| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:31.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was looking for it. |
| 00:00:32.60 | Unknown | I was looking for it. |
| 00:00:33.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:36.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We'll call the February 14th, 2024 meeting of the Planning Commission to order. you Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:58.69 | Tony | One minute. |
| 00:01:02.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and Um... |
| 00:01:15.14 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair, and I'll just start with a few words. |
| 00:01:17.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So that's him. |
| 00:01:19.77 | Director Phipps | Getting some feedback? |
| 00:01:21.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's an echo in, is that you? Thank you. |
| 00:01:28.15 | Director Phipps | Okay, well, I'm going to proceed. Good evening, Chair Luxembourg, planning commissioners, staff, and members of the public, and happy Valentine's Day to all. 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 Feller. Here. Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:01:52.17 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:54.76 | Director Phipps | Present. Vice Chair Saad. |
| 00:01:54.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:57.14 | Andrew Junius | Here's a question. |
| 00:01:57.83 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg. Here. Okay, we have achieved quorum. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:01:59.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:02.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion? |
| 00:02:08.11 | Kristina Feller | So moved. |
| 00:02:09.24 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:02:09.26 | Director Phipps | second. I will. |
| 00:02:12.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will... |
| 00:02:13.19 | Director Phipps | Yep. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:02:15.40 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:02:18.62 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 00:02:22.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item in the agenda is public comments for items not on the agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:02:30.40 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. I have a few words for that. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the Commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct that the subject 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 my colleagues to my right, Matthew Mandich 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, and each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. Thank you. And Chair, just doing a quick scan of the chamber and doing a quick scan of the Zoom application, seeing none. Back to you. |
| 00:03:30.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:03:30.51 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:03:30.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Next item is Planning Commission minutes, minutes from January 10, 2024. Is there a motion? |
| 00:03:39.54 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:03:39.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:03:39.66 | Andrew Junius | MOVE. |
| 00:03:39.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. to the state. |
| 00:03:41.92 | Nastassya Saad | I'll second. I just had one note. It says December 10th, 2024. And I believe it meant to be January 10th. |
| 00:03:49.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | thank you for that amendment I had that note as well there's also two other notes page line 39 on page 4 it has the word Tuesday twice in that line that needs to be corrected to Wednesday that's related to the dates of our Planning Commission meetings are on Wednesdays in line 40 on page 4 the word Tuesday also needs to be corrected to Wednesday. So we'll make those as. In line 40 on page 4, the word Tuesday also needs to be corrected to Wednesday. So we'll commit those as amendments to the motion, the maker of the motion. Yes, that's fine. Okay, other comments? |
| 00:04:21.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:21.58 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:04:22.22 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 00:04:24.61 | Kristina Feller | I just have one. It's really a question to staff. Typically on meeting minutes for special meetings, we identify that in the meeting minutes that it's a special meeting, not a regular meeting. I'm just curious if we need to do that in this as well. |
| 00:04:39.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:39.21 | Unknown | It actually says that. |
| 00:04:39.23 | Director Phipps | If it was a special meeting and it's not indicated that it was a special meeting, then it should be added. |
| 00:04:40.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and, uh, uh, uh, |
| 00:04:45.86 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:04:46.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | My understanding is the title of the top doesn't say special meaning, but the first paragraph does. |
| 00:04:53.30 | Director Phipps | If council is amenable, I would appreciate council's consensus to have that added to the heading. |
| 00:05:01.69 | Kristina Feller | On behalf of the commission, I would recommend that we add that to the heading, and if the maker of the motion and the second would be amenable. Thank you. |
| 00:05:09.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No problem. Okay. Other comments, changes to the minutes of January 10th, 2024? Seeing none director Phipps call the role play |
| 00:05:21.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Vice Chair Hassan. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you for your comments. |
| 00:05:22.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:05:22.55 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 00:05:27.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:05:30.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is number five, communications. |
| 00:05:35.29 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. I have two items of communication this evening. The first is related to future meetings. Specifically, CDD will be canceling the February 28th meeting of the Commission, as no projects will be ready for Commission review at that time. With that in mind, the next meeting of the Commission is now scheduled for March 13th, 2024, and that is as a complement or in line with our regular meeting schedule. Thank you. On to the second communication item this evening. It relates to former Commissioner Graff's committed service to the city of Sausalito. And I believe Chair Luxenberg has a few words that he'd like to say. to you, Chair. |
| 00:06:18.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Richard, on behalf of the Planning Commission and the City of Sausalito, I want to thank you for your service to the city. As most of us know, you've just completed your second three-year term on the Planning Commission. What many may not know is that previously you served two other terms on the Planning Commission, and in the early 90s you also served on the design review board so your long service to the city of Sausalito is greatly appreciated your back your background in graphic design fashion and industrial design has served you well in your role on the planning commission I have always looked to you when you when I was searching for input on our various project design elements of the many projects the planning commission has reviewed and I appreciate your input greatly I know that your involvement in Sausalito goes beyond your role on the Planning Commission. As a member of the Galilee Harbor since 1980, you've also not only served on their board of directors numerous times, but you were also involved with the early days of the Maritime Day, which has been an important Sausalito event for over 40 years. You were also responsible for the permanent exhibit at the Bay Model about the Marine ship in the World War II, and the logo for that exhibit was your graphic design. So in honor of your service, Maria, do we have, Director Phipps has for you, we want to present to you. |
| 00:07:46.61 | Richard Graef | Right. |
| 00:07:48.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | a plaque which honors your service greatly. |
| 00:07:52.73 | Richard Graef | Oh my God. |
| 00:07:53.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:07:53.73 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:07:53.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:08:02.56 | Richard Graef | What can I say? Thank you so much. There were a couple of little minor errors in your history there, but I don't think it matters much. I didn't design the logo for the Marin ship. I designed it for the art festival years ago, the elephant and the palm trees. |
| 00:08:18.96 | Unknown | elephant. |
| 00:08:23.56 | Richard Graef | But anyway, yes, it's been my pleasure for so many years to be part of this effort, you know, to keep track of what's getting built in our city. And anything that I've done over the years that's been a benefit. I'm really glad to have done it. I wasn't prepared for this. So anyway, thank you all so much. And thank you. I don't know what to do now except take my little plaque down and go sit in the audience. |
| 00:09:04.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, before you do that, I think some of the other members wanted to have some comments. Oh, well, okay. |
| 00:09:10.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. I haven't known you very long, Richard, but I can spot a devoted civic servant a mile away, and you are just exemplary. The decades that you've spent serving this beautiful city of ours are just beyond appreciated. I can't tell you. For somebody who is serving for the very first time in a capacity such as yours, having hung out with commissioners and city council members and members of the board of supervisors for decades knowing how hard they work and finally getting to sit up here with somebody like you is really it's just been an honor and i just want to again thank you so much for your service so We'll see you around Galilee Harbor. |
| 00:09:49.36 | Richard Graef | We'll be around. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you. |
| 00:09:54.52 | Nastassya Saad | In the interest of saving my voice, because I went well, but you know our friendship, Richard, so I wanted to say thank you, and I'll definitely see you around for our afternoon catch-up sometime. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to serve with you. |
| 00:10:05.98 | Richard Graef | Thank you very much. Thank you, Anastasia. |
| 00:10:10.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioner Fellowship. |
| 00:10:12.49 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. Richard, you've, for as long as I've been on this commission, you've been on this commission. When I was a new commissioner here, you were very graceful impatient with me and helping me And I appreciate also your attention to detail. and the time that you took with many of our applicants as part of a work group to help them finalize their applications after the commission approved it. under those conditions. So I think that the city is much better for that. I think the projects are much better. And I think the owners are much happier with your input. So thank you so much for all of your volunteer service and a wonderful friendship too. So thank you. |
| 00:10:59.52 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Christina. Again, it's sad to leave. I've been doing this for so long. It's been a part of my life. I guess I'll take a break. |
| 00:11:11.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Dr. Phipps, any further comments on this side? |
| 00:11:14.64 | Director Phipps | I'll just say on behalf of staff, former Commissioner Graff, that we have had a wonderful time working with you and have wholly appreciated your presence on the commission. When you come to our office, you make staff smile. You increase our smiles per hour. So you move us forward in a beneficial way. And I will forever be indebted to you for that. You are always invited to planning commission meetings moving forward. You'll just have to sit on the other side of the room. So feel free to join us. And I'll just say, you know, I've learned a lot from you. And one of the things that I have already applied multiple times to descriptions of projects and buildings is the ability to call a building handsome. And that is something that you applied to our 265 gate 5 road approval. I have already used it multiple times. So thank you. And your experience in design has been unmatched. Really appreciate it. |
| 00:12:13.71 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Director Phipps. Again, my pleasure. |
| 00:12:23.76 | Richard Graef | Sure. and I'll retire to the audience. |
| 00:12:29.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you again, Commissioner Graff. At this point, are there any other items from staff on the communication item, Director Phipps? |
| 00:12:41.60 | Director Phipps | Nope, that is it for me. Thank you. |
| 00:12:42.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioners have any items under communications this evening. |
| 00:12:43.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:12:47.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Go. |
| 00:12:48.23 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:12:48.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, with that, I'm gonna take public comment on item five. Director Vick said if you can give instructions. |
| 00:12:58.31 | Director Phipps | Same instructions apply as before. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. If you have not submitted a speaker card, please do so. And looking to the Zoom application for raised hands, seeing none. Looking to the chamber for raised hands or interested speakers, seeing none. Back to you. |
| 00:13:16.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, first item for item six, public hearings. I'm gonna look for commissioners to have any ex parte declaration. |
| 00:13:28.99 | Andrew Junius | No communications. |
| 00:13:30.82 | Nastassya Saad | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:13:32.58 | Kristina Feller | I have no communications, but I do want to note for the record, I did go by 215 Sausalito Boulevard again to re-familiarize myself with this particular parcel. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:13:43.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I also have gone by 215 Sausalito Boulevard as well and have no ex parte communications. With that, we're going to now hear item 6A, 215 Sausalito Boulevard. The applicant, Christopher Sullivan Longwater Trust, is proposing a new two-unit development with an accessory dwelling unit, 215 Sausalito Boulevard, submitted to pursuant to government code section 65913.4 which was originally enacted as SP 35 with that we'll be looking for staff to do a presentation so |
| 00:14:25.80 | Director Phipps | Mr. Sullivan, public hearing format dictates that staff conduct the first presentations followed by applicant presentation. |
| 00:14:38.61 | Matthew Mandich | Hello, commissioners. Good evening. So the project here before you today is a little bit different than some of the other projects presented in the past. This is a design review of 215 Sausalito Boulevard. However, this will be under the Assembly Bill 330 and SB 35. We will strictly be reviewing this application for its compliance with the city's relevant objective design standards. First slide, please. Just to familiarize yourselves with the site here, you can see 215 Sausalito Boulevard here and here. It is on the south side of the street on a steep upslope, 70%. And it was subdivided 15 years ago from 111-109 Marion, which sits just behind here. Next slide, please. Here is an image of the site today, as you will notice, it does not have access to the road below. Steep site, as mentioned, upslope from Sausalito Boulevard, and this is currently the access to the site today. Next slide, please. So, moving on to the project proposal. This is for a new two-unit housing development with accompanying detached ADU on an undeveloped lot. This is submitted pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, enacted by SB35. This does allow for a design review or Housing Accountability Act design review by the local planning commission. However, I'm just going to read this quote directly. This design review shall be objective and strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well as any reasonable objective design standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission of a development application. Next slide, please. So just to give you a little bit of background timeline on how this kind of project has evolved over the last year. We've received a preliminary application from the applicant, February 14th, 2023. Six months later, we received the full application, August 15th, 2023. On September 13th, a notice of incomplete application was issued to the applicant by CDD. October 14th, the project was resubmitted based on those comments and deemed complete on November 7th after review of the proposed project, a letter from CDD to the applicant, determining that the project is not compliant with the C's objective standards was sent on December 7th. the applicant and the city entered into a tolling agreement to give the applicant more time to resubmit, adjust, respond to comments presented in that November 7th letter. And then we had a final submission January 26th. Applicant resubmits the project with only slight changes to the proposed project above. And those are the changes in that plan set that was submitted on January 26th is the one that has been attached to the agenda and the one that we are reviewing today. On February 5 CDD then issued another second non compliance letter. In response to that submittal and here we are today February 14 planning commission hearing to review if the project is compliant with the city's objective standards next slide So just to familiarize yourself a little bit with the area again, 215 Sausalito Boulevard, this star right here. This is from our general plan, land use element, and you can see that this is in our medium high density residential zone. Um, in this area right here coincides with that. Next slide, please. This also coincides with our R225 district. You can see right here, 215 Sausalito Boulevard within the R225 2.5 multifamily district. Next slide. So relevant city standards from the general plan, the land use element, despite the medium high density residential zone right here. This is the R225 zone. It talks about things like the maximum far allowed or floor area ratio 0.65 maximum building coverage 50% in the city's housing element. These numbers are also stated maximum site coverage, 50% maximum floor ratio, six, five. This also includes our height limit 32 feet. Rear setbacks, 15 feet, side setback five, and front setback zero. Next slide, please. This is our relevancy standards. This is from the zoning code, chapter, title 10, chapter 22. And you can see, again, all the same numbers that we looked at before from the general plan and the housing element. Focusing on these specifically, which include the floor air ratio, building coverage, impervious surface, and the setbacks and height limit. Again, 05-15-32. So moving on to a city council resolution number 6059 adopted July 13 2021 this resolution was made to specifically for a B 330 and sb 35 projects to identify the objective standards within the city zoning code that already existed at that time in July 2021 next slide please. As you can see from exhibit A of this resolution, Title 10 are zoning regulations, multiple general development guidelines were identified here in this exhibit and in the resolution, including minimum parcel size, building coverage, setbacks, setbacks and sorry I can't read that right there but setbacks require exception to required setbacks height limits and building coverage all the things that we just talked about in the previous slides. Next please. So moving on to the proposed site plan that is before you today for compliance review. This is the site plan itself you'll recognize the shape from the location slide earlier. Sausalito Boulevard it's down here. This is a proposed proposed driveway that would cut through the city right away to give access to the site um the site plan is a bit difficult to decipher we have a lot of different buildings decks um a lot of different things going on different structures and we're going to walk through those kind of one at a time um just to for clarity but as you can see it's a very dens densely packed site with not that much impervious surface space there. Moving to the next slide, please stand slightly over here for a better view. So this is the proposed parking area. This is the first level of the project connecting to the driveway and down to the street below. It is two thousand six hundred and fifty square feet with four parking spaces. This is also the main entry point to the unit one, which is the primary unit of the proposed project. Next slide, please. Here is the first floor of unit one as you enter up from the garage level. This is a living space here with a kitchen, large ceiling, tall ceiling here with a pitched glass roof, as you'll see on the second floor. This leads up to three bedrooms and bathrooms on the second floor here with several decks protruding off the side here. Large steel beams here, which support a pool above, cancillebred pool on the top floor. So you can move up. And again, this unit right here is 3,187 square feet total. Moving to the next floor. Next slide, please. This is the third floor, which sits on top of that, which is an oval shape. Contains the primary bedroom, walk-in closet, wet room, shower area, a tub with a heated glass floor, and several other decks coming off of that. And then moving up to the top, the roof deck, which sits above this third floor, you can see hot tub, pergola, fireplace, heating elements, and a large cantilevered pool which I touched on earlier that is supported by these large metal beams below. Next slide, please. Moving to the elevations, we can see here, I've just selected two of the elevations here, the west and the south. Again, we can see the different levels we kind of just walked through briefly there with the parking level here, first floor, second floor, third floor, as viewed from the west with those large steel beams we discussed, and the upper floor with the pool. Again, from a slightly different angle, viewing that oval shape from a different side here, you can see the parking. first floor, second floor, spiral staircase. and the upper floor with the pool. Again, from a slightly different angle viewing that oval shape from a different side here, you can see the parking. First floor, second floor, spiral staircase. third floor oval shape, and then their roof deck and pool on top. Next slide, please. So this is moving to the second proposed unit, unit two. Right here we have the entrance coming in, living area, kitchen space. Moving up to the next floor right here, a small living area with a spiral staircase that then gives us access to the third floor here with a bedroom and bathroom and other living space. Again, several decks attached to this as well, as we can see in the next slide, elevations. So here's the elevation. Just again, I think I selected West and South here just for brevity showing the entry. for second floor and third floor here and from the south side there Next slide, please. Finally, the third structure and third unit proposed for the lot is an ADU. This is the floor plan here. First floor here, second floor here, this is 487 square feet. Next slide, please. And here are some images of that. in sections or in elevations as well. And I believe south and north elevation on this one here. So it gives you an idea of what these structures will look like. So moving on to kind of the point of why we're here, the subjective zoning standards, looking for consistency with those. And as we can see, moving down the list, We have several here, a couple that are compliant, such as the lot size, the dwelling units per per square feet, you get two dwelling units per 2,500 square feet. This is met because the third detached unit, the ADU, is exempt from these development standards. So that's compliant. But moving into the setbacks, we can see some discrepancies here. The 0, 15, 5, and 5 are not respected. We have 0, 3.85, 82, or 83, sorry, excuse me, 3.83 feet, 5 feet, and then 0 feet. Again, Moving to... The height limit, 32 foot max, 56 feet is what's proposed. This is non-compliant. Looking at building coverage, 50% max. We're up at 80% here. Again, non-compliant. Some of the plans, as you saw before, a bit difficult to read with all of the decks and things going on on the grayscale, stuff like that. So this building coverage could be higher than that based on what we were able able to decipher. Again, moving on to floor area ratio, 0.65 is what allowed. We are at the proposal 0.69. However, if you include that 2,600, a square foot garage. We're up over 1.16. And then the ADU, which is exempt from these calculations, I just have it here as it's part of the proposal and that's 0.08. So again, not compliant with far our floor error ratio. And then finally, moving on to impervious surfaces for this zoning district, 75% is the max. We are over 80% and based on the site plan and what we're able to determine, it's probably likely even higher than that. Again, difficult to discern from the plans provided provided so this is also non-compliant finally parking two spaces per dwelling unit these are both provided we have four spaces the adu is exempt because it is within 0.5 miles of a public transit stop so generally um non-compliant with our objective zoning standards specifically when it comes to building coverage impervious surface height setbacks and floor air ratio um Next slide, please. So while the city and the department very much support development on the slot of a three unit development, unfortunately, the project as proposed would violate the applicable height limit, floor area ratio, maximum coverage impervious surface coverage side and rear setbacks that apply to the parcel under the general plan and the applicable city zoning codes. So, unfortunately, we staff must recommend the denial of this project. Alternatively, the Commission may continue the hearing for more information or approve the project as proposed. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions. |
| 00:26:52.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Manage. At this point, and again, excellent and thorough staff report. We appreciate that. With this, I'll get questions from the commission, Commissioner Fellow. |
| 00:27:03.49 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Matthew, for yet another very thorough staff report here and presentation. Thank you. I just had a couple questions for clarification. One is in your February 5th letter that the city issued to the applicant, in the last paragraph, you were asking for any received or resubmissions by February 12th. Did you receive any? |
| 00:27:33.95 | Matthew Mandich | No, we did not. |
| 00:27:34.03 | Kristina Feller | that we didn't. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. And then in terms of the accessory dwelling unit, you said no parking required because it's within half a mile, which is our code, but which transit stop are you measuring to? |
| 00:27:51.80 | Matthew Mandich | From the transit stops located on second street, um, second and main. |
| 00:27:57.66 | Kristina Feller | Oh, okay. By Portofino, across the street from Portofino. Yeah. Okay, got it, got it. |
| 00:27:57.79 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. Forte Fino, across the street from Portofino. |
| 00:28:02.33 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and... I think those are all my questions. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:28:07.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fellow. Commissioner Saad? No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mandage. At this point, I'm going to ask Attorney Branham, do you have any comments on this project at this time? |
| 00:28:24.17 | Anne | And not at this time, although I think Community Development Director Phipps wanted to Oh my apologies, we were going to make something known to the public before public comment, but are we going to move to the applicant's presentation now? If so, I have nothing to add at this point. |
| 00:28:41.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Attorney Branham. Director Phipps. No. Okay, at this point, then we go to the applicant's presentation. Yes. So applicant, you'll have 15 minutes to do a presentation. Please come up. You need to speak into the microphone at all times. you |
| 00:29:02.63 | Chris Sullivan | Sure. |
| 00:29:03.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do have to speak into the microphone at all times. |
| 00:29:06.29 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 00:29:06.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:29:06.34 | Chris Sullivan | I do have a couple of housekeeping items before the clock starts, if I may. |
| 00:29:09.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know, city attorney Branham is The housekeeping items are part of the timeline, isn't it? |
| 00:29:17.41 | Anne | Yes, I would ask that we start the clock and then we can respond afterward if needed, which won't count against your 15 minutes. |
| 00:29:27.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you have 15 minutes. You can start your presentation. |
| 00:29:30.03 | Chris Sullivan | to get the equipment set up first before the clock starts. I guess nobody can see my screen. |
| 00:29:36.19 | Anne | Yes, we can pause the clock to get his equipment set up. |
| 00:29:57.79 | Chris Sullivan | Is there a way to share the screen with, Could you help me? |
| 00:30:54.00 | Anne | confirming that I can see that on Zoom in case that's helpful. |
| 00:30:57.46 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Annie. |
| 00:31:12.38 | Director Phipps | Mr. Sullivan, whenever you're ready. |
| 00:31:14.00 | Tony Perez | Thank you. |
| 00:31:14.10 | Director Phipps | you |
| 00:31:23.13 | Chris Sullivan | Good evening. Staff manager. Good evening, commissioners, and welcome to various departments from Sacramento who are joining us this evening for this SB 35 hearing. |
| 00:31:30.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:31:42.60 | Chris Sullivan | The resolution that we've been pointed to is 6059 has been a common wording in emails back and forth, and that is what we've been told we must comply with. So here is 6059. 6059. I've tried to be helpful and copy the resolution into the slides. |
| 00:32:10.87 | Chris Sullivan | 10 54 50, but which. You're very familiar. Now the purpose of that is to provide authority for design review permits. or discretionary review for two family houses. SB 35 prohibits discretionary review. That's the Zoning ordinance that was put together in. quite a hurry during the pandemic. I think in two meetings passed as a resolution on the consent calendar. was described as a list of objective standards for the HAA. That was the intent of the legislation. Mm-hmm. nowhere near as many folks use SP 35, um, as, uh, their, their way to, um, get past, um, the Sifras neighborhood comments and so forth. So the ordinance and the city code bans prohibits SB 35. So that folks was a short meeting. Thank you. the resolutions or ordinances that allow for SB 35 processing. Don't want to disappoint you, but that's what we have. nothing there. The new ordinance that's in its second reading makes no resolution of the issue of discretionary processing. It still remains defined design review permit. If we don't get a design review permit, we commit a criminal offence, one misdemeanor a day, You make approximately $800,000 and it's... leanable against the property, which you can recover. The city's got a pretty big taking against the property at the moment these last 19 years. So folks, the show is over. There's no way to process an SP35 by law, which is what we must do, as we all know. |
| 00:34:25.90 | Chris Sullivan | So the statute's criminalized SB 35. |
| 00:34:32.60 | Chris Sullivan | Let's say we can get past that. Let's start with floor area ratio and the standards. |
| 00:34:41.26 | Unknown | Well, |
| 00:34:50.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any speaking you need to do in the microphone, please. |
| 00:34:50.68 | Chris Sullivan | Yeah. |
| 00:34:55.35 | Chris Sullivan | Sure, so these are the standards. no personal or subjective judgment by a public official standards have to be uniformly verified by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or the proponent and the public official before submittal. Uniform, the meaning not varying or variable, constant in every situation and conditions. under the HAA, which applies here, Um, It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of and the approval and provision of housing. specifically my home. to my children, also. |
| 00:35:49.50 | Chris Sullivan | structures and buildings to be located in the public right away. shall be included in the coverage and file calculation. That is correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong. That is in the odds. |
| 00:36:09.41 | Chris Sullivan | So folks, I have a handout to my, I'm able to pass that around. Peace. |
| 00:36:15.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | enter it to give it to the community development department and they'll transport it to the commission. |
| 00:36:26.93 | Chris Sullivan | So folks, I'm asking for some help here. The areas outside the lot must be used to calculate far |
| 00:36:30.07 | Unknown | areas. |
| 00:36:34.56 | Chris Sullivan | let's go to the driveway. The fire department will not provide for a home there. It's a high fire risk area and there must be a driveway. And the fire department have signed off for that driveway because the house must be reachable. There are difficult access roads behind that could even cause problems for this future home. |
| 00:37:01.12 | Chris Sullivan | both far and lot coverage and the derivation impervious. must be calculated from encroachments. So the city wants 100% of that space |
| 00:37:11.29 | Unknown | you know, |
| 00:37:13.49 | Chris Sullivan | but no allowance. And it's subjective. 5630 driveways are subject to CDD review and recommendation. Driveways are subject to review the city engineer. parking design is subject to the approval of the city engineer. So what is the value of the far outside of the driveway and the lot of some fill-ins here for the 12 subjective pieces. A few folks can fill in those values for me. then we can we can start a design. but you can't start a design without the FAR. |
| 00:37:56.13 | Chris Sullivan | Pervious is controlled by coverage. So what is my impervious allowable? What am I allowed? How do I design a compliant home? The lot is 40 foot up and 30 foot across to the unfinished right away. |
| 00:38:24.46 | Chris Sullivan | Bye. Heights. is discretionary in the code. It says may be changed. May is defined as discretionary in the definitions in 1088. |
| 00:38:27.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:38.01 | Chris Sullivan | It has a very strong relationship to the property line type. |
| 00:38:38.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:42.42 | Chris Sullivan | We need to know what the difference is between a road and a street as a designer. It's not defined. What is a road? this debate about what's the streets. |
| 00:38:57.72 | Chris Sullivan | requirements for detached structures each is dealt with separately. What about attached structures? Can we have three attached structures? how does the high calculation for average grade work there? We don't know what driveway will be permitted, And it's very clear that the structures go into, as we were told in our... denial last year, the structures go into the right of way. So where is our height? How can we calculate the height folks? I'm designing the building. I need to know these basic numbers. got to know them objectively. Otherwise, I have to come to the Planning Commission for discretionary review. And we know that that has been very, very, very problematical. in cities around the state, including Sausalito. |
| 00:39:54.63 | Chris Sullivan | What is the value of the CDD will make a determination? |
| 00:39:54.97 | Unknown | value of the |
| 00:40:00.20 | Chris Sullivan | So here's my sheet on height. If you folks could fill in these values for me, from 040. 060B all included in odds. six zero Is an ADU included in the high calculation? It's not defined, we have an ADU. in the center of the sequence. What are pertinences? |
| 00:40:29.34 | Chris Sullivan | You can judge that when you're indiscretionary. You can discuss it, but not for SP35. You wish for a sloped roof. may be permitted. May is defined as discretionary. cannot determine the height limits as a designer in the Sausalito odd. Let's talk about property lines. Street means a right of way or prescriptive rights of way. which is customarily used for automobile travel and providing vehicle access to abutting property, not the abutting property. |
| 00:41:12.88 | Unknown | who have |
| 00:41:16.72 | Chris Sullivan | As a developer, I'm always keen to know where the street is because trucks can be parked there and excavation equipment. The suggestion from CDD is that it's that second street is not a street. We have to know if it's a street. It looks like a street to me. Street vacations, I'm trying to do one in Los Angeles at the moment, are very complicated and very expensive. The city doesn't want to give its right of ways back. They may need them in the future. It's a discretionary process to vacate a street. A street must be vacated. for it not to be a street there for. |
| 00:41:56.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:00.43 | Chris Sullivan | in case butts on more than one street, the parcel owner may elect any street parcel line. provided that such choice in the opinion of the CDD will not be injurious to adjacent properties. What is injurious? What is the value of that? |
| 00:42:20.36 | Chris Sullivan | anybody By the way, how's it going filling in those forms? Because you guys have been emailing me for six months telling me that I have to comply with the objective design standards. We've got hundreds of letters, tens of thousands of dollars of lawyers' bills. |
| 00:42:22.86 | Unknown | How's it going? |
| 00:42:36.24 | Chris Sullivan | from Sergio Rudin, Is it in his interests to reach a conclusion or create a debate? |
| 00:42:44.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Chair, where you have three minutes, 30 seconds left. I don't know if you want to reserve some time for any rebuttal after public comment. |
| 00:42:51.61 | Chris Sullivan | Let's find the parcel lines folks. |
| 00:43:01.05 | Chris Sullivan | Can't find the parcel lines. We don't know where the front, rear and sides are. |
| 00:43:04.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:04.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:04.22 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:43:10.39 | Chris Sullivan | setbacks. What is the value of light and open space, visual relief and flexibility? Please inform me as a designer, designing a home, what are those values? I need to know before I start a design. I need to know under law. Anybody? |
| 00:43:31.62 | Chris Sullivan | permitted projections into setbacks. Definitions define setbacks as setbacks that have no construction when no construction is permitted. |
| 00:43:51.72 | Chris Sullivan | Section 70DE, the famous one, has a typo in it. We don't know whether it's the last sentence of section DE or the last section of sentences D and E. That's a major... restriction in the zoning code. as chair Luxembourg wrestle with to try to figure out Pine Street. in a meaningful way. I've got one for best and best, please. |
| 00:44:23.12 | Chris Sullivan | What are the yard depths based on the objective design standards that Sergio Rudin has written to me every week to say that we must comply with? |
| 00:44:37.93 | Chris Sullivan | Even if we truncated the code folks. We still couldn't get to the answers. We ran this through a logic model your code will produce 15.2 billion possible homes based on a logic tree that you use every two weeks. It produces one conformant home of negative 230 square feet. If you go backwards through the code, which is what Mr. Mandich was doing, must have been a lot of work. You have no conformant home. So as you know, you can't really go backwards in SP 35. You have to go forwards. |
| 00:45:19.49 | Chris Sullivan | Retaining wolves. |
| 00:45:25.55 | Chris Sullivan | The planning commission has the authority. |
| 00:45:25.72 | Unknown | Commission has the |
| 00:45:28.04 | Chris Sullivan | to review and make recommendations. |
| 00:45:29.93 | Unknown | So. |
| 00:45:30.86 | Chris Sullivan | Nothing for retaining walls folks. Um, encroachments are by Landius president. I believe this is an example one. Um, |
| 00:45:45.47 | Chris Sullivan | There's a 42% encroachment of the private lot. approved last year by the Planning Commission. Many, many others in the Soscelito. big ones. |
| 00:46:03.87 | Chris Sullivan | The Commission must consider the application based upon any objective standards specified in any state or local laws. conduct his review in a similar way for the encroachment. |
| 00:46:12.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:12.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | right? |
| 00:46:12.24 | Unknown | you. |
| 00:46:19.43 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you very much. |
| 00:46:20.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | very much. At this point, we're going to have questions of the Commission. And I want to start us off. Director Phipps, can you give me back that zoning analysis table for Mr. Mandage's presentation? |
| 00:46:36.54 | Director Phipps | I do not have that table accessible in this moment. If you'd like me to pull it back up, I can do that, but you'd have to give me a moment. |
| 00:46:44.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will give you a moment. That would be fun. |
| 00:46:52.86 | Chris Sullivan | I believe there's a truncated table from the general plan. |
| 00:46:56.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, that's not the table I'm looking for. |
| 00:47:00.70 | Chris Sullivan | I'm sorry, I sound like that. |
| 00:47:01.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It was in the presentation. |
| 00:47:15.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's the one. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:47:18.05 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:47:18.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Maria. |
| 00:47:18.52 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:47:19.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So... |
| 00:47:23.13 | Director Phipps | Can we go back to the table? Thank you. |
| 00:47:28.01 | Director Phipps | So if I understand your request, you'd like me to read and summarize this table based |
| 00:47:34.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I just want the table on the board. Okay. |
| 00:47:37.27 | Director Phipps | Excellent. |
| 00:47:37.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Good night. Thank you. I'm not looking for you to analyze it. So if we could just bring it up without the headers or whatever, just so it's a little bit bigger. Presentation mode or whatever. |
| 00:47:37.81 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:47:48.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:47:48.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:47:59.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so you asked a series of questions. This table, which we've used on hundreds of projects so many, many years, defines what the setbacks are. It defines what the building height is. It defines what the building coverage is. Defines the floor area ratios. It gives you a formula. It's a formula. You're lot-sized. You can go to the assessor's records. You have property lines. You can determine where your property lines are. The setbacks are from those property lines. So we have these very clear standards that your project needs to meet. We are supportive of a three-unit project, two units plus an ADU on the site, and we're looking for you to try to meet these particular standards, which are very specific and very defined. And so I guess I'll ask you, if we allow you time to meet these standards, can you revise your design, to comply with the, can you revise your design in light of these numbers which you were asked questions on, we have them and they're on the screen of what, you know, your square footage is clear, your FRR is a function of your square footage of your lot. These are not, these are all mathematics. |
| 00:49:28.78 | Chris Sullivan | So Lux Merger, I've seen your work. I appreciate your public service. You were a developer. I am a developer. We sort of understand each other. I spent years on the East Coast talking very directly as you. The point is that you have to start knowing what the code allows in terms of floor error ratio, in terms of height. And those elements, as you would expect from a code that's evolved, that has added in its DNA, a subjective element because processing has been discretionary in California forever. These things are decided at the dais historically. Now they're not, they're decided by the designer at the beginning of the project. So he doesn't have to redesign the project 10 times. It's organized to reduce the housing crisis. |
| 00:50:09.26 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:50:26.71 | Chris Sullivan | Fixed. Ministerial processing. Wiener 2017. Wiener 2023, October the 10th, engrossed and signed by the governor. These are the standards. |
| 00:50:30.58 | Unknown | We- |
| 00:50:46.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand fully what the laws require. What we're telling you is that, or at least what I'm telling you, is we do have very defined numerical standards for FAR, non-discretionary. These are clear. Height is very clear. Your height limit for this project is 32 feet. You're at something, I believe, in the area of 57 feet. No matter how you possibly... analyze this it's non-compliant i'm trying to help you here now you |
| 00:51:19.74 | Chris Sullivan | You're trying, but you're not helping. |
| 00:51:23.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, that's an opinion, I guess. Sure. But you're not compliant with the series of standards. I'll differ to other commissioners in a second. Let me just ask you a second question. I need to. Which of the three units are you going to put a deed restriction on for low and moderate income? |
| 00:51:26.11 | Richard Graef | Sure. |
| 00:51:37.32 | Chris Sullivan | I need to. No. |
| 00:51:44.73 | Chris Sullivan | Probably the ADU, though in fact SB 423 provides for ministerial, by right, non-discretionary, non-subjective, objective processing based on pre-identified rules. And if there are 10 units or less, there is no affordable requirement. January the 1st, 2024. |
| 00:52:08.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I believe that's the case, but I will defer to the city attorney on that issue. |
| 00:52:09.03 | Chris Sullivan | you're going to be |
| 00:52:13.06 | Chris Sullivan | Ah, the city attorney, yes, they've been great at their advice over the year. |
| 00:52:15.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | over the year. Let's not disparage anybody where you want to be civil here. I do not appreciate the disparage of anybody's character or whatever. I have other questions, but let me defer to others. |
| 00:52:29.85 | Chris Sullivan | I don't think I had an opportunity to answer your first question, which is a really important point or observation. Oh, |
| 00:52:36.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | How long would If you had time to revise your plan to meet these very clear objective standards, how long would it take you to do I'm trying to figure out a way so you can get your house built. |
| 00:52:56.78 | Chris Sullivan | There's no way. There's never been a way in Sausalito. Four houses in 20 years. There's never been a way. Because what happens is we try to do the design. |
| 00:53:05.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We try to do the design. If you don't think there's a way to build a house, I'm not sure why you submitted, but... Almost the last house that you... |
| 00:53:14.13 | Chris Sullivan | the last house that you approved here. |
| 00:53:16.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm trying to help you. But yes, I'll let me. |
| 00:53:18.23 | Nastassya Saad | All the minutes. Thank you. |
| 00:53:19.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE |
| 00:53:19.55 | Nastassya Saad | I think what the chair is attempting to do is see if you're willing to redesign to our defined standard. I'm sorry to commission us on. |
| 00:53:19.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:53:22.60 | Chris Sullivan | Yeah. |
| 00:53:26.69 | Chris Sullivan | of standards. I'm sorry. mission as well. |
| 00:53:32.46 | Nastassya Saad | Maybe a continuance that's at your discretion otherwise. I think you need to answer a yes or no if you're willing to read a song. |
| 00:53:40.68 | Chris Sullivan | You've already done that. We went back under Mr. Rudin's direction. We went back to the well. We went back to the code for three months. Crazy. If you don't know where your average natural grade is, Can you explain to me, to answer your question, how do I find average natural grade height in your code? I know your code, but you know it, of course, better than I do. |
| 00:54:10.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're not going to sit here tonight and do that. But simply, if you took from where your parking is to the top of your building, it clearly exceeds 32 feet. There isn't even a question it exceeds. |
| 00:54:27.64 | Chris Sullivan | average natural grade, it doesn't go from natural grade. |
| 00:54:32.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're not going to go. |
| 00:54:33.55 | Chris Sullivan | Mr. Commissioner Fela, I think is into all this stuff. |
| 00:54:37.97 | Kristina Feller | Chair, if I may. Yes, thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, thank you, Chair, for the floor. I think it's not helpful to be talking over one another. I think if you are asking a question, that needs to be asked without interruption, because there are also a lot of people at home listening to this. Yes, of course. |
| 00:54:39.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:54:56.02 | Tony Perez | Yes, of course. |
| 00:54:57.56 | Kristina Feller | We are videotaping this, and there's an audio tape as well, which we use for our public record. So at this point, I don't have any questions for the applicant chair at this time, but thank you for the floor. |
| 00:55:01.32 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 00:55:01.34 | Tony Perez | Yes. |
| 00:55:01.61 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 00:55:01.66 | Tony Perez | to do. Thank you. |
| 00:55:03.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | all. |
| 00:55:11.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Junius, do you have questions? Okay. Uh, What's that? Thank you. Yes, I apologize. I made that mistake. I'll lose to that when I became. Anyways, vice chair, do you have questions? I don't have any questions. |
| 00:55:28.22 | Nastassya Saad | TODAY. |
| 00:55:28.41 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:55:28.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:55:30.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So at this point, if we don't have any additional questions of the applicant, there was no time left. We will turn to the public comment part. And I'm going to turn to Director Phipps and Attorney Branham for instructions for. |
| 00:55:49.08 | Chris Sullivan | I must make a housekeeping point before we would start any public comment, please. |
| 00:55:54.39 | Director Phipps | I think I have some words to say, and I hope that it addresses your housekeeping item, Mr. Sullivan. So thank you, Chair. I'd just like to, yeah, prime the item as stated in connection with this particular item before we get started. As a Brown Act body, the Planning Commission is required to receive public comment on all items on its agenda prior to taking action on them. That is why we are allowing public comments this evening. However, commissioners ought to keep in mind that public comments that do not address this project's compliance with the city's objective design standards, for example, comments discussing concerns such as privacy, sun, shade, et cetera, cannot be considered by the commission in its treatment of the pending application and should not be discussed by the commissioners at the meeting. And just as a quick reminder, state law defines objective standards to mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development application, excuse me, applicant or proponent and the public official before submitting. Examples of standards that can be measured with certainty include height limits, FAR, setbacks, and some of the other objective standards as discussed. So that does it for my housekeeping in advance of this public comment, and I'll pass it back to you, Chair, to open it up. |
| 00:55:54.63 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 00:55:54.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think I'll... |
| 00:55:55.78 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:57:27.44 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 00:57:27.51 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:57:27.54 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 00:57:27.64 | Director Phipps | or |
| 00:57:28.03 | Chris Sullivan | I have a comment on housekeeping, if I may, before we do that. Just to have, I'll be 30 seconds. |
| 00:57:31.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just to have the 30 seconds. Make sure we follow proper procedure. I'll ask the city attorney whether a house gaming item can be brought in at this time. |
| 00:57:41.43 | Anne | Ms. Sullivan, you can make a comment as it pertains to public comment. We reserve the right to respond as appropriate and Just yeah, if you could keep it very brief, that would be appreciated. |
| 00:57:53.87 | Chris Sullivan | because of Very strong public input. Wiener, SB 423, October the 16th, engrossed on the 16th and effective January 1st, 2024. I have 33 other units in SB 35 processing at the moment, so I'm getting pretty familiar with the code. Removes the authorization for public oversight of SB 35, SB 423 applications. And the city attorney has accepted that these hearings are subject to that law. We don't have an agreement on public comment. Following my big disagreement with Mr. Rudin, I called the HCD, who clarified, They said, yes, it looks like maybe under the Brown Act, there were going to be comments coming in. But the obligation is on the chair of the planning commission. Sorry about this, Mr. Luxembourg to state that public comments will be disregarded by the planning commission. Even if they're about objective or non-objective design standards, that is the law folks. That is the state law today. We have nothing to hide, but we know there's a long history of disturbance of these items by public comment of people that don't want any development. |
| 00:59:16.13 | Anne | Thank you. |
| 00:59:16.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I'm going to ask the city attorney any response. We're going to pick public comment, I believe. |
| 00:59:24.81 | Anne | Yes, we will. Chair, if you don't mind reiterating what Community Development Director Phipps has said, which is that public commons will be accepted, but the Planning Commission will only take into consideration in making its determination tonight those that relate to objective design standards. If you wouldn't mind making that statement for the record, It sounds like that would satisfy the opinion that Mr. Sullivan received from HCD. |
| 00:59:49.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, city attorney. I state my agreement with that. Can you, you can take a seat right now. We're going to do public comment, and then we will proceed after that. Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan. With that, we're now going to take public comment, either from people in the audience or people on Zoom. You're going to be allowed three minutes for public comment. State your name and address for the record. We will take those comments. However, as Director Phipps indicated, any comments related to other than objective design standards cannot be considered by this commission. So we will be looking at, as discussed in the staff report, things like floor area ratio, building height, side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, and building, impervious building coverage, those kinds of objective issues that are in our code, we will be taking into account for this project. |
| 00:59:52.80 | Hunter Hancock | is. |
| 00:59:53.04 | Chris Sullivan | my disagreement with that procedure. |
| 01:01:07.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, if you want to raise your hand, Director Phillips will call on you from the audience, and you can also raise your hand in the Zoom application. |
| 01:01:17.38 | Director Phipps | And I'd just like to state that I have not received any speaker cards from members of the chamber this evening. If you have one, please bring it forward. |
| 01:01:33.16 | Unknown | And please step to the dais. Thank you. |
| 01:01:42.91 | Jeff Stafford | Hello, and thank you, planning commissioners. Thank you for listening to me today. up. I'm a neighbor. My name is Jeff Stafford. I am at 514 South Street, for the record, which is uphill and adjacent to the site in this proposal. I'm supportive of a responsible development on this site, always have been, and also acknowledge that the new state laws streamlining certain housing projects are critical in addressing the housing crisis. However, the cornerstones of these laws, particularly SB 35, is conformance with local zoning code and the general plan. When projects are designed to fit objective design development standards, streamlining their review makes sense. This project, however, does not meet the spirit or intent of SB 35. The lengthy list of deviations from code is exactly why this project should not and cannot be exempt from review. This includes the FAR, building coverage, impervious surfaces, site and rear setbacks, building height. The effect of these deviations are compounded by the project's steep site and location that is dangerous and difficult to access. This simply is not the type of site or project that the new laws were designed to address. This is not a free pass to ignore longstanding codes and regulations of Sausalito. So while I would welcome a thoughtfully designed home on this property, And two, as of right, and ADU, I cannot support this proposal because it simply strays too far from the rules and objectively does not meet the criteria for utilizing SB 35. I would encourage the commission to follow the staff's thoughtful and well-researched recommendation that this version of the project be denied. Thank you. |
| 01:03:08.16 | Unknown | And, |
| 01:03:27.67 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment. Looking back to the chamber for interested speakers. |
| 01:03:28.13 | Jeff Stafford | Thank you. |
| 01:03:35.22 | Director Phipps | Seeing one raised hand, I do not have a speaker card. Please submit it to us. Thank you. |
| 01:03:45.61 | Director Phipps | And sir, please approach the dais. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:03:51.84 | Aditya Padala | Hi, good evening. My name is Aditya Padala. I live on 518 South Street for the last 30 years. We're almost directly above the property that's being discussed. And before we came here, my wife and I came from New York, and all we cared about is safety in earthquakes and safety against erosion. and we looked at 200 homes in Sausalito before we bought our property. We lived in Sausalito for two years looking at those 200 homes. And one of the things we did is look up above our home. And we are on the round, I'm not describing this well, but we are below a round part, not the valley where things go down. And so when things rain like crazy, we feel very safe. We've also, one of the only homes there who we bought it 30 years ago that have done structural improvements and earthquake retrofitting to make our home stable. I used to joke with the neighbor of Jeff who spoke before me that prior to our solidification of our home, I felt that if an earthquake came, we would come down on Lou's house in pieces. Now I tell him that I'm fairly confident he's no longer there, but we'd come down in one solid unit because we're very structured. The point that worries me the most about what I've seen about this process is what it will do to the whole hill above it. |
| 01:04:43.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:43.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:43.36 | Unknown | We'll be right back. |
| 01:05:05.36 | Unknown | if, |
| 01:05:26.57 | Aditya Padala | And I think it's very, very complicated. Obviously, we want more homes to be built. We want more affordable homes to be built. We're fully supportive of that. But nothing in the plans that we've seen makes it seem that it's safe for us that live above it. And I want my address to remain on that and not Sausalita Boulevard below. Thank you. |
| 01:05:51.04 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment, sir. Looking back to the chamber, if you haven't submitted a speaker card, please submit it now. |
| 01:06:05.61 | Director Phipps | Then yes, sir, please approach the dais. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:06:08.47 | Hunter Hancock | Hi, my name is Hunter Hancock. Colleen and I live at 244 Sausalito Boulevard. We're one of the two houses, along with Chris Fong, who are directly below the site. We have Aditya's concerns, but the other direction. |
| 01:06:27.47 | Hunter Hancock | We've tried to engage Chris during this process earlier on. Our real concerns, of course, are structural, right? The idea that the driveway is inevitable is not obvious to us. Putting a driveway there means, because the site is so steep, that it has to go all the way across the width of it. And that would cause quite a large retaining wall. And there's really nothing in Hurricane Gulch that looks like that, possibly 3739 Crescent. And so we mentioned that to Chris Sullivan when we first met him. And, you know, we are supportive of there being a house there, but we want it to be safe. We don't want it to fill the lot entirely. We appreciate the floor area ratio standards. And we are wary of that hill. If you've looked at that rope ladder that they have, just human transit up and down that thing has has caused a tremendous amount of erosion and mr sullivan has told us that the hill that he has this uh report that the hill is extraordinarily stable but that's really not been our experience living there for 24 years the rains bring stuff down any amount of contact brings stuff down and uh you know it's a really steep hill Thank you. |
| 01:08:01.74 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. And I'll just ask again, members of the audience who wish to speak, who have not spoken, and who have not submitted a speaker card, please submit it now. Thank you. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:08:14.95 | Unknown | I have three minutes to speak. Chris Fong, Hi everyone I'm Chris Fong I live at 200 Sausalito Boulevard, which is right next door to Hunter, who just spoke before me. And I just wanted to say, you know, I support and echo everything that has been said before me. Mr. Sullivan has the right to build a house for sure, and we're trying to work with him on something that will fit within the boundaries of the law and also keep our houses I guess just as in great shape as they are. So I'd just say, last I'd just say I agree with the city planning staff's conclusion. And yeah, thanks for listening to me. |
| 01:09:03.25 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. Okay, seeing no additional speakers in the chamber, I will look to the Zoom application. I currently see one raised hand, and that is the hand of Sandra Bushmaker. Ms. Bushmaker, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:09:17.41 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you, good evening. Commissioners, I was going to say council persons because it's usually where I'm speaking at council meetings. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm a neighbor of the applicants. I am further up the street from the prior two speakers. But I'm on the same side of the street as the applicant up Sausalito Boulevard in the low 300s. of Sausalito Boulevard. I, I, I'm concerned about safety issues. Now, that raises the point in my mind whether safety issues can be considered an objective standard or not. Uh, I don't know that we have time or ability to debate that tonight, but I think that There needs to be some consideration for safety issues, particularly for the driveway that is being proposed coming down onto Sausalito Boulevard. I walk there all the time. Every day I walk up and down in front of this parcel. And I have seen the debris from that chain ladder in Sausalito Boulevard. In fact, I have called Public Works several times myself to have it cleaned up. I do not object to the applicants Ability to build on that lot. It just happens to be a very challenging one. And I would like to be able to see that there is some way that safety Uh, for pedestrians, cars and bicyclists down onto Sausalito Boulevard can be taken into consideration. And with that, I would just like to support the, at. compliance. by the applicant with the objective standards that have been disclosed in our statutes or ordinances. All right. Thank you. |
| 01:11:00.19 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Ms. Bushmaker. Looking back to the Zoom application for raised hands, just a reminder, if you're calling in from a phone, please press star nine to raise your hand, and I'll give attendees an additional opportunity to raise their hands virtually. Looking to the chamber. |
| 01:11:20.71 | Unknown | on Tuesday. |
| 01:11:23.55 | Director Phipps | If you're on Zoom and you would like to speak, we generally require that you raise your hand. |
| 01:11:35.92 | Director Phipps | I'm not seeing a... Oh. Could it be an SW? |
| 01:11:50.38 | Director Phipps | So we are enthusiastic about allowing folks the opportunity to provide public comment at meetings, but we do have procedures in place for virtual public comment. If you're unable to raise your hand, and in the absence of a specific name as to who'd like to speak, I think that we're going to have to move on. But I appreciate the public's interest. Chair, back to you. |
| 01:12:18.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back up to the dais. So this evening, this is different than our normal processes because it's a SB35 project. I want concurrence from City Attorney Branham. We are providing oversight pursuant to SB35 of the Community Development Department's recommendation and evaluation. our decision this evening would not be appealable to the city council. Is that correct? |
| 01:12:57.57 | Anne | Carolyn Gallagher, That's correct chair, so the planning Commission tonight pursuant to statute SP 35 or because it's now been amended by sb 423. We'll just call it government code section 65913.4. removed the ability of the city council to conduct any public oversight of a project that was applied for pursuant to that statute. It does not, though. It expressly continues to allow the Planning Commission to conduct design review, which is what we're here for, in accordance with objective standards, as you've identified. |
| 01:13:32.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. And so that's a little different than our normal process. I just wanted all the commissioners to be fully aware of that. |
| 01:13:39.04 | Director Phipps | And Chair, if I may, I just want to make for the record once again that commissioners ought to keep in mind this evening that public comments that do not address this project's compliance with the city's objective design standards can't be considered by the commission in its treatment of the pending application. So I just want to make sure that we're abundantly clear on that. Thank you. |
| 01:13:56.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. With that, I'll turn the commissioners on where they want to be on this. |
| 01:14:04.81 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Fella. I just want to make a quick note into the record, if I may. Ms. Cray, who maybe could not raise her hand on Zoom, did issue a public comment in writing. So I just want to make that note onto the record. |
| 01:14:05.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:14:23.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. If there's not further discussion, I'll be looking for a motion on this. Anybody want to make a motion? I share a side. |
| 01:14:33.91 | Nastassya Saad | I'll make a motion to deny this project. |
| 01:14:39.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Looking for a second. |
| 01:14:42.27 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:14:42.28 | Anne | Thank you. |
| 01:14:42.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:14:42.34 | Anne | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:14:42.57 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:14:43.15 | Anne | If I may make just a suggestion, my apologies, if we could add for the benefit of the record that the denial is based on non compliance with the city's objective standards that that would be good, thank you. |
| 01:14:54.40 | Nastassya Saad | I'll make the motion to deny project 20230000026 based on noncompliance with the objective design standards. THE FAMILY IS |
| 01:15:06.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | City Attorney, do you want us to illuminate all of the various statements? |
| 01:15:14.26 | Chris Sullivan | City Attorney, is there not a rebuttal right to comment? |
| 01:15:15.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not making public comments. |
| 01:15:20.08 | Chris Sullivan | I'm not making public comments. I'm the applicant to go through 30 years of code. |
| 01:15:22.68 | Anne | You were given... |
| 01:15:25.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You're, you're the |
| 01:15:26.31 | Chris Sullivan | Yeah. |
| 01:15:26.45 | Anne | So you were given warning that you could reserve time for rebuttal. The chair made you aware at three and a half minutes that you could reserve that time and you elected not to. |
| 01:15:26.46 | Chris Sullivan | Bye. |
| 01:15:34.11 | Chris Sullivan | Okay. So I cannot say anything about my home. |
| 01:15:37.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, no, please. |
| 01:15:39.71 | Chris Sullivan | Thank you. |
| 01:15:40.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, you cannot. |
| 01:15:40.57 | Chris Sullivan | No, you cannot. Even though the things discussed were inaccurate just now. |
| 01:15:42.75 | Andrew Junius | Accurate just now. To your seat. So we're in deliberations and motions. You need to return to your seat. |
| 01:15:48.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for for coming, but yes, we allow you an opportunity for to save rebuttal time you decided not to so thank you if you could |
| 01:15:48.33 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:15:51.79 | Chris Sullivan | You're welcome. |
| 01:15:58.26 | Chris Sullivan | Six years work and then 15 minutes. |
| 01:16:00.69 | Kristina Feller | So as we're in deliberations here, I'm going to continue with your revised motion, Vice Chair Saad. And I'll just read into the record that the basis of our Recommendation for denial. Is that expressed by our associate planner and staff report? in determination of inconsistency with residential zoning district standards and general development regulations, which the floor area ratio is exceeded, the coverage limit is exceeded, the impervious coverage is exceeded, the side setbacks are exceeded, the rear setbacks are exceeded, and the building height is exceeded. So based on those conditions, I will accept your amended motion and second that. |
| 01:16:48.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Are there any other amendments to the motion? Is there any other comment? With none, Director Pips, please call the roll. |
| 01:16:58.63 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Filler. Yes. Commissioner Junius. |
| 01:17:00.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:17:02.16 | Director Phipps | Yes. Vice Tarsad. Thank you. |
| 01:17:03.78 | Anne | Yes. |
| 01:17:04.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Sheryl Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:17:08.47 | Anne | and share one more thing, if I may, before we leave this item. Just to remind the applicant that this does not prejudice your ability to resubmit your application. you know, please reach out to staff and we'll work with you to come into compliance with standards. But this denial tonight does not preclude you from re-submitting your application. |
| 01:17:29.68 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask the audience, please? Thank you. Please. |
| 01:17:33.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Please exercise some |
| 01:17:34.51 | Kristina Feller | Please exercise some decorum in our chamber. Thank you. |
| 01:17:38.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Please. Thank you. |
| 01:17:45.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:17:45.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:45.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:17:45.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:45.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, let's move on. Next item on the agenda. is item six, item seven a, and this is a, we will consider a study session on the proposed draft form based code and objective design and development standards this evening. After receiving a staff presentation, we will take public comment and we will provide direction as appropriate. With that, let's, This gentleman clear out the presentation materials and we'll go on. |
| 01:19:08.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | whatever file we want to put them in. As part of the |
| 01:19:15.68 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Principal Planner Tops. Thank you, Associate Planner Mandich. |
| 01:19:24.10 | Director Phipps | Okay, thank you, Commissioners. So on to the next item. This is a study session on the proposed draft form based code and objective design and development standards, which are over and above the standards currently in place. We have both Bob Brown and principal planner Neil Toff joining us this evening. I will give Mr. Brown the floor. |
| 01:19:24.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:46.74 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:46.76 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:19:46.96 | Bob Brown | THE END OF |
| 01:19:47.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Director Phipps. |
| 01:19:47.98 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:48.02 | Director Phipps | Can we pull up the |
| 01:19:48.97 | Bob Brown | I don't know. |
| 01:19:49.04 | Director Phipps | PowerPoint? |
| 01:19:53.83 | Neal Toft | I'm going to add, yeah. |
| 01:19:55.53 | Director Phipps | Yes, give us a moment, please. |
| 01:19:59.21 | Bob Brown | While that's occurring, I'll also mention that we have Tony Perez from Opticos who is going to be participating remotely. |
| 01:20:28.91 | Bob Brown | Excellent. Thank you. So it's been almost a year since we last discussed our efforts to adopt and update the objective design and development standards for Sausalito, which I'll be abbreviating as odds in this presentation. And during that time, we worked with your staff, with your EIR consultant, and with your city attorneys. to adjust the odds to reflect the adopted housing element densities, which we'll be discussing further tonight. |
| 01:21:01.04 | Bob Brown | I recognize that some of this presentation will be familiar from last year. but since it's been a while i'll be covering why we're adopting odds although i think uh the last item made that pretty clear um what are odds uh what development projects would these odds apply to how we've gone about preparing the draft odds for Sausalito. And then I'll spend the bulk of the time talking about describing those odds, And then we'll talk about next steps. opportunities for the Commission to ask questions and members of the public to provide input and then any feedback the planning Commission has for staff and onto the city council. Next. So why adopt odds? Obviously, as we've discussed already this evening, there's a new state laws that seek to limit local discretion as a means of facilitating housing production. And for qualifying projects that are new residential and mixed use, these decisions in most cases have to be based on adopted objective standards. |
| 01:22:08.24 | Tony Perez | Thanks. |
| 01:22:11.48 | Bob Brown | These state laws are very confusing, even to attorneys and practitioners. But to try to put them in three buckets as to how they affect the city's design review and development review functions, the first bucket are projects that only add a single new housing unit or involve renovations of existing housing. Those are not subject to the state laws and the city's normal design review functions. Your discretionary approval abilities are all intact for those projects. For projects that add two or more new housing units, um, and which are not affordable and do not meet the state's affordability requirements. The city. can do design review. However, you're constrained in terms of not being able to deny or reduce the density of those projects. That gets to be a fairly slippery slope because the effect of your projects are largely going to be cosmetic. It will be very difficult for cities under these provisions to actually reduce the size and scale and volume of buildings because, again, that could very easily make the project infeasible. And lastly, our projects that do meet the state requirements for affordability, and there's some other requirements as well in terms of prevailing construction, labor wages, etc. But projects that meet those affordability requirements are then allowed streamlined processing, and that's what we've been talking about earlier this evening. In those cases, it's a ministerial process, and if projects comply with all the adopted odds, Next. And even with wonderfully adopted odds that are fantastic, they're still, these projects are still subject to the state density bonus law. So applicants have the ability if they meet affordability requirements to waive any of the zoning standards, including the odds that we're talking about tonight. Next, please. |
| 01:24:14.92 | Bob Brown | I don't think I need to go over the definition. We just heard that a few minutes ago, so we'll pass this slide. |
| 01:24:19.58 | Unknown | . |
| 01:24:21.97 | Bob Brown | So very importantly, how will we design the odds? What projects will they apply to? So again, as the HAA, the Housing Accountability Act defines two or more new dwelling units, those would include multifamily projects or supportive transitional housing projects, emergency shelters, or mixed use projects that qualify with two thirds of the floor area being residential It would also apply as we've written it to any modifications to projects that were built under the odds code. in the future. Um, We would only be applying the odds to properties that you currently have zoned for multifamily, Thank you. and non-residential zoning districts that allow housing. So right now, those would be the R2, R3, CN, CC, and CR districts. Thank you. It does not apply at all to your single family zoning districts, and that would include SB9 projects in those single family zones. It also does not apply to non-residential projects or to remodeling of projects, including multifamily. Next. So as I said, we've had to do a bit of backtracking with the adoption of the new housing element. The housing element has two programs, 16 and 19. They call for preparing odds in response to state laws and also evaluating the height limits to make sure that this new zoning can accommodate the permitted densities in the housing element. The original odds that we drafted were really based on the building volumes and densities in your existing zoning code. So the adoption of the housing element out of the new dimension, we have in the housing element 48 housing opportunity sites that allow densities up to either 49 or 70 units per acre. And so that necessitates additional odd zones that will accommodate these higher unit counts. Next, please. |
| 01:26:20.89 | Bob Brown | So the way you've gone about preparing the odds, So back we've already heard tonight back in 2021, the city council adopted interim odds Those are still in place. um the planning commission at that time appointed uh commissioners feller and junius to work with staff to develop uh augmented odds to replace those interim standards we've been at this since 2021 the committee subcommittee has met 16 times and i really want to acknowledge all the hours that commissioners junius and feller have put into this greatly appreciated um And so they've really focused on how to customize the odds for Sausalito. They decided that we should utilize a Marin County odds toolkit that was developed. A consortium of almost all the cities in Marin combined state grant funds and work with the county. and hired Opticos to develop what they called a Marine County toolkit. And so we've worked with the subcommittee on tailoring that toolkit specifically for Sausalito. And we've had a number of study sessions up to this point, two at the Planning Commission, two Historic Resources Board, and three with the city council. So this toolkit was really initially based on Opticos' study of housing types in Marin that felt very comfortable and typical of Marin. And they worked back in terms of trying to devise zoning standards that would yield those types of products. They completed this toolkit in 2021, gave it to the various cities, and a number of cities have adopted to date. others are in process. Corte Madera, Belvedere, San Anselmo, Nevada, and Marin number of cities have adopted to date. Others are in process. Corte Madera, Belvedere, San Anselmo, Novato, and Marin County have already adopted versions of this code. Next. |
| 01:28:14.31 | Bob Brown | So the customization that we've done in Sausalito, as I said, again, we started comparing the odds and selecting portions of the odds that would be tailored to your existing zoning volumes. The odds references the existing zoning code in terms of densities and FAR. So those aren't contained in the odds. Those would be consistent with your current general plan and zoning code. Um, And as I said, again, because of the housing element now with additional density for these housing opportunity sites, there's an additional zone that's been created over the past several months that we'll discuss. |
| 01:28:52.14 | Tony Perez | Next, please. |
| 01:28:56.21 | Bob Brown | So in terms of the housing opportunity sites, Opticos went about analyzing 33 out of the 48 sites. Normally they would do far fewer, but these sites are also individual and unique. They vary a great deal in size. Some are very small. Some are the MLK available sites. And the topography is quite different. Some of these sites are quite steep. Um, As part of that analysis, Opticos actually went and tried to place, you know, building footprints and parking layouts on these sites to figure out how we can accommodate the units that are prescribed in the housing element for each site The first assumption that we made, though, was the unit size. The average unit size that they have used to develop these prototypes is 600 square feet. Fairly small, but again, the intent was to try to minimize the volume of these buildings would have to accommodate And also, frankly, a 600 square foot unit is by its nature more affordable by design. And if we're trying to create affordable housing, this works towards that. The analysis that OptiCoast did found that, again, based on the variety of these sites, you might need anywhere from two to five stories for each site to accommodate the densities prescribed by the general plan for the housing opportunity sites. Next, please. |
| 01:30:21.63 | Bob Brown | So to try to describe the odds, let's take a kind of a step back and try to understand what the purpose is, what the objectives are of the form-based code that OptiCoast creates. The codes try to reduce the scale of buildings by limiting the maximum building sizes. And I'll show an example of that in a second. They try to put the parking where it's less visible. They really pay a lot of attention to the pedestrian orientation of these buildings so that they create a really pedestrian oriented frontage, very active street frontage. They address development on slopes, making sure the buildings step with the slope. They address privacy impacts when you have adjacent multifamily units across from one another. And they also have screening requirements for various things that we wanna keep hidden. Next please. |
| 01:31:18.47 | Bob Brown | So Opticos has been sort of developed sort of notoriety in the last several years. Their codes address what has been termed now the missing middle housing. So these are housing types and densities that really were sort of prevalent before the Second World War. And they're sort of a transition between the very low density single family and projects that are sort of mid or high rise apartments that would, say, take up a full block. So these are our scale that sort of is compatible between those two extremes. Next, please. And the OptiCoast form-based codes try to make sure that these housing types are integrated into the existing neighborhood fabric very well. And as I say, one of the aspects of the code is that it requires that larger sites be broken up into smaller components. So you can put multiple building types and it creates a more organic feel to the streetscape and a better transition in scale with the existing. Next, please. |
| 01:32:18.73 | Tony Perez | Thank you. |
| 01:32:20.28 | Bob Brown | This is an example of a project recently built in my hometown that would not be allowed by an OptiCoast code. And the reason is that this project really turns its side to the street. The units and the garages are all oriented towards an interior driveway, and they even put a parking space right next to the sidewalk. Again, this is not what the OptiCoast code generates. They have a lot of regulations that relate specifically to how the building should face the street and integrate with the sidewalk. Next. So I think in terms of describing how the odds work, because the form based code is quite different than the traditional zoning code. I'd like to sort of walk you through how a developer or an architect would use the code. So first, they would want to figure out what's the maximum building volume that's allowed. So the first thing they would do would be to figure out which odds zone applies to this particular property. |
| 01:33:15.49 | Tony Perez | Next, please. |
| 01:33:15.90 | Bob Brown | Thank you. So in this draft, we have four zones. As I said, the first three are really sort of based on your existing multifamily and mixed-use zones. I would note that the neighborhood small scale, the NS zone, is being applied to the R2 zones, which allows duplex. So we limit the building types that are allowed in that neighborhood small scale to either a single family home or duplexes. The neighborhood medium scale and the mixed use small scale allow multifamily and then mixed use development in the mixed use. And then, as I say, we've added the housing opportunity sites overlay to deal with the new housing element. Next, please. So there will be a parallel zoning map that will be essentially the second page of the city's adopted zoning map. And it will indicate where these odds zones are applied to which properties. And here you can see. The housing opportunity site overlay are the red sites. These are just the first phase, and I'll describe the difference in a moment. Next, please. So what the zones do in each of the, in the Opticos code is again, they establish the allowable building types you can have, the maximum development size. the site that you can have for each of these building types. the setbacks, the setback encroachments, the height limits. They regulate the percent of the building facade that you have to have on the street so that it's not composed largely of parking areas. It addresses the allowable frontage types. And again, it references the general plan for the densities and FARs. Next. I want to point out two things that are different in this code than the current zoning. We have proposed to reduce the parking requirement somewhat as a means of promoting housing development. So right now, studio one bedroom requires a space and a half and they would be reduced to single space. And then two or more bedroom units would be either two spaces or, I mean, sorry, one and a half spaces or one space for the mixed use zone. And we also increased the bike parking. Again, we think it's very important if we're going to be reducing vehicular parking, and particularly for more affordable housing, that bike parking is available. So there's a requirement for a secured space per bedroom in each project and a shared guest space per 10 units. |
| 01:35:27.52 | Unknown | And, |
| 01:35:27.69 | Hunter Hancock | Yeah. |
| 01:35:27.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:47.93 | Bob Brown | Now. |
| 01:35:48.10 | Tony Perez | Thank you. |
| 01:35:48.28 | Bob Brown | Thank you. And as I mentioned, the three original zones that were developed that are applied to all your multifamily and mixed use zones, really sort of track the existing zoning in terms of height limits and setbacks, etc. So again, the intent is to base those first three zones on your existing zoning building volumes. Next. And the HO sites overlay, again, we have 48 of these sites. We are proposing in the first round of adoption that we would rezone 30 of these sites with the HO overlay. And those are the sites that are not affected by the Fair Traffic Initiative or ordinance 1128, since those require a vote of the people to be implemented. So the first phase would just deal with 30 of the sites that aren't so encumbered. And I would just note that the HO site, because of the higher densities, it limits these to larger building types. So the smaller building types, the cottages, the duplexes, the smaller building types are not allowed here. And most importantly, it increases the height limit to four stories, up to 40 feet to the highest even, 45 feet maximum. And it requires a five foot step back for the fourth floor to try to reduce the visual impact of that fourth floor. Next. So then again, getting back to the designer, once they've figured out their zone and what those regulations are, they would pick one of the building types that are allowed for that zone. Next slide. And there are 11 different building types that are defined and regulated by the odds. And these, again, are pretty typical in Marin. Next. So the building types, they regulate the maximum building dimensions. They require the minimum amount of open space for that building type. And they also define how pedestrians will access the building. Next, please. |
| 01:38:01.34 | Bob Brown | So again, getting back to the designer, to figure out next to the building form and the design, they would select one of the massing compositions. that are available for each building type. Next, please. And there are 15 of these massing uh, provisions, matching, massing con, uh, compositions, um, that are available total. Um, and again, these are trying to provide some minimum articulation to the building types. Next, please. And then lastly, the developer would select a frontage type. next. And there are five of these for residential and four of these for mixed use projects. Next. And what the frontage regulations dictate are the size and dimensions of the entry element that they're required to have. how these might encroach into the setbacks, the height above greater sidewalk, and in the case of the commercial frontages, the minimum amount of glazing and the base level to the window area, etc., trying to define, again, how the building addresses the streetscape. Thanks. In addition to these basic regulations for each zone and each building type, there are regulations that apply universally the odds projects that include screening for mechanical equipment and parking areas some parking and loading requirements, how to deal with slopes, again, in terms of stepping the buildings, requirements for the public frontage that have to be adopted for the project, and, again, privacy standards when you have buildings that face one another in close proximity. |
| 01:39:45.24 | Tony Perez | Next, please. |
| 01:39:47.75 | Bob Brown | I want to touch on architectural standards. These are not included in the customized version for Sausalito. The Marin County Odds Toolkit does contain very, very detailed standards for six different architectural styles. These are mostly historic styles like Mediterranean, craftsmen, et cetera. But also there's a contemporary style, which is a lot of what you see being built today. And these regulate everything from windows and doors and fenestration and cornices, detailing, materials, colors, they're addressed in the architectural standards. We did not include them because the Historic Resources Commission felt strongly that they were too prescriptive and would result in a sort of faux historic buildings, kind of a Disney-esque version of historic buildings. And the subcommittee, odd subcommittee members agreed with that. So they're not included. But just want to point out that lacking these, what the odds will do is they'll regulate the building placement and form. but they won't regulate the facade design. So that's going to be left up to the architecture. |
| 01:40:56.47 | Tony Perez | next, please. |
| 01:40:59.07 | Bob Brown | We also have regulations for larger sites. You do not have many of these, maybe the MLK site I imagine would be the only one that I'm aware of. So these are for sites that are over three acres. And what they try to do is break up a large site into individual blocks, make sure that there's pedestrian pathways through those, require a certain amount of civic space and have design criteria for those civic spaces, and other things like stormwater management standards. next. There's a chapter on administration, which essentially just refers back to the permit procedures in your zoning code. Doesn't establish anything new. Next. And there's a whole chapter on definitions. There's 124 defined terms in the odds. Some of these are pretty unique. So they are all have individual definitions. And there's a section that's really good on measurement methods. And the last applicant was asking a lot of questions about how you measure things. These are well defined in the odds, which I think will serve you well in the future. Next. Okay, I'm sorry that we covered a lot of material there, but what's coming up next, we intend to go to the city council with a similar study session. The EIR, final EIR is being completed for implementing numerous housing element programs, including adoption of the odds. So, David Vogelpohl, Ph.D.: You propose to then include these in a larger batch of munich's will code amendments to the code. and amending the zoning map and creating the new odds zone map as well. again in phase one for the sites that don't require a public vote. Then the planning commission will hold a hearing on adoption of these initial phase one ordinances. Council will have a public hearing, and then in the fall, the intent is, after a public vote, to implement the second phase of the map changes. And I think that that is it. There was a lot to cover, and I'm happy to answer any questions and detailed questions about the odds themselves. I'll pass along to Tony Perez, who's here remotely. |
| 01:43:09.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Brown. That was a very thorough presentation, and I know you folks have spent a lot of time on this, and we appreciate that, and we know it's extremely complicated. I'm going to start off here. I think two members of our commission here have served on the working group, so they're very familiar. And two members have also, Vice Chair Saad and Commissioner Fellows, served on the Housing Element Committee, so they're very familiar with that piece of it. I was not fortunate enough to serve on either of those, so I'm going to have some very technical questions, and I brought some of these to Director Phipps, and he said bring them up tonight. So, commissioners, bear with me because I'm going to get into the weeds on some of these issues because I was not part of the process to date. But I fully understand the need to do this. I fully understand the concept of form-based zoning. But I want to get into some of the technicalities of what we're really doing because there's some definitional stuff that I want to start with. So I'm going to ask a series of questions and I'll open it up to other members. So I want to understand the mechanics. On the second to last slide, you talked about a zoning change in MAP. But let's assume for the sake of discussion, what you have before us this evening is what you want to get approved. And so what I understand, I think it's attachment to, is a MAP. which would be included in that package when we get there. And we would be approving that. |
| 01:44:43.18 | Bob Brown | you |
| 01:44:43.20 | Tony Perez | Yes. |
| 01:44:43.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. And in that map, for example, there are four zones, NS, MM, MUS, and HOS. And as you said, some of the items that you would wanna make HOS at this time, because of the requirement of a ballot initiative, you're not going to put them in at this time. However, for example, a site 201 which is on bridgeway in in the housing element approved housing element is included in this map in the MUS. So when you adopt this, until you adopt the other, the odds for that site will apply for generally. Put aside if there's an application on board. I don't want to get into the weeds of that. But we are rezoning that site to MUS now and eventually would rezone it to HOS, for example. |
| 01:45:52.52 | Richard Graef | Correct. |
| 01:45:52.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we are basically rezoning all of the commercial areas of the city to MUS. We're basically rezoning all of the R2 stuff to the NS and all the R3 stuff to NM. And then some of the housing sites will be HOS, but other of the housing sites will be one of those other things. And that will be the density until we get through this ballot initiative. Is that correct? |
| 01:46:22.81 | Tony Perez | Thank you. |
| 01:46:22.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:46:22.97 | Tony Perez | Thank you. |
| 01:46:23.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. So I want to make sure I understood that, which I now do. So there is an attachment three. Can we bring up attachment three out of the agenda, I guess, which is your chart? Yes, we can. With a... |
| 01:46:47.08 | Unknown | Yes, we can. |
| 01:46:54.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so you have some color coding in the right column. You explain why the ones that are four and five is that they're just because they're, is there anything other than that one color is four and the other color is five? |
| 01:47:09.74 | Bob Brown | No, just trying to differentiate again based on Opticos' evaluation of 33 of these sites, how many stories would it take to get through the prescribed number of units? And then we've simply highlighted in green the ones that are the H70, that's 70 units per acre sites. What we really tried to find was, was there an obvious break between the 49 unit per acre sites and the 70 unit per acre sites? For example, to the 70 acre unit per acre sites. require four and five stories. And the 49 units require two to three stories and no. I can't say that we did find any consistency there. So again, I'm just trying to highlight the sites that for various reasons, for the slope or the size of it, whatever, triggered higher heights being necessary. And I would point out that we also find that the ones that are highlighted in red, the five are typically. David Miller, Individual parcels that are adjacent under the same ownership to other parcels there's a number of situations in the housing element where that exists, so we think in those situations. David Miller, Those sites, the applicant has the ability to combine them to create a larger site and could probably develop within a four story, so we don't think it's necessary to go to five story for these sites. |
| 01:48:31.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so the way I understood it is the limit and the height for HOS is four stories, 45 feet. The limit for MU might actually be, there's another one that has a 40 foot limit. |
| 01:48:46.20 | Bob Brown | No, the other three zones go up to 32 feet, the current city height limit. Thank you. |
| 01:48:51.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so. |
| 01:48:52.85 | Bob Brown | Except if they have affordable housing. Except if it's one of the housing opportunity overlay sites with the higher densities. |
| 01:49:01.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... Okay, but that, we're going to go down to the weeds on that in a minute, because I think that that's not correct in what I saw. So that might need to be fixed. Okay. So, okay. So what you're recommending is no more than four stories where you think it needs five stories. You think it can be spread out with additional sites or even on the same site sometimes you can be but closer to the street or whatever if the sites are merged it gives more flexibility so the limit of height in all cases is is forced four stories regardless of whether it's hos or or or or that's the limit uh for the hos we'll go to we'll go to some others other things in a minute |
| 01:49:28.03 | Bob Brown | the |
| 01:49:28.07 | Tony Perez | Yeah. |
| 01:49:41.74 | Bob Brown | For the HOS. No, no. |
| 01:49:45.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so is Tony able, Tony, are you able to bring up the 10A, any page in 10A if we share a screen with you? |
| 01:49:57.84 | Tony | I don't know what you're referring to. |
| 01:50:00.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 10A is what's being recommended for the adoption, and it includes all of the objective design and development standards. He's asking if you can bring up the draft. 100-page. It's a draft. |
| 01:50:12.43 | Bob Brown | He's asking if you can bring- If you could break it. |
| 01:50:21.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yep. |
| 01:50:21.98 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 01:50:22.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:50:22.51 | Director Phipps | Tony, Tony, I'm able to do that. Oh, excuse me, Commissioner. |
| 01:50:22.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | tony tony i'm able to do that oh excuse me commissioner what's it sorry |
| 01:50:26.74 | Director Phipps | Sorry for interrupting. I was just communicating to Mr. Perez and team that I'm able to share the draft odds. |
| 01:50:34.03 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, thank you. Just while that's coming up, I just wanted to ask a follow up on that five story because I saw the note in the staff report as well that if there is an adjacent lot, but there's no, that's not a requirement that we can make by any means, right? So it's just a suggestion. Is that gonna be accounted for in writing? |
| 01:50:54.65 | Bob Brown | No, again, we feel that in those cases, the owner of that lot has some flexibility where they could develop four-story if they so choose, rather than just uniformly create a five-story limit for those sites. |
| 01:51:06.23 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, but they do have the ability to create that five-story if they don't wish to combine their adjacent lot. That's what I was just not following. No. |
| 01:51:15.02 | Bob Brown | No, we would. The proposal is to limit this to four stories or story limit. And then frankly, as you know, if the applicant is qualifying for the state density bonus law, they can get the extra story or whatever through a waiver. |
| 01:51:28.47 | Nastassya Saad | I see. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:51:30.09 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:30.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:51:30.18 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:30.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. Just to reiterate, so the limit would be four stories. The only way it goes above that is with some exemptions. Thank you. |
| 01:51:36.82 | Tony Perez | Thank you. |
| 01:51:36.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:51:36.86 | Tony Perez | Yes. |
| 01:51:37.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Alright, so I know ran decrepit so I'm looking for page 26 of the report not necessarily page 26 of the of the attachment So on the bottom of the report you'll see page numbers. So Let me Prelude my comments here. We have an issue on a project previously with a 40 foot requirement for a 40 foot wall limit. And then there's provisions in our zoning that how you measure that. And it's caused problems on previous projects because it's a little bit ambiguous. So there's a provision in our code that says you can't have a wall that exceeds 40 feet And if it does you have to set it back further for the from the line so I In that there's another provision that's a little bit confusing with regard to that. So I'm only raising that here was we have, and I agree that we need to do this and all that, we have 80 pages of lots of numbers, and if those numbers conflict with another number somewhere, somebody comes in and argues that, no, no, this is conflicting, and therefore you can't approve it kind of thing. And so I'm raising that as I go through some of these numbers. So. |
| 01:52:57.30 | Kristina Feller | Chair, just for clarification, I think what you're referring to is the depth. It's horizontal, not a vertical height, but a depth. |
| 01:53:04.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What a difference. |
| 01:53:05.74 | Kristina Feller | Definitely. |
| 01:53:06.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's a horizontal length of a wall, which requires an additional setback if it goes over 40 feet in length. A building wall. |
| 01:53:15.05 | Bob Brown | Not in retaining mall, building mall. |
| 01:53:15.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not every team. Thank you. |
| 01:53:17.13 | Bob Brown | Well, |
| 01:53:17.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. And I'm only raising this because it doesn't have to do with heights or anything. It has to do with the idea that you put one thing in one part of the code, another thing in another part of the code, and they're conflicting. And bear with me because these are technical, and I reviewed this a week ago, and my notes are in detail, but I want to go through this. And this is maybe an example or maybe the only place it happens, but on page 26, this is the MUS site, and I'm having trouble reading my notes and reading the wall because you get the... There's a footnote. So the maximum height can be 32 feet. And the maximum height to the E parapet can be 32 feet, code C. And there is a footnote here, and this is MUS, and not a housing opportunity site, that says for qualified affordable housing projects, a 40-foot maximum within the 40 feet from the front development site. So that's on the screen. And, and I know this is in the weeds, but it's crazy. It goes to this issue that I'm raising. So, unlike the, the M and the N and the N and M where there are slow rooms, the MUS has a flat roof. If we scroll so we can see the diagram for a second here. you're gonna see there's a C and C is less than D in this diagram. But when you go down to the chart below, C and D are exactly the same height. And then when you go to the footnote, it says D can be higher. but it doesn't say C can be high. So either C needs a footnote, or in the NU and the NM, there are sloped roofs. And it reverses because the peak of the roof is higher and the parapet thing is lower. So I guess I'm trying to understand what this is. But if we had this, somebody will come in and argue, no, no, no, you can't go to that maximum height. And so, you know, so yes. So I just wanted to lay out what the issue is. So Tony, either Tony or Bob, can you enlighten me whether we need an additional footnote for item C there or what's going on? |
| 01:55:46.64 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:46.68 | Tony | Thank you. |
| 01:55:46.71 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:46.73 | Tony | this one to Tony. |
| 01:55:47.60 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:48.80 | Tony | So yeah, thanks for the question. The first of all, the 40 foot height allowance is just that. It's an allowance for an affordable housing project. So if you have an affordable housing project, the assumption is that you're going to be Um, getting other exemptions like you would in the HOS overlay zone. And so in this case, we just saw that there might be sites where this would need to happen, and so we gave that flexibility. If that's incorrect, then that flexibility should be removed. But that's what it's intended to do. The. the C and D, if you could scroll the page to show the diagram again, It's just showing the maximum that both of those can be. It doesn't mean that you would design it that way, because you can't have them both at the same height. It's just telling you the maximum they can be. If the city would prefer to have that more spelled out to exactly what it is instead then we can figure out those numbers and do that. This is simply just telling the designer, You know, if D is 32, then yeah, C is allowed to be 32, but it can't be. It has to be less to have a parapet extending like that. And then if I could draw on your screen, I can't The parapet and flat roof are shown here not necessarily as the only way to do this. It's just assumed that people are going to use the maximum height and not want to put a pitched roof in there. But if you wanted to have a pissed roof, showing There's a standard that we could apply called the sloped roof parapet that you've seen in on older buildings, where it looks like it's a pitched roof, but if you go up on top of the roof, it's only sloped for as far as I can see, and then it turns into a parapet. So you could require something like that on buildings that have a flat roof. |
| 01:57:53.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I mean, if you go, the direction of this, if you go back a couple pages, Oh. |
| 01:57:59.82 | Director Phipps | Do you know which page? |
| 01:58:00.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. No, but if you just scroll back, it's going to be this diagram for it with a sloped roof. Yeah. Thank you. there we go 22. So this one here that this one here c is below d and c is 32 and d is 40. So that makes sense to me but again I'm I know this is minutiae but we get it's amazing what we get when somebody comes in when they want to fight a project and they say no no that you said absolutely maximum and this is this this exceeds that you you can't have that do that. So I'm flagging this, and I'm asking you, one, to go look at this and see if this should be clarified and fixed as you go further. And also, please recheck all your notes and all your items to make sure that we don't have these inconsistencies. There was one earlier in the last time we had this. The side yard was different than the front yard. That got fixed, I think. It got changed, so it's fine. I'm just flagging these things because, You know, I'm using 201 as an example because without an actual project, it is really hard to understand this. You have to take an actual project and see what it does to it. And so, you know, I was just using it as an example. |
| 01:59:22.79 | Kristina Feller | Karen Hollweg, This is a different example because this overall height is 40 Max where whereas C is 32 so you're not comparing the same designation. |
| 01:59:35.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, no, but I'm comparing the use of the code. |
| 01:59:36.07 | Kristina Feller | I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO Yeah, I think what Tony described, I think explained the issue with the parapet. Like it's up to the architect. And one of the things we were striving for is not to be very specific about the design, to allow architects their creativity and flexibility, but use the formulas to give them the parameters of what they could actually design in. And that's why these two are different. So I think Tony explained it well. And thank you, Bob, again, for also explaining that. |
| 02:00:09.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. But I think the other one should have the footnote on both of them. I mean, I think that's what I'm saying. We'll look at that. |
| 02:00:14.13 | Unknown | look at that. |
| 02:00:14.47 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:00:14.55 | Unknown | that. We'll look at that. |
| 02:00:17.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Anyways, I think you've explained how this is going to be implemented. I want to flag that we are going to rezone housing opportunity sites that are not, unless they were single family sites. We are rezoning them all, regardless of whether they're going to HOS or not. We're going to rezone them once, and then we're going to rezone them again. And that's the way I'm not just saying it. |
| 02:00:45.08 | Tony Perez | Two phases, yes. |
| 02:00:46.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. And that's I'm okay with that. I just want to make sure that that was clear with that I will turn it over to others for questions Commissioners Juniors. |
| 02:00:56.85 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. Just a couple more general questions. Um, I'm still there are two areas here that still kind of concern me and I just don't can't get my head around it. irregularly shaped lots. Now, if I went to the definition section and I didn't go there yet, I apologize, but Are there. clear instructions as to what you do with a lot that's a rhombus or a skinny in the front and wide in the back. I mean, setback, you know, every, every, the picture we see in the base is it looks like it's right at the same city. It's a nice square block and it's a nice square corner. We don't have a lot of those in Sausalito. We've got a lot of. odd shaped lots and even if they look kinda square they're really not when you look at the survey and Thank you. Just wondering how we're supposed to deal with that going forward and where the odds come in there. |
| 02:01:47.83 | Bob Brown | Response, Tony? |
| 02:01:49.23 | Tony | Yeah, so in those, I was just checking in the... in the back and the definitions. And typically, we include a diagram and a method for how to apply the setbacks and how to determine the front and side and rear of an irregularly shaped lot. In this code, that isn't here. So my assumption is that we are relying on the way it's currently defined in your zoning code. Thank you. |
| 02:02:17.31 | Andrew Junius | Do we have a provision to do that to to to. |
| 02:02:21.38 | Bob Brown | I'm not certain, but I'll go back and check. |
| 02:02:22.26 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. I'll go back and check. There's got to be somewhere, so let's make sure that's |
| 02:02:24.89 | Bob Brown | You're right. And you're right that that is for unusually shaped lots. That is a constant struggle for staff defining what's the front, what's not, what's the rear. Yeah. So we'll look at that compared to your current code. |
| 02:02:33.87 | Tony | with that. Thank you. Thank you. you If the current method in your zoning code is not sufficient or you want to see options, we have content that we can add to this to deal with that. |
| 02:02:46.29 | Andrew Junius | Good question. I know you guys will solve that. Thank you. And then another super high generalized question. So how does this work with additions? I'm still confused about this again really seems perfectly adequate to build cities in the big flat areas of the Central Valley where we can just lay out streets and lay out nice square lots and pick all this stuff. But in a city like Sausalito, where we're going to have, you know, |
| 02:03:10.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:10.64 | Andrew Junius | a lot less new construction than we are additions and changes. Please clarify that. |
| 02:03:16.31 | Bob Brown | If it's an addition that doesn't add two new housing units, then it's your current design review process, your current zoning, no change. If it is an addition that adds two units to an existing building, it will have to meet the odds. And so, yes, you could get into some unusual situations there. Again, that may be where, you know, waivers come in or on the part of the applicant. You know, in the original version, in the Opticos, in the toolkit has an adjustment process for unusual situations. It's sort of variance. And the Opticos in the toolkit has an adjustment process for unusual situations. It's sort of variance-like in the findings. And frankly, while we tried, while I think Opticos tried to make it objective, I know your city attorney had real concerns that it still smelled and quacked like a variance, which, of course, isn't allowed because that's a a discretionary approval and subjective findings so um yeah again you could get into some unusual challenges when you have additions to existing buildings um we had a situation i plan checked in sausalito where you had a sort of a 60s office building that was set far back from the street was being converted to housing. So there were two or more new housing units. And that project had a very hard, would have had a very hard time meeting the odds because the building was set so far back from the street. It really avoided all the streetscape requirements. So I don't know if Tony, you have anything to add to the challenge with additions to existing. |
| 02:04:50.88 | Tony | Yeah, like in the case you just described, Bob, what we have done in some rare cases is provide content for determining substantial compliance. So buildings that just can't comply, but they're adding and the addition is fine. you can have findings. that are met that basically demonstrates substantial compliance with the standards. |
| 02:05:20.27 | Bob Brown | And again, determining substantial compliance could very quickly, as you know, devolve into very subjective findings. So that's the tough one. |
| 02:05:28.04 | Andrew Junius | Okay. Great. And then a final one. At the very beginning, Bob, your slides talked about the buckets of what applies and what, which is a great analogy and very helpful for the most part. But I still think, you know, are we going to get into situations where, the number of units for example the number of 80 use that might be possible on a larger lot in an r1 district is going to be protected by the housing accountability act and will trigger objective standards. You had a slide up there that basically said it doesn't apply, does not apply in single family funds. |
| 02:05:57.72 | Tony Perez | Thank you. |
| 02:05:57.75 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 02:05:57.89 | Tony Perez | Thank you. |
| 02:06:00.50 | Bob Brown | And we are not creating odds for single family zone sites that might contain a new home and a new ADU. |
| 02:06:08.98 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:06:09.30 | Bob Brown | or might be an SB9 application. Those would rely on your existing objective standards in your zoning code, and you also have adopted some SB9 standards, so those would apply, but these odds are not intended to apply in those situations. Great. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thanks. |
| 02:06:25.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Junius, Vice Chair. |
| 02:06:30.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. And I'm sorry, excuse me, you guys from the coughing. I had, can we go back to the reduced parking? You had it on one of your slides. And can you just elaborate? Was that, is that a recommendation then from Opticos? Is that new? |
| 02:06:50.08 | Bob Brown | That's from Opticos, myself, and in our work with staff. So yes, that is the proposal. I'd also note, as came up earlier, there are state laws too that in some cases exempt parking entirely if you're within a half mile of, say, your ferry terminal, et cetera. You know, again, parking is becoming a bit of a slippery slope, but yes, the intent of the suggestion in the draft is to slightly reduce for multifamily and mixed use projects, the residential component of the parking. |
| 02:07:23.55 | Nastassya Saad | I see. And is this then our time to have that as a discussion point? I mean, I don't know if that's something then... Thank you. |
| 02:07:30.46 | Bob Brown | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:07:31.19 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. I just wanted to understand that. And then there was something actually was quite specific. |
| 02:07:31.24 | Bob Brown | Yes. Yes. |
| 02:07:38.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I have a clarification on what do you mean after the public hearing? |
| 02:07:43.46 | Bob Brown | I assume you're taking public testimony tonight? |
| 02:07:46.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | get a few deliberations. |
| 02:07:47.15 | Bob Brown | of this evening. Public comment, yes. |
| 02:07:47.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, this evening. Public comment, yes. I thought you meant the hearing. We're taking public comment. We're not doing a hearing this evening. So I thought you were implying the public hearing we're having. We should have this conversation today, not this evening. No, sorry. |
| 02:07:59.57 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. And thank you for clarifying the five stories. I was unclear about that. And then in terms of streets, there was something listed about a street can be adjusted up to 100 feet in either direction. I think this was |
| 02:08:22.90 | Nastassya Saad | on page 116, if I have my notes correct. I just, I don't think I understood that even in concept. you |
| 02:08:30.59 | Bob Brown | I think this is referring to the large site regulations. |
| 02:08:34.62 | Nastassya Saad | I believe so. |
| 02:08:35.55 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:35.62 | Nastassya Saad | so that's And they... |
| 02:08:38.15 | Director Phipps | Excuse me, Vice Chair, if I may, are you referring to page 116 in the draft odds themselves? |
| 02:08:44.56 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, I am. Thank you. |
| 02:08:45.22 | Director Phipps | I am. Thank you. I will go there. |
| 02:08:47.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Yes, in the draft odds, page 116. |
| 02:08:48.06 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 02:08:51.31 | Nastassya Saad | I, |
| 02:08:51.33 | Director Phipps | I can respond to that. |
| 02:08:51.60 | Tony | I can respond to that, Commissioner. |
| 02:08:52.60 | Nastassya Saad | I just, I'm not, I'm not following that logic that a street |
| 02:08:55.80 | Tony | So that one, I think you're talking about on page 116, item 3B, required streets if indicated on the SOSLITRE zoning map. So sometimes we've seen cities... have from a policy level in their comprehensive plan some future connection of a street And so this is just, if that happens and you show that anywhere in a comprehensive plan map or on your zoning map, that the mat location is shiftable up to 100 feet. if you showed that anywhere on your maps. |
| 02:09:36.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry, I don't understand that either. |
| 02:09:38.53 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I don't hear you terribly well as we get you just a little closer to the mic. |
| 02:09:44.16 | Tony | I'll turn the sound up in-house. We can do that as well. |
| 02:09:44.38 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:09:44.42 | Andrew Junius | or, |
| 02:09:44.59 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:09:44.64 | Andrew Junius | So, |
| 02:09:45.40 | Director Phipps | on. |
| 02:09:45.45 | Andrew Junius | up in-house. We can do that as well. |
| 02:09:47.59 | Tony | So item 3B. |
| 02:09:50.26 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 02:09:50.68 | Tony | you required if indicated on SusLeaderZoneMap And this is just in case you have some policy level intention to connect one street with another, with a street that doesn't exist there yet through a big property, And you want to do that. You want to show it. on the comprehensive plan or on the zoning map, this is saying As it's shown there on those maps, its location is shiftable by, in this case, up to 100 feet in either direction. |
| 02:10:22.07 | Bob Brown | I see. This is probably a lot more applicable to towns that have a lot of future development and vacant fields. You're extending streets through and have a specific plan that might say where future streets are going. I'm not sure how applicable it is to Sausalito. |
| 02:10:37.35 | Nastassya Saad | That was, I think, right. Okay, well, I understand that now. Thank you. Thank you for the explanation. |
| 02:10:41.86 | Kristina Feller | I think that the only sites that could potentially be applicable here is down in MLK or potentially in the Marin ship. Those are the larger sites. And I don't know that that would apply elsewhere. |
| 02:10:50.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:10:50.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:10:50.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:10:50.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:10:50.62 | Unknown | you |
| 02:10:57.57 | Nastassya Saad | I would agree with that, thank you. Um, |
| 02:11:00.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let me have a follow-on question. What about streets that don't really exist? I mean, they're either stairways or they're underwater. Does this affect those? We have a lot of streets. All of our zoning maps have streets that are underwater. They have a lot of streets underwater and a lot of streets that don't actually exist in reality. But they were mapped at some point. So our zoning map has those, but then when you go out in the real world, they're not there. Does this section apply to that at all, or this only applies to open fields kind of thing? |
| 02:11:36.89 | Tony | Well, the intent is for open fields and for new sites like MLK. It's not for, it's required streets. That's the operative part of this. The more that you all talk, you know, it just seems like 3B isn't necessary here. |
| 02:11:55.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can say that again where you were a little muffled. |
| 02:11:57.75 | Tony | Sorry, I'm trying to speak as close as I can to my microphone. The more that you are all talking about this, it seems like 3B is not necessary. We thought it might be from a policy level in your new general plan that there might be a street that this might apply to, but evidently not. |
| 02:12:14.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I would encourage you if there are things that you don't think will apply, when in doubt, take it out. Yeah. |
| 02:12:15.20 | Tony | I'll look this up. |
| 02:12:21.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:12:21.61 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:12:21.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioner Asad continues your questions. Thank you. |
| 02:12:25.79 | Nastassya Saad | And my last question, I'm not even terribly sure how to articulate this, but if there was no housing opportunity overlay created, what would be? an alternative. Just wondering if we need more of these overlays. |
| 02:12:43.88 | Bob Brown | Well, we have to articulate which of the sites are allowed to go up to 49 or 70 units per acre. And the housing element does that on a site-specific basis. So I don't think we want to try to rezone large swaths of the city to those kinds of densities because the housing element was pretty surgical in identifying those sites. So this is one means of allowing those sites higher density, but the sites around it, keeping them at your current densities. |
| 02:12:52.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:52.81 | Tony Perez | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:12:52.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:00.76 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:13:00.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:10.18 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. And so just to clarify, then all the housing opportunity overlay sites are for all of the, only the housing opportunity sites listed in the housing element. Okay. Currently 48. |
| 02:13:10.23 | Bob Brown | Okay. |
| 02:13:19.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:13:19.22 | Unknown | Exactly. |
| 02:13:19.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:13:21.78 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:13:23.45 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask a follow-up to that? Yeah. |
| 02:13:24.32 | Nastassya Saad | At least, yeah. |
| 02:13:25.24 | Kristina Feller | So once those are rezoned, we can retire the overlay because it would basically be redundant. Is that correct? |
| 02:13:32.13 | Bob Brown | No, you will have both overlays on your zoning map |
| 02:13:36.04 | Kristina Feller | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:13:36.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:36.36 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:13:36.70 | Bob Brown | and in the odds map. The zoning map is going to have, I think, four overlays because it will identify Sites that allow housing only at 49 units an acre, housing only at 70 units an acre, mixed use at 49 units per acre, and mixed use at 70. So there'll be four of those on your zoning map. The odds treats them all the same. |
| 02:13:57.04 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:13:57.05 | Bob Brown | Thank you. in terms of regulations, but no, until you change your housing element in the future and say those sites are no longer needed, they'll have to remain as an overlay. |
| 02:14:06.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:09.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:14:10.76 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:10.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:14:10.86 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:11.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Other questions? That's all. Thank you. Vice Chair said. No, I'm not. Commissioner Feller, I was going to be out. I wasn't. I wasn't. |
| 02:14:16.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:16.95 | Tony Perez | So, yeah. |
| 02:14:17.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:14:20.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going left. I'm going left. |
| 02:14:23.09 | Kristina Feller | I'm kidding. Sometimes I go confused. |
| 02:14:23.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm, I'm, Sometimes I go commissioner or vice or whatever. Sometimes I go left to race. |
| 02:14:28.00 | Kristina Feller | So first of all, I really, Bob, want to thank you and Tony and the OptiCo's team for all the work. Commissioner Junius and I, well, at least I am in awe of a lot of the work that you've done, and it was hard to follow many times. So thank you for always being the North Star and keeping us in line. So thank you for that. I want to go back to something that I think is really important to talk about. in something we struggled mightily with, probably the biggest struggle we had, and that is view preservation. and how to make that objective, which I think is close to impossible. Thank you. But we came up with some ideas on how to get closer to it. And I wanted you to maybe talk through those a little bit, you know, in that whole process, because I don't want to I'm not sure that I'm prepared to completely leave behind some guardrails around that within the objective realm. So could you address that? |
| 02:15:30.22 | Bob Brown | Sure. Well, first, I think with working with the subcommittee, we looked nationally to see if there were any communities that have cracked this nut, how to make view preservation criteria that are objective, couldn't find anything. So we're on fresh ground here. And when you have to realize you need to define a lot of things in trying to create view preservation, which is, Mm. How many, let's say it was subject property. that is proposal, how many properties around it. are entitled to preservation of views. Is it a certain distance? How far? It could go for miles, theoretically, if somebody sees something. Where are the vantage points for measuring that view? You have to define where on the property adjacent surrounding properties you would take that image and measurement. You have to define what specific items, distant objects you're preserving views of. And then you have to, the most difficult thing, is trying to define what's an impact, what's an unacceptable impact. So is it a percentage of view blockage when you define whatever this view scape is? So all those things are very difficult. It's possible to do that. But what's even further complicating is when you're dealing with these new state laws that have a very limited timeframe for determining compliance. sometimes only 30 days. Um, you know, it makes it really difficult to, to, analyze a view analysis that an applicant submits for, for accuracy. And then, of course, you've got dealing with the adjacent property owners and, you know, their ability to have input into this in terms of at least at a minimum, the accuracy of this view analysis. And so for those reasons, the city attorney strongly advised that, you know, this just really wasn't quite ripe. We also discussed doing view preservation, not from private property vantage points, but from public vantage points. So, for example, from parks or from all the stairs, the public stairs that you have. So that's a little more limiting. And because they're public properties, you can define the exact vantage point and direction that you're preserving the view. So that's a little bit easier. And again, we took it only so far if the city wants to pursue this in the future. We certainly have a model that is partially baked that the staff could work with. But again, it's a real tough legal question. And I think the city attorney felt the strong likelihood that there would be litigation that would follow from that. |
| 02:18:22.89 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, thank you for that background and explanation. I think it's important for everybody to understand that. and understand the struggle that we had and where we came up with the idea of maybe a public spot, which is much more clear and like a GPS coordinate, so to speak. Since this is just a study session, I would advocate pursuing this further. and including it with that obviously with the objective eye on that if that's possible That's something that I would certainly advocate. I'm not sure. The other item that I just wanted to touch on, again, being a study session is the SB9, because this commission did draft and recommend to the city council what I'll call maybe part one of an SB9 objective standard. And I believe... and I'm looking over to the director for confirmation one way or the other. I believe we were also asked to look at single-family SB9 as well. There are very, very few of those lots. I know that we did an inventory early on in the housing element. But so they're very, very few, but in an effort to be thorough and comprehensive throughout the city, you know, we should think about, you know, how and when that's included and how that might affect what you're talking about with Phase I with the Objective Design and Development Standards, or is that something that would be a phase two of the odds. So I just want to maybe understand that a little bit better, both from you and Tony, Bob, and maybe Director Phipps might be able to help out on that as well. |
| 02:20:18.17 | Bob Brown | I would just, I guess, pitch to Opticos that I know Opticos had a contract with ABAG to develop SB9 standards, I believe. So I think the document exists as a template. So, Tony, you might want to address that. |
| 02:20:35.30 | Tony | Yes. Let me just get closer to the microphone here. um, Sorry, my computer's freaking out here, but You can hear me. I would point you to the most recent example of SV9 standards that we've prepared. Based on the toolkit we wrote for a bag. that anybody can pull down and customize. is Sebastopol. and that is in process right now. They adopted their odds Um, recently and they shifted their attention to processing the SB9 standards that we prepared for them. and their plan is to adopt them here very soon. |
| 02:21:22.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Tony. I think that this might be something that we should be looking into. It certainly is not grounds to hold anything up with the objective design and development standards that we need to move forward with now. but I believe we were asked to look at this by the city council, and so that could be a great example that perhaps we can execute an initiative to look at that as well. those are all my questions or comments for now. So again, thank you, Bob, Tony, and the rest of the Opticos team. |
| 02:22:03.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Fallow, thank you. I have two more questions, fairly simple. You mentioned large sites. There was a slide. How many, you did a study of the HOS sites for the height limits. How many large sites exceed three acres that you know of in the city of Sausalio? One, I think it's the MLK site. Okay, that's what I thought. So I just wanted to put that on the table. Secondly, that chart for it was an analysis of zoning heights was just that. It's not going to be adopted. It doesn't go into text. It was just for our information to see. |
| 02:22:22.86 | Bob Brown | One. |
| 02:22:39.15 | Bob Brown | Yeah, it's just part of the analysis we share with staff and the subcommittee. Okay. |
| 02:22:43.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So at this point, are there any other questions? Thank you. |
| 02:22:46.93 | Kristina Feller | Go ahead, Vice Chair. Go ahead. |
| 02:22:46.96 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:22:47.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:22:50.14 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:22:50.15 | Nastassya Saad | Just back to the... concept that Commissioner Feller was discussing in terms of views. Couldn't you argue that the privacy is what I'm reading here in terms of privacy, even from the parking and loading, this is on page 39 of the odds, and the intent is Part C appropriately limits screens and landscapes motor vehicles, parking areas for visual quality of the community, enhanced privacy. I mean, that seems a little subjective in its own right. But from the privacy aspect, even with the way that the windows, there are some objective setups for privacy, right? Like the windowsill, I can't remember what it is, 44 inches or something. It's the offset, yeah. |
| 02:23:36.88 | Tony Perez | IT'S A LITTLE BIT. Thank you. |
| 02:23:37.98 | Nastassya Saad | offset like that. Put in a privacy, you know, from a height of who is living in this, not to get so far out there though, but I feel like. There are some subjective nuances in here when it comes to privacy alone. And I think I would just encourage, from what Commissioner Feller says when we get to that point, to discuss the views. I don't know what your take is on that in terms of maybe the subjectivity of some of the way the privacy language is written. |
| 02:24:10.68 | Bob Brown | Well, first, I hope that the privacy regulations in the code are not subjective. I don't interpret them that way. But yes, and again, I think that a lot of the standards you mentioned, the screening, the parking, loading, that sort of thing. Again, the intent is in the code that those are objective. There are distance requirements. Many of these codes have perspectives from the streetscape only, not from all properties around it. Right. So you're trying to screen the parking from the street and from the sidewalk. But again, when you're dealing with with view preservation, |
| 02:24:15.15 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:24:46.93 | Bob Brown | where That is a vantage point for from surrounding properties that are all unique That's where it's really hard to come up with objective standards because every particular view situation is unique from from that property. It's a tough one. |
| 02:25:03.67 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, it is. |
| 02:25:04.44 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:05.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So what I'd suggest we do, I would like to just, let me just, I was gonna suggest something here. I was gonna suggest that we provide some public comment and then we bring it back up to the dais and then we bring Bob back up and then allow us to have a conversation about where we go from here, allowing some, but we at least have had public comment before we finalize any further. |
| 02:25:09.20 | Andrew Junius | I am. |
| 02:25:09.93 | Nastassya Saad | the |
| 02:25:09.98 | Andrew Junius | Let me just like. |
| 02:25:33.28 | Kristina Feller | I have just one last question that I'd like to ask that could impact public comment, Chair. |
| 02:25:37.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | okay that's |
| 02:25:37.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:37.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:25:38.61 | Kristina Feller | And that is, can you just touch on the potential of water-based housing? We're talking a lot about land-based housing, but as you know, our housing element does include the opportunity for water-based housing. I just want to make sure that's commented on before public comment, if someone wanted to comment on that. |
| 02:25:56.01 | Bob Brown | My recollection, Tony may chime in, is that we did talk about this very early on, particularly with the city attorney at that time. And the determination was, again, since the Opticos form-based code is all about structures, buildings, that it would be very difficult to, it certainly wouldn't be applicable to water-based housing. So we would have to come up with entirely new and unique standards for that. And Opticos didn't have anything that they had previously done. So we did not pursue that. |
| 02:26:28.31 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:26:30.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Bob. So at this point, why don't we take public comment, and then we can bring it back up to the dais to get direction. And also, if we have further questions of Mr. Brown and Tony, we could do that at that time. So at this point, is there anybody on Zoom or anybody in the audience? We're going to open public comment on this side. |
| 02:26:53.20 | Director Phipps | At current chair, seeing none, I will allow participants on the virtual end time to raise their hands. |
| 02:27:03.75 | Director Phipps | Seeing none, sure. |
| 02:27:04.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thanks. We'll close public comment. We'll bring it back up to the dais. So I am hearing, first of all, I'd like to make a comment that I concur with what the working group said about architectural standards, that given the eclectic nature of Sausalito and not to, we want to encourage architects to use their creativity within the basis of the form-based codes. The architectural standards in other places might make sense, but here I would agree it doesn't make sense here. One aside, I just want to get on the record. For the next time, Director Fitz, can we get print copies of this? It's too hard to try to struggle through. It would be good to flip. I go out of my way not to require prints of anything, but this one might be helpful. |
| 02:27:59.84 | Director Phipps | The city endeavors to be a sustainable arbiter. of resources. However, if it is directly requested by the chair, we would be happy to entertain it. |
| 02:28:11.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I think if we could have print copies of this document when we get to the public hearing stage, that would be helpful. I'm hearing that we would like you to continue to pursue a little bit, and we'll have that conversation about review standards. And we'd like to get, if we just get a copy of the ABAG toolkit on the SB9, then we can look at that and decide whether we want to give you any direction on that. Does that make sense? Yeah, that would be, we could just, even not at the time of the next meeting, if we could just get a copy of that. Senar is a one-way... any direction on that does that make sense yeah that would be that we could just ahead even not at the time of the next meeting if we could just get a copy of that sent out as a one-way communication that would be helpful uh other comments and thoughts on next steps here obviously they laid out um what the next steps are and you're going to go to a study session with the city council um You missed Cullochama. There was no one. |
| 02:29:05.47 | Andrew Junius | There was no... All right, I would like to say a few things then. You know, I don't wanna beat a dead horse here, but the view thing really is, I think, central to one of the more difficult questions that we're gonna have to deal with in Sausalito. |
| 02:29:06.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:29:19.81 | Andrew Junius | No question that views are super important. A lot of people who live here because of the views, a lot of other communities have similar issues that when you have a lot of topography and stuff wonderful things to look at from hillsides, you're gonna have views and then you're gonna have people that are upset when their views are compromised or taken away or in any way impacted. So not to in any way diminish what was and what is, but, I mean, honestly, the idea of trying to come up with an objective analysis to preserve or to at least even analyze private views |
| 02:29:53.23 | Unknown | And that, |
| 02:29:55.91 | Andrew Junius | in the context of this new world we're living in, is impossible. I mean, I think it's pretty much it's impossible. I think public views are. less impossible, but equally difficult. I mean, I just, the whole idea of the word view you know, is means a lot of different things to a lot of people. It's a sub it's a it's in itself a subjective word. So I really hope we can move on from certainly the private view discussion, because I do think that's essentially impossible. On the public view, I do want to caution that if we go down that path, we could spend a lot of time and money on consultants trying to come up with technical regimes of calculations and spots and you know, to your point, Bob, you know, analysis of what really is an impact or, How do you calculate that? Um, How is it from the viewpoint of a person that's six foot two on the sidewalk or six foot or five foot eight or, I mean, the amount of variables in something like this is truly staggering. it's again, probably possible to do it from a public viewpoint because again, the problem with the private one is as Bob, very accurately described, you just have too many, you know, who knows? I mean, how many people are going to participate? How many people have their, you know, who want to participate in a view study? I mean, the way the, the way the discretionary world acts right now for views and will continue for single thing, you know, for certain zoning districts and whatnot, is if people complain about a view, we analyze it. And if they don't, we kind of move by. And the people coming forward saying their views are impacted, need to participate in that. And we've actually in the last two or three years had a few situations where We've had claims where, well, We let them in and no, you didn't let them into their living room. Was it the living room? Was it the kitchen? I mean, it's just it's just crazy to try to, you know, objectify this kind of stuff. So I just think it's It's a super slippery slope to think that even on the public side, we're not going to run into problems here. And I mean, a simple, I mean, just think about this, for example, you know, kind of a hypothetical question. Let's just say we try for something like this. And we've got a ministerial project that's, you know, six, seven stories high off in the distance there on Bridgeway somewhere in the coming years. and Somebody can see it from a, sidewalk that's been analyzed in terms of a view impact. And somehow they start saying, well, wait a second, it can't be that high because I can see it from, it affects my view or somehow they work into the formula that we may have created for public views. And then we're in a real tough spot because it just, I don't know, I just think it's maybe a little more technically feasible, but I strongly, you know, I've thought a lot about this. And Corinne Strafeller, I know we've worked a lot about this, and I just think there's so many moving pieces here. And a lot of this is hard enough to kind of add this into the mix is, I think, you know, I think is the wrong move. So I strongly think we should just move on from views. I mean, you know, this whole process is kind of a interesting journey into the unknown. This is a brand new world we're dealing with, you know, literally the discretion that commissions like this and the city council have had over lots of different housing projects over the last 50 years is literally being taken away. And that last hearing, kind of, you know shows us kind of what the future is going to be about because even there, there's a, there's going to be arguments about what's objective and how do you measure that? And when is that the right measurement? So, It's not as if we're not going to have our work cut out. I do think the staff is really going to be critical here in terms of trying to work with this, you know, giant new set of prescriptive rules. It's going to be very interesting. I mean, I do think, you know, I'll just finish with a little story of my naivete as a land use attorney. |
| 02:33:54.23 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:33:56.27 | Andrew Junius | When this first started coming up, you know, five or six or seven years ago, when all the objective, when all the rules were coming out of Sacramento, talking about streamlining and taking discretion away and making it easier to approve housing projects, and the first term objective standards started to get bounced around, I said, oh, my God, this is going to be, this is going to be great. This will be easy. How many objective standards could there be? We'll get them all on one page. This will be a piece of cake, you know, and this is going to be awesome. Then I come to Sausalito, And I get. And I get the honor of working with Commissioner Feller and you all great people. And I think this is going to be fun. And I see this thing that Marin had created and I almost had a freaking stroke. I mean, I just couldn't believe it. I get it now. And I think, you know, one of the ways we should be looking at this is, you know, I think the part of this is as, as communities are losing this true discretion, You know, the, you know, people are feeling figuring out a way to build discretion back in. I mean, build at least neighborhood character. It's not so much a. discretion anymore, but it's like, these are really prescriptive rules, and I'm actually kind of, it's really kind of a bummer that no architects showed up tonight. I mean, I can't wait for the architects to really think about what the heck's going on here, because this is really going to change their world. You know, to your point, Bob, once the massing is set, once the setbacks are set, it's like, you get to pick the finishes. You know, I mean, is that all the architects going to be doing? I mean, it's really a, this is going to be fascinating, and I'm really looking forward to the next few years to just see how this plays out. So really nice job, Bob. Thanks. Commissioner Peller, it's been an honor working with you on this, and I hope we get to keep going on it and see it through the end. Likewise. So it's been a lot of fun, and thanks. |
| 02:35:35.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:35:39.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioner Feller, additional questions? |
| 02:35:42.62 | Kristina Feller | No, I mean, again, I would work with Commissioner Junius on any group I was assigned to. It has been a pleasure, and I always learn something new. This is a very difficult thing to wrestle, and I'm not going to repeat everything you said because I'm not that articulate, but you're right. It does change everyone's world. um, and we've struggled for two years to try to figure out the the view thing and and i know it we're almost at the end of that but i'm responding to the staff report about you know huge you know if if the city desires you know this could be looked at in the future and so i'm not i'm not at all intending to hold anything up by any means, and I'm incredibly proud of what the draft that you have produced, Bob and Opticos. I'm very, very pleased with that. I was, I did participate in the county odds and that creation, and that was just, I mean, Sometimes you don't know what you don't know. And boy, I didn't know anything when we started that. or when I got involved in that, which was it was always already well started. But I think that what we have come to for Sausalito is in response to Sausalito. I think that's why we did not elect or the city did not elect to adopt the county odds because it was really way too broad and for the most part did not apply to Sausalito because we do have kind of funky lot sizes and shapes and paper roads and all of that, it really just didn't apply to all the different conditions and situations that are unique to us. And so, you know, I think I really don't have anything more to comment on. I appreciate you clarifying a couple things and really enjoyed working with all of you. |
| 02:37:48.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Can I make one more comment? |
| 02:37:51.09 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Yeah, one final thing. You reminded me of something. Let's all be really clear. This is the first step in a very, very long journey. Like any ordinance, like any set of rules, it can change. And I think, again, I think once everybody starts seeing it and working with it, we're going to see a lot of the things that don't work or need to be changed or need to be refined. I hope actually this evolves and I hope that the city council and the staff are willing to work together with the Commission, you know, with consultants like you know you guys Bob and Opticos to just make it so that it just gets better and we're not always fighting about a rule like this. 40-foot thing. I mean, frankly, I think that should have been fixed one way or the other, clarified, you know, years ago. So these poor housing projects that have been coming, get a rule they can understand. But yeah, this is just the beginning, and it's going to be interesting to see how it evolves. So thank you. |
| 02:38:42.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Saad additional |
| 02:38:45.58 | Nastassya Saad | I just wanted to say thank you to the working group and, of course, to the consultant. I don't know how you were on both the Housing Element Advisory Committee and the odds, but you guys, this is a huge task and it's overwhelming, so this was very digestible. My only comment and feedback specifically here is I would ask that we relook at that parking reduction as a feedback here. But other than that, I think I'm very happy to support what's here. |
| 02:39:18.84 | Kristina Feller | Well, let's talk about it. Like, what would you what would you propose? No, no change or? |
| 02:39:24.49 | Nastassya Saad | No change. The reduction was like, and I'm sure, quite frankly, I understand what a half space is. What does that go from a 2 to a 1.5? What does that look like? |
| 02:39:37.05 | Bob Brown | Well, it's per unit. So when you multiply that by the number of units, if you get to a fractional unit, then I think the requirement is that it goes up to the nearest whole number. |
| 02:39:37.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:39:46.97 | Nastassya Saad | I see. Okay, that is logical. Yes, whatever was prior, which I think was two down to 1.5, I think in the absence of a master plan, and I know there's some conceptual maybe disagreements on that being of value or applicable. And I understand that the general plan is here to rule, but a lot of these decisions have been made in a vacuum. the ferry landing is moving forward in how it's moving. We've got other projects in the city that are changing. We've finagled parking on other projects. So I think with the intention that we know what's coming down in the housing element, we know how many units we have to, I don't think it's a secret that Marin does not have good public transportation. |
| 02:40:27.17 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:40:41.92 | Nastassya Saad | in so few words, you know, it's just people have people have cars. And I think when we're going to try to bring more people and create more housing, it's just not a holistic approach right now, in my personal opinion, and to continually reduce parking, even what's happening on Bridgeway. Right. They want to take out parking potentially for pedestrian safety. |
| 02:40:58.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:41:03.64 | Nastassya Saad | It does not make sense to me. |
| 02:41:04.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So the idea behind reducing the parking, right or wrong? I'm just, you know, my colleagues will, all of them will chime in here. |
| 02:41:09.91 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, sure. Just want to understand. |
| 02:41:14.50 | Kristina Feller | But the idea behind it is when, with this cycle and the amount of high density residential, it is going to trigger the need for convenience retail, such as your dry cleaner or a grocery store or... your coffee shop or whatever it might be. So it would reduce the actual need to get in your car to go do those things, number one. Number two, if you, and you know this well, having sat through the housing element, You know, our distribution of the affordable, low income and very low is pretty high. And so... one would logically deduct that many of those people don't have multiple cars or a car, perhaps. And even though I agree with you about transportation, I think one of the things the state is looking at is actually improving the public transportation because of all these housing needs. How they do that, I can't tell you. I have no idea. But I'm just trying to shed some light as to why we felt that there was justification for a lower parking count. |
| 02:42:34.22 | Nastassya Saad | I completely, I mean, that makes sense, and I appreciate that explanation. I think what we're going to find, to your point, this is a moving target. Things are totally going to change down the line. I think there's going to be a lot of growing pains in the meantime. And in reality, there are assumptions being made, like in anything. But I just don't know if I agree with the assumptions and I think when I'm looking at an overall picture and our tight spaces already here um I just have concerns I'll just leave it at that I'm happy to you know. |
| 02:43:11.50 | Andrew Junius | I'd like to actually jump in there because I I agree with everything Commissioner Feller said on the there's another side of this that that also is I think kind of interesting to think about With respect to just purely private projects, you know housing projects You know parking is expensive And I think one of the reasons why the state is starting to pressure cities to not require parking is not force people to build stuff That might make the project more difficult to finance and whatnot That said You know, and you're exactly right. In a city like Sausalito and a county like Marin, come on. I mean, you know, it's, we don't have the great transit and you need cars. And so I personally think if you've got the money and it fits into the design and you can make it all work, you should build as much parking as you want, frankly. THE FAMILY IS GOING TO BE Uh, so, you know, In San Francisco, I think they've kind of you know, split the baby a little bit. For the most part, no parking was required in San Francisco for any development, which is easy for them because they've got a decent transit system and, you know, higher density and you can walk to convenient views. But you know so and it also helps with project feasibility and project construction costs and I know a lot of developers now in highly dense areas. Literally are building hundreds of units with no parking at all. So that's one end of the spectrum that isn't Marin County. I totally agree. There's not Marin County at the other end of the spectrum. you know, they have a max. Now, the Max is still, I think, frankly, never going to get built these days because it's too expensive and people don't need it in San Francisco. But maybe that's where the Solstito might eventually get to because I don't really like forcing people to build it if they don't want it. But if they want an extra space or two because they think that they need it and it's in a place where they're never going to walk to transit, yeah, I think they should get it. So maybe it's just a much more sliding, flexible scale. |
| 02:44:54.18 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, that could be it. I just think if you also just for my last comment, then I'll drop it. But holistically, if you look at at jobs. |
| 02:44:54.32 | Andrew Junius | . Thank you. |
| 02:45:04.31 | Nastassya Saad | Most people who live in Sausalito do not work in Sausalito. And so convenience, I completely understand there's going to be mixed use and other commercial aspects that may or may not be fruitful for whomever's moving in. But that's much as my last note in terms of transportation for work. But anyway, I think you guys have done a terrific job. And I'm very pleased with it. Thank you. |
| 02:45:28.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | it thank you uh vice chair i'm going to add on to that uh conversation about parking there's a project in san francisco it's on stanion next to the whole foods which is being built with absolutely no parking and quite honestly even with the grocery store next door and all the services and the muni there will be people that will live in that building and they They will have cars. And where will they go? And there was an article in the Chronicle recently about this. And in Sausalito is, you know, as much as people walk in bicycle and I walk in bicycles, and, you know, occasionally you use a car. So even if you use it rarely, you still have to put it on the street somewhere if there isn't any parking. So I think we should relook at the numbers. Maybe they should go down. Maybe it should be 1 and 3 quarters. I don't know. But I'm respecting the comments you're making this evening. Let me ask another, finally, technical question, then we can figure out what we do from here. SB 35, which given the new number, whatever it was today, under, let's say, an NM project, comes in under NM. We rezone it to NM. It's an SB 35 project. It's done ministerially, but it would come to the Planning Commission like it did this evening for an oversight objective Review is that how that would work? I don't know if that's a question for you for director Phipps or a question for our city attorney |
| 02:47:06.26 | Director Phipps | I believe that is the case. |
| 02:47:08.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we will see some projects under these odds. They aren't all, it's not, they would be, our role would be different, but we will see, we might see some of them. |
| 02:47:21.25 | Director Phipps | Well, we've discussed this within CDD at length, actually. And I see Neil stepping to the dais. I'm wondering, Neil, if you have anything to add to this discussion or comment. |
| 02:47:32.08 | Neal Toft | I don't know if our city attorney wants to weigh in on that, but my understanding is the way that... SB 35 has been Drafted and again, she may have updates, but it does account for doing a design review process. but it's review really based on objective standards. And then Now with these changes to just, you know, clarification on whether to what degree the public can weigh in or, or, not, I think it's part of that debate at this point, but I'll let, uh, I'll let Anne kind of take that question further. |
| 02:48:12.82 | Anne | Yeah, no, that's exactly right. The whole effort here, the endeavor to update the odds is to make sure that you have what you need that's copacetic with state law in terms of these projects that you're going to continue to see where you cannot apply any subjective standards. And so you're, you're just left with the odds. And so we want the odds to be comprehensive, but yes, as an example with an SB 35 project that comes before you in the future. you are limited to your odds, essentially. And so that's, I think, What, and one of the questions that I think we have for you is if you want to extend it further, right? Like you could streamline other types of development by saying, we're also only going to apply the odds, even where you otherwise may have applied discretionary. design, because you do still have in some scenarios, as we showed in that chart earlier, you do still have some scenarios where you've got an element of discretionary designer view, that you can impose, but as it pertains to the projects where you are limited to your odds, that's kind of what all this endeavor is for, is to make sure that you're consistent with. And you do have the ability to conduct design review that's in the statute. |
| 02:49:22.43 | Unknown | YouTube. |
| 02:49:26.66 | Anne | It's just that your design review is, you know, very narrowly limited to the odds. |
| 02:49:31.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. And I actually, that makes me feel a little bit better about this, because given, as we talked about earlier, the vast number of numbers and whatever in this, the idea that the staff will have a planning commission. to double check it, so to speak, given that they might have missed some some part of it, I think is is a good thing and I understand it's not design review as we typically do it and it's not subjective, but I think that that that actually. If there was a 1520 unit project that worked in one of these that would be that would be a good thing so. |
| 02:49:59.32 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:50:09.15 | Neal Toft | Yeah, and I think that it's built in for a certain amount of meetings. You have a limitation on how you cannot continue it. continuously, you need to, you know, decisions have to be made, but it does give opportunity because of Now, with this odds, we're getting into a lot more a lot more detailed standards. And there certainly is I think when I first looked at this as a director and Thank you. what the implications are. it was gonna set up an interesting scenario of really reviewing a project based on objective standards, not the subjective standards that we're used to kind of weighing in on and making recommendations and getting input from the neighbors, but really objective standards, and then there may be the potential There's a, you know, hey, wait a minute. You know, I think this. trash facility really doesn't meet that standard or should be back further or. You know, there could be something that comes out of those meetings. And that would be interesting to see. As these are getting adopted, I think we're all sort of asking questions how this is playing out. And I think going back to Bob's other point about projects which are um, can still be subject to our current more subjective design review standards. But. still must cannot be denied and cannot be rendered, you know, infeasible. will present a challenger discussion because It is hard to see some projects being, um, you know, making a determination about white air view or something. and being able to say, and recognizing maybe it doesn't meet that finding really, but we can't deny it or impose conditions that would reduce the density or potentially make it infeasible going back to, There's going to be some envelope issues and how that gets resolved may be certain types of wording or messaging in those and making those findings that were, you know, limited by state law. So. |
| 02:52:27.73 | Director Phipps | And I'll just, thank you, Neil. I'll just add to that as well and remind commissioners that we are kind of at current and actually as recently approved at the council level, you know, creating that language within our code. So we added some modifications to 10.54. We have a subsection within that chapter now that has been added to provide that the commission may conduct oversight hearings to determine compliance with objective standards for projects that are subject to SB 35 and AB 2011. So it's a bit of a different flavor of design review, but still falls under the design review umbrella. Design review can occur before a public oversight body, but as Neil just eloquently explained, state law really limits the scope of what that design review hearing can be. And in some cases, we may end up saying, well, it is true that that finding previously existed for a subjective review. However, in this particular case, that particular finding seems to be preempted by state law as it's non-objective. |
| 02:53:29.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I think that pursuant to Commissioner Juniors' earlier comment about things will change over time. And so if we do have that review, as we go through some of these projects with these standards, we realize things need to be fixed. They won't change for ones already submitted. But we can then, we'll have seen them enough to suggest maybe we modify this. Maybe that number is different here. Maybe the parking standard should be this, whatever. So I think this is an excellent first start. So you don't, we'll wrap up any questions. Let me just ask a question. We'll wrap up any questions here, but you're not, other than this conversation, we don't need to take any votes or take any action this evening, is that correct? |
| 02:54:08.41 | Aditya Padala | I'm not going to be |
| 02:54:19.43 | Director Phipps | That is correct, Chair. However, based on the comments received, you know, it would be great if the Commission could have some sort of consensus on the items that they'd like direct staff to look into further. |
| 02:54:24.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:32.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Before we do that, Commissioner Junius, |
| 02:54:34.01 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I don't mean to drag this out too much longer, but you know, chair, uh, Luxembourg, you raised something. I, I, |
| 02:54:34.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and, you know, the |
| 02:54:40.87 | Andrew Junius | I am not going – I don't expect the planning commission to be essentially a double check of the staff on code compliance because this commission, as expertise as we are, as experts as we are, we're not that kind of experts. I mean, our – the evolution of every planning commission in California has been about applying discretion and these subjective findings that a few hearings, I was so adamantly frustrated and freaked out about. So I'm, you know, I, I, I kind of get it, but I, you know, what I, where I see this going and, Again, it's a work in progress and we'll see what happens. I'm expecting less hearings because I, I am not going to code check the plans that the staff check. That's not my job. I'm a planning commissioner. And while I think it's interesting to maybe have a forum for debating the application of an objective standard, and that's probably going to happen a lot initially and maybe it'll happen less and less i just think i i i'm worried that we become some kind of a backstop to the staff which i don't think is appropriate what i frankly what i what i compare it to is you know there are technical ways you can in other jurisdictions you can you can appeal subdivision maps to try to stop a project yet another one of the many tools i've encountered in my life where a board of supervisor or city council is literally The subdivision map is in front of them, and the only thing that's at issue by law is, is this map comply with law? Now, you can't tell me that anybody on the city council has any idea whether this map complies with law or not. And they're going to say to the staff, does it comply with law? And the staff says, yep, we've looked at it. We've checked it. We've measured it. We've taken our calipers out. It complies with the subdivision map act and the soup and the, you know, the city council has to say, okay, appeal denied. You know, hearings like this, I, you know, I hope they're just not a, I don't want to waste everybody's time is really what I'm saying. And I don't want to be in a position to myself where I feel like I've got to you know, become a code check for the staff. So that's, that's where I'm just a little concerned, but that's a comment. Thanks. |
| 02:56:47.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. To Director Phipps' comment, what I heard this evening The last issue, SB35 is what it is. So we could debate that later, but that doesn't really change what we're doing with the odds at the moment. I heard we want you to relook at the parking standards a little bit and rethink that a little bit. I don't think we have specific numbers, but we might want something higher than what you're saying. We would like the, for SB9 standards, we just want the ABAG toolkit provided to us. We're not looking for that to be added to the odds at this point. I sort of agree with Commissioner Junius that it is virtually impossible because you've tried, and I appreciate Commissioner Feller's comments on view standards, and I would have objective view standards, but I sort of agree that they might be virtually impossible. So I'm not sure what direction we give on that other than keep looking. But if you see something that's elsewhere in some other part of the world that has hills like we have, that would be helpful. We'll get print copies of the next thing when it comes to us. Were there any other directional items that are unclear? Yes, Bob, sure. |
| 02:57:32.05 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:58:10.50 | Bob Brown | What I have, excuse me, is we're going to look at the technical issues that involve the MUS height diagram and footnote. We're going to look at the street connection standard for large lots and possibly remove that. |
| 02:58:11.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mm. |
| 02:58:25.48 | Bob Brown | the parking and then again, Looking to see if the Muni code adequately defines how to determine setbacks on unusually shaped loss, and if not, OptiCoast has some standards that they can recommend. |
| 02:58:38.19 | Unknown | you |
| 02:58:38.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. other things that we wanna give direction of. Thank you. I want to thank you. I want to thank our working group. I want to thank the CDD department. This is a massive effort. You've done an incredible job. So we really appreciate it. With that, we're on to item 8, adjournment. Motion to adjourn. And a reminder, there's no meeting on the 28th of February. Yeah. |
| 02:58:58.98 | Kristina Feller | Motion to adjourn. |
| 02:59:05.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:59:06.47 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, attendees. Happy Valentine's Day. |
| 02:59:10.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The second Tuesday. I'll tell you. |
Aditya Padala — Against: Neighbor at 518 South Street. Expressed concerns about hillside safety and erosion, stating the plans do not appear safe for uphill properties. Supports more housing but not this proposal. ▶ 📄
Hunter Hancock — Against: Neighbor at 244 Sausalito Boulevard. Concerned about structural safety and steep site. Worried a driveway would require a large retaining wall and cause erosion. Supports a house but wants it to be safe and compliant with FAR standards. ▶ 📄
Chris Fong — Against: Neighbor at 200 Sausalito Boulevard. Echoed previous concerns and stated agreement with staff's conclusion. Supports a compliant project. ▶ 📄
Sandra Bushmaker — Neutral: Neighbor in the low 300s of Sausalito Boulevard. Did not object to development but emphasized safety for pedestrians and vehicles, particularly regarding driveway access onto Sausalito Boulevard. Supported compliance with objective standards. ▶ 📄