Kristina Feller | Just to... Thank you. for the avoidance of any doubt the retaining wall that you're referring to that is compromised. |
| 00:15:18.07 | Matthew Mandich | Yes. |
| 00:15:18.50 | Kristina Feller | Is that in the public right of way? |
| 00:15:20.82 | Matthew Mandich | It appears to be, yes, partially constructed in the public right away. |
| 00:15:24.31 | Kristina Feller | partially like who owns it. In other words, what I'm trying to get at just to cut to the chase is |
| 00:15:27.73 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 00:15:29.71 | Kristina Feller | you know, if this is also presenting some kind of safety issue or hazard to the community, this needs to immediately be placed on Department of Public Works' priority |
| 00:15:35.95 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 00:15:36.04 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:15:41.30 | Kristina Feller | infrastructure list or capital improvement project list. And I'm... I know that we're here about a tree. |
| 00:15:48.37 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 00:15:48.66 | Kristina Feller | But this is part of what we're talking about, so I want to make sure that we're clear what's happening with that as well. And if any direction is required from this commission, or otherwise, then I want to make sure that we are not leaving half of the issue outside of what we're talking about this evening. |
| 00:16:08.86 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, I understand. Absolutely. So we do not have a proper survey of the site on file identifying where the retaining wall lies. It is a bit ambiguous whether or not it's on city property or private property. The tree seems to be pretty firmly on private property, but there is definitely some ambiguities where the bike lane ends. We do have a survey on file from the assessor's record, but it doesn't show the tree or the retaining wall on that survey, unfortunately. So it's a bit of a difficult one. And I think that the property owner seems to believe that the retaining wall is on their property. But looking at the survey maps and through MarinMap and trying to understand where the parcel lines are with the overlays, which are not perfect, it's very difficult to determine exactly where that retaining wall falls and whose responsibility it would be to fix that wall. I believe, based on my communications with the applicant, that they are intending to fix the wall. But I have not had confirmation on that. |
| 00:17:03.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I guess that's enough of the question for now. I think that needs to be determined. you know, perhaps we can bifurcate these into two separate things, but I don't want to not respond or address the other half of the public safety issue |
| 00:17:23.09 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:17:23.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So that's all in terms of questions, so thank you. |
| 00:17:28.05 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you for that. |
| 00:17:29.22 | Director Phipps | Yeah, and if I may, staff do anticipate further collaboration with DPW to, you know, get to the bottom of this issue. So following decision on this item regarding the removal of the tree, there will be further action taken to make sure that we arrive at the appropriate conclusion and the next steps. |
| 00:17:46.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director Phipps. You also mentioned, now that I'm thinking of it, you mentioned that You are recommending no replacement so that two bay trees can thrive. Bay trees are on the undesirable list. for Southern Marin fire. |
| 00:18:06.53 | Matthew Mandich | Not for the city of Sausalito, though. They are not an undesirable tree for the city of Sausalito. |
| 00:18:11.54 | Kristina Feller | Can we confirm that? Because we've had that issue in front of us before, and I believe they are. |
| 00:18:16.52 | Matthew Mandich | Not for the city of Sausalito, undesirables are black acacias, Monterey, Cypress, Redwood. We can pull the list up right now. It's in the municipal code. Maria Brandon has access to 1112, there's a list under definitions. I believe it's 1112020 that you can find that list. |
| 00:18:35.81 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:18:36.68 | Matthew Mandich | Mm-hmm. Maybe we can get it up and share some of you. |
| 00:18:39.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | can get it up. Are we going to bring the code up? |
| 00:18:44.56 | Director Phipps | In progress. If commissioners would like to continue with questioning, I will chime in. |
| 00:18:45.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK. |
| 00:18:46.07 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:18:46.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:18:46.20 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not sure. |
| 00:18:46.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | would like to... While we're getting that graphic up, other questions from other commissioners. Vice Chair Jones. |
| 00:18:56.82 | Andrew Junius | Is the owner here as well? Not that I'm aware of. The owner is not here. No. |
| 00:19:05.81 | Director Phipps | Okay, well, I have the answer to the question. In the definition section of, I believe, the same chapter that, yeah, 11.12.020, there is a defined undesirable tree term. Undesirable trees are eucalyptus, peneus radiata, cupris, macrocarpa, sequoia, acacia, acacia, acacia, three different types. Bay laurel is not mentioned. |
| 00:19:36.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected. Thank you. |
| 00:19:39.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | At this point, there are no more questions. Commissioners, we have an opportunity for the applicant. Is the applicant on Zoom or the applicant wasn't intending? be involved as far as you know. |
| 00:19:53.60 | Matthew Mandich | The applicant was made aware of the meeting by email and I you know, respectfully requested that they attend, but I do not believe that they are here in the audience or they may be on Zoom. |
| 00:20:05.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, we don't do anybody see them on Zoom. Peace out. |
| 00:20:13.02 | Matthew Mandich | doesn't look. You seeing any hands? |
| 00:20:15.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you At this point, we will open the public hearing for this portion of this item. Okay. Excuse me. |
| 00:20:22.93 | Matthew Mandich | Well, excuse me, Chair, just before, also just to address Commissioner Feller's questions about the retaining wall, I'm happy to add a condition of approval that into the resolution prior to sign off that we determine, you know, the ownership of the retaining wall and that that gets fixed. And I can come up with some wording for that prior just to address that kind of hanging point there. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. |
| 00:20:44.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, not a problem. That's the manager. With that, we'll now have the public hearing portion. Director Phipps could do instructions for the public. |
| 00:20:55.60 | Director Phipps | Certainly. Public hearing is following the presentation of the application or the item by staff, followed by questions of staff from the commission. The applicant is not present, so we will skip straight to the public comment portion and then move to commission discussion deliberation decision. |
| 00:21:10.52 | Paul Van Hook | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:21:19.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are there any members of the public giving cards from the public in the audience? Not for this item. I don't see anything on Zoom. We'll close public hearing portion of this item and bring it back to the dais for looking for a motion. |
| 00:21:36.05 | Andrew Junius | Vice Chair, Jim. Well, before we have a motion, I mean, I just want to say I'm always kind of saddened and By the fact that an applicant won't even show up or even phone in on Zoom, that's a little odd because I actually had some questions for the applicant. Um, I'm also a little concerned that the one photograph we saw, and I wasn't able to get up there to see the tree, is quite a distant photograph. It's hard to know how sick the tree is. Thank you. You know, being from a, I actually grew up in Las Vegas, and I'm actually pretty familiar with palm trees, and they're pretty hardy. and they actually can be moved. You know, I'm wondering if this owner, I'd love to have asked the question of this owner as he thought about, would anybody like take the tree? You can actually remove a palm tree, I think, relatively. I don't think it's cheap, but you don't kill the tree. So I'm just kind of across the board, kind of upset that I can't ask some questions of the applicant here, because it's clearly a big mature tree. If it can't be saved, I'd like to know, you know, why beyond what was reported in the report. And I wonder if anybody's ever thought about Thank you. Big mature tree. If it can't be saved, I'd like to know why beyond what was reported in the report. And I wonder if anybody's ever thought about moving it someplace, giving it to a golf course or something. I'm kind of, I mean, I'm not trying to be funny here. I think this is just an interesting question. And I completely understand Commissioner Feller's concerns about the retaining wall. But the tree itself is what we're here to talk about. And I would have loved to ask some questions to the owner. |
| 00:22:58.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Jernian. Other comments? Commissioner Bell. |
| 00:23:03.46 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius for mentioning that. I think... It, you know, ivy can kill a lot of trees or certainly weaken it, but the minute you remove it, they do have the ability to pop back. So I completely agree with what you're saying in terms of, you know, I don't get a sense even looking at the arborist report that this is beyond saving. So I'm not sure that I'm very comfortable with approving this tonight until we can actually talk to an arborist or talk to the owner and really get some clarification on this. And yes, I agree that we're here to talk about the tree, but since that retaining wall is brought into this conversation. You know, this commission should certainly be aware of that and either I'm not suggesting we combine the issues, but we should at least, you know, direct staff and to to ensure that we understand what's happening there. So I'm very much in agreement with you. So thank you for your comments. |
| 00:24:04.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, |
| 00:24:05.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler, Commissioner Sade. |
| 00:24:08.39 | Nastassya Saad | I definitely hear what you're both saying, and I respect your comments. I think based on the retaining wall alone and the... finding a for public safety as it relates to the health of the tree i can make the findings to move forward so i'd be i'd be open although share your disappointment i had some questions for the for the owner as well so um but based on the arborist report and in that particular finding i'd be comfortable to make a motion to approve um and and take almost take the staff recommendation i think in lieu we should have something for the tree fund in this case as a compromise potentially, but I would be happy to make a motion to move forward with this tonight. Although I do hear both of your opinions. |
| 00:24:53.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:24:55.48 | Richard Graef | I would second that motion and might add that I did go by to look at the situation and the tree is pretty scruffy looking. I wouldn't miss it. But I think I'm not comfortable with waiving the like the replacement fee, I think that's something that we could. we could require, otherwise, I think, well, moving it, I think, would be. That's a big deal. And probably cost a lot more than taking it out. So I think there's a problem there with the retaining wall and the whole business. So I'm comfortable with the tree going away. |
| 00:25:48.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I clarify, Commissioner Stout, what is the motion to require something from the tree fund? What would be the actual motion that you're suggesting? |
| 00:25:57.76 | Nastassya Saad | So I believe the recommendation from staff is to approve the tree removal, and that includes not contributing to the tree fund. So my motion would be to approve the tree removal, but to have the applicant contribute to the tree fund. |
| 00:26:15.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there a specific do we have to do that? Do we have to have a specific amount in there? |
| 00:26:17.47 | Nastassya Saad | I don't know if we have to do that. |
| 00:26:20.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:26:21.00 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:26:21.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What is the amount contributed to the treatment? |
| 00:26:26.16 | Nastassya Saad | I... $1,000 if we're going to have an arbiter. Motion to do this. Yes. |
| 00:26:31.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The motion is to require a $1,000 donation, not donation, but contribution to the tree fund, but you're recommending approval, and the second of the motion is accepting of that. |
| 00:26:37.43 | Nastassya Saad | CONTRIBUTION. |
| 00:26:45.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and is there anything in this motion about the wall? |
| 00:26:50.78 | Nastassya Saad | No. outside of the condition that this is the planner that we discussed, that they will figure out who is responsible or sorry, who is the owner of the retaining wall. that was mentioned during the presentation. |
| 00:27:09.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we'll allow CDD to do that separately from this motion. Thank you. |
| 00:27:15.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's not in the motion. We're going to assume they'll take care of finding out whether it's on the process. |
| 00:27:16.65 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. the suggested condition earlier, yes. |
| 00:27:23.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are there any amendments to this motion? for the discussion of this motion. |
| 00:27:30.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:30.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:27:30.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:30.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:27:31.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:31.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you No. Okay, let's take a vote here. Director Phipps. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:27:37.22 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Thank you. |
| 00:27:38.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:27:38.27 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Sun. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yes. |
| 00:27:38.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:27:39.50 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:27:41.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:27:41.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:27:41.69 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller? No. Vice Chair Junius? No. Chair Luxembourg? Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:27:42.64 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:27:42.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. Yes. |
| 00:27:49.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda is 230 Santa Rosa Avenue. This is an administration citation for unauthorized tree alteration. Paul Van Hook, our code enforcement officer, and Mr. Mandage are going to do a presentation. This is an administration citation hearing, which is a little different than our normal course of events, to consider all relevant information pertaining to unauthorized tree alterations on private property located at 230 Santa Rosa Avenue and to impose administrative fine remedial order for both as deemed necessary. Mr. Van Hook and Mr. Manage. Thank you. |
| 00:28:36.12 | Matthew Mandich | Hello again, Commissioners. I'm just going to get us started here and then I'll have my colleague, Mr. Van Hook, come up and present as well. So yes, as Chair stated, this is for an administrative citation ruling to impose a fine remedial order or both for the unauthorized alteration of protected trees on private property. Next slide, please. So here's the location of the site. See here on the left, that's the parcel from our map. You can see that it's sandwiched in between Santa Rosa Avenue and Glen Drive there. And as you can see on the image to the right there from Google Earth, you can see the house and the Santa Rosa side is the front of the home and the Glen Drive side is the rear of the home where the pre-existing canopy was there in that image. Next slide, please. Since this is primarily a code enforcement case, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Paul Van Hook, and he's going to give you a little bit of background on how this case came to be. |
| 00:29:37.61 | Paul Van Hook | Good evening, commissioners. My name is Paul Van Hook. I'm the code enforcement officer for the city of South Salido. Just to give you a little bit of background on the code enforcement case, on October 11th, the city of South Salido code enforcement division received several complaints from concerned neighbors and residents regarding significant unpermitted tree pruning at 230 Santa Rosa Ave. Multiple questions also arose regarding the erosion impact this could have on the lower part of the property over on Glen as well. We have slides to support this. On October 17th, a site inspection was performed and from what was visible from the public right-of-way at Santa Rosa Ave and Glenn Drive, this revealed excessive unpermitted tree pruning that was done throughout the property. The entire canopies were removed from an estimated 10 mature heritage bay laurel trees. per the South Salido Municipal Code 11.1. 12.020.j and 11.820.j. 12.020.p.4. A heritage tree means a tree, which the which has a diameter breast height of 10 inches or more. Pruning is defined as normal seasonal maintenance pruning, trimming, shaping, or thinning of a tree necessary to its health, growth, and view maintenance. Foliage reduction should not exceed one quarter 25% of the total tree foliage. A permit is required from the city of Sausalito to remove or alter a heritage tree per the Sausalito Municipal Code, Section 11.12.030.A. on October 17th, an administrative citation slash notice of public hearing was issued via mail, certified mail, and posted on site at 230 Santa Rosa Ave. On October 24th, the property owner came into the CDD counter to inquire about permits for an unrelated project. At that time, I advised him of the upcoming hearing for the unpermitted tree work. the Public hearing on this violation was initially set for November 15th. However, additional time was needed for discovery. Therefore, it was rescheduled for today, December 13, 2023. The aforementioned date is still in compliance with the public hearing, not being earlier than 21 days and not later than 60 days after the date of the citation. We also have quite a bit of pictures to support just our findings on the property as well, too. |
| 00:32:21.82 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 00:32:26.11 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you very much. Next slide, please. |
| 00:32:35.51 | Matthew Mandich | So just a little rundown for the public and for commissioners of kind of what we're talking about here tonight. So the Planning Commission will review all the relevant evidence pertaining to the alleged violation, and they will determine if a violation occurred, the severity of that violation, and they may impose an administrative fine for legal removal or alteration, which can be up to $1,000 per tree per the code. They can also impose a remedial order or both a fine and remedial order. The Planning Commission is considered a factor set forth in the code to determine the extent of the fine remedial order. Some of these factors include the severity of the violation, the value of the trees, the impact on the community, the number of violations, the frequency of violations, the economic impact of a remedial order, and the good faith efforts of the violator. So those are all the kind of different factors that will go into the determination tonight on what fine fee remedial order will be imposed, if any. Next slide, please. So, as Mr Van Hook already mentioned from our code here 11.12030A, it is unlawful for any person to remove or alter any protected tree as defined herein without a permit issued and posted as provided in this chapter, except for the purpose of routine pruning. And as Mr Van Hook already went through some of the definitions, I've just... Got some of them up there again for you. Just straight out of the code language. Alteration, significant change or damage to trees. This includes cutting of trunk or branches, changing drainage around a tree, cutting of roots, removal of upper portion of the trunk or main leader. A protected tree is considered a coastal live oak or any heritage tree. And a heritage tree is a tree with a diameter of breast height over 10 inches. This, of course, excludes the undesirable trees that were actually discussed in the previous item. And routine pruning is really just the removal of dead branches. That's how the code sees it. There's another definition of pruning, which is up to 25% of the foliage that Mr. Van Hook touched on already. But routine pruning is really just removal of dead or dying branches. Next slide, please. So here's just some images showing you. We have some visual, photographic, and documentary evidence to present here that shows at least nine, possibly 10, or more bay laurel heritage trees were significantly altered without required permits. And these trees ranged in size from a DVH of 28 to 80 inches. You can see in the photo on the left the canopy that existed prior to the alterations. And on the right, the situation today, this is viewed from Glen Drive looking up at the house on Santa Rosa. Next slide, please. Here are several other images taken by Mr. Van Hook and date stamped from October 19th, depicting the unauthorized alterations that occurred on the property. Just let you gaze through those a bit. As you can see, there's a lot of different branches and leaders coming out of these. Many of them share a trunk base. So it could be, you know, it looks like many more than even 10 trees in these images. But based on the invoice and map that we received from Leo's tree service, it looks like it's about nine or 10 trees. If we go to the next slide, please. You can see that invoice here. And on the right, you can see the trees themselves depicted on the hand-drawn site map there. There are nine trees depicted on that map ranging from DBH 28 to 80 inches. On the left left there is a comment on the invoice saying that 10 trees were altered and that's likely counting the tree in the front which i have on the next slide here and you can see the before image there from google earth and then the after image there of that alteration so um mr van hooke is there anything you'd like to add on any of the alterations and images? Okay. So, yeah, he was our documentary evidence on that. He went out and took all the photos and issued the citation as discussed. So, moving on to the recommendation. um staff's recommendation is that the planning commission impose an administrative fine of five hundred dollars per tree as the trees were altered but not removed again the planning commission may find up to a thousand dollars per tree if they see fit staff also recommends that the Planning Commission impose a remedial order that requires the violator to take immediate action to mitigate erosion on site at the violator's expense. I've been in touch with DPW about this issue, specifically Kent Basso and Andrew Davidson. They recommend the installation of jute netting or an erosion control blanket and a series of waddles to control the runoff. And we've received a number of public comments from neighbors, especially on Glen Drive, that are quite concerned about the erosion issue. So again, these are the recommendations from staff, but ultimately the decision lies with the Planning Commission on what kind of fees or remedial orders they would like to impose i have drafted a resolution with some some numbers in there and some um some of the staff recommendations but the of course the planning commission at this hearing right now is is free to change those and we can alter that alter that resolution as uh as you all see fit so thank you very much happy to take any questions you have |
| 00:37:31.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr manage, so I realize this is an administrative citation hearing different slightly different hearing, but to Vice Chair Junius is coming on the last item on the agenda. Do we have somebody from Leo's tree service here today or somebody from the owner here today. |
| 00:37:48.62 | Matthew Mandich | We do have the owner, yes. |
| 00:37:51.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, okay. So at some point it would be good to allow us to have questions, not so much a presentation, but questions from the owners. |
| 00:38:00.37 | Matthew Mandich | Absolutely. If you, |
| 00:38:01.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I will hold those questions because they're questions of the owner. Questions from staff. Commissioner Grant. |
| 00:38:09.75 | Richard Graef | Yeah, the erosion control suggestion, is that because the canopy isn't preventing moisture from coming down and running off. Is that why? That is correct. Okay. Yeah. I thought so. Thank you. That's it. |
| 00:38:24.19 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 00:38:24.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's exactly. |
| 00:38:24.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:24.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 00:38:25.19 | Unknown | That's correct, yes. |
| 00:38:26.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:38:30.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:31.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:38:33.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for the presentation, both of you. Thank you. And for documenting this. Two questions, really. The first is, do you have an indication that despite the – extreme cutting of these trees that they will survive. |
| 00:38:55.34 | Matthew Mandich | Based on letters that we've received from Leo's tree service, they do believe that the trees will survive, yes. |
| 00:39:01.44 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And the second question I have related to the erosion and erosion control. Obviously respect what DPW is recommending. It's part of some of the larger recommendations for temporary erosion control, but not more permanent erosion control. So I want to understand from staff what the more permanent erosion control is because jute is a natural product and it does not last. It will not last long enough for those trees or the tree canopy to grow back. So I'd like to understand that. And then finally... Are these fines, these fines are imposed on the owner, but is there some sort of fine on Leo's tree service that is part of a course of action because of their professional license and so on? |
| 00:39:55.94 | Matthew Mandich | Just to answer that last question first, because it's the last one I heard. In the code, there's nothing on that. It falls on the property owner, and that's how the code reads. you |
| 00:40:03.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for that. |
| 00:40:04.57 | Matthew Mandich | I'm sorry. And then as far as more permanent erosion control solutions, I think that's something we'd have to speak with DPW in more detail. That's not my area of expertise. I did speak to them and the The mitigation measures that were given to me were the erosion control blanket, jute netting, and a series of waddles. |
| 00:40:23.80 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:40:24.39 | Matthew Mandich | which are like little fences with absorption, bags of hay and things like that that then absorb the water and then redirect it around the site. |
| 00:40:33.10 | Kristina Feller | Right. We've had other erosion control like that around Sausalito and it's absolutely temporary. I mean, of course, you know, I'd like to understand from staff if there's a further recommendation for, you know, an ongoing inspection of that or reinstallation of that for as long as it takes until that tree canopy grows back, if that's something you've looked at. |
| 00:40:59.06 | Matthew Mandich | As far as long-term solutions, no, just the conversations I've had with DPW about the more temporary mitigation efforts that we've discussed already. |
| 00:41:08.05 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 00:41:10.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We'll have you, we're going to allow you, we're going to have you answer some questions in a minute, but let me get questions of. Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:41:20.77 | Kristina Feller | We can't hear you. |
| 00:41:22.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have to come to the podium because this is live on TV. So if you have a point of information that would be useful in our conversation, come up to the podium. |
| 00:41:37.38 | Unknown | I have to pick up my daughter from a sporting event tonight. I didn't anticipate this lasting as long as it has. I'm happy to answer any questions right now, but I have to leave at 715. |
| 00:41:45.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:41:50.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, well, just because we do have questions of you, if the commission allows, we'll do this because we would like, well, first I'd like to know how you possibly thought you didn't need a permit for this and your tree service didn't need. |
| 00:42:06.81 | Unknown | Commissioner, I attempted to submit a the permit materials that was submitted. It wasn't acknowledged by the city. But I made a good faith effort to document that the efforts I was about to make and the reasons why I was going to make those. those severe alterations to the trees. I provided photographs. None of that has appeared here. Um, Uh, I sent the materials to the to the contact point that was provided in the information I I was able to source online through the city of Sausalito. The reason why I cut the trees back is the trees had been historically topped for many, many for many years, the house was built in 92. And I think that at that time, the trees had been severely topped. The result of that is that, and the result of of continuing periodic trimming, topping, is that the growth became so thick and so intertwined that no light was able to even reach the ground. It was a solid canopy of tangled deadwood. with new growth growing vertically from it. And in order to reverse that, It was recommended that I that we start over again. and cut the trees, cut all of that growth out And Bay trees, as you know, regenerate from their trunk. And now we will have, in future years, we'll have And it's already occurred. Every single trunk has new growth on it. We will have new vertical growth. that can be managed, whereas prior, that was impossible to manage without removal. And so I didn't do this to enhance views. It didn't. If I wanted to maintain the status quo, it would have been a lot cheaper just to have my guy go in and top it again. but I wanted to solve a problem which I perceived as a serious fire hazard. of of just too much Deadwood that had grown up. that's not going to be throughout the number of years that the continual topping had occurred. regarding the erosion I have put down and spread six bales of hay, of straw, of... of a wheat straw that and that has stabilized the ground. The reason why the ground is unstable is there was no growth because that no light could penetrate to the ground. So I'm a little bit disappointed with staff that they didn't go out and note that I had made erosion control efforts and there is no erosion and the and and the erosion that they perceive was caused by. THE FAMILY IS the dragging of tree trunks down the, the removal of the material down to Glen, but there's no continued erosion. I've seen that. And, and, And when, and, and I've checked the gutters. There is no sediment. uh, washing off the lot. Thank you. |
| 00:45:29.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so there. Because I know you're on a tight timeline and others are going to have some questions. So you tried to apply online. You didn't get issued a permit. And then you talked to your tree guy in your Leo tree service. You didn't have a permit, didn't ask for a permit. Did they ask you if you had a permit? I mean, I don't understand how a tree service was. They did not. |
| 00:45:47.84 | Unknown | They did not. And- |
| 00:45:50.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and done this without a permit. |
| 00:45:51.95 | Unknown | I did this without it. I did it without a permit and and and I accept responsibility for that. It shouldn't have. I should have received a permit. I see the process now having having watched |
| 00:45:52.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | without a. |
| 00:46:05.24 | Unknown | of the council. THE FAMILY IS debate on the merits of a tree removal There was no tree removal. Every single tree is going to survive and thrive in this in this instance. But- |
| 00:46:18.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand it wasn't removed, but it was pruned beyond, it required a permit, obviously did. Real tree service should know that. Other questions? |
| 00:46:18.47 | Unknown | like, |
| 00:46:27.49 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:46:27.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:46:27.55 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, if I can just ask you a question. |
| 00:46:28.20 | Unknown | If I could just ask you a question. It is admittedly unsightly at the moment. |
| 00:46:32.78 | Kristina Feller | If I can ask you a question, how long have you owned the house? |
| 00:46:36.45 | Unknown | I'm for four years. |
| 00:46:38.95 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And did you ever come down to City Hall to the counter hours if you couldn't get a response online? Thank you. |
| 00:46:48.71 | Unknown | I did not. |
| 00:46:50.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:46:51.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:51.36 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 00:46:51.74 | Unknown | you Thank you. |
| 00:46:52.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and have you read the landslide task force does have a report online on the city website. Did you look at that or any of the recommendations moving forward here? Because my point is that, you know, even on Sausalito Boulevard where we had quite a terrible landslide, You know, there were not a lot of signs for sloughing off into the road more than a lot of normal places. So, you know, it's not really always what's happening at grade or on top of the dirt or the ground. It's what's happening below it and undermining that. And Sausalito is built on a number of underground springs. That's the topography and geography of Sausalito. So this seems a bit egregious to me. And I think the issue about the erosion control is first and foremost for me. I mean, I'm alarmed at the extensive amount of tree trimming we have here. And I desperately hope that trees will survive. You know, it's not clear that they will. Well, but I'm still speaking. |
| 00:48:08.34 | Unknown | Well, Commissioner... |
| 00:48:11.36 | Kristina Feller | but I think that, you know, the The initial recommendations from DPW on the erosion control, we've seen across Sausalito before, and they really are seasonal and temporary. They are not a more permanent solution, whereas it can take quite a number of years for trees that are cut as much as what we're looking at on the screen here, to be able to regenerate, to be able to create that canopy to protect erosion control. We've seen that over and over again. Um, Thank you for answering the question. I appreciate that. |
| 00:48:51.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions from commissioners from the owner? |
| 00:48:54.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | at this time. |
| 00:48:56.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:48:56.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:48:56.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Okay. |
| 00:48:57.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:48:57.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, I mean, we're going to consider this tonight. We're going to public comment tonight. I'm going to tell you that at a minimum, there's going to be, I would guess there's going to be a fine. There's going to be a rose control, and we want you to immediately implement. It's going to be through DPW to make this happen, because this is, and I would you you ask your tree service why they would have possibly done this when they didn't have a permit they should know better a tree service that's what they do for a living and they know they need permits so I'm shocked that they actually did this even if you you know even if you asked them to so well |
| 00:49:38.89 | Unknown | Well, all I can say is it was the right thing to do. It was the wrong way to do it. I should have received full permission. from planning before doing that. I admit that. But what was done needed to be done. erosion control. is in place. If the Commission. Um, thinks that it should be enhanced, I'm willing to do that. I monitor it. and I watch, we haven't had the heavy rains yet, But what's been what is in place has kept the hillside the surface runoff, Very, very stable. All the trees are gonna survive. The root systems are intact. Um, I just... I think that in the, the very near future, the canopy will be fully restored. and and and greatly enhanced so Um, I really think that Well, I just hope the commission It takes that under consideration. Thank you for your time tonight. |
| 00:50:44.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:50:45.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Manage, Mr. Van Hook, any additional comments at this point? |
| 00:50:52.87 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:50:57.22 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, just some additional comments to address. So he mentioned that he submitted a tree removal permit. I asked him to forward me that permit for any documentation of that permit being submitted to the D. If you'd submitted it online or by email or anything like that, there'd be a chain, there'd be some kind of evidence on that. I received none. So. Very difficult to understand what happened there. Also, even if it was submitted and there was no response, that doesn't give you a go-ahead. So I don't know when or how he may have submitted that, but we have no trace of it. And I asked him. It's very simple to provide an email. If you sent it to CDD at Sausalito, forward me the email. He couldn't do that. So I don't know if that's a true statement or not. Secondly, as far as erosion control being in place, he spread some hay bales over there, which you can see. Actually, in these images, you can see some hay coming off the side there. But we received a number of public comments from neighbors on Glen, as well as video footage and photos showing a lot of erosion and a lot of earth and rock and dirt down in those gutters there. And I'm sure you'll hear from some of them about that shortly. So I just want to address some of those items that were brought up. And yes, I do believe that the bay trees will survive. How long that canopy will take to grow, I think, will be quite some time. There's a very significant and severe topping that occurred and, you know, a significant alteration on authorized alteration. So yeah, I just wanted to follow up with those comments there. And I'm sure you'll hear more in public comment as well. |
| 00:52:33.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a question for you before we leave the podium. So I understand that this fine would be for the owner, not for the tree service. Is there, whether we send a letter, whether we inform them, or is this a city attorney question of what we can do? Because the tree service is the front line. If an owner goes to a tree service and says, cut down these trees, the tree service usually says, I need to get a permit. I mean, have you had any conversations of what we can do to make sure that, is this tree service done other projects recently in Sausalito that we know of? |
| 00:53:08.60 | Matthew Mandich | This is the first time I've heard of them or seen them. I've done several tree removal permits and they've not been attached to any of them. So I do not know. This might be a question for city attorney as far as what could, what kind of punishment or anything could be handed down to the tree service as well. So I'll let the city attorney step in. |
| 00:53:28.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we have the city attorney of Ms. Rubin? What's her name? |
| 00:53:28.80 | Matthew Mandich | it. |
| 00:53:36.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Anna? |
| 00:53:38.50 | Ann | Hi, good evening. Can you hear me okay? |
| 00:53:40.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I don't know. I'm sure you heard all that. I'm just wondering what is in our purview, even if we can't find the tree service, if that's not what this is about, what can we do to try to solve this for the future, so to speak? |
| 00:53:55.81 | Ann | Thank you. |
| 00:53:55.83 | Annie Branham | Yeah, I mean, looking prospectively, what I would suggest is that you update. So what the code says currently is that, you know, the fine piece of it and the mitigation that you can impose have to do with the violator and that's not a defined term. So what I would say you could do is impose in the code a definition for violator that includes maybe not just the owner of the property, certainly it would include the owner of the property, but also potentially that definition could extend to the person who did the work on the owner's behalf. But as identified by staff, that's not currently how the code reads. So that would require an update to the code. That's certainly something that we could work with staff on if, if there's an appetite at planning commission. |
| 00:54:35.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, is there anything that stops CDD or this commission sending a letter to this tree service and making it clear that these are the requirements in Sausalito or something to that effect? |
| 00:54:46.86 | Annie Branham | Certainly staff could do that. I would just recommend citing to the relevant provisions of the code that have to do with pruning and tree removal. and just indicating that you know, this particular project raised attention and that going forward, they must be sure to comply with all provisions of the code. |
| 00:55:04.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Other questions of the city attorney? No. Okay, with that, we'll go to the public hearing portion of this public comment. I'm sorry, it's not public hearing, public comment portion of this item on the agenda. So, Director Phipps, if you could give instructions for, well, how you do public comment on administration citation here. Okay. |
| 00:55:27.90 | Director Phipps | So you'll have three minutes to provide public comment. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and my colleagues. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand 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. I will start with speaker cards and then move to the Zoom application. I have one speaker card for Matt Singer. Matt, come on down. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:55:57.18 | Matt Singer | Thank you, commissioners, and I thank staff for their work in researching this. I am the neighbor at 140 Glen Drive, which is at the lower rear end of his property. I was really concerned not just about erosion, but there was overall vegetation removed from that property. Um, I can. 100% dispute what this person, the owner of that property has told you about a lack of erosion. the gutters are full of debris from that property. if he is checking the gutters, I don't, I mean, it's just impossible to consider that he's actually looking in those gutters. As I walked out of my home this evening, to get in my car to come to this hearing. my wife and I heard material. from that property drop into the gutter. So I am not just concerned about erosion that will occur during rains. but it is actively and imminently sliding. And I'm concerned for pet property. because this material At any time, that hill could give way. in my opinion, it's dangerous and could cause significant damage. It appears... when it becomes wet during some of our early heavy rains. I'm extremely concerned about that. So I would urge the commission to not just impose temporary measures like the jute menning, but to find a long-term solution such as a retaining wall, because that material will not remain in place forever. |
| 00:57:46.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:57:46.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments. other members of the audience to have other speakers |
| 00:57:53.38 | Director Phipps | No other speaker cards received chair. |
| 00:57:55.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and I do not see anything on Zoom at this time. |
| 00:57:59.52 | Director Phipps | I did see a raised hand earlier from Art Harding, and I am seeing him raise his hand again. And yeah, well, let's give him a chance to speak. Art, you have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:58:05.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:58:11.42 | Art Harding | Thank you. So I'm on 130 Glenn Drive, which is Jason, to I think a very small link next to the lot. We have a couple of comments. One, we were actually home when they started cutting the trees and attempted to run out and stop the people. from making the cuts on the trees as well as contact the owner to ask what they were doing because it's quite impactful not only to all the erosion that we talked about, which the idea that that hill is not eroding right now is ludicrous. I carry my trash barrels down. Yeah. each week and have to put them in mud that is slipping down the hill. I agree with, I think it was Matt, it was just up there that, the idea that raining season hasn't started yet is pretty alarming in terms of the amount of soil and stuff that is moving that my neighbor and I are both cleaning each week. We did attempt to stop the people when they were doing it as well as contact the neighbor to ask, what are you thinking? Because it also impacted privacy on our sides, like in terms of like it just literally and I'm not also not sure on the lot lines and whether trees that are on our neighbors lots were impacted as well. And it also appears that more than just the trees were removed. It's like bare dirt. And if there's hay there. It's a very light. amount of it. There's like physical material moving and some of my neighbors downhill, I perceive it. And they're talking about someday, like right now I'd be very, we've seen movement on the street. I don't know. It just looks pretty severe to me. So And we attempted to reach out and slow down the whole process and uh, It was kind of alarming to watch happen, so. Those are my comments. So I agree. I would like to... Ask that some more permanent and urgent actions be taken because it looks like it's a, it's a, the wall was pretty fragile before this even started. And it looks like there was already some erosion and this just looks to have accelerated it. |
| 01:00:09.90 | Director Phipps | Ard, thank you very much for your comments this evening. I'll give folks one more opportunity to speak if they have not had a chance to be recognized and would like to. Look into the Zoom application for raised hands. Going once, going twice. Seeing none, back to you, Chair. |
| 01:00:26.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much, Director Phipps. I'll bring it back up to the dais here. This is obviously egregious. This is obviously something we need to not only address here, but make sure it doesn't happen again. So I'm looking for a proposal. |
| 01:00:40.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | WE'RE UP. |
| 01:00:40.80 | Andrew Junius | Vice Chair, Jimas. Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Yeah, we're obviously going to, I think, take some action tonight, and I completely echo the concerns of the commission regarding landslide. Erosion and all that, I think it's I think probably the more difficult conversation we're going to have is regarding the more permanent solution. I don't know what we can do, but we're certainly I think going to take some action and require some immediate mitigations. With respect to some of the comments, both, you know, at the commission and some of the things that staff said and even the owner said, you know, I will honestly say, first off, bait trees are pretty hardy. They are going to come back. I don't worry about that. So that's really kind of neither here nor there. But with respect to tree services, I really, you know, we have a lot of trees in Sausalito. There are a lot of different tree services. And I frankly think there's a lot of abuse and it just doesn't get reported or there's one or two trees and they can't really be seen. So, you know, I sympathize. I think you're correct. Tree services should be a little more responsible for sure. But I don't know if that's, you know, something we can really do much about except send letters, ask the community to be more responsive and report things like this, but I think... With respect to specifically Baytrees, I really do think there's been a lot of chopping around the city, and I don't know if that's going to stop. And then finally, I don't think there's any question that I'm really glad that the staff got up and confirmed that they didn't receive anything in terms of a permit request. It's never an excuse, you know, that I didn't know or I didn't have time or I couldn't figure it out. You know, you go to the counter, you figure it out. This is kind of ridiculous. So I'm kind of glad he showed up. I wish he didn't have to run out the owner, but I think he's going to have to deal with the consequences here. So those are my comments. |
| 01:02:28.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for coming. to commission staff. |
| 01:02:31.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair, and completely agree with Vice Chair Junius. And to Commissioner Feller's point, I was going to say the same thing. We've got springs under the hill. So I think to everyone else's point, you can see it. I also went by. And so, barring not knowing his profession, I don't think he's an engineer. And so I think we need to take into account a professional opinion, and that of our DPW and code enforcement, I think, reigns supreme here. So I do think we do need to figure out something more long-term. don't want to come down terribly hard-handed, but I don't think a 50% Mark here Um, sends the right message. I really, I think it would be adequate to bump that up from the $4,500 to $6,750 at $750 a treat, because I just don't appreciate knowing you're doing something incorrectly and moving forward. It's not a view impact, as he said, this affects that entire neighborhood, and hay is not the answer. So I'm just a little aghast at that suggestion. And I just don't appreciate how far this has gone and how many people this is impacting. And it's really a safety concern. And our rain is coming. so that that's my view I'm definitely open to discussion there but I think bumping up that fine slightly And our rain is coming. So that's my view. I'm definitely open to discussion there, but I think bumping up that fine slightly is where I would prefer the fine to be. |
| 01:04:12.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. As we do questions, Director Phipps, is it possible to bring up that resolution document? The second page has what the conditions would be. So if we can, which would the suggestion of the change of number two, but if we could just see that on the screen, that might help expedite the language on it. While you look for that, Commissioner Graff, question. |
| 01:04:27.82 | Paul Van Hook | change. |
| 01:04:42.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or comments. |
| 01:04:44.15 | Richard Graef | of the country. |
| 01:04:44.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:04:44.27 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:04:44.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:04:44.30 | Richard Graef | Well, I think it's been pretty much covered. Clearly, there's a egregious violation of the rules here in town, and they all should have known better. So I think the penalty is in order. I think maybe Commissioner Saad's suggestion sounds good to me. I felt that the... Half of the max was a little light, but... So I think I would agree with that. Yeah, clearly the erosion issue has not been addressed. And I think that's pretty critical from what I can understand. I did not see the site specifically that close. And so I can't quite comment on what it looked like, but from the photos and other testimony, I would also promote a... vigorous effort to control about erosion. |
| 01:06:01.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Feltz. |
| 01:06:06.75 | Kristina Feller | Well, again, this is highly egregious and pretty flagrant. So I look at this a little bit differently in terms of fines. And, you know, we've got 10 heritage trees there. I would go for the full thousand, the maximum that we can. I'm also interested in and perhaps staff could also help weigh in on this, but, um, You know, there's going to be ongoing monitoring, and that will be required for some more permanent type of erosion control. And, yes, sprinkling hay around dirt is not really erosion control. You know, we're trying to keep the dirt in place. So hay is not really the answer to that. So the question I have before I finish maybe my comments here is, does the city have a mechanism for which to, where we can impose certain fines or bifurcate the fine to include portions of that fine into an escrow account that the city could draw down on should the owner not perform his duties in terms of the erosion control. |
| 01:07:31.74 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Commissioner, for the question. I think it's a good one. My initial comment would be, following Planning Commission's approval of a resolution to impose these fines and penalties and remedial requirements, if the property owner does not follow through, that will continue to be a code enforcement issue, and our code enforcement officer will continue to issue citations. If we experience a lack of payment or action, even following that, you know, the city has options that it can consider. But I would recommend that we just use the tools available to us existing in the code via additional code enforcement action. |
| 01:08:09.89 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And the other question that that triggers is I know that the city has a contract with Miller Pacific specifically for landslide issues. And I'm curious if the ongoing monitoring of this property is consistent with what their scope already is. |
| 01:08:32.55 | Director Phipps | That would be a question for the Department of Public Works, and it looks like there is an item related to public works providing input to determine the best methods available. I believe if there is an overlap and a complement with respect to that scope with Miller Pacific, they would utilize that. |
| 01:08:39.61 | Paul Van Hook | Bye. |
| 01:08:51.67 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. Thank you. And so in terms of the erosion control, I'm going to defer to DPW's recommended solution. However, I would like to further request that the site be monitored on a regular monthly basis through rainy seasons and maybe less often in dry seasons and where there needs to be alterations to that erosion control or updates to that erosion control that we have empower DPW CDD or any other city staff or department to impose whatever conditions, fines, whatever they need to as an enforcement matter to ensure that the erosion control is not compromised and the hillside is stable. And therefore, I would recommend the full thousand dollar fine per tree. Thank you. |
| 01:10:02.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner. |
| 01:10:03.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I want to be careful on number three on the screen. I think we need to require the owner to be responsible for the erosion control. I do not want to take the fine money and use it because that would be, in essence, he'd say, fine, we'll let the city fix it. We don't want the city to fix it. We want them to fix it. And I do think number three does that i think your additional language uh to in addition to they determine the best method available for short and long term uh um whatever i say about that short and long term uh mitigation uh should be added to number three and that that's a responsibility if they don't do that would they would be fined again i don't i think the money should not be used for that the money is meant as a penalty for having done something incorrectly and i don't want it to be you know a way that the owner gets out of doing what they should have done in the first place so uh as far as the the amount of the fine um uh i mean i i don't have a strong opinion in one way or the other on that. I'm okay with upping it to $750 proof tree. I'm okay upping it to $1,000 a tree either way. I think the point of the fine is to make it clear that you don't do this. The only thing I would note is the trees will come back. And so if they're being fined for not getting the permit, the trees haven't been removed, and we believe they will come back. And then number three is the most important because it'll take care of the erosion, which is the bigger issue right now. |
| 01:11:43.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:11:43.12 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:11:48.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any additional thoughts or a motion from anybody? |
| 01:11:52.22 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I just maybe this is a further clarification to staff, but Are there any mitigative measures we need to consider now for ongoing tree protection of those trees that are you know, cut back so severely. Are any of them in need of certain protection or can we, I'm just asking. |
| 01:12:22.90 | Kristina Feller | since 10 of them are heritage trees. We want them to be successful. in their regrowth. |
| 01:12:30.91 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. As far as I can see from the trees, we've not had permission to go deep into the property, only what we can see from the public right away. It looks like most of them are pretty stable. They've obviously been pretty badly mutilated. But as we were hearing from the property owner, there is some new growth coming in. It doesn't appear from what I could see based on my site visit that any of them were in danger of collapsing or anything like that. But again, I wasn't able to really get close to them. Only what I could see from the right of way. I think it is worth clarifying, though, that, yeah, I do have in here in the resolution, it's mostly I put in nine, but it looks like there's 10 trees. So that's something that I can alter. And I think that if you're going to issue the fine per tree, it should be for those 10 trees and not for the nine that were just depicted on the site map um that was provided by the tree service so i think that that 10th tree is that one in the front there yeah um so yeah that it should be 10 trees and you know i'm more than happy whatever you guys want to do with the fine that's at your discretion i was trying to kind of strike a mid-ground with my proposition of 500 of alteration versus removal i think if the trees had been removed it would it would have been for sure 1,000, but because they were only altered, I tried to strike a middle ground. But whatever fine the commission thinks appropriate, I'm happy to support you. |
| 01:12:43.37 | Paul Van Hook | Okay. |
| 01:13:19.77 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:13:46.28 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:13:46.29 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:13:46.36 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:13:46.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:13:46.65 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 01:13:48.37 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask a point of clarification while we have him? Just in the wording, remedial order requires violator to take immediate action. What does that mean? Like, what if we make a motion tonight? Is that a day? Is that 10 days? What are we talking here? |
| 01:13:50.46 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:14:03.99 | Matthew Mandich | Well, yeah, that's a tricky one, obviously. I mean, we'd like them to do something immediately, like this week, next week, whatever, as soon as we can to get some waddles up and jute netting and erosion control just to stop what we're hearing from the neighbors is already, you know, things are sliding right now. There's rain coming Sunday. ideally before Sunday, if we could get some, at least the jute netting up and things like that, that could, you know, an erosion sort of carpet, erosion control carpet or whatever, you know, DPW refers to those things as. So yeah, I mean, any, anything that we could do as quickly as possible, I think could be, you know, important. And, you know, that's another thing about just the remedial order too, that should all be at the violator's expense. So that's something that they pay for as well. So there's the fine per tree and the remedial order is all at their expense too. So there's another economic impact for the violator with that as well. |
| 01:14:42.50 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 01:14:42.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:14:51.06 | Nastassya Saad | Is that something that we can edit? Can we change that language? As far as... From immediate to put a date certain? Is that a possibility? |
| 01:14:55.02 | Matthew Mandich | As far as- |
| 01:15:02.77 | Director Phipps | So that is a possibility. I would say that based on the phrasing and language used in connection with that condition, it is going to be based on how Department of Public Works assesses and what they assess to be the best methods available. Those methods will have timelines associated with them. So I believe it's built into the resolution. But if the commission would like to alter the language slightly to make it read a little bit more woodenly based on what they'd like to achieve, I think that that's very much possible. |
| 01:15:40.59 | Kristina Feller | I'd be open to that, Commissioner San. And I know Vice Chair, we've Sure. |
| 01:15:46.60 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:15:46.85 | Kristina Feller | I just wanted to know |
| 01:15:47.12 | Nastassya Saad | I just wanted to know the concept, so I think we can discuss that. But thank you. |
| 01:15:50.39 | Andrew Junius | Well, yeah, I just a couple of comments here. I mean, I frankly think that, you know, the message is clear. The word immediate to me means like right now. So but I'm also you raise something, director, that it confused me a little bit. So it's, you know, the the violator here, you know, the property owner, I think tomorrow morning needs to pick up the phone and call a company and get out there and start doing this. I mean, that's not it's his private property. He's the one I think that's going to have to pay a contractor to come on and do all this stuff. He's the one that's going to create the erosion control plan. He's the one that's going to spend the money for the wattles and the various features of this. And he's got to fix it like right now. And it's just going to get worse for him because if it gets worse for the downhill neighbors, if there's more erosion, if there's more damage, we're just going to be right back here again we're going to get worse for him, because you know because if it gets worse for the downhill neighbors if there's more erosion if there's more damage we're just gonna be right back here again we're gonna be finding him again we're gonna be you know he's gonna be standing there trying to explain himself but I don't know. The language seems fine to me. I think he's going to be, you know, totally agree. The fine is going to penalize him. Then he's going to pay whatever it's going to take to get this fixed. And I'm fine with $1,000 a tree. I think 10 trees at $1,000 a pop is a wake-up call. And this owner needs to get his act together and get it dealt with. So I just would make a motion to move the fine to $1,000 a tree, make it 10 trees, and leave the language as is. And I hope the owner gets the message. |
| 01:17:15.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we add Director Phipps of number four that says we'll send a letter to Leo Tree Service indicating what violations occurred and what our requirements are for the future, or is that better to be in another document? |
| 01:17:31.62 | Director Phipps | Well, I can commit to doing that on behalf of CDD, and I'll work with our code enforcement officer, Mr. Van Hook, to ensure that happens. If the commission would like the additional evidence and condition associated with this approval, I'm not opposed to it. |
| 01:17:46.58 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:17:46.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:17:46.96 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:17:47.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:17:47.05 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Director. Yeah, I don't think it's appropriate for the motion. I think the staff's going to take care of that. I appreciate the concern there, but it's, you know, I think they should be separate. |
| 01:17:48.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:17:54.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's fine. I'm happier than being separate. Commissioner and draft. |
| 01:17:58.73 | Richard Graef | Thank you. I just have a question, a procedural question. there's urgency here and we want them to jump on this. But how do we make them jump? In other words, usually this is a there's a resolution and it gets, you know, and then we we approve it at the next meeting and then action gets. And so meanwhile, a month has gone by. How do we deal with that? |
| 01:18:25.30 | Andrew Junius | The way I see it, Commissioner Graff, great question. Again, back to the concern about the immediacy. When the gavel falls on this, it's over. It's immediate as of like tonight. So the fine is imposed. He's going to have maybe some time to write the check. |
| 01:18:37.34 | Matt Singer | Thank you. |
| 01:18:40.04 | Andrew Junius | But, any time that passes after he's ordered to immediately start dealing with this situation and it gets worse, Again, he's just going to – there's only so much we can do with words and paper and whatnot, but his legal obligation begins the minute this resolution is passed, period. And that's about the best we can do. And again, I appreciate the – idea of timelines or whatever, but I don't think immediate means immediate. |
| 01:19:04.39 | Richard Graef | I would like obviously to see it happen immediately, but actually getting the person to... |
| 01:19:05.90 | Andrew Junius | I'm sorry. No, good question. |
| 01:19:16.32 | Andrew Junius | Do that. |
| 01:19:16.35 | Richard Graef | that. do that might be, I don't know. No, I hear you. That's how we handle it. |
| 01:19:18.39 | Andrew Junius | I don't know. No, I hear you. That's, that's, yeah, that's, that's part of the problem with enforcement is ultimately, you know, the property owner. you know, may be too slow and things might happen. I mean, really, I think the more interesting question that I don't think we can answer tonight is what happens if he doesn't do anything or doesn't do it in time and there's a big problem? Well, if there's a really big problem and it starts to affect the roadway or something like that, well, then the city is going to come and they're going to do something. They're going to bill him for that, too. So he's eventually going to pay. Hopefully he will step up and get this taken care of right now so there aren't any more problems. But- |
| 01:19:43.93 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 01:19:44.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Hopefully. |
| 01:19:49.76 | Andrew Junius | You know, there's really not much more I think the city can do but do what we're doing tonight. |
| 01:19:53.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Phipps, is it possible for Mr. Van Hook to Follow up tomorrow with him saying this is what the commission did, and we expect you to immediately get a company in and get a proposal for erosion and then keep checking on it. So that this really stays with staff and we don't need to write it in here, but a process to make sure that something's happening. Is that doable? |
| 01:20:18.77 | Director Phipps | I'd say most certainly, unless Mr. Van Hook has a reason to say no. I think most certainly, yeah. |
| 01:20:26.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm comfortable that staff will follow through on an immediate basis. Thank you. |
| 01:20:32.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:20:32.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... |
| 01:20:32.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So there's a- |
| 01:20:34.45 | Nastassya Saad | I'll second your motion. |
| 01:20:36.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's a motion as written here with the change that number two is $1,000 per tree and it's 10 trees. And so somewhere up in the other part of the motion, is there a number for the number of trees, I think? That's correct. |
| 01:20:52.81 | Director Phipps | We'll make sure to make that modification. I appreciate the modification to the second condition of approval as well. And then I did hear a discussion of a monthly monitoring requirement. Are we including that as an additional condition? |
| 01:21:03.37 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:21:03.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:21:03.62 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:21:08.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought we were adding the number three that's determined by the best methods available and would be something about |
| 01:21:15.02 | Kristina Feller | We asked for, no, what I would like to have and what I'd like to propose to everybody here is that we include language for monthly monitoring in wet season and maybe quarterly and dry. And that should any adjustments need to be made to the, erosion control that that is communicated formally from staff to to this owner until such time is there substantial regrowth of the mutilated trees and and there's a canopy back in place to protect any further erosion |
| 01:21:59.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So that language, I think, follows right after the best method of ability, a couple sentences and number three. |
| 01:22:03.14 | Kristina Feller | Yes. So the So the maker of the motion, are you comfortable with that? |
| 01:22:08.71 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I'm a little, I mean, these are, you know, sometimes these get things get a little complicated. So you want the owner to, in addition to these things, create some kind of monitoring program and report back to the city. |
| 01:22:21.82 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, or allow the city to check on it because we do have Miller Pacific and DPW that are doing this citywide. |
| 01:22:28.57 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, yeah. I mean, let's be careful here. We have... I mean, it's one thing to monitor from the bottom and just look up at the hill like any public. I mean, that's fine. And that's really, I'm not sure. |
| 01:22:35.02 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:22:35.34 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 01:22:38.56 | Andrew Junius | we need anything in there for the city to just stand on Glenn and look up. If we want access to the property, that's a little different story, and I'm actually not sure we can require that. So, again, I think that might be the kind of thing we'd be talking to the staff about in terms of are you comfortable going out during the rain? I mean, I think given the situation, the city will be out there looking at making sure the hill is not sliding down the hill. |
| 01:22:59.59 | Kristina Feller | and making sure the hill's not sliding down. Usually they look for the sloughing off and what's going in the gutters and stuff. I mean, just to monitor it. |
| 01:23:02.10 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, yeah. Yeah. I mean, But you don't want this motion to start requiring the city to do things. That's my concern. I mean, you know, so. |
| 01:23:11.40 | Kristina Feller | Fair point. Fair point. |
| 01:23:13.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do you have a point of information in the... |
| 01:23:13.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:23:14.54 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I just wanted to add as well, I share Commissioner Junius' concern on that. I believe that maybe there's something we could impose that requires the violator to have erosion controls in place and regular checking and things like that and not put the onus on the city to be the one that has to go out and do that. That's something that can be part of the remedial order. |
| 01:23:29.36 | Kristina Feller | Why that is. I'm happy with that. If maker of the motion is happy with that. |
| 01:23:35.90 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:23:35.92 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I would accept that, absolutely. |
| 01:23:36.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:23:38.39 | Andrew Junius | So maybe some kind of a, you know, biweekly monitoring during the rainy season and then monthly after that until the situation stabilizes. |
| 01:23:49.27 | Director Phipps | as a fourth condition, just to. |
| 01:23:51.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:23:51.62 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:23:51.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | as a forest. |
| 01:23:52.78 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 01:23:52.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:23:52.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:23:52.95 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:23:53.32 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah, and more suggestion, I think, would Kristen Taigi staff. |
| 01:23:53.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Kristen, tell you. |
| 01:23:58.84 | Kristin Teiche | it might be behoove you in the city to have them hire an expert, like require that they hire some kind of erosion control expert. their behalf that then submits the reports to the city instead of the city trying to manage it. And if they don't file the reports, then code enforcement can proceed as appropriate. |
| 01:24:16.88 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Yeah, I think we were putting the onus back on the owner. |
| 01:24:17.18 | Kristin Teiche | I think. |
| 01:24:19.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So we're suggesting now a number four, because that seems to be a little bit separate. |
| 01:24:25.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. something to the words that I'm just likely to say okay so |
| 01:24:32.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I know Director Phipps, we need to give you exact wording, right? I understand from the city attorney. Yes. Yes, okay. So, you're drafting number four. |
| 01:24:38.12 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:24:38.14 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:24:38.34 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:24:40.16 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right, let me start that. And hopefully this will be coherent and clear. It is an inclusion of item number four that requires the owner to provide ongoing monitoring of the erosion control biweekly. Bi-weekly during wet seasons? |
| 01:25:07.20 | Andrew Junius | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:25:10.32 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:25:10.57 | Andrew Junius | I think to the comment we just got, why don't we say the property owner shall engage an appropriate professional to perform the erosion mitigation and also on a biweekly basis during the rainy season, provide regular reports to the city as to the condition of the slope, and after that monthly until such time as there's no longer a need for the report. |
| 01:25:35.23 | Kristina Feller | I'm happy with that. Thank you very much. This is legal counsel, if I could just interject for one second. |
| 01:25:37.90 | Annie Branham | legal counsel if I could just |
| 01:25:38.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and eject for one second. |
| 01:25:40.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:40.36 | Nastassya Saad | I'm just going to |
| 01:25:40.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. Still second. It allows that second. And Director Phipps, do you have to read it back? It happened at the previous meeting. |
| 01:25:40.98 | Nastassya Saad | Second. |
| 01:25:41.57 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:25:41.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:41.68 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 01:25:51.28 | Director Phipps | I think Vice Chair Junius stated that beautifully. Okay, good. So you don't have to read it back. And it is on record. So I think we're good to go. |
| 01:25:54.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, good. |
| 01:25:56.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:26:01.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:26:03.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:03.43 | Director Phipps | I'm sorry. |
| 01:26:03.60 | Unknown | Thank you. Oh. |
| 01:26:04.64 | Andrew Junius | So we're adding a condition that basically requires them to hire a professional, not only to do the work, but to monitor it during the rainy season on a regular basis and report back to the city until things settle in and it's no longer needed. |
| 01:26:15.86 | Nastassya Saad | With a $1,000 per tree. With a $1,000 per tree. |
| 01:26:17.28 | Andrew Junius | for tree. |
| 01:26:18.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | $1,000 per tree, for 10 trees, a total of $10,000. |
| 01:26:18.77 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:26:24.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, we have motion of second for the conversation. Seeing none, Director Phipps, can you please take the roll? |
| 01:26:31.29 | Director Phipps | Yep. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:26:33.18 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:26:35.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:26:35.59 | Richard Graef | you |
| 01:26:35.93 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:26:36.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:26:41.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Moving on to item 7C. 7C is an ordinance amending chapter 1054 and section 8.34.002. This ordinance amends chapter 1054 of the Sausalito Municipal Code design review procedures and enacting section 8.34020 related to construction timelines. Ms. Teige is going to do a presentation. This is a public hearing on the proposed amendment, Title 10, Chapter 10.54, design review procedures, and then we are going to consider a resolution making a recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Teige, thank you for being here. |
| 01:27:28.09 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. you Well, thankfully, this time the applicant is the city and we won't be leaving. |
| 01:27:33.88 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 01:27:35.73 | Kristin Teiche | . you |
| 01:27:38.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:38.77 | Kristin Teiche | Okay, so due to ongoing issues with Chapter 10.54, design review procedures, city management had discussions on this matter and directed staff to prepare some amendments with the assistance and review of the city attorney. The identified issues include unclear or confusing wording, review requirements for historic structures which conflict with Chapter 10.46 historic preservation, and requirements that are inconsistent with the standard government practice and or the requirements of the California Government Code. We do. |
| 01:28:13.84 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:28:14.87 | Kristin Teiche | It's important to remember in preparing these amendments that we were somewhat limited due to the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, SB 330. which enacted government code section 66300 The proposed modifications are therefore minimal and In compliance with this code section, which prohibits the affected cities from imposing or enforcing design standards, established on or after January 1st, 2020, that are not objective design standards with respect to housing development projects. However, local jurisdictions can continue to apply subjective design review procedures as long as they are not substantive modification to development standards. So we haven't proposed any substantive modifications to some of our subjective standards. Just want to make that clear. With the above in mind, the proposed changes before you tonight clarify the existing triggers for design review, remove the requirement for the city to subject public works projects to the same discretionary review process that applies to private development projects. They also clean up language and remove redundancies throughout the text where we repeat statements such as the applicability standards under all the various codes. To touch on some of the modifications, Section 1054040, Administrative Design Review Permits, is modified to Review No. 9, Review of Minor Capital Improvement Projects, and 14, Requiring Review of Vehicular Traffic Safety Guardrails deemed necessary by the city engineer. Additional language is proposed to define what a historic resource is under CEQA by reference to relevant CEQA guidelines, and that's to help us with tying design review to the historic. review process appropriately. Lastly, language is added that provides that the Community Development Department shall have authority to approve design review permits for any projects that are eligible for streamlined or ministerial review based on provisions of state law and where the public hearing or design review is prohibited by state law. Under Section 1054050, design review permits has been modified to delete two items, including number 13. Capital Improvement Projects, and number 16, Permits to Construct Wireless Communication Facilities. With regard to roadway and CIP projects, removal of roadway improvements in minor and or more substantive capital improvement projects is proposed to streamline the city's public review process or public works process. Generally, the practice of determining the need for and the design for safety improvements is the Department of Public Works and the city engineer. Design and necessary materials will be based on a variety of factors, including location, roadway, speed limit, Etcetera. There are items that are proposed in the interest of public safety and potentially subject to engineering standards or federal laws related to accessibility. Therefore, unnecessary delay in the final design and installation are not in the public's best interest, nor necessarily appropriate or legally viable. Additionally, public works projects are frequently grant funded with limited or no budget for redesign. The modifications will also bring the city's practice into greater conformity with California Government Code 65401. which provides the Planning Commission's role under state law, with respect to city projects, is to review the overall capital improvement program for conformity with the city's adopted general plans. City staff have reviewed design review procedures in other cities, and it's highly unusual for public works, particularly roadway projects, guardrail projects, safety improvements. to be subject to discretionary design review. The one exception that is pretty universal is buildings. If you have a new public building you're proposing that tends to go through a public hearing process, which is pretty standard. This process can unduly hinder the management and implementation of CIP projects and can cause the loss of grants and outside funding sources due to lack of compliance with progress deadlines. I've seen that happen. Removal of wireless communication facilities is necessary for compliance with FCC regulations, California government code, as well as our own Chapter 1045, Standards and Criteria for Wireless Communications. Section 1045.070 currently provides the requirements for design review and use permits. It also provides the findings that we can make for approval of these facilities. And it very clearly states that other chapters are not applicable. And quite frankly, the design review findings are not really applicable to a wireless facility in general. which are really more designed for private improvements, homes and buildings. Subsection 1054050F has been added to provide that the Planning Commission may conduct oversight hearings to determine compliance with objective standards for projects that are subject to SB 35 and AB 2011. Prior subsection 10454050F is now G and has been revised to clean up language and to delete the requirement that 105090 conditions of approval and 1050100 Recommended conditions of approval shall be imposed. 10.54070 additional submittal requires has been deleted as it conflicts with the provisions of government code, which requires the city to provide a comprehensive list up front and not after a project's been deemed complete and is going through the public hearing process. We do have a comprehensive list that's available to the public on the city website, and we hand out over-the-counter. It includes the items that are referenced in this section that we are proposing to delete. 10-54090, conditions of approval. This section has been deleted. The Planning Commission has the authority to apply applicable conditions to every project you see here in the discretionary permit review. There are no legal requirements to list conditions in the code in order to adopt them. Some of them are really unused and not really appropriate as well for 90% of the projects you're going to see. 10-54080, time limits for construction. This subsection has been deleted with this chapter, edited, and is proposed to be relocated in Title VIII. building and construction. where it can be applied to all building permits and not only projects that have gone through the design review process. And that will help us with more substantive remodels that did not require design review that go on and on. So at this point, we recommend that you conduct a public hearing of the proposed ordinance and zoning amendments, that you adopt the attached resolution recommending Council adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, and if determined appropriate, the Commission can recommend revisions to the language that we drafted for your considerations. |
| 01:35:10.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ms. Teichy. Questions of staff? Commissioner Sada. |
| 01:35:17.99 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. So for... The additional submittals required that we were proposed to delete 10.54070. Just as an example, because you know how we've in the past asked for shadow studies sometimes that were either not there prior or I think even from like four to six pines. there was even a discussion about a third party |
| 01:35:50.05 | Unknown | Thank you. Um, |
| 01:35:50.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:35:50.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:50.37 | Nastassya Saad | Something like that. So is removing this part of the code would remove that as an example from we would lose the it would no longer be in our remit to ask for those things. Is that correct. Am I understanding that correctly. |
| 01:36:04.78 | Kristin Teiche | Not necessarily. I think the point here is that it can't be codified as a requirement in our code to occur during a public hearing. But if you were working with the applicant, and I'm sure the city attorney can chime in And you requested additional aids to help you make a decision. And they agreed to it. voluntarily. that you probably could request it. Um, We can have the city attorney verify that, but that seems to be the practice I've experienced in other cities. |
| 01:36:32.00 | Annie Branham | Yes, I would confirm that, that you can always work voluntarily with the applicant. But, you know, one other thing I would suggest is that if that's something that is commonly or regularly required that the point here with the edits to 10.54.070 are to make sure that the applicant knows upfront what may be required of them. So even if it's just a potentially, this may be required of you, maybe we could add that as something to the list that's given to applicants so that they're at least put on notice that this is the thing they may be asked to work with the city on. |
| 01:37:02.56 | Kristin Teiche | I believe it probably is in the list. Okay, great. |
| 01:37:05.82 | Annie Branham | Okay, great. |
| 01:37:06.36 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. Brandon's nodding. I think it's one of the possible requirements that could be, you know, requested by staff. |
| 01:37:15.07 | Annie Branham | Perfect. Then yeah, I would just echo that this is really just a matter of timing with respect to the edits that are proposed for the section in order to ensure compliance with state law, but it won't prohibit the city from working with the applicant voluntarily. |
| 01:37:27.05 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay, that's good to know. You know, this conversation hasn't really, we haven't had a discussion here yet prior. So I don't doubt in the staff report it had said that there were some issues between staff and applicant, which is part of the reason that this is proposed. Do you just have some examples because it's not something that's really brought to our attention? What kind of issues you guys are running into with the way the code that it's currently |
| 01:37:52.55 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 01:37:58.66 | Kristin Teiche | Some of the review requirements confuse people, and we spend a lot of time explaining to them that, yes, they do really have to go to design review, that they're not exempt because it doesn't exactly say, something very specific that they believe it needs to say. But one primary problem I've run into is under administrative design review, for instance, There's a list of... improvements you can make to historic homes. that supposedly can have administrative design review. And it does reference CEQA, and it does say that, you know, provided. But it kind of gives the impression that they don't have to go to historic review or are not subject to it, which they are. Because if you read the chapter on historic review, None of these improvements would be exempt likely if they were on any elevation that's THE END OF THE END OF THE So people get the wrong impression that they don't have to go through these review processes. So we were just trying to clean that up some, and it was hard to do because of these new provisions of state law. Sergio was very cautious about how he rewrote the code. You couldn't add any new requirements. So he tried to add clarification. |
| 01:39:07.37 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay. And then actually on the note of historic, I just had one, there was an |
| 01:39:18.83 | Nastassya Saad | I should be on the administrative design review permits 10.54040, and I'm all the way down now. What was 15 has changed to 13. Applications for what's added is privately owned properties identified on the local historic resources inventory. So privately owned is an addition. Is that too limiting in terms of what if the city were to take ownership of a... . of a historic resource, you know, like for example, the bank of America building never, yeah, like city hall, you know, you never thought the city would own that. So just in the, I just don't know if that's too narrow. Um, |
| 01:39:59.95 | Unknown | Like City Hall. |
| 01:40:09.86 | Nastassya Saad | of a view for local historic resources. I just wasn't sure why that the intent behind that that edit? Do we do you know it's very, you know, |
| 01:40:19.63 | Kristin Teiche | You know, Sergio added that, and I honestly never specifically said, why did you do that? So why don't we see if the city attorney is aware of why he would have added that? |
| 01:40:29.82 | Annie Branham | Can you point me towards the specific section number again? |
| 01:40:31.06 | Nastassya Saad | I think would maybe be on the third page, but I'm looking at the |
| 01:40:32.78 | Annie Branham | Thank you. |
| 01:40:38.31 | Nastassya Saad | administrative design review permits. It's 10.54040. And... |
| 01:40:45.30 | Director Phipps | There you go, and it's on the share screen. And sorry to interrupt, Commissioner. |
| 01:40:47.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:40:47.95 | Unknown | Oh, God. |
| 01:40:48.32 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, that's where I'm looking. Privately owned has been added in. |
| 01:40:48.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:54.16 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:40:54.19 | Annie Branham | Yes. So I think this was, and what I would say is, I'm guessing based on my own experience, I also did not specifically talk to Sergio about this provision, but I think this is to make it consistent with the concept that we're also, as part of the overall changes, taking publicly owned property out of the discretionary design review process, at least in some cases, so that city projects don't have to go through the same you know, sort of more onerous process. So I imagine it was for consistency with that. But. I think you could, as part of your recommendation, and then this could be considered by counsel, which Sergio, of course, will be at that meeting and can guide them. But as part of your recommendation tonight, you could ask for potentially removal of that language or at least clarification of it before Council adopts it. |
| 01:41:43.94 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. is, Thank you very much. Are these changes and this concept for making these edits, is this at the direction of council? |
| 01:41:58.87 | Kristin Teiche | I was directed by the planning director to make this. |
| 01:42:04.95 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Those are all the questions I have. |
| 01:42:09.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad, Vice Chair Jr. |
| 01:42:13.18 | Richard Graef | Uh, |
| 01:42:13.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No questions for |
| 01:42:14.36 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 01:42:14.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Commissioner Graff, questions of staff. |
| 01:42:17.84 | Richard Graef | None right now. Thank you. |
| 01:42:19.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:42:19.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller, question. |
| 01:42:22.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of stuff. |
| 01:42:22.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:42:22.95 | Kristina Feller | Yes, thank you, Chair. Just a couple, and why don't I start with just going back to where Commissioner Saad sort of ended off here, because I think one of the issues that is being highlighted by this privately owned language, those two words, is it completely ignores the development agreements and the language in that entire vehicle that was approved by this body and for recommendation for final ratification by city council and that is part of what we have here in Sausalito as a vehicle so that is in essence a public private partnership potentially under those kind of development agreements. I'm not really sure how this applies if you're in that sort of situation. So let me allow you to comment on that real quick. I've got some questions. |
| 01:43:14.66 | Kristin Teiche | I'm not really clear what you mean by development agreements. |
| 01:43:17.46 | Kristina Feller | So we approved language and... and actual development agreements here in Sausalito, which is a vehicle, a potential vehicle for public-private partnership. So when you're talking about privately owned, if it's a public-private situation where either, you know, the city owns a land or the building and engages with the private sector, how are you defining privately owned? |
| 01:43:44.86 | Kristin Teiche | Well, I would assume privately owned is a... is a piece of property that's owned by an individual member of the community and not necessarily government entity. Thank you. |
| 01:43:54.15 | Kristina Feller | Right. If this is an ordinance, I don't think we can assume anything. I don't think we should be in the guessing game. I think that's what I'm assuming some of this language is meant to clean up is assumptions or |
| 01:43:54.18 | Kristin Teiche | Right, right. |
| 01:44:05.84 | Kristina Feller | different interpretations by different people. So I don't want to pick on that too much, but I think you get the drift of where I'm going. What's been drafted here doesn't really take into account all the other tools and ordinances of the city, and so it's really looking at just this in isolation where indeed a lot of these things have a lot of connectivity. So I'm a little, I'm surprised at some of this because there are other parts of our code or other ordinances where |
| 01:44:13.18 | Paul Van Hook | going. |
| 01:44:36.37 | Kristina Feller | some of this language can be contradictory of that and for two and a half years, we've been requesting, you know, funding for initiative for the city to update all of our ordinances and codes because some of these are |
| 01:44:49.63 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 01:44:52.04 | Kristina Feller | are very long in the tooth, back to the 80s and 90s. And so they're not even truthfully applicable or enforceable anymore. And so, you know... I'm more interested in looking at this in the context of that because it's very, very difficult, as you know, to just cherry pick certain little pieces in part without looking at the intended or unintended consequences of the impacts to other parts of our codes and other ordinances. So I just wanna put that out there. The other question I have is you made sort of mention of other jurisdictions, or I've seen this or that many different times, but there's really nothing in the staff report that identifies that, you know, for a justification of what we're looking at here. So for example, I mean, if it, you know, where exactly is this imposed in other similar cities, towns to Sausalito? And so you mentioned it in the presentation, but I don't see anything in any kind of standard for these types of amendments. |
| 01:46:11.09 | Kristin Teiche | Are you talking about capital improvement projects in design review? In the cities I've worked at, they have not done that. They've limited the planning commission's activity to |
| 01:46:13.47 | Kristina Feller | in design. |
| 01:46:20.48 | Kristin Teiche | review of the compliance with general plan. I haven't identified a city here in Marin that also does this. Sausalito has some unique regulations that I haven't experienced in other communities. |
| 01:46:33.09 | Kristina Feller | I haven't experienced another kid. Well, we're a highly unique city. So that's why I'm curious. And I don't, you know. |
| 01:46:37.02 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah. |
| 01:46:40.28 | Kristina Feller | Believe me, I know you're incredibly well qualified and have an incredible career, but I don't know where else you work, so I don't know what you're referring to. |
| 01:46:47.69 | Paul Van Hook | You work. |
| 01:46:50.10 | Kristina Feller | And I'm sure that the public doesn't know what you're referring to. When we're looking at things like this, I think it's important that that type of information is rooted in. sort of what is an industry standard or why ordinances are put in certain places. We do have some very, very different ones than other cities that we do know of here in Marin, |
| 01:47:06.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:15.62 | Kristina Feller | or elsewhere, just as they have very different ones from us. And it's usually born from unique and special conditions you know, like we have a working waterfront, where else is there a working waterfront? And we're at nowhere, you know, so there's some oddities with just what's happening in the city, so, I think that I was looking for a little bit more in the staff report to really help explain or justify the Um, what some of these ordinance changes are. I do believe we have to update a lot. And I'm not saying we don't have to update this, but I really don't think it should be in isolation because all of these things are very, very interconnected and there are references back and forth between |
| 01:47:56.34 | Paul Van Hook | Oh. |
| 01:48:03.02 | Kristina Feller | ordinances and municipal codes. So it almost starts to look like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Well, |
| 01:48:10.48 | Kristin Teiche | This is a design review chapter, which is a little bit more of a limited animal than some other portions of the code. And there are references in other portions of the Code 2 design review to send people there if they say they're subject to it. But I don't believe that these changes are going to run afoul of any major issues or create any issues, any major issues in our code or by conflicting with the remainder of the body of the code. A design review is set to tell you when design review is required and under what circumstances, and it's primarily applicable. |
| 01:48:38.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:41.88 | Kristin Teiche | to privately held property. It really is. I mean, 99.9% of the stuff we are gonna bring to you is all privately held piece of property. And that is the main basis of design reviews, to try and encourage community development in a manner that meets the city's visions. |
| 01:48:58.76 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:48:59.14 | Kristin Teiche | With regard to your development agreements, I'm not really clear, again, how those fit into this, but Design Review does not codify that requirement, nor is it codified in any portion of the code I've ever read here. So I don't know that this is really an applicable issue. |
| 01:49:15.01 | Kristina Feller | I think we need to look at it because I specifically remember um, that all of those development agreements should one ever surface here in Sausalito, they do have to come through the Planning Commission. |
| 01:49:31.32 | Director Phipps | If I may, chapter 10.81 of our code is a chapter on development agreements, and it exists as separate from chapter 10.54. |
| 01:49:42.38 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, yeah, it's definitely different. But these things need to be looked at collectively, not in isolation. And I just don't know that we have enough information. |
| 01:49:51.93 | Kristin Teiche | I still don't understand if there's a direct relationship or nexus between that and design review. Does that chapter have references to design review, Brandon? I mean, I, Again, the fact that you go enter into a development agreement doesn't preclude you from imposing the design review standards that you adopt or changes to them. |
| 01:50:11.99 | Kristina Feller | It depends if you consider it a public property or a private one. Or if it's jointly owned, it's half pregnant. So what do you do with it? Thank you. |
| 01:50:21.46 | Kristin Teiche | Are there any joints? |
| 01:50:22.32 | Kristina Feller | owned properties in Sausalito? That's the purpose of a development agreement is to allow that. So there's a vehicle there for that to happen. |
| 01:50:33.41 | Kristin Teiche | I'm still not clear if there is a conflict here. I'm not seeing one, but perhaps the city attorney could weigh in on this. |
| 01:50:40.72 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think that's why I'm making the point that, you know, I'm not clear that there's enough information here. or in-depth dive into sort of some of the other adjacent I mean, you can't just look at one chapter in isolation because there's references to across or their impacts. backwards and forwards. And I don't see in the staff report that there's anything of that kind. So I'm just, that's why I'm asking these questions. I think I've made my point. So I'll turn the floor over. Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:51:16.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:51:16.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I have some comments, but I think that they're not questions. I think they're to what the city attorney suggested that we do is that we want to make changes. I have specific changes, so I'll leave them to not be questioned because they're not really questions. I do have some, but I'll say this during the comment period, but I did contact some of our neighboring communities and got somewhat different. So I am curious about what communities there are, but the specific list isn't as important as the fact that we have to look at what it is we do and don't want in our code. So with that, I'm not going to have additional questions. Are there any additional questions of Kristen at this point? With not, thank you for your excellent review and excellent presentation this evening, and we'll bring it up to the dais to figure out how we want to proceed. Yes, thank you for reminding me about that. At this point, we will have public comment or if anybody in the audience wants to speak, you can pull out a speaker card or if anybody online. I'm not seeing anybody online, I'm not seeing anybody in the audience with raised hands. So we'll close public comment and bring it back up to the dais here. I have some suggested language changes, but I'll leave those to hear what others have for me. |
| 01:52:50.13 | Andrew Junius | I'll start off then. One of my favorite things in the whole world as a land use lawyer is code cleanup. So this is really an exciting moment for me to get to comment on a piece of the code here that is, I'm very, very supportive of this. And I think staff's been pretty clear about It's an isolated chapter of the South Sudomunicipal Code. I think for the most part the changes are completely appropriate. I did want to, the issue about the, I think that probably the big elephant in the room here is the change is the removal from our jurisdiction of the capital improvement projects, which I support. And I just want to make sure that anybody who's listening, which probably isn't only the government geeks tonight are tuning in, but, um, You know, The staff comment, that was made a minute ago is I think really, very, very relevant. 99.9% of the stuff that comes to this commission, the jurisdiction of the planning commission right now for the most part is over private property, right? We're given jurisdiction to grant design review projects and review projects that the staff brings to us to basically implement the zoning code on private property. And that's... I mean, that's just the way our system in California has kind of grown up. the idea that an applicant, a private property owner, looks at the planning code, talks to professionals, brings an application forward to make a change on their property. It's processed through the staff. It comes to the commission. The commission essentially has final approval on that action. unless it's appealed and then, and it's a kind of a straight line goes, it goes right through the process. Maybe there's an appeal or not, but there's an end and there's not, you know, there's not potentials for Eddie's back and things like that. So that's the. That's 99% of what every planning commission in California does. With respect to public projects, I mean, I don't think there's a problem with the Planning Commission getting some type of, you know, advisory role, you know, commenting on a design. input, you know, I think that's completely appropriate. But the real problem is that the applicant is the city. and the end result goes to the city as well. So the city council kind of initiates these processes and then to have it go through anything more than a comment period to the planning commission. And the planning commission is a great place to have maybe multiple public meetings to engage the public and get get ideas and throw it all on the page and try to get some input. But after that, it really is up to the City Council because it's the City Council's ultimate decision as to what to do with the with the capital project they're the ones who regulate the funds of the city. They're the ones that are the elected officials of the city and for the Planning Commission to in some way try to bind the city council to some result through this process just doesn't make any sense. confusion about that is going to be clarified when that just is taken away from the planning commission here. I think I agree. I don't think there are very many planning commissions in this provision in their jurisdiction. So I'm supportive of that. I don't think it's anything more than a clarification and a kind of a cleanup that will help the occasional project in the future. I'm not sure I understand either the comment about development agreements. I mean, development agreements in my world are essentially contracts between a private property or a private property. entity, usually related to a private property and the jurisdiction. And it may include design review, may not. It's a deal. that's governed by a different, completely different part of the code. So I don't see a conflict there. I'm glad that the part about You know, moving time limits for construction into the building code essentially is the right way to go. That's a good cleanup. And there were, there are a lot of things here that, you know, don't really make sense anymore. So I'm glad those are getting cleaned up as well. um, Uh... And I think that's probably it to start with. But in general, from my experience in 30 plus years of doing this, mostly in San Francisco, but this really is, it's really hard to like completely revamp an entire code. It usually never happens. It comes, this is the way it comes. Entire chapters get looked at and they get fixed. And it's an imperfect process, but this, I think this is important right now. I think it's good cleanup. I think it's going to help the city down the road and I'm very supportive. |
| 01:57:21.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. We'll go through each of us on our issues, and then we'll decide how to proceed. Commissioner Tsai. |
| 01:57:22.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:57:31.52 | Nastassya Saad | I was just trying to read the staff report on my phone here. I think it's no surprise that my vice chair, Junius, and I are always on different ends of the spectrum here, but always great to hear your opinion, and it's always valued. I do have... I do have some Confusion and I think I would not have known you know about this the developer agreements. I probably wouldn't have come to that conclusion That's why I appreciate multiple minds here, but that privately owned um comment just became a sticking point in my head. And I don't know if Commissioner Fowler and I are even trying to get to the same thing, but... It just seems a little narrow to me and a little restrictive And I don't know if it would create potential confusion down the road. Um, I don't know if I agree with the concept of the capital improvement projects being removed from our remit. No, I'm barring legal saying it's 100%. not appropriate for us to do it. I don't, I'm not reading the staff report. Um, it's, it's seemingly open here and, and if it is open, um, oh, thank you very much. Uh, I think it's worth a discussion up here between us. I think we've heard one opinion. I'm definitely of the other opinion, so I would be hopeful that the rest of you can weigh in and we can have a discussion there just because, for clarification purposes, and maybe I can ask, it wasn't the ferry landing Um, project. Is that considered a capital improvement project? It is. Thank you. So staff is nodding. And that one, I think, is a, |
| 01:59:18.52 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 01:59:18.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:59:18.90 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 01:59:23.77 | Nastassya Saad | We are a unique town. To Commissioner Feller's point, we are a unique town, and I think that that calls for some weigh-in that is outside of just city council, and I think it can be a blessing and a curse to be in our remit, but if I had to choose whether I was on the commission or not, I would love to have a planning commission have some weigh in as it moves through the public process. So there's some little edits here that I think I'm fine with. I think it obviously makes sense for this time limit construction. And, you know, there's some general light cleanup that I have no issues with, but some of the big elephant in the room I do take issue with. And I don't think I'm comfortable yet tonight to move forward, but I would love to continue the discussion. The capital improvement projects will be a sticking point for me personally. |
| 02:00:15.88 | Director Phipps | Chair, may I request an opportunity to provide a quick comment? |
| 02:00:16.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:00:16.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:00:16.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:00:16.15 | Nastassya Saad | There's a lot of people. |
| 02:00:16.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 02:00:20.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sorry, say that again. |
| 02:00:21.89 | Director Phipps | May I provide a comment? |
| 02:00:23.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:00:25.57 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. One of the goals of making the edits to this chapter is to eliminate redundancy. And there is a provision in state law that requires that the Planning Commission review the capital improvement program of the city to ensure that there is consistency with the general plan. That's Government Code Section 65103, Subsection C. So there is a tool built into state law that does require that the Planning Commission hear capital improvement projects. Our position is that that is a more appropriate way for the Commission to review capital improvement projects. As we've found in connection with the ferry landing, the review of those improvements in connection with the required design review findings and 10.5 FURD don't really match. There's not really a union there that makes sense. And we believe that defaulting to the state policy with an annual review is a great way to check the box so that the Planning Commission has a bite at the apple, the Capital Improvement Project apple, if you will, without having any redundancy in our code. Thank you. |
| 02:01:37.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:01:40.80 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Well, maybe. Brendan has clarified this, but I also think that that we have a role in David Kramer, Ph.D.: Capital improvement projects and I think we have had in the past. |
| 02:02:00.42 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 02:02:00.81 | Richard Graef | I can think of a couple that are probably relatively unimportant, such as guardrails. And we have actually addressed things like that. Rarely, but we have. But anything that comes up like the ferry landing, and I, a few years ago, There was the big remodel of the pump out facilities down on Bridgeway. Coloma, that was a big project and I guess that's a capital improvement project. We had a lot of input there. We had many, many discussions about that. So I think it's... I think it's totally should be in our purview for anything that's, significant, I don't know how you put it. a definition on that, but it would not be. uh Thank you. safety barriers on a curved street, but it certainly would be any any kind of architectural or landscape |
| 02:03:07.37 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:03:12.73 | Richard Graef | project that the city was engaged in. So, yeah, I think we should weigh in there. Thank you. |
| 02:03:20.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm thinking of Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:03:23.33 | Kristina Feller | Um, can i just go back to a quick clarification uh director pips you mentioned um in your point of clarification, you mentioned an annual review by the Planning Commission. of capital improvement. Did I hear that incorrectly? |
| 02:03:41.35 | Matt Singer | No. |
| 02:03:42.85 | Kristina Feller | So how exactly would you see that working in the context of some of these projects that were that Commissioner Graff has referred to and Commissioner Saad in terms of |
| 02:03:55.12 | Director Phipps | Yeah, so this, to me, just requires collaboration with the Planning Commission and the Department of Public Works and the Community Development Department. So, you know, my first wish was that I knew the capital improvement program by heart so I could tell you exactly all the projects and, you know, which ones we would be hearing and which ones we would not. But the answer is we will be hearing all the capital improvement projects on the capital improvement program list. and those projects will be reviewed by the commission with working in collaboration with is we will be hearing all the capital improvement projects on the capital improvement program list. And those projects will be reviewed by the commission with working in collaboration with DPW staff and CDD staff to ensure compliance with the general plan. |
| 02:04:28.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Thank you for the, for the clarification. Did you, did you have a, I'm not sure. |
| 02:04:35.20 | Richard Graef | A clarification to the clarification. Before I lose my thought here. Um, Oh. Yeah, it had to do with compliance with the general plan. We look at it from that standpoint. That's not the only way we look at it, right? you other more subtle details that we consider. seems to me. |
| 02:05:05.27 | Director Phipps | That would be the extent of the Planning Commission's responsibility. You know, again, I think part of the reason why we are suggesting these changes is because the findings associated with design review don't really match up well with capital improvement programs. Design review, I think, as we've discussed in 99% of cases, 99.9 perhaps, are related to new structures. And those findings are much more appropriate for new structures as opposed to capital improvement projects. So that would be my response and apologies if I haven't answered your question. Thank you. |
| 02:05:08.27 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:05:08.33 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:05:46.31 | Kristina Feller | But don't we have, you know, capital improvement projects can include buildings. They're not just roads or sewer or buildings. the primary infrastructure. I mean, within the public realm, there is a lot of landscape within the public realm. There's, you know, you could have public restrooms or, you know, things of that kind. So are you suggesting that none of those would be in our purview anymore for design review, but only for what might be on a capital improvement list? |
| 02:06:19.98 | Director Phipps | Yeah, again, I'd like to, you know, I wish I had that program document in front of me and or knew it by heart, but that may be the case. I will say, though, that in the code, there is a trigger for designer review to be applied to structures. That is 10.54.050. Number five, any commercial, industrial, or similar structure composed for construction? There may not, I'm not, |
| 02:06:49.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sorry to interrupt, can you repeat that sort of thing? |
| 02:06:52.38 | Director Phipps | It's in the design review permits section 10.54.050, number five. |
| 02:07:01.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. And are you suggesting that includes public sector projects? |
| 02:07:08.00 | Director Phipps | I am suggesting it includes any commercial, industrial, or similar structure composed for proposed for construction. |
| 02:07:14.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So let's take, for example, the library. Does that include the law? |
| 02:07:21.10 | Director Phipps | Obviously, there's some interpretation here, but I would include that. |
| 02:07:24.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:07:29.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:07:30.02 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Well, yeah, but that that's also a little unclear, but I don't want to harp on that one project, because that was not a result of this ordinance not being revised here that was something different. |
| 02:07:44.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, can we, since we're having this conversation, can we have the city attorney, I would not interpret this this way, but the city attorney has reviewed this language, but any commercial, industrial, or similar structure proposed for construction, would that include renovation of city hall, renovation of a library, or a similar structure that's publicly owned? because language in here throughout about private property and it would seem to me that that does not cover I would think. library would be a capital improvement project so would be covered on that statement that's being requested to be deleted. |
| 02:08:28.99 | Annie Branham | No, I think there's still room, as Director Fitz has noted, to include, if it's not specified in subsection five, there's no reason to read into it a requirement that it does not apply. to public buildings. I think the idea with adding the privately owned language or clarifying at least in the code that it will, discretionary design review will no longer apply to Carolyn Samuel, Dr. of the year, the first question is that the Carolyn Samuel, Dr. of the year, the first question is that the second question is that the first question is that the second question is that the second question is that the second question is that the second question is that the second question is that the second question is that the second question is that the second question is the director's interpretation that five, subsection five, could continue to apply. to a public building if it fits within, right? So, you know, commercial, industrial or similar structure, |
| 02:09:11.21 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:09:11.26 | Unknown | you |
| 02:09:11.29 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 02:09:13.50 | Annie Branham | that's going to be constructed. But what you would end up with is clarity as to the more traditional capital improvement projects such as roads that don't fit into discretionary design review. I think this is intended to be I don't know if compromise is the right word, but I think it's intended to allow the city to more efficiently move forward with its capital improvement projects, while still allowing when appropriate for design review on something like a structure that's being built. |
| 02:09:44.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ann. Thank you. |
| 02:09:46.54 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Other comments? Yeah, let me continue here. Thank you, Chair. It will come to nobody's surprise here that I've been a very loud speaker |
| 02:09:46.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. you Thank you. Other comments. Yeah, let me. |
| 02:10:00.48 | Kristina Feller | and constant voice to get ordinances, municipal codes cleaned up, updated, and a little bit more cohesive. So that's, you know, something that I'm initiative that I'm firmly behind. And I think that's why a vice chair genius and I have been pushing the objective design development standards so so hard and so consistently. So, I welcome any updates. I'm a little bit concerned about looking at this in total isolation. of other elements. And I think our conversations are kind of clear that You know, there's not enough context in the staff report also to really understand |
| 02:10:45.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:10:45.98 | Kristina Feller | the other jurisdictions. And I think that that's important, not just for us, but I think the public, in order for them to weigh in as well. I think that's a good question. I'm not ready to take an action because I think there's more information that we need here. based on my comments before And I'm going to be looking to make a motion at some point to continue this so we can just get this right. I mean, this is important. And I'm not there yet, and I'm certainly trying to get there, but I'm not. So that's really where I stand now. It's not a lack of support for updating ordinances or codes. It's not being comfortable with what's in front of me here in order to make a comprehensive and a lack of support for updating ordinances or codes. It's not being comfortable with what's in front of me here in order to make a comprehensive and complete finding this evening. |
| 02:11:37.90 | Annie Branham | And if I may, just because I think I hate to interrupt, but I think this may be helpful in, Sarah Silver, guiding the discussion, my understanding is that this item is scheduled for the December 19 city council meeting and so that's not to say that you can't continue it for planning commission consideration, but I think you know, to the extent you have some guiding. parameters that you'd like to put in place for city council consideration, tonight would be the time to do that. Um, Brandon, correct me if that's incorrect, but when I spoke with Sergio, it sounded like it was going to council on December 19th. And they were hoping to have feedback from the commission at that time. |
| 02:12:15.18 | Director Phipps | Yeah, thank you, Ann. That's accurate. The council is hoping that the commission renders a decision on this item this evening. If there are items that are of concern to the commissioners, my recommendation would be that that be included in the recommendation of approval or denial. |
| 02:12:35.99 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I wasn't aware that the city council has published their agenda yet. You know, I think it's more important to get this right than to live up to an agenda that's not even published. I mean, this is important material. It is. finds public policy and our roadmap. So I will stand by my comment. |
| 02:12:60.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:13:01.20 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:13:01.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:13:01.23 | Andrew Junius | A clarifying question before you get to your details. Just to confirm. I'm curious, though, if we continue this, can the city council still act? They can't act at all. They must get a decision from this. They must get this out of the planning commission. |
| 02:13:01.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:13:16.79 | Director Phipps | Recommendation from the Commission, I believe, is required for City Council to render a determination. |
| 02:13:23.94 | Annie Branham | And the only thing I would add to that is that city council has statutory authority to require the planning commission to render a decision one way or another within 45 days. And so my again, you know, my understanding is that if council does not have something from planning commission on the 19th its next course of action would be to. you know, trigger that statutory requirement to essentially force planning commission's hand to make a decision within 45 days to approve, deny, modify, et cetera, but not to, fail to take an action. |
| 02:13:54.02 | Andrew Junius | Right, and if the commission makes no action or can't get it done out within that 45 days, the city council can just move forward. |
| 02:14:01.39 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. |
| 02:14:01.51 | Andrew Junius | Correct. |
| 02:14:03.70 | Kristina Feller | I understood that and thank you for the clarification. I just don't want to be irresponsible with what we're doing here. So I mean this was, you know, wasn't planning on I didn't even know that this was an initiative. So I'm trying to get the information we need, at least for myself, to move forward. |
| 02:14:21.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:14:22.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. I have some comments specific to this. I also chime in on the same wavelength that it's good to clean up the municipal code, that there's a number of things in here, such as the cell towers, which we really can't control now with the federal laws and language related to projects that come in under the new housing initiatives that have been adopted by the state legislature. So we do need to have those cleanups. My comments are very specific to specific language, so I'm going to try to describe them. I'll start with the less controversial ones first. There's a section and we all have it in front of us, so I will do this. I understand the concern that the Planning Commission would require some sort of shadow study, for example, after the project is deemed complete and it creates some anomalies. Having said that, there's nothing that says we can't require these submittals. So my suggestion in order to address what was defined in the city staff report would be to take what is in 1054 70 which we can all look at which talks about models and photo montages and community generated imaging and or reports by expert consultants to address potential issues or concerns such as noise, odor, glare, sunlight, drainage, and traffic. And I'm going to explain how – give me a second to get the concept out because we only got this a few days ago, and when you're starting to edit stuff like this, it's a little hard. I want to make the following statement as item M under submittal requirements, and it would say as follows. It'll say additional submittals, models, photo montages, computer-generated imaging, and reports by expert consultants to address potential issues of concern such as noise, odor, glare, sunlight, drainage, and traffic. Then what I want to do is the last sentence after L, but before N5470, says the community development director may waive specific submittal requirements were not applicable. I want to modify that to say the community development director may waive specific submittal requirements were not applicable, including but not limited to models, photo montages. So it'll be within the director of the community development director to say we don't need these. But when the project comes into the planning department and they think a shadow study is needed or there's some issue about traffic that's needed that the director will not waive that requirement and he will make it happen so that when the application is complete it will have these things before it comes to us if we don't do what i'm suggesting and then the it says that the director can ask for that later or the staff can ask for it if the applicant says okay, we're going to be in a situation where the applicant's going to say, no, I don't want to provide that. So I don't see any reason why we can't put this in the list of submittal requirements. And then a lot of times, most times, it's not needed, and the director says they're not needed. And then we as a commission might be at a loss for something we might need, but we won't have this conflict that was identified in the staff report that said, you know, the application's complete and now we're asking for others. Um, |
| 02:18:11.87 | Kristin Teiche | My one concern, of course, is the state law I referenced or the government code that I referenced right at the beginning and that limits our ability to make any changes to this code other than to ask for objective. design parameter standards. And I'm not sure. The city attorney should probably weigh in, but I'm not sure we can codify new requirements such as light and air studies or noise that you probably We probably can, but we already have these things on our submittal requirements checklist that we provide to the applicants. So they are aware of them up front, and that's what's important is they're aware of them up front. and not And not. list things that they have to potentially provide during a hearing. |
| 02:18:54.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I'm not suggesting that we suggest to potentially provide them. I'm suggesting taking what we already have on the checklist and what we already have in the code and moving it out of section 105470 and moving it up to the section before, which is 105470. Oh six oh that's all I'm doing. I'm not adding anything new. I'm just moving it. And so, and I am taking it away from the Commission's ability to do that. Because I understand the problem of us requiring stuff later. But what does the but you know so it's not nothing new is just relocating. |
| 02:19:36.76 | Annie Branham | And I'll just chime in briefly and say, I understand that what you're saying is just, you're taking, criteria that are already in the code and just making sure that they're required at the time of submittal, just like other items are so that, you don't get to a point later in the project where you're requiring them after application completion, So you're taking existing standards, but changing the timing and in the process when they're submitted. So what I would say for staff purposes is we would welcome that as a suggestion on the part of the planning commission, if you ultimately make the motion to include these suggestions. And then Council can review, you know, of course, if it if it determines that that's an appropriate suggestion, it wants to make that change, but I think you're you can make that. suggestion as part of this discussion. |
| 02:20:21.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Ann, thank you. And yeah, I'm just trying to acknowledge what we already have and just solve the issue that's been identified that we would be requiring stuff after the application is complete. So that's one set of recommendations that I'm making. The second one is, well, the elephant in the room is Section 13, and I'm going to say that I've only had this a few days. I have made some calls, and I've looked at a bunch of code. I looked at San Francisco, and I might be wrong, but what I can read on paper is a public sector project in San Francisco definitely requires design review. A public sector project in San Rafael requires design review. I called Tiburon, which is a very similar community, and I asked, do you require a design review of your public sector? And she said, absolutely. She said, we need to hold the city to the same standards we require of the private sector. And I'm not talking about guardrails. The Section 13 already excludes guardrails. So I'm suggesting leaving. I completely disagree with the idea that a commercial industrial thing covers the library, the city hall, and to Commissioner Feller's comments about public-private agreements. We own the Bank of America building. We own Elmo Cake Park. We own the land under the Sausalito Yacht Club. These are all public sector projects that we lease out. Thank you. elmo cake park we own the land under the sausalito yacht club these are all public sector projects that we lease out and so there gets to be a point where if the city wants to do it on their own it and we i also have i take issue with the number 13 where it said privately owned if we if we do that then then the city should be held to the same standards as everybody else. I think that some of this comes out of the Ferry Landing Project, which I think was more problematic about, it happened during the pandemic and it didn't get reviewed the way it was supposed to in the beginning and it didn't happen properly. But if it happens properly, and we didn't have the pandemic and there wasn't all that going on and having meetings via Zoom and all that other stuff, we would not have had the problem. So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I, as a planning director, built several schools in Massachusetts, and we had the same provision. We had to go to a board, get it approved. I agree with Commissioner Graff. We're not talking about reviewing of a capital improvement program about, you know, is it needed or not needed. This is a design review. I'm more concerned about structures, and I do not think that's covered by a commercial or industrial. That's the first thing somebody's going to argue is the public sector projects are completely out. That was the intent of this. So I think public sector projects should be covered by our own rules. So I would recommend, but I do understand the need to get this to the council. So my suggestions this evening are to make the changes I suggested on the submittals, and I read them out loud. I also just, I just before the meeting, emailed them to director Fibs so he has the actual language that I read them out loud. I also just before the meeting emailed them to Director Phipps. So he has the actual language that I read. I would suggest, per Commissioner Saad's comments about number 13 that says applications are privately owned. I don't see any reason to exclude publicly owned projects in the downtown historic district. We own the old city hall building in the middle of the historic district. I think that public sector projects should be covered. So I would take out those words that were proposed to be added. And then on number 13, I would leave number 13 in local public improvement projects because I think it does cover the city hall, the library, MLK Park, if we were to build public housing on it or whatever. And it excludes traffic guardrails. It excludes maintenance projects. So it really only includes the major, major public improvement projects. And so that I would just leave it in. That's my suggestion. Alternatively, we could modify number five and say all public sector buildings are covered by this. I mean, that would be a different way of doing it, but I'm trying to do it as simply as possible. It's always been done under 13. There's nothing else in the code that does that. So that would be my suggestions. And then the only other question I have, and I'm less concerned about this, which is number nine, which is capital improvement projects that are reviewed under administrative review. They're taking that that out and maybe that one's okay because it's covered by the annual review that director phipps mentioned so I'm okay with I think the rest of this is is fairly straightforward and long long needed and so I understand the need to move this ahead to the City Council, but those would be my suggestions on edits with that other question. Vice Chair, Juniors. |
| 02:25:50.75 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. You know, I do think that maybe we'd all agree on that Section 5. Why don't we just explicitly ask to include public buildings? We could do that and then agree with the rest of the, you know, because I do think that You know, capital improvements are a lot more than just a public building. I hate to say it, I'm not that interested in trying to figure out if there are going to be changes on Bridgeway. I think that may come to us for some public input, but for us to put that, try to squeeze that through our design review findings and our process just doesn't make any sense. Frankly, it's the wrong kind of that's what the city's been telling us. That's what the staff telling us. That makes total sense to me that design review findings that are intended for buildings should not be applied to things that are not buildings. That's, I think, what the main part that we're saying here. So I would support that change. the change that we would add. any commercial, industrial, or similar structure, any commercial, industrial, comma, |
| 02:26:47.57 | Unknown | Which section? |
| 02:26:47.58 | Andrew Junius | We'll be right back. Public building. It's subsection five under. |
| 02:26:54.52 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:26:56.80 | Andrew Junius | under B and then do one, two, three, four, five. Yeah. |
| 02:26:57.69 | Unknown | under V. |
| 02:27:01.76 | Andrew Junius | I mean, I agree. I agree we shouldn't, you know, if that's unclear and not quite as clear as it could be, we could just add it or some more public building. you know, commercial, industrial, or public building or similar structure. You know, that seems to me to be the right approach here and what might solve a lot of the problems. So I would support that change. But other than that, I think, again, I support the cleanup. This is the right kind of cleanup. It's an isolated chapter of the municipal code. It's... It should be done. I don't think we should, you know, try to I don't I just don't understand any other. It all makes sense to me. So thank you. |
| 02:27:43.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:27:43.41 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I'd like to put a motion |
| 02:27:49.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:27:49.19 | Kristina Feller | on the floor unless we need to take public comment chair |
| 02:27:49.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. No. |
| 02:27:55.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What's that? Do we need to take public comment first? |
| 02:27:55.99 | Kristina Feller | Do we need to take public comment? |
| 02:27:59.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I believe we did. |
| 02:28:01.93 | Annie Branham | I believe we did take public comment already. |
| 02:28:02.76 | Kristina Feller | THE FAMILY. Thank you. |
| 02:28:04.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. No, we did take a break. Sorry. Any commercial enough to- |
| 02:28:06.88 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:28:07.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:28:07.59 | Kristina Feller | longer than |
| 02:28:08.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 02:28:08.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:28:09.04 | Andrew Junius | public building. |
| 02:28:10.46 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:28:10.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or public or public or similar structure. Any commercial, industrial... or public building or similar stuff. Or similar stuff. Thank you. Yes, we did take public comment. Okay, sorry. So further comments or suggested changes before we get to a motion for where we want to go. |
| 02:28:27.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:28:27.31 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:28:27.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 02:28:28.02 | Kristina Feller | I- |
| 02:28:36.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner graph. |
| 02:28:37.34 | Richard Graef | I'd like to clarify this one, a number five word. you're suggesting public buildings. could also be public park. It could also be something else, you know, a facility. to save buildings... |
| 02:28:57.30 | Andrew Junius | But again, keep in mind, Commissioner, I agreed. David Miller, You're going to you can't put a public park through a design process that's intended for building is the design review we're talking this is a, this is for structures, not for parks, not for plazas not for roads, not for David Miller, Things that aren't buildings, I mean, if you look at all the if you look at all the the 22 different findings we're supposed to make for a structure. they don't really apply to things that aren't buildings. That's all. That's the, that's the, that's the core of this whole thing. So I think that's, |
| 02:29:26.65 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:29:27.79 | Richard Graef | So I think That's a good point. |
| 02:29:29.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:29:30.02 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:29:30.19 | Andrew Junius | Thanks. |
| 02:29:34.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm just taking a look at the findings for that guide to see if these do apply to parks or something other. |
| 02:29:41.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | buildings. |
| 02:29:42.80 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I, |
| 02:29:43.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Oh. |
| 02:29:44.53 | Kristina Feller | I have to think about the park piece. I get your point, Vice Chair. But, you know, a number of our parks have a number of structures and certain things in them. I'm not sure. you know, how do you cherry pick that or what have you? I, I don't, I don't know. Um, The motion that I wanted to put on the floor and with a little bit of explanation here is from what I've heard, and certainly I can speak for myself who's been pushing updates and probably been a thorn in. staff side sometimes in getting an initiative going for this. So I'm very supportive. I'm just, I really need to see something cleaned up here. Words matter. We've learned that from our existing... Ordinances I'm not going to cave to some pressure of an agenda that hasn't even been published yet and I'm not understanding what, what the fire drill is to, to hear something, um, you know, in less than a week, unless somebody corrects me. I don't know. The words really do matter. These ordinances, it's so difficult to get them fixed, cleaned, updated um i i think we need to take this seriously and not not um just try to push something through for no reason. This is a really important section. And there have been some excellent comments tonight. I mean, some really excellent input. I would like to see this. Redrafted and we can go over what again what those points might be. But I have to tell you, I'm really... you know, not in a position yet to really feel comfortable in recommending this to city council to be ratified and adopted into our code until this has a little bit further work. I don't think it's there yet. And I think, again, the input tonight has given it great direction that I'm in agreement with. So that is my motion. We can be specific about what those pieces are, but I want to get that out now. |
| 02:32:04.46 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 02:32:12.58 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, with all due respect, I mean, I think the city takes this very seriously. I think I'm very impressed with the staff's work here. And I haven't really heard, aside from the thing we just kind of worked out, I thought the language ad would be a good suggestion. And I'm happy to go back to Chair Luxembourg's edition of the moving of the models and things like that. So I think that's probably appropriate. I mean, I don't see any other, I mean, what else? I don't see what else there is to talk about. Well, I think- |
| 02:32:40.74 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think this needs to be cross-referenced, you know, made sure that no other pieces or parts that are referencing this, that we're inadvertently creating more. chaos in our ordinances or code. I would like to see that. You might not need to see it. I would like to see that. |
| 02:32:54.50 | Andrew Junius | You've got to. Okay, let's talk about that for a second, though. So remember, this is only the procedure of the design review process. It's a relatively small part of our code. We're not even talking about the findings, and we all know how I feel about the findings, so we're not even talking about that. We're talking about |
| 02:33:06.85 | Paul Van Hook | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:33:15.42 | Andrew Junius | I mean... |
| 02:33:16.92 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I know what we're talking about. I know we might not agree on it. |
| 02:33:17.11 | Andrew Junius | I know what we're talking about. |
| 02:33:20.58 | Kristina Feller | But I really, I believe this deserves, you know, the time to get this right. And I do not feel comfortable with where it is. So that is why I'm |
| 02:33:28.84 | Andrew Junius | So, but what don't you feel comfortable with? |
| 02:33:32.14 | Kristina Feller | I would like to see the revised language. I'd like to see. |
| 02:33:35.17 | Andrew Junius | This is the revised language. |
| 02:33:37.75 | Kristina Feller | I'm not looking, do you have revised language there? |
| 02:33:40.55 | Andrew Junius | revised to what? We have one comment regarding one specific thing. That's no idea. |
| 02:33:43.84 | Kristina Feller | I heard a lot more than one comment, Vice Chair. |
| 02:33:46.42 | Andrew Junius | We had one comment that I think about the public buildings. I think. the chair raised the issue about moving, had some very specific language about moving a few things up into a section that was relatively clear. Those were the only two language changes, I thought. Was there any other changes? |
| 02:34:03.13 | Kristina Feller | Well, I'm still, yeah. |
| 02:34:04.80 | Andrew Junius | There's the pro. OK, then there's that one. |
| 02:34:06.08 | Kristina Feller | That's three. And I'm still not clear. If you have a public property, a public building, that you enter into a development agreement with a private entity Like, how is that handled through this process? |
| 02:34:19.43 | Andrew Junius | that then. It's still this, this is the process. |
| 02:34:23.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. What we just amended was we just put back any public building. Right. So that's clear as a bell from Section 5. It's a public building, whether it's Bank of America building, it would come under designing. |
| 02:34:28.44 | Andrew Junius | Right. So that's clear as a bell from Section 5. |
| 02:34:36.00 | Andrew Junius | Under, yeah, under five. |
| 02:34:36.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | under, Yeah, Fundify. Any public building coming to do that, that's the idea. Thank you. |
| 02:34:40.13 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:34:40.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:34:40.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, I mean, I, you know. |
| 02:34:43.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:34:43.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:34:44.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:34:44.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:34:44.66 | Andrew Junius | But honestly, frankly, if I mean, I would even support a recommendation to the city council to remove privately owned that was a, you know, I don't think that's a huge deal one way or the other. I think it was a... clarifying statement from the staff and from the city attorney, but I don't see that as a big deal breaker here either. So I'd be supportive of that change. as well. So now we've got three things that we could, we could recommend to the city council to change. The rest of it really is kind of just clean up. And I just, and I don't, I just, continuance for something like this, and trying to, and I'm just not seeing the clarity of direction of the staff as to what we would continue for now that we've got these three out there. |
| 02:35:23.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You know i'm seeing as I read this I understand Commissioner grass concerned about a public park, for example. If it has a building on it, then the building would be covered. I do believe that the Planning Commission should review public parks that are part of the Capital Improvement Program, but I have to concur with Commissioner Junius as I read this. This design review criteria is set up for buildings. So every time we have one that's not a building, it's hard to fit it in. So we need something for review of a public park improvement, you know, but my biggest concern is that public buildings, obviously, we need to hold the city to the same standards as the private sector. So, I mean, I think there are these three changes, the ones I said about submittal requirements that the city attorney says that we can do by moving it up, taking out this privately owned in a public, in a historic district, because that could be a big problem because the city does own a bunch of buildings in the historic district. And that we make sure this five is absolutely clear that any public building is covered. And Kristen in her presentation said this wasn't intended to take out public buildings. So, you know, with those changes, I think we could move this forward, but that's just where I'm sitting at the moment. in the world. |
| 02:37:01.76 | Nastassya Saad | I'm not I need I need to. I'm here with my papers. I am not yet comfortable. I see I see the points here. I want to make sure I'm understanding this number five in, 10.54050. adding that word in public. is covered. |
| 02:37:20.55 | Andrew Junius | Public building, commercial industrial and public building more similar to that. |
| 02:37:21.49 | Nastassya Saad | public. Thank you. |
| 02:37:25.54 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, can we just have one more round of this discussion? So a public building, |
| 02:37:34.20 | Nastassya Saad | this still removes the concept of the capital improvement. So we are saying the roadways, the guardrails, |
| 02:37:41.94 | Andrew Junius | will not go through design, design review that, you know, they still would come to us in some fashion. Right. But, and I, |
| 02:37:43.43 | Nastassya Saad | design review. |
| 02:37:47.95 | Andrew Junius | And I still want to, I mean, I do want to point out the fact that again, at the very beginning of my comments, I pointed out the fact that In the end, the city council, honestly, if the city council doesn't like what the planning commission approves, they can just. pass a new law and throw it out the window. They need our input but having us along the line on a public project that's not a building where you know, where we're going to approve something and then it needs to be appealed and, you know, and then they can just say, wow, the planning commission really screwed up. We're just going to start over. We're going to go to the front of the line or go to the back of the line and pass a different law to do this project differently. You have to keep in mind the city council really does run the city. They're the five people elected. They spend all the money. They make all the really tough decisions about where the money goes. And so with respect to public property, I mean, I think they're the ones that should be – and it should be a clean, easy, straightforward process. We shouldn't be confusing it with a lot of design stuff and approvals that just – that they can essentially overrule anyway. So I think that's another thing to keep in mind. |
| 02:38:52.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just make a clarification, Commissioner Satter? On the next page, let's be clear that the current code does not, we don't do design review on traffic safety guide rails. That's it. |
| 02:39:03.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | below. |
| 02:39:03.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | One of the things that is excluded, we're not getting into guide rails, even with the current code. |
| 02:39:03.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | One of the things that is, Thank you. |
| 02:39:05.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:08.61 | Unknown | Go on. |
| 02:39:19.57 | Director Phipps | And may I ask, is there a motion on the floor, commissioners? |
| 02:39:22.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's a motion on the floor that has not been seconded to want to see these changes incorporated. I don't know if that, whether it was part of, you were asking. Is that? There was a motion to see |
| 02:39:35.09 | Nastassya Saad | Is that, |
| 02:39:37.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | these changes incorporated before we took any further action. |
| 02:39:41.62 | Nastassya Saad | If that's a motion, I'm going to second that. |
| 02:39:41.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:39:41.74 | Kristina Feller | It is. Get it right. put our best foot forward. And that that is my position. We might not be aligned on that. I understand that. And that might Great consternation, but that's, I want to get it right. These words do matter, and I don't want. to recommend something to another body that we haven't had a final vetting on. That's where I am. That's the motion. Of course, there needs to be more detail about that, but that's where I am. |
| 02:40:16.50 | Nastassya Saad | I'm comfortable with that and I'm going to second that. |
| 02:40:19.52 | Annie Branham | And if I may, just from a procedural standpoint, before we go further, what you could do now, you have two options. you could carry this motion all the way through the vote, or there can be a substitute motion made, if that substitute motion is seconded, we would take the vote on the substitute motion first and then return. to this motion if there's any need to. So just procedurally, you have those two options. |
| 02:40:42.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And thank you. So at this point, I think we have a motion in a second. So we don't further. I'm going to make a second. Wait, wait, wait. I haven't called any advice for you. Okay, but let me give you a chance. Let me, let me. |
| 02:40:49.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:49.51 | Andrew Junius | I'm going to make a second. |
| 02:40:50.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:53.29 | Richard Graef | Let me give you a chance. |
| 02:40:55.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Before we do that, I'd like to have some discussion on this motion. So before we talk about substantive motion. So, Mike, I think the changes that we're suggesting are clear. I want to make sure from Director Phipps that they're crystal clear that you know what edits we're looking for. If there's any confusion, that will go into where we go from here. So the motion that's on the floor talks about wanting to see this, but I don't think these are that extensive. So are you absolutely clear? And if we were to know what they were, you could read them back because I know Sergio at the last time wants you to read back the changes. Do you think they're absolutely clear? |
| 02:41:46.11 | Director Phipps | Ann, do you recommend that we restate the motion? |
| 02:41:49.50 | Annie Branham | We could, I've been taking notes as well. And what I guess I would say is it may not make much sense. I think there will be overlap between a motion to you know, not, make a decision on this item tonight to see changes X, Y, and Z and a motion to approve with changes X, Y, and Z to move on to the city council, if that makes sense. So what I would suggest at this time is maybe we just recap the changes to the substance and then proceed with the motion, since they'll both have that overlapping area. |
| 02:42:21.50 | Director Phipps | Wonderful. Okay. Thank you, Anne. |
| 02:42:26.41 | Annie Branham | And let me know if you need my assistance on that. If you'd like to restate the changes as you understand them. |
| 02:42:28.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | if you'd like to. Thank you. |
| 02:42:30.15 | Unknown | as you understand that. |
| 02:42:31.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | See you, man. |
| 02:42:31.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:31.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, that's what's on the floor at the moment. So I was just asking the reason for continuing it is that these changes don't appear to be clear, or maybe they're conflicting with other parts of the code, so that's a different part of it. But I think that the changes are clear. Whether it conflicts with another part of the code is a different issue, and that is part of the emotion, I realize that. But I just wanted to make sure, Director Phipps, before we have any other emotions or whatever. You don't think that the changes that have been put on here are so complicated that somehow they would get messed up between here and getting to the city council? |
| 02:43:11.51 | Matthew Mandich | No. |
| 02:43:12.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So with that, I apologize. No, no. |
| 02:43:15.83 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:43:17.27 | Andrew Junius | No apology necessary. um so i'll make a motion and i would move to um make the following changes to the ordinance before us to make recommendations to the city council to change um All right, here we're going to have to get the numbers right here. So 1054.030B, no sorry, 040B as in boy, number 13, where the addition of privately owned would be removed. So that would be change number one. motion would then move to |
| 02:43:57.18 | Andrew Junius | So crazy. 10.54.050 design review permits, subsection B5, that says any commercial, industrial, or similar structure proposed, we would request the addition any commercial, industrial, and public building or similar, any commercial, industrial, or public building or similar structure proposed for construction. that would be change number two that we would recommend as part of my motion. And then the final change would be the one that Chair Luxembourg raised, which was in Section 10.54.060 submittal requirements. I've got it here, actually. the change that was made, well, actually, no, I'm going to have Professor Chair Luxenberg read into the record his addition, which would be number three, that would change, that would bring the 10.5, that would eliminate 10.54.070 and replace it with the following language. |
| 02:45:04.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we would add to 10.54060 an item M and would say the following, M, additional submittals, A, models, B, photomontages, C, computer-generated imaging, and D, reports by expert consultants to address potential issues of concern such as noise, odor, glare, sunlight, drainage, and traffic. And then the statement that's there now that says the community development director may waive specific submittal requirements were applicable, it would explicitly say the community development director may waive specific submittal requirements were not applicable, including the OMP be limited to A, models, B, photomontages, C, computer generated imaging, and D, reports by expert consultants to address potential issues of concern such as noise, odor, glare, sunlight, drainage, and traffic. And then we would still allow 105470 to be deleted. |
| 02:46:05.12 | Andrew Junius | out there. |
| 02:46:11.77 | Andrew Junius | And that's the motion. And that's the third part of the motion. And with that, I would make the motion. |
| 02:46:19.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there a second to that? |
| 02:46:22.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:23.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Richard, second. Second. So we have a motion and we have an alternative motion. And Anne, we walk you through the process. Do we consider the alternative motion first? And then what do we do with the original motion? |
| 02:46:39.57 | Annie Branham | Yes, so you consider the alternative motion first. If that is successful, i.e. gets a simple majority vote, then you don't need to return to the original motion because they are opposed to each other. |
| 02:46:52.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. All right, so we have an alternative motion on the floor and further conversation. |
| 02:46:59.66 | Nastassya Saad | I just want to say one thing. I respect, we'll see how the vote goes. But this is our first draft. I'm not saying it's rocket science, but there are some questions, and it would be really nice to sit with a cleaned up version with these changes |
| 02:47:15.22 | Paul Van Hook | of the |
| 02:47:17.48 | Nastassya Saad | give us a chance to look at other parts of the code and Come back. at a future meeting the next meeting more comfortable. I don't think I don't think we're trying to hold this up. But I also I also am not understanding this urgency either. It's the intent is to make these changes and push this through. I think if... If two of us are looking for one more draft with no conversation ahead of time. The only time I heard of some of these comments were off the cuff marks from city council. So this is really the first time we're having a, we're seeing this, we're talking about it. I didn't know this was coming. That's all I think our point may be. it would just be it would be nice to sit with it and think about it and have a solid footing for next time. That's my only point, but the motions on the floor so however you want to move forward there. |
| 02:48:19.08 | Andrew Junius | I'm happy to respond to that. Apologies if I'm not trying to ram anything through. I'm actually trying to, at this point, understand the need for more time. How long have we had to read this? A week, right? This has been out for a week. |
| 02:48:37.84 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 02:48:39.19 | Andrew Junius | So. |
| 02:48:39.31 | Kristina Feller | No, it's not been out a week. No. |
| 02:48:41.84 | Andrew Junius | Three days. |
| 02:48:41.93 | Kristina Feller | to be able to get the Thank you. |
| 02:48:42.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. It was posted Thursday night. |
| 02:48:42.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:48:42.89 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:48:43.19 | Kristina Feller | Three days. Thank you. I think we got the email Friday morning. |
| 02:48:48.71 | Andrew Junius | So. So Thursday, so six days. Okay, okay, six, okay. But, and I, okay, so, but, I mean, we spent a lot of time here tonight, and I would, I guess I would, with respect to my fellow commissioners, you know, continue to talk about this. If there's, if it's, if we're continuing just to take what we just said and put it in here and come back on the 10th, if that's what you guys need. Yeah. |
| 02:48:50.67 | Kristina Feller | So, |
| 02:48:50.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:48:52.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Welcome. |
| 02:48:52.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:48:52.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not. |
| 02:48:52.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. fix it. |
| 02:48:53.98 | Paul Van Hook | Okay. |
| 02:49:18.46 | Nastassya Saad | There could be more changes. What are they? |
| 02:49:20.75 | Kristina Feller | What are they? What are they? Can I suggest we take a vote? |
| 02:49:21.77 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:49:24.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. Before we do this, I wanna understand the earlier motion. You're suggesting moving this to a special meeting or a regular meeting? |
| 02:49:35.79 | Kristina Feller | I'm just continuing it to a date uncertain, whatever it takes, whenever it comes back. I don't think we have to define a date. We obviously don't have any more dates this month. |
| 02:49:40.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | it takes. |
| 02:49:48.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't have any more dates is my issue. |
| 02:49:50.51 | Kristina Feller | Well, this- |
| 02:49:51.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We have a special meeting. Okay. |
| 02:49:53.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. Anyways. |
| 02:49:54.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Oh. |
| 02:49:55.43 | Kristina Feller | I just want to get this right. I mean, it's based on being conscientious about, and words really do matter. We have a lot of ordinances that, you know, you know, are a little bit nonsensical or out of date. So look, I've made my motion clear and why we don't have to agree on it, but it's it's for the right intention. |
| 02:50:19.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You want to move the question? We'll go take a vote. |
| 02:50:22.52 | Kristina Feller | You're taking a vote, take a vote. |
| 02:50:24.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, one more. |
| 02:50:25.01 | Andrew Junius | I'm sorry, can I just clarify? Are you, proposing to continue it to a date uncertain. You don't even know, we don't even know when this would come back, even though we've got a 45-day clock to actually... |
| 02:50:36.02 | Kristina Feller | I'm not aware of a 45-day clock. |
| 02:50:38.01 | Andrew Junius | The city council just told us we are under the gun. The city council. |
| 02:50:41.11 | Kristina Feller | The city council didn't tell us anything. I'm sorry. The city attorney mentioned that the city council can do that. |
| 02:50:42.72 | Andrew Junius | I'm sorry, the city attorney. well and |
| 02:50:46.53 | Kristina Feller | based on an agenda that hasn't even been published. We have a meeting. that is scheduled for next year and it could always come back then. |
| 02:50:54.80 | Andrew Junius | I know, are you going to continue? |
| 02:50:55.05 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:50:56.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to clarify the question you're asking. I think what I think what and said and and can correct me if I'm wrong and it's going to be 45 days from a direction from the city council we do not yet have that direction so it's not the clock isn't ticking at the moment is that correct. |
| 02:51:13.83 | Annie Branham | Karen Hollweg, We can anticipate that at the meeting on the 19th they will likely make that direction, which will trigger the 45 day clock, of course, you know not certain but yes Council would have to take action to. |
| 02:51:22.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:51:25.46 | Annie Branham | essentially remand it to the planning commission, which would start the clock running. |
| 02:51:28.70 | Kristina Feller | I'm assuming this is- |
| 02:51:29.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 45 days from next season. I just wanted to clarify. Fair point. Yeah, fair point. |
| 02:51:31.91 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF Thank you. |
| 02:51:32.21 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:51:32.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:51:32.30 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:51:32.33 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 02:51:32.51 | Andrew Junius | I'm going to go over. |
| 02:51:32.53 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, fair point. Yeah, fair point. City Council wants something that's, you know, vetted to the comfort level of the commission. Now that's gonna be a different level for each person. And I respect that and I understand you and I might not agree, but the intention is there for the right reasons. |
| 02:51:50.62 | Andrew Junius | But OK, so what what direction are you giving the staff for the time that's going to be spent between now and whatever meeting we have on this next? |
| 02:51:58.20 | Kristina Feller | So the direction would be to take the same comments that we've just talked about here that were already read into the record. |
| 02:52:04.63 | Andrew Junius | the three. |
| 02:52:05.42 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I want to see if there's any potential conflict intended or otherwise with any of those other parts of our ordinance here. I particularly want to look at some of the references in the development agreements, because I remember very clearly. It was before. Many of you were on the commission approving that because that went back and forth a little bit, too, because I foresee a lot of that coming up. So I don't have the answers to that. And I don't want to inadvertently create a bigger problem with another part of our code. This is simple due diligence. |
| 02:52:40.00 | Andrew Junius | Fair point. Okay. All right. |
| 02:52:41.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, well, so let's take a vote. |
| 02:52:43.36 | Andrew Junius | I actually withdraw my motion. I withdraw the second motion. We're not going to go forward with that. I would, but I'm not going to, because I don't, okay. All right, then. |
| 02:52:52.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let's just take a vote and then move on. |
| 02:52:54.43 | Kristina Feller | but Here, let him finish. Let him finish. Okay. |
| 02:52:55.78 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Okay, fair point. Let's take a vote on my motion, then. We'll take a vote on my motion. |
| 02:53:03.07 | Richard Graef | Which motion are we? |
| 02:53:04.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The motion is to approve the second motion, which is to send this on with a recommendation of the City Council with the three changes as identified by Commissioner Vice Chair Junius. And I will also add to this, and I'm assuming it's going to go to the City Council with the language included. |
| 02:53:07.42 | Richard Graef | the one I Thank you. |
| 02:53:30.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Fully identified. It's not just a list of changes. We're going to send them a clean copy with those changes. That's the way we always do it. Okay. So a clean copy with those changes included. And that's the motion. And we're going to take that motion. And then let's take a vote on that. And after that, we'll figure out whether the other motion fell. |
| 02:53:47.19 | Kristina Feller | Let's do it. I don't know. |
| 02:53:51.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Graff, you're clear what we're on this motion with these changes. |
| 02:53:59.23 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I will say that I'm I'm favoring the first motion, but let's go for it. |
| 02:54:03.65 | Kristina Feller | favoring the first motion, but let's go for it. Let's just take the vote, please. |
| 02:54:09.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Chair. I'll call roll. Commissioner Saad? No. Commissioner Graff? |
| 02:54:12.91 | Richard Graef | No. |
| 02:54:14.62 | Director Phipps | you |
| 02:54:14.63 | Richard Graef | No. |
| 02:54:14.90 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller? No. Vice-Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? |
| 02:54:16.51 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:54:16.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 02:54:19.83 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:54:19.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Motion does not pass. Motion passed. So now we have to deal with the original motion. Further conversation on the original motion. |
| 02:54:22.46 | Director Phipps | Motion does not pass. |
| 02:54:23.27 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:54:28.89 | Andrew Junius | Please, further conversation. At this point, we need a date, and I think it's the 10th. I just want to make, is it clear? |
| 02:54:30.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that this |
| 02:54:36.42 | Andrew Junius | from the city attorney that that first motion can be amended to continue it to the January 10th special meeting that we've already set? Is there no question about that? |
| 02:54:45.33 | Annie Branham | I would ask if the original maker of the motion is amenable to that. |
| 02:54:50.42 | Kristina Feller | I would have staff if that gives them enough time. I'm amenable if you have enough time. |
| 02:54:57.78 | Director Phipps | I believe- |
| 02:54:59.30 | Kristina Feller | It's the holidays, so I don't want to impose. |
| 02:55:01.72 | Director Phipps | I believe staff will make time. Thank you. |
| 02:55:06.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask the city attorney, is there any reason that in the state law or whatever that this has to be at a regular meeting, not a special meeting? |
| 02:55:06.19 | Director Phipps | It is achievable. |
| 02:55:15.30 | Annie Branham | No, not for planning commission purposes. You can, you can take this up at, at any, |
| 02:55:21.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. further question comment so the motion on the floor if I understand it is to continue this to January 10 that the staff will incorporate the three changes that we had and and and send that out to us in advance of that meeting, and you want them to also to check. Thank you. |
| 02:55:46.96 | Kristina Feller | to perform some due diligence. |
| 02:55:48.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | due diligence for any inconsistencies between these changes and other parts of the current code. Yes. Okay, so that's the motion. And there's a second on that motion. Director Phipps called the roll. |
| 02:56:03.39 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Sott. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. |
| 02:56:04.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:56:05.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:56:06.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:56:07.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:56:08.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. So, |
| 02:56:14.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is adjourned. |
| 02:56:18.65 | Kristina Feller | Happy holidays. |
| 02:56:19.85 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Happy holidays. I'd also like to give a special thank you to Ann for being here this evening. And we look forward to working and collaborating |
| 02:56:27.83 | Ann | My pleasure. Thank you for having me. |
| 02:56:28.69 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:56:28.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much for having me. You've been very helpful to have me. |
| 02:56:31.37 | Ann | Absolutely. Thank you all. |
| 02:56:41.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:41.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
Art Harding — In Favor: Neighbor at 130 Glenn Drive witnessed the tree cutting and attempted to stop it. Reported mud slipping down the hill weekly, making it difficult to move trash barrels. Requested permanent and urgent erosion control to address accelerated slope instability. ▶ 📄