| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:11.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to call to order the May 8th meeting of the Sausalito Planning Commission. Director Phipps, if you could call to order, please. |
| 00:00:20.48 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Good evening, Chair Luxenberg, Vice Chair Saad, Planning Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chamber at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. Before I call roll, I just want to ask Commissioner Feller if they are attending this Zoom meeting virtually pursuant to AB2449's just cause or emergency circumstance provision. |
| 00:00:47.82 | Kristina Feller | Thank you director Phipps yes I I am attending remotely for just cause as permitted by ab 2449 I am out of town caring for a family member. And there are no individuals in the room. I'm in 18 years old, older or otherwise. Thank you. |
| 00:01:09.93 | Director Phipps | Perfect. Thank you very much for the confirmation. And just to clarify with the Commission, just cause does not require a decision of the Commission. Emergency circumstance does. So Christina, you are good to go. With that, I will call roll. Excuse me, Commissioner Feller, you're good to go. With that, I will call roll. Commissioner Merlott. Thank you. |
| 00:01:26.75 | David Marlatt | President. |
| 00:01:27.02 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Junius. Present. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:01:30.85 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:01:31.68 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Saad? Here. Chair Luxenberg? Present. All right, we are all here. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:01:32.78 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:01:37.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, next item is approval of the agenda. I look for a motion to approve. |
| 00:01:41.84 | Nastassya Saad | So moved. |
| 00:01:42.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, Director Phipps, please call the roll. |
| 00:01:47.83 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot? Yes. Commissioner Junius? Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:01:50.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:01:51.08 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. Thank you. |
| 00:01:52.79 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:52.82 | Director Phipps | Yes. Vice Chair Assad. Thank you. |
| 00:01:54.53 | Nastassya Saad | Yes? |
| 00:01:54.58 | Director Phipps | Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:01:58.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is public comments for items not on this agenda. Director Phipps, if you could give instructions, please. |
| 00:02:03.94 | Director Phipps | Yeah, thanks Chair. This is the time for the Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the 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 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 me or my colleagues to my right. Maria Hernandez is here with us this evening. If you would 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. |
| 00:02:14.03 | Sandra Bushmaker | in. |
| 00:02:52.00 | Director Phipps | Chair looking to the chamber for raised hands first. Seeing none. Looking to our Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none. Back to you. |
| 00:03:06.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We'll move on to item number four, Planning Commission Minutes. We have the meeting minutes for 4-24-2024. Looking for a motion on the minutes? |
| 00:03:23.49 | Nastassya Saad | So move. |
| 00:03:24.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:03:24.64 | Andrew Junius | Second. |
| 00:03:24.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do note that on line 47, I think it's either page 3 or 4, there's the word inaudible, which whoever's transcribing was having trouble. The word should be Schat, S-C-H-A-T, which is the name of the applicant. And in the next line, on line 48, it has number 60626A. It should be number 626A. I think Commissioner Feller was just reading the name of the drawings and so if we could make if we could amend the motion to make that a change that would be appreciated |
| 00:04:06.09 | Nastassya Saad | So as amended? |
| 00:04:08.40 | Andrew Junius | And the second, yes. |
| 00:04:09.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. And is there any other discussion of those minutes? Seeing none, Director Phipps, if you could take the role. |
| 00:04:16.73 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. |
| 00:04:21.44 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:04:21.86 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Vice Chair Saad? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? Yes. Motion passes and thank you, commissioners, for your attention to detail. |
| 00:04:23.35 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:04:30.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is item five, communications. Director Phipps, is there an update from CDD? |
| 00:04:36.48 | Director Phipps | Just one brief communication item for council and the community this evening. Staff did hold their kickoff meeting with the odds peer review group. This is our first meeting with the peer review group, I think first of six. This is carrying out direction provided by city council at one of their last meetings where we held a study session in connection with our objective development and design standards. I would like to thank Commissioner Junius for being present at the meeting as a former member of the subcommittee on the odds. And I'd like to thank Commissioner Merlot for being present at this meeting as a recommended and appointed member of the peer review group. So thank you both, and I look forward to providing the community and the commission with additional updates on our odds peer review and progress therein as we move forward. Thank you. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:05:28.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Are there any other updates from various commission members on anything, on any other items or on this item? Thank you. I'm seeing a raised hand from. |
| 00:05:39.12 | Director Phipps | I'm seeing a raised hand from it. |
| 00:05:42.34 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And I guess maybe we have to agendize this for the future because I know we can't get into a discussion, but I'm unaware. that the Planning Commission's odds subcommittee has been disbanded because odds has not been approved yet. So I don't believe that we have disbanded, at least not to my knowledge, Um, So I'd like to maybe get better clarification from that as one issue. And then I just have one other issue to bring up Um, If we can get a clarification to that or if we have to agendize that, then we can pump that to a later time. |
| 00:06:21.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Fitz? |
| 00:06:26.20 | Director Phipps | I'm not sure I have an answer to that at this time. I think we can speak about it offline, or I can touch base with city management and get their feedback. |
| 00:06:37.37 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you for that, Director Phipps. The only other thing just to report out on, and perhaps Director Phipps can as well, is I was delighted to see that the geological hazard Bateman study was brought forth to the city council last night and Again, I just think it's a really important initiative for the city And I want to thank everybody for pushing that forward, including this commission. So bravo to that. |
| 00:07:05.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Any other comments from any other commissioners? Okay, we'll move on to item six. Item six is the consent calendar. We have one consent calendar item this evening. Does anyone have an objection to this item? Wait, before I do that, we need to take public comment on communications. At this time, we can have any comments from the public on item five communications, both in the Zoom application or in the chamber. Are there any, I don't see any hands in the chamber. I don't see any hands on Zoom. |
| 00:07:41.68 | Director Phipps | Seeing none, sure. |
| 00:07:42.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So that item's closed. Moving on to the consent calendar. Does any commissioner have any objection to this item being on the consent calendar? That item being to adopt a resolution amending resolution number 2024-07, reducing the required tree replacement fee contribution of $2,950 to $1,500 per city council resolution number 6143 in connection with TRP slash ZP 2024 dash 00026 that was heard on April 24th. Seeing none, Director Phipps, you can take a vote for the consent calendar. |
| 00:08:24.12 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Merlot? Yes. Commissioner Junius? Thank you. |
| 00:08:29.18 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 00:08:29.59 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Filler. |
| 00:08:31.51 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:08:32.05 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Saad? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:08:33.13 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yeah. |
| 00:08:35.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Next item is new business, item 7A. We're going to receive a presentation by Annie Branham regarding the Brown Act and Rosenberg's rules of order. Annie, it's open to you. Thank you. |
| 00:08:52.24 | Attorney Branham | Wonderful. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commissioners. Brandon, would it be easier if I share my screen or do you have it pulled up in chambers for the Commission? |
| 00:09:00.05 | Director Phipps | We do have it if you need, Attorney Branham, but feel free to share and move ahead. |
| 00:09:09.08 | Attorney Branham | Okay, perfect. If that's okay, if you've got it pulled up, I'll just say next slide at the end of the slide. |
| 00:09:13.40 | Director Phipps | Yeah, very good. We'll have Maria share a screen, and we'll get started. |
| 00:09:18.49 | Attorney Branham | Perfect. |
| 00:09:27.40 | Attorney Branham | Sorry, I'm not sure if I should be waiting. Okay, there we go. I see it now. Thank you, Maria. Okay, so we will get started with the title slide. And just a quick note as we jump in. Tonight I'm going to keep it pretty succinct. There's a lot of things in the Brown Act that pertain to more so the City Council than the Planning Commission. For example, the Planning Commission very rarely, if ever, will have closed session. So I'm not going to spend really any time discussing closed session. I'm happy to provide some resources to that effect, but just wanted to touch and I'm going to try and keep it pretty short and sweet tonight. We're going to cover both Brown Act basics and Rosenberg's rules of order for holding meetings. Next slide, please. So we'll start with kind of the point of why we're having this discussion. So the Brown Act is known as a sunshine law. And the idea behind both the Brown Act and then the other sunshine law would be the California Public Records Act is just in general that we provide appropriate public access so that members of the community are. Kept informed about what the Planning Commission City Council various bodies of the city are doing at any given time so the Brown Act and the Public Records Act work together to promote transparency. The Public Records Act, which we're not going to cover tonight, ensures access to documents, but the Brown Act, which we will talk about, ensures that business is conducted at open and publicized meetings. And again, the idea is just to make sure that the decision-making process and the deliberation and discussion and all the things that go before decision-making are conducted in public and are open to members of the public. to scrutinize, comment on, attend, and just keep in the loop on. Next slide, please. So the first topic here, and I included this screenshot here because this would be the resource that I would point you toward if you have any questions or just want some light bedtime reading, the Cal Cities publishes and regularly updates this document open in public. We're on the sixth edition now, the new version just came out a few months ago, so it's very up to date. It's free to access online. You can just search it if you access it online for terms that you might be interested in and pull information that way but that would be where I would point you toward for a more in-depth discussion of various topics that we're going to cover but first we'll start with the question of what is a meeting and when is a meeting not a meeting which is basically there are six exceptions to the general rule about a meeting so under the brown act a meeting is any congregation of a majority of the members of the bodies that would be a majority of you planning commissioners for our purposes at the the same time and place to hear, discuss, deliberate or take action on an item within your subject matter jurisdiction. So meeting is expressly not limited to gatherings at which an action is taken, but also any deliberative gatherings as well. So just because you may have an agenda that doesn't have, you know, an action item per se on it, but rather is just made up of discussion or information items, that would still be a Brown Act meeting if a quorum of the body was going to attend. So I'll go briefly through the six times when a gathering of a quorum or more of the body is nonetheless not a meeting. So the first one is that individual contacts between one member of the commission and anyone else, which might be a member of the public, a member of staff, or one of your fellow commissioners. If it's two of you discussing things amongst yourselves, haven't reached a quorum, right? And so there's no possibility that you're taking action outside of a public meeting. And so individual contacts are allowed. A majority of the body is also allowed to attend a conference or a similar gathering so think something like the cal cities planning Commissioner Academy. As long as generally the discussion does not you know devolve into your specific items of business as long as you're not at a table. |
| 00:13:09.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:13:13.68 | Attorney Branham | And in the interim between sessions at a public conference, you know, you're discussing planning commission items that would not fit within the exception. But if you're just if you all happen to be attending a conference or something of the like, then that's an exception to the rule about having to notice and publicize it as a meeting. And then similarly to that, you are also always welcome to attend local open and public community meetings. So think something like the Rotary Club. If three of you happen to end up at a meeting of the Rotary Club, it doesn't make it a planning commission meeting that needs to be agendized right. But again, you want to avoid talking about planning commission business or city business generally while you are at the meeting. And then again, similarly, Members of the Planning Commission can attend meetings of the city council and vice versa. Members of one body are allowed to attend meetings of another public body. The idea here again is just to avoid discussing amongst yourselves business that pertains to your role in the planning commission. And there's kind of an additional wrinkle here, which is just think generally about concepts of |
| 00:14:13.25 | Unknown | know |
| 00:14:16.08 | Attorney Branham | and do process and think, you know, You wouldn't want to get up and make a public comment on an appeal that the city council is hearing of a planning commission action in which you participated. Because that can really be seen as sort of interfering with the decision making process of the appeal so. I think you know that's all kind of common sense, but just wanted to flag that for you, you are welcome to attend Council meetings, even if there will be three or more of you there. Just be careful about the topics of your discussions. And then you're also welcome to attend public meetings of standing committees, various other bodies of the city that may gather. Again, just be careful not to delve into topics that affect the Planning Commission if a quorum of you are there. And then finally, attendance by a majority of the body at a purely social or ceremonial event is always fine as long as you're not discussing it. planning commission business. So think, you know, if there's a wedding and three of you happen to be friends with the same person and you're all going to attend the wedding, That's totally fine. It's not a Brown Act issue, right? Just make sure you're not talking about planning commission items while you're there. And then last note is that none of these exceptions permit a majority of the body to meet with staff for what you might call something like a collective briefing. You are always entitled to have one or two know groups at a time meet with staff um i should say you know one or two members of the commission may meet at a time with staff because again you're not establishing a quorum what you'd want to watch out for there and what we're going to cover in the next slide is just the concept of a serial meeting where you're not forming a quorum by virtue of the briefing with staff but if you were to ask staff okay when you go into your next two meetings with the other individual commissioners, make sure you tell them, I'm thinking x, y, and z, and I'd like them to get on board, right, that would create a situation where you're |
| 00:15:36.98 | Sandra Bushmaker | you're not. |
| 00:16:00.08 | Attorney Branham | basically establishing a quorum through an indirect means. Next slide, please. |
| 00:16:09.75 | Attorney Branham | So now we're at this concept of serial meetings. And in the Brown Act, there is some language about this specifically, which is that a majority of the members of the body cannot outside of a meeting, public and agendized meeting, use a series of communications of any kind directly or through intermediaries to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business within your subject matter jurisdiction. You know, this kind of can happen through what they call either a daisy chain or a hub and spoke. A daisy chain would be something like, one of you contacts one other commissioner and you say, hey, I'm thinking XYZ. Then you have that person contact a third commissioner and down the line. Again, there's only ever a conversation of one on one at a time, which is not a Brown Act violation, but if you're using that method to share information in your positions, then you create what is effectively a quorum, and that would be where the violation occurs. So that's kind of what we call a daisy chain. There's also the hub and spoke, which would be like the example I gave of if you ask staff or city manager or anyone, you know, me, anyone to act as an intermediary between one commissioner and other commissioners. So you're not directly passing the information along, but nonetheless using someone as an intermediary to create any kind of collective discussion on topics within your subject matter jurisdiction would be where the violation occurs. Always just be aware of that. Once you know what makes a serial meeting, I think they're easy to avoid. But if you ever have questions, reach out to staff or legal, and we're always happy to advise on that. Next slide, please. Okay, so just best practices in the context of serial meetings. Emails are where we actually see it kind of happen the most often. So just think of emailing the same way as if you were to call someone, or be a person talking to them and potential for a violation. When you're emailing, if all of you are included, say staff sends out an email to the whole commission, Best practices would be don't reply all to that email so that you're expressing a position to the rest of the commission. And in general, in all contexts, don't before an open and public meeting, don't take a position or make a commitment to members of the public, to members of staff, to each other. The whole idea of an open and public meeting is for fairness to the community. Right? So you want to avoid taking any positions before you've heard all that there is to be discussed. And then finally, just, you know, the reason we're having this, this training and update on the Brown Act is just to. give you the understanding of what it means for there to be a violation so that you can just be thinking about it. Kong is an of. the guidelines and the sort of guardrails, then it's easier to spot when there's a potential violation. So that's what our hope is tonight to give you the guidance that you need. Next slide, please. So I wanna talk just quickly, cause this is kind of a sea change in public agency law. So there was a bill passed in 2020 that slipped under the radar a bit because the pandemic was happening. So what that bill said is, it basically just clarified existing guidance on |
| 00:19:04.61 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.27 | Attorney Branham | The fact that the Planning Commission as a body and individual commissioners are entitled to use social media to provide one way information to or even solicit information from members of the public about things going on with the Planning Commission. So from your account, you know, people in town may know you as a commissioner. |
| 00:19:18.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:18.30 | Sandra Bushmaker | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:19:30.75 | Attorney Branham | And you're allowed to use, say, your Facebook account to publish a notice that says, hey, we have this item coming for the commission. We'd love to see members of the community there to speak up on it. That's totally fine. What this bill does say though, is that you as commissioners basically should not be interacting with each other's social media pages. It kind of changes the rule about what's a quorum specifically in the social media context to say, Even one-on-one contact is not acceptable. when it comes to business of the Planning Commission. friends outside of the commission and you like each other's photos about your kids getting married, etc. That's totally fine. What you want to do is avoid a situation where one person is posting about an item coming before the Planning Commission, Another commissioner should not like it, should not comment on it. No emojis. They're very clear in the bill that any kind of interaction between even one in one commissioner is going to create a violation when it comes to social media. Next slide, please. This is just a bit more detail, but basically, you know, normally a single contact between one public official and another would not create a prohibited serial meeting. One in one is two, which is less than a quorum. It's usually not a problem. but in social media, I think the thinking of the legislature was it's a much more, you know, sort of open forum where the public is seeing what's going on. And so it's much easier for there to be a perception if the public can hover over and see that you're liking each other's things or commenting. I think it just kind of creates more of a perception that there could be potentially things happening behind the scenes. So just avoid any kind of interaction when it comes to social media about things having to do with your role as a planning commissioner. Next slide. Okay, so I'll talk just super briefly about closed sessions, because as I mentioned, you're very rarely going to have these at the planning commission level just because of the nature. of what they are. Typically it's things like employment matters or litigation and those would be items handled at the city council level. But from time to time, rarely you may have something right to discuss a real estate negotiation or something like that. So when it comes to closed session, you've got to make sure that what you're going into closed session for fits neatly within one of the statutory carve outs because you can think of closed sessions as an exception to the rule that all public meetings need to be open and available to the public. So, you know, balancing the need to have some things behind closed doors, the balance is you need to make sure that you are meeting the actual statutory carve out for whatever that item may be. So sometimes it looks like a near fit, but not quite. It doesn't really match up with the language in the statute. That would be where we would caution you. It's probably not a good fit for a closed session. So if there's ever questions about that, we work directly with staff on it, but I just wanted to make you aware. So it has to be expressly authorized. You do need to specifically flag in the agenda that it's a closed session, the citation to the section of the law that you're relying on, and then you must announce before you go into closed session, that you're entering closed session. If you take action as part of the closed session, you come out, you report that to the public so that they're aware of what happened. Next slide, please. Okay, so just a bit on the different types of meetings that you may be aware of, but I think good to just kind of have a refresher. So regular meetings are what we're doing now. You sort of set your schedule every other Wednesday, 6.30 p.m., and then those would be your regular meetings. And what that means is you have an expectation that you post your schedule. agenda 72 hours in advance. And note kind of an interesting thing we'll talk a bit more about it in a minute, but that's just the agenda that's why you sometimes will see items being added to what we call the packet usually. Later in that 72 hour window that's fine what's what's required under the law is that the agenda itself, which contains a brief description of. |
| 00:23:08.32 | Sandra Bushmaker | minute. |
| 00:23:24.71 | Attorney Branham | the items of business that are going to be transacted, that agenda has to be posted at least 72 hours in advance. So that's for regular meetings. Special meetings are when you have a one-off item maybe that you need to discuss, and you can't wait until a regular meeting, or it makes sense to have it as a siloed item that you consider separately. Special meetings are sort of discrete. They only focus on one or a couple of issues. You only have to give 24 hours agenda posting notice to the public. But the flip side there is that you really only are going to be talking about the couple of limited items that you're bringing in that special meeting. So it's not a cure-all for, oops, we forgot to get something on the regular agenda, let's just call a special meeting. You want to have your regular meetings as best practice, give the public the 72 hours notice. From time to time, a special meeting makes sense and is appropriate. Emergency meetings are as the name would suggest, not going to happen very often, but in the event of something that's going to disrupt service to the community, or if for any reason the Planning Commission needed to meet immediately, then the emergency meeting rules basically say, just give as much notice as you can, whether it's an hour, a couple hours, 20 minutes, whatever's feasible in the situation, given what's going on with the emergency circumstances. But that is an option that's available in the event of a true emergency. And then finally adjourned meetings are, say you're pushing up against 11 o'clock and you still have four items of business left to go. It doesn't make sense to just push through that evening. And so what you would do is say, We're going to adjourn this meeting to a set time and place, which is within five days of your current meeting that you're in. And as long as you do that on the record before you adjourn that meeting, you don't need to republish your notice and your agenda for the public. So you would just come back, you know, a couple of days later, you've announced that that's when you're meeting, where you're meeting, the public is aware, and then you just reconvene and finish those items of business, but you can't add new items at that point. And then I think, you know, we're all pretty familiar with the, public's right to comment. We do a good job of each agenda item. you know, you have to allow the public to give their input before you reach your final decision. That's kind of the baseline rule there. And then you also have typically a period at the beginning of the meeting where the public has to have an opportunity to speak on items that are not agendized and When those items come up, say the public raises an issue that you'd like to hear more about, If it's not on the agenda for that night, what you would do is you can provide a brief response to that member of the public and say, something like, it's not agendized for tonight, but you for bringing it to our attention and what we'll do is go ahead and refer this matter to staff for some more information and then We will bring it back at a future meeting on the agenda. And then finally, you just, you always kind of want to, and this is typically done in the minutes rather than at the meeting itself, but the rule is to report individual votes or abstentions. So you would just say, you know, If the vote is 4-1, you want to be clear who dissented or if someone abstained, you want to put that in the records of the minutes. Next slide, please. So I included this, hopefully it's easy to read, but if you can't see it in great detail, it is in the, open in public treatise, but I just pulled it out of there. But It's just kind of an example of good versus not as good agenda language. So just for a quick example, if your agenda said something like, Consideration of a report regarding traffic on 8th Street Maybe that's not really clear, right? I think you probably have more of a concept of, Why are you bringing that report forward? What do you mean when you say traffic, right? For example, a better description would say, consideration of a contract with ABC Consulting in the amount of 50,000 for traffic engineering services regarding traffic on 8th Street. So the rule of thumb is just, you know, you want to give enough information in the agenda that the public has put on real actual notice of what it is that's going to be discussed at that meeting. And I will say, you know, review the agenda as they come up for Planning Commission meetings. This is not an issue that we've really noticed incomplete agenda items, but just bring it up as a refresher and to to make sure that everyone's aware of what the obligation is there. Next slide, please. Okay, so I'll go briefly through some of the rules that have changed regarding teleconferencing, which tonight was a good night to do that because We have someone attending remotely. During COVID, well, I'll go back to pre-COVID, The rules were really strict. You had to basically, if someone, a member of the body wanted to attend remotely, They had to make their location public by including it on the agenda and technically allowing members of the public to attend from their remote location. During COVID, obviously it was decided that was not safe. The rule that changed during COVID, AB361, which is now expired, basically opened that up much more and said, if there's a state of emergency declared like there was with the pandemic, then the rules were much more relaxed. As we were coming out of COVID, the rules. were popular enough that the legislature wanted to try and kind of reincorporate some of them, taking away some of the more lax provisions. There were also some countervailing concerns by the public that meetings were not as accessible maybe, or there were just concerns that allowing free remote attendance by members of the body could lead to less public meetings. So What they did was adopt two new bills, AB 2449 and AB 557, Thank you. 2449 is where we get this concept of just cause or emergency circumstances, which means that a member of the body can attend remotely, if one of these circumstances is meds. So childcare, caregiving of a parent, grandparent, grandchild, something like that. If you're ill and you can't come in person, a need related to physical or mental disability, all these things kind of fit within that umbrella. And so what that means is you don't have to post your location or allow the public to attend from your location, As we saw at the outset of this meeting, it needs to be announced, the reason needs to be stated, and camera needs to stay on, votes are taken by roll call so that it's clear who's voting which way. There are still some technical criteria that we need to meet. And then 557 re-establishes the rule about being able to meet remotely during a declared state of emergency, but it clarifies that it has to be a statewide declared state of emergency. It's not as helpful now that all of the states of emergency regarding COVID have lifted, but if there were a flood locally and the governor declared a state of emergency, that would be a situation you could use those more relaxed rules under AB 557. So those are where we are. And then I'll say too, what we call the traditional rules about teleconferencing, the more strict ones that existed before COVID, those are always an option as well. So if you don't fit into any of those umbrellas that I talked about, you can still attend remotely as long as you make your location available on the agenda and things like that. Okay, so I'll cover briefly two other recent bills that were passed. So SB 1100 has to do with The ability to remove one person who is disrupting a meeting. Previously under the Brown Act, you actually, the only option you had if a meeting got out of control was to clear the whole room, but I think as we all have seen from recent news stories, sometimes what's happening is one person is instigating, right, and the rest of the public is fine and should be allowed to stay. So what this bill says basically is you have to warn the person who's creating the disruption, and it does have to be an actual disruption. The courts have said that things like profanity alone, are not enough, or even they've said, you know, like a silent Nazi salute is not enough. It's got to be a disruption of the meeting where you cannot continue to transact business in an efficient manner. |
| 00:31:29.81 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yes. banners. |
| 00:31:31.79 | Attorney Branham | Once that occurs, you warn the person. If they don't cease their behavior, then you are authorized to ask that person to leave the meeting and bar them from returning to the meeting. And then... AB 2647 has to do with the agenda packet requirements that I talked about briefly before. So you post your agenda, say on, you know, the previous Thursday or Friday for an upcoming Wednesday meeting. The agenda itself, maybe just one, two pages, right? It's pretty short. Um, Good practice is if the packet is ready, you also just post the packet with all the information that's pertaining to that meeting at the same time and along with the agenda. But if there are things that come to light in that 72 hour window that you'd like to add to the packet or to make the commissioners aware of from staff to the commissioners. You are allowed to do that within the 72-hour window. It's just that it also needs to be simultaneously made available to the public. If an email blast goes out with a letter of support for a project from staff to the commission, then that will be added to the Planning Commission website where the agenda is posted at the same time. So that's the general rule regarding agenda packet information. Next slide, please. Okay, so this is the least fun part Now that you have kind of a semblance of an idea of what the parameters of the Brown Act are. Just a reminder what can happen if there is a violation. The court can enjoin an action that you have proposed to take but haven't yet taken. It can stop you from taking it before you actually do. They can invalidate a past action, just strike it as if it never occurred. to go back and do it again, or they can mandate correction, where again, you have to re-agendize the item, whatever the violation may have been. You resolve that issue, you bring it back. you take a whole other vote. So that's, of course, inefficient. Nobody wants to do that. So better to get it right the first time. And then the person who brought the complaint or the court case under the Brown Act can recover. their costs and attorney's fees. So that's that's can be a big hit, depending on the type of litigation. And if you are found to have intentionally violated the Brown Act, you can be found guilty of a misdemeanor. So there are some procedural things built into the Brown Act that allow you |
| 00:33:39.56 | Sandra Bushmaker | and it was, |
| 00:33:49.97 | Attorney Branham | to cure and correct an issue that's brought to your attention before it's allowed to be litigated. a member of the public has to bring it to you first and allow you to try and cure and correct it. And only if you cannot do that or you don't want to do that for some reason, only then do they have license to actually go out and litigate. |
| 00:33:55.16 | Sandra Bushmaker | a member of the United States. |
| 00:34:08.34 | Attorney Branham | That's kind of an interesting, unique. element of the Brown Act. Okay, so that concludes our Brown Act section. Would you guys like a quick break or do you want me to just roll through with the Rosenberg's rules? |
| 00:34:22.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Why don't we just see if any commissioners have any questions about the Brown Act before we move on to the Rosenberg rules. Any commissioners have any questions? Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:34:33.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. Just a very, very quick question, and that is, what is the requirement for timely posting of written public comment? Is there anything specific? about that in any of these assembly bills. |
| 00:34:48.95 | Attorney Branham | Yeah, that's a good question. So, no, I mean, the idea of posting public comment by name is not mentioned in any of the laws that have passed. But what I will say is if it's something that is going to be brought to the planning commission's attention, which I think normally it is, right? If a neighbor submits a comment, something like that, If it's part of the packet, it would fall within those rules. So if staff receives those comments with enough time to include them in the original packet and they happen to be able to post it all at the same time, That's best practice. That's always great. Sometimes a member of the public is not aware that it's coming until the agenda is posted. And so say you post on a Thursday. you get a public comment on a Friday or a Monday and you want to include that in the packet for the commissioners, or sometimes the way it happens is, you know, staff wants to send it out via email to the commissioners to say, hey, just FYI, as an addition, we got this comment on this item. That would be the situation where you would just want to, you know, on the staff side, they would be posting that comment on the website so that anybody else could see it as well as the commission. |
| 00:35:54.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:55.29 | Attorney Branham | Thank you. |
| 00:35:55.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:35:55.32 | Attorney Branham | Thank you. |
| 00:35:55.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:35:55.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. Other questions from commissioners? Seeing none, I'll move on to Rosenberg Rules. Thanks, Attorney Brandon. |
| 00:36:04.01 | Attorney Branham | Of course, and this is the lighter section now, so we'll hopefully just roll right through it. Next slide, please. Okay, so probably some or most of you are familiar with Robert's Rules, which are, I mean, it's a book, it's like a quite lengthy document that I actually read in college I was on a parliamentary procedure team because I've always been this nerdy, but that's not really feasible for, you know, a local |
| 00:36:31.93 | Sandra Bushmaker | All right. |
| 00:36:33.56 | Attorney Branham | planning commission like yourselves to have this like 400 page book that governs the rules of your meeting. So what Rosenberg's rules are, and they were written by a former judge at Rosenberg. And it's it's like a 10 page document. It's very simplified but effective. Most, I'd say most, if not all, honestly, state and local agencies in California use Rosenberg's rules. So they serve you as a local governmental body without all the additional complications that you don't really need. So the point of Rosenberg's rules is just clarity, order in meetings, to be user-friendly, and to enforce the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority, which I think is interesting and a valiant goal because you don't want it to feel like all decisions must be unanimous, you want to remain open to, you know, true, you know, genuine conversations and dissent among yourselves as commissioner. So that's kind of what the rules aim for. Next slide, please. Okay, so the first thing that the rules talk about is the concept of a quorum, which generally is one more than half of the body. So for you all, this would be three of you are a quorum and you need at least three of you present attending in some valid way, the meeting, whether that's remotely or in person to actually transact business at the meeting. you have to first establish that you have the quorum and then the voting rules sort of stem from there. Once you have a quorum, The chair's role is to apply the rules of conduct to run the meeting. The chair has the full right to participate in debate, discussion and decision making, of course, but as a courtesy to other members, the idea is kind of that, you should aim to be the last one to speak at the discussion and debate window and avoid making or seconding motions unless it becomes clear that no other member can or is planning to for any reason. And I think you do a good job at that. I just wanted to pointed out here because it is stated in the Rosenberg's rules. Next slide, please. |
| 00:38:33.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Attorney Brown, just before we get off that slide, my understanding of those latest laws on telecommuting is that we need a quorum in person. We need a minimum of three in person, and people can be remote, but we have to have a quorum in the room. I just want to make sure that that's clear to everyone. |
| 00:38:49.91 | Attorney Branham | I'm not going to be a Yes, I am glad that you brought that up. That is true. All the various rules about teleconferencing do clarify for purposes of allowing the public to also attend from a location where they can congregate and give comment that one or two members of the body can be attending remotely, but a quorum should be physically present in the meeting location. |
| 00:39:14.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:39:15.55 | Attorney Branham | Thank you. Okay, so there's this slide and then one more with sort of the steps of how an item will go under Rosenberg's rules. So the chair will first clearly announce the agenda item number in the subject and the format if that's applicable. You might say something like this is an informational item only or this is a public hearing item. After that, the chair will invite the staff report on the item if there is one. Then the chair will ask their fellow members if there are any technical or clarifying questions This I think And I think again, this commission does a good job of it, but where I often see it go wrong is this sort starts to blend into a discussion period. You start asking questions, which leads into discussion. So I think it is important to be clear at this stage, before you've taken public comment, you wanna just keep the discussion really limited to technical clarifying questions of staff, of the applicant, And then once you've gotten answers to your questions, then the chair will open up public comment or the public hearing, announce any applicable public comment rules like time limits, which I think Brandon typically does, you know, three limits to speak, that kind of thing. You just want to make the public aware of that in advance. Next slide, please. So after you've done that, taken public comment, the chair will bring the item back to the body for discussion and debate at that point. Once that discuss, and I will say here, if you read Rosenberg's rules closely, they actually prefer that the motion in a second comes first like you come back from public comment and you immediately have someone make a motion I don't think that's practically how it ever really plays out and it doesn't make a ton of sense to me, frankly. So what I think it's not wrong to do it the way that I see it done most often, which is you sort of discuss and debate amongst yourselves and then the first stab and emotion is brought, right? So I just, I want to flag for you. If you read the rules, you might notice that and say, well, wait a minute, should we be accepting emotion before we ever get into any debate? And I just want to tell you, it could go either way. It's certainly not a requirement that you do it that way. But once you've had, say, discussion and debate and then There's a motion and a second. and an interesting note, a second is best practice to get before you start taking the motion into consideration, but it's not an absolute requirement. If it seems like no one's really comfortable yet seconding the motion, you can Let the motion be made and then go forward with discussion of the motion anyway. and then you would hold discussion on the proposed motion. Once the motion is made and seconded, it's always a good practice to for the chair to make sure that the motion is clear. Again, I think you guys do a really good job of that. You restate the motion. once it's been made or you have staff restated as they understand it, ask if there's any clarification that's needed. So that's a good practice to be in. And then once all of that discussion has wrapped up, the chair will call for the vote. And then unless the law requires otherwise, a simple majority will pass the motion. So the motion might sound something like, you know, the motion is to approve an encroachment permit for 123 Jones Way. And then you would have a second on that. You might discuss it a little more. And the next slide has to do with friendly amendments and things like that. Once you've had your discussion, the motions made, you've made sure that it's understandable to everyone, you're all on the same page. You'll take your vote on it and then you would re-announce that the motion to approve the encroachment permit for 123 Jones Way has passed by a vote of 4 to 1 with Smith dissenting. You want to be clear, you know, when it's appropriate to if there was a dissent or an abstention or anything like that for the record. Next slide, please. |
| 00:42:54.70 | Attorney Branham | Okay, so just a bit more detail on this. concept of how to handle motions. The rules say there can be up to three motions on the floor at the same time. The way you would get to three motions is If you have your first motion, we'll call it the original motion that someone has made to approve the encroachment permit, and you've had discussion and someone else feels like they would prefer to make a different motion altogether. They want to deny the encroachment permit. They don't want to take a vote on whether to appeal it. They want to instead make a motion to deny the encroachment permit. Or, so that would be a substitute motion where you're trying to just kinda you know, replace the existing motion with one of your own. Or there can be what's called a friendly amendment, or there can be a motion to amend. A friendly amendment kind of skips needing to add a second motion to the floor by just saying, Hey, maker of the motion, would you be open to adding to the approval that you're making a motion for a condition of approval to do x, right? So it's just like one more thing that you want to add into the motion. If the maker of the motion is OK with that, then They can just accept it as a friendly amendment and you don't need to go through the rigmarole of having multiple motions on the floor. But if for some reason they don't want that friendly amendment, they can say no thank you, and then what you can do is make a motion to amend. And so then you have two motions on the floor, you have the original, which has not been amended. and then you have the motion in its amended form. So you can have that or you can have the motion on the floor. And you could have a substitute motion or you can have some combination of those three. So once you get to the position where you've got one or two or three motions on the floor. If you have multiple, you go backwards. So say you had a motion and then you had a substitute motion, You would vote on the substitute motion first because that sort of clears the deck. So you vote on it. If you get majority approval on the substitute motion, then you don't need to return to the original motion. If you don't get a quorum of the vote on, or I should say a majority of the vote on the substitute motion, then at that point you transition back to the original motion. So it's kind of counterintuitive, but the vote goes backwards if you have multiple motions on the floor. Then all of these types of motions that I just described are open to discussion and debate. You might have talked about the original motion for a few minutes, then someone makes the substitute motion, you talk about that for a few more minutes, The chair does retain discretion to decide when it's time to stop discussing and just take a vote on the one or multiple motions that are on the floor. So that is the chair's discretion, but typically you would allow for you know, robust debate on each of the motions that are proposed. Next slide, please, which is the last slide. We're almost done. Oh, I'm sorry, this was the one that I was just talking about this whole time, I'll make sure that you guys all have a copy of the PowerPoint in case you need it later. Next, next slide. Okay, when taking the vote. So most items will require a simple majority, but there are exceptions which we try to you know, help staff, um, make sure that we're all on the same page about when that's happening so that you don't necessarily need to be aware of it, we'll call it out for you when it's the case so that you know if your vote is going to be the vote that swings in or not. So, in almost all cases, just a majority vote, if all five of you are present, three of you need to vote in the affirmative. That's the typical vote. In some cases, you might have a two thirds vote requirement. In that case, a vote of three to two to adopt a motion would mean that the motion fails, even though it got a majority approval. If the law says you needed two thirds, then that vote of 3-2 would fail. And then in the event of a tie vote, I get this question all the time. The motion fails, which means no action has been taken. at all. You can ask for a new motion in that case. Sometimes people didn't understand that if you get to the point where there's a tie, it means that no action is taken, so they might wish to change their vote in that circumstance. If there is a tie vote, no action is taken and the motion is deemed to have failed. And that is actually all I have for you. The last slide is just funny. contact info, which I believe you all have. Thank you for your time. I know that was a lot to throw at you, but if you have any additional questions now that we've wrapped up, I'm available to answer those too. |
| 00:47:16.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Attorney Branham, that was an excellent presentation. I want to thank you for that. At this point, we'll have any questions from the commissioners and then I'll open it up for public comment. Any questions from commissioners at this time? Seeing none, Director Phipps, if we can open it up for public comment, please. |
| 00:47:35.87 | Director Phipps | Certainly, as discussed earlier, if you'd like to make a public comment in connection with this item, you may raise your hand from the Zoom application. That's star nine. Or feel free to raise your hand from the chamber. And I'm happy to call on folks who are interested in speaking. Seeing no raised hands from the chamber. Chair, I do see one raised hand from the Zoom application, and that is Sandra Bushmaker. Sandra Bushmaker, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:48:01.24 | Sandra Bushmaker | Hi everybody good to see you all, I was really delighted to see this item on the planning Commission's agenda. I think that most boards and commissions, including the Council would benefit from such a presentation. So I would like to encourage that application of this presentation. Um, so I just wanted to clarify for violation of the Brown Act. It appears there are two remedies, either for a member of the public or for a member of the commission. And one is a cure and correct demand. And the second is litigation. Do I understand that correctly? And is the cure incorrect? Um, a prerequisite to litigation. Thank you. |
| 00:48:41.38 | Attorney Branham | Yes, and I am happy to give an answer to that because it's a good point. And maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear. Yes, the Brown Act does say If it is an item that, well, I won't overly complicate it. Yes, before a member of the public can litigate a Brown Act violation, they do have to first submit a written demand to cure and correct the action to the Planning Commission. To add an additional wrinkle, and what I'll do is point, you know, anyone from the public or any of the commissioners, if you search cure and correct in the open and public treatise, there's a whole bunch of information in there, but there's the cure and correct mechanism, and then there's also a cease and desist mechanism, which functions basically the the same as it does in the private law context but those are two potential options that are available and they really hinge on the nature of the action that was taken whether it's more appropriate to cure and correct it or to seek |
| 00:49:06.61 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:49:34.42 | Attorney Branham | a cease and desist from continuing to take an ongoing sort of action. But in either case, those are the only two options to file a Brown Act complaint, and they are prerequisites to litigation. So you can't skip straight to litigation. You either have to first submit a cure and correct or a cease and desist. And those topics are covered in much greater depth in the treatise. |
| 00:49:57.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Are there any other comments on Zoom? I don't see any. Seeing none, Chair. Okay, well with that, we'll close this item. I had a final question. Yes, real quick. |
| 00:50:03.56 | Director Phipps | Signature. |
| 00:50:04.81 | Andrew Junius | Okay. I had a final question. Yes, Mr. Junior. Thank you, Chair. Real quick question. The radius requirements for recusal, are those found in the Brown Act or are those someplace else? |
| 00:50:16.45 | Attorney Branham | No, those are actually in the Political Reform Act. That's right. And I'm sure our office would be happy to give a separate presentation on that. But if you do your AB 1234 training once every two years, that's typically when that will be discuss in greater depth because it's more of an ethics thing than an open and public meeting thing. |
| 00:50:33.01 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:50:33.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Great. Thank you. |
| 00:50:34.12 | Attorney Branham | Mm-hmm. So you can. |
| 00:50:35.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. With that, we're going to move on to |
| 00:50:36.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:50:36.16 | Attorney Branham | Thank you. |
| 00:50:36.22 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:50:39.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 00:50:40.23 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. I'm sorry. |
| 00:50:41.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So sorry, Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. |
| 00:50:43.64 | Kristina Feller | Sorry about that. It would be wonderful to get a copy of the PowerPoint. I think Attorney Brennan offered to do that and also attach it to the agenda since it was, it would be valuable to other boards and commissions as well. Thank you. |
| 00:51:00.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you with that we'll move on to item 8 item 8 is our public hearing portion of tonight With that I'm going to ask commissioners regarding any expert take communications regarding either the two public hearings this evening Commissioner Feller |
| 00:51:17.26 | Kristina Feller | Nothing to declare, Chair. |
| 00:51:19.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Marlott. Thank you. |
| 00:51:20.51 | David Marlatt | I visited the property at 27 Central, but did not enter the property nor speak with anyone. Okay. |
| 00:51:28.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Junior. Nothing to declare. Vice Chair Saad. |
| 00:51:33.10 | Nastassya Saad | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:51:34.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I also, I visited 241-253 Glen and Scott Couture, the architect, happened to be coming down the driveway at the same time. He showed me where the fence, the gate, and the control panel would be located, but we did not have any ex parte communications. For 27 Central Avenue, my house is within 100 feet, so I will recuse myself and turn the meeting over to Vice Chair Saad at that point in the agenda. With that, we will move on to Item 8A, 241 to 253 Glen Drive. It's a design review permit and an encroachment permit for 241 to 253 Glen Drive. This is a different project, but this site has been before us in a previous time. Robert Busick from CDD is here this evening. Welcome again, Robert. |
| 00:52:29.65 | Robert Busiek | Thank you, good evening Chair Luxenberg, members of the commission. It's a pleasure to be with you this evening. I am Robert Busiek, senior planner here at Sausalito. And I am here before you tonight to discuss an application for a design review and encroachment agreement at 241 and 253 Glen Drive. |
| 00:52:56.43 | Robert Busiek | All right, so the subject property, 241, 253 Glen Drive, they are two parcels located in the R1-6 single family zoning district. They are assigned the medium low density residential land use by the general plan. |
| 00:53:22.75 | Robert Busiek | So the applicant, Keturah Architecture, on behalf of owners Robin and Rich Levendorf, all are here tonight. They are requesting a design review permit and encroachment agreement to install an electronic driveway gate, measuring 4 feet 6 inches in height at their existing driveway, and to construct a decorative fence not to exceed 6 feet in height in front of an existing retaining wall that is part of the driveway treatment for this property. A portion of the proposed improvements do extend into the public right-of-way along Glen Drive, which is the reason for the encroachment agreement. |
| 00:54:08.18 | Robert Busiek | Okay, you got it. Sweet. So this is the subject site, 241 and 253 Glen Drive. There are two dwellings located on, one on each parcel. And then you can see that the subject of tonight's presentation, and this specific proposal is in the bottom left corner. It is the entrance of, to the two parcels from Glen Drive. from Glenn Drive. It is the entrance of to the two parcels from Glen Drive. It is a shared driveway. |
| 00:54:45.70 | Robert Busiek | So as you can see, these are elevations provided from the plans. The proposal includes fencing that will be placed in front of existing retaining walls. That fencing will be comprised of two and one quarter inch horizontal wood slats, which are stained black. The design of the fencing is in keeping with some of the other fencing that was installed on the property. There were some other improvements that were approved through a previous design review in 2019. And then this driveway treatment is a continuation of those improvements. The proposal also includes illuminated address numbers and mailbox receptacles, as well as a gate access control box. Also, towards the left of the screen on the proposed elevation, segments of the existing retaining wall, which are currently above grade, will be removed so that the proposed design of the fencing is all that can be seen from the right of way. As you can see here, too, some of the lines, there are some vertical lines that discuss which portions of the improvements are within the public right-of-way. There is a portion of the improvements which are located on a corner of a neighboring parcel, 71 George Lane. The owners of 71 George Lane have provided a letter, have had a chance to review the plans prior to submittal to the city, and have expressed their approval and acceptance of these improvements on their portion of the property. and then the rest of the improvements will be located on the parcel for 241 Glen Drive. next. All right. And again, this is just viewing the wraparound view of the proposed driveway gate, which will measure four feet six inches in height and will consist of two gates which will swing forward. And of course, the design is a continuation of that on the proposed fencing. Next slide, please. All right, so here are some pictures showing kind of the proposed vehicle access for the gate as well as some of the existing conditions on the site. So you can see we have the existing wood retaining wall. There's an existing temporary access gate. Both of those not really a cohesive design as of now. And then there are some existing plantings of Pride of Madeira plants, and those will be supplemented along with this proposal. Next slide, please. This plan view of the driveway shows a bit better kind of what we've been discussing so far. So the idea is that you have the two parcels. So 71 George Lane is outlined in the orange color, and 241 Glenn Drive, those boundaries are shown in purple. Everything towards the bottom of that is within the public right-of-way. And then, of course, the blue shows the existing Glenn Drive roadway and so the idea is that you will have vehicles that will that are trying to access 241253 Glenn Drive they will exit the Glenn Drive roadway providing just better circulation and safety in this location while they await the gates to open or they're dropping off the mail in those mailboxes to be installed. And again, owners of 71 George have reviewed these plans and accept the portions of the improvements on their parcel. Next slide, please. And then these are pictures provided which show some of the existing improvements elsewhere on the property which these improvements that are part of the design review and encroachment agreement application will be designed to match. Next slide, please. So given all of this, our recommendation, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve this application 2023-00121 for 241-253 Glen Drive and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit and encroachment agreement. As outlined in the staff report, we do find that the project is in conformance with the design review findings outlined in Sausalito Municipal Code section 10.54.050D. |
| 01:00:06.05 | Sandra Bushmaker | is. |
| 01:00:06.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:06.24 | Sandra Bushmaker | it. |
| 01:00:06.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:15.18 | Robert Busiek | and encroachment agreement findings in section 10.56.060 and the approval will be subject to the conditions of approval listed in the attached draft resolution and with that scott couture the applicant has prepared a presentation |
| 01:00:26.42 | Sandra Bushmaker | resolution. |
| 01:00:33.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you, before we do that, thank you for an excellent presentation, an excellent staff report. At this time we'll take questions of staff for you, and then we'll go on to the applicant's presentation. So with that, do we have any questions? I have a couple of clarifications. |
| 01:00:50.68 | David Marlatt | I have a couple of clarifying questions. And thank you. It's a very complete understandable presentation. But just to clarify, there is no current encroachment agreement in place for the gate that's there now. This is the first encroachment permit application |
| 01:01:09.65 | Robert Busiek | So. |
| 01:01:10.93 | David Marlatt | there's a gate but is there an encroachment agreement for that gate. |
| 01:01:12.76 | Robert Busiek | Oh, it's a temporary gate. So yes, the driveway improvements were previously approved with the you know, the surface and I believe the gate loops as part of the previous design review and perhaps Scott may be able to provide a little bit more |
| 01:01:42.73 | David Marlatt | It's probably just a clarifying question. I'm not going anywhere with it. I'm just, but there's no current encroachment agreement. So this is the first encroachment agreement that relative to this structure. |
| 01:01:43.32 | Robert Busiek | Thank you. |
| 01:01:55.25 | Robert Busiek | So there was a lengthy history with improvements on this property. It appears that the design review was, it looks like that a previous staff had continued the review the acceptance of the Oh. |
| 01:02:27.29 | Director Phipps | If I may, Commissioner, I think that, you know, fine, totally fine question, but I think the answer to the question is moot in the sense that this is a new project and in all cases we should have a new encouragement agreement associated with this project. |
| 01:02:39.43 | David Marlatt | No, no. |
| 01:02:44.41 | David Marlatt | Okay, no, that's fine. I was like I said, it was just a clarifying question because then my second question would be is the trigger for design review at the Planning Commission level the encroachment agreement? |
| 01:02:54.26 | Robert Busiek | So the trigger is... |
| 01:02:54.31 | David Marlatt | So the trigger is... That's a trigger. Is that why this is not an administrative design review? |
| 01:03:01.63 | Robert Busiek | That's correct. And the height of the fencing involved. So exceeding the three feet, six inches. |
| 01:03:08.57 | David Marlatt | Yeah, okay, thank you. |
| 01:03:10.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Chad, did you have a question? You were about to have a question. |
| 01:03:15.61 | Nastassya Saad | I was going to join in that discussion, but he did great. No, thank you. I'm good. |
| 01:03:17.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think he did great. No, thank you. I'm good. Commissioner Feller, do you have a question? |
| 01:03:23.15 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair and Commissioner Marlott. Excellent question. I'm thinking the same thing. And as I recall this project coming before there was, this would require something new, and I'm sure we'll get into that discussion The only other question I have of staff is you had mentioned the color of the fence. And I'm just curious, if it's meant to match the color of the two poems above. Is that what we're talking about color-wise? |
| 01:03:55.63 | Robert Busiek | So perhaps the applicant can speak to that a little bit later, but my understanding from the material submitted is it is to match the existing improvements on the parcel. So perhaps coordinating with the existing homes, but also mainly to match that existing fencing elsewhere further onto the parcels of 241-253-GLEN. |
| 01:04:23.93 | Kristina Feller | Okay, perfect. And thank you for the presentation and the report. It was excellent. |
| 01:04:29.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you Commissioner Feller. Just FYI, behind the 241 this exact material has been installed and between 253 and that of butter on the other side this material has also been installed. So it matches exactly. Commissioner Junius, do you have any questions? With that, I think we'll turn it over to Mr. Couture for a presentation along with the applicant and the owners. You'll have 15 minutes. If you want to reserve any of your time for any rebuttal, feel free to do that. But you'll have 15 minutes to do a presentation. |
| 01:04:29.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:04:52.52 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay. |
| 01:05:11.34 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, all right, perfect. |
| 01:05:17.87 | Scott Couture | Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Scott Couture. I'm the project architect. And first slide is coming up. |
| 01:05:32.11 | Nastassya Saad | Perfect. So this is the. Do we have a clock? Thank you. |
| 01:05:38.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, okay. |
| 01:05:40.43 | Nastassya Saad | So this is... |
| 01:05:40.97 | Scott Couture | The existing driveway and gate that you see there, the owners have purchased a home I Eight years ago? The gate's always been there. As far as we know, the driveway was resurfaced probably about four or five years ago. Next slide. On the uphill side, you can see the retaining wall. It's just a pressure treated wood retaining wall holding back the hillside. There's some Prada Madera and there's some ivy growing up above it and over it. And again, that wall has been there as far as the owners know before they purchased the property. The white rectangle there is our mockup of the gate entry system. And we use that to locate it in the best location. Next slide. as Robert had said, these are basically the elevations of the retaining wall. Essentially, we're going to leave the retaining wall. We're going to resurface it, cover it, make it look a little bit better, a little more in context with the rest of the property. The reason we have the black horizontal lattice is because it recedes on the property. It doesn't jump out at you. And the plantains that we put in front of it really pop, the green plantains that will grow over it, and then on the upper fences. So it's just sort of a fence that tends to recede into time. The black stain shows the wood grain, and weather is really quite well. On the top part, on the right-hand side, you see the gate elevation. Again, it's just a continuation of the same lattice work that will wrap around it. Again, up the left-hand corner are two photos of the existing fences that are up at the top there. Next slide. the gate access mock-up, the white rectangle on there. So what we did here is we parked an SUV. It's a Range Rover. It's about 16 feet long. And you can see in front of it I have on the ground there basically a hash mark that shows the gate swing, the two gate swings that will open up downhill. There's a little bit of room in front of the car before that. And you can see in the back there's some room behind the back bumper. So the whole car is fully off the roadway. Next slide. This is just looking south on Glen Drive. Again, you can see the back corner as well off the roadway. Up and to the right, that's where the gate will actually be. And if you're driving south on Glen Drive, you'll never actually see the gate that goes across the driveway. Next slide. This is looking north down Glen Drive. Again, you can see the back bumper is off the roadway. Still got a little extra room in there. Next slide. And this is sort of an overview of the whole area there. It gives you kind of a good context of everything. This is kind of an unusual driveway for Sausalito. It has, you know, most driveways in Sausalito are about this long. You've got a garage door at the end of them. You've got a house at the end of them. You can usually see what's at the end of the driveway. This swings up around the hill. It serves both houses up there. There's a big parking area up in there. But if you're not familiar with the area, if you're Google Maps or using Siri and the up around the hill. It serves both houses up there. There's a big parking area up in there. But if you're not familiar with the area, if you're Google Maps or using Siri, and Siri tells you to veer left to get onto Curiav, this is what Curiav looks like. So we have, during the course of construction, a bunch of trucks up top, cars that have come up there thinking that they're on Curiav. And most people can't back down a driveway like this. So they get out of the car, we get in, we drive it down, they get on their way. So there's, I think, a significance to putting a gate there. It's a low gate, it's four and a half feet, it looks very residential to say that, no, this is not Curiav, this is not a roadway, this is a driveway, and there's houses up on there. The other is a little bit of a security issue where if, you know, in most driveways, if somebody were in your neighbor's driveway and they had a van or a pickup truck and they were putting in your big-screen TV or your couch, the neighbors would see it. This up there, it's isolated, so nobody sees the driveway area up there. So this will prevent anybody with nefarious means or ideas of getting up there. The driver will hold them back. And that's about it. I think Robert covered most of the technical aspects of it, but I'll take any questions if you have them. |
| 01:10:17.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. You've got nine minutes, 32 seconds after public comment if you need to rebut anything we'd like to rebut. With that, I'll open it up for questions. Commissioner Fowler. |
| 01:10:29.99 | Kristina Feller | No questions. Thank you very much. |
| 01:10:32.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Marla? No questions. Thank you. Commissioner Junius, no. Vice Chair Assad, no. Okay. I don't have questions either at this time. So at this point, have a seat and it will allow you to come back. We're going to open this up for public comment. Director Phipps, if you could give instructions, please. |
| 01:10:41.07 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 01:10:52.21 | Director Phipps | Certainly, as mentioned, if you'd like to make public comment, feel free to raise your hand in the chamber. In addition, you may also raise your hand if you're attending virtually on the Zoom application. In order to do that, if you're dialing in from a phone, press star 9. If you're on the Zoom app, just press the raise hand button. looking to the chamber. looking to the Zoom app. Chair, seeing none, back to you. |
| 01:11:13.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, with that you have the applicant or the architect any additional comments |
| 01:11:24.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So. Okay, with that I'm gonna close public hearing and we'll bring it up to the dais for discussion. |
| 01:11:34.18 | Nastassya Saad | like to make a motion to approve. as is design review permit and encroachment agreement, project 202 300121 with the attached draft resolution. |
| 01:11:51.12 | David Marlatt | I would second that. Thank you. |
| 01:11:52.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:11:52.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any further discussion? All the, Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:11:57.95 | Kristina Feller | For sure. Just one comment. I really want to thank the applicants, the Lavendross and Mr. Couture for. being so mindful of the neighbors, the neighborhood, and working through the city process and the commission here. to create such a wonderful property. And so it's always appreciated by the commission. So thank you. |
| 01:12:23.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, |
| 01:12:23.98 | Director Phipps | With that, Director Phipps, if you could take a roll call vote. Happy to do, Chair. Commissioner Merlot? Yes. Commissioner Junius? Yes. Commissioner Feller? Yes. Vice Chair Saad? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? |
| 01:12:30.66 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 01:12:34.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:34.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yeah. |
| 01:12:36.08 | Director Phipps | Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. |
| 01:12:38.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, we will move on to 8B, and I will accuse myself and turn it over to Vice Chair. |
| 01:12:53.34 | Unknown | I'm going to go about 30. |
| 01:12:54.65 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to take your time. Go for it, go. |
| 01:12:54.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:00.56 | Nastassya Saad | Just going to wait for Chair Luxembourg to recuse. |
| 01:13:02.25 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:13:19.11 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg, have a great evening. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. |
| 01:13:20.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:31.80 | Nastassya Saad | At this time, we're gonna hear a design review permit for 27 Central, project ID 2024-00049. And we have Matthew Mandich here to present. |
| 01:13:46.83 | Matthew Mandich | Hello, commissioners. Are we waiting for Commissioner Junius to return? |
| 01:13:49.85 | Nastassya Saad | I think that probably would be pretty much more. |
| 01:13:51.54 | Matthew Mandich | I'll just hold tight. Yes, please. |
| 01:13:52.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:13:57.33 | Director Phipps | We'll consider it a 60-second recess. |
| 01:14:18.00 | Joe Stephanie | Or worse. |
| 01:14:26.30 | Nastassya Saad | Whenever you're ready. Thank you. All right. |
| 01:14:27.18 | Matthew Mandich | All right. Thank you, commissioners, and good evening. Yes, the permit here before you tonight is a design review permit, 2024-00049, as Vice Chair Saad has already stated. However, this is linked to a longstanding code enforcement case from 2018, as you'll see in the title there. So part of the hearing tonight is about closing this longstanding case and moving this forward, as well as moving forward with the proposed design review in front of you this evening. So with that, we'll go to the next slide, please. Yes, so just location of the property here, 27 Central Avenue located at the junction of Central and Cable Roadway. You can see the property there on the left highlighted in yellow. It has an access point toway as well as to central ave This is in the r225 multifamily zoning district in the medium high density residential general plan district next slide, please So project summary is a request for a retroactive design review permit to approve a hundred and thirty square foot deck extension with the addition of a roof cover to a second floor deck on the eastern elevation of 27 Central Avenue as you can see the plans here this was the existing deck so this is this is already built out which is why we're talking about a retroactive design review permit it was built in 2017 so you can see the existing deck that was here. This is the expansion right there in green. You can see that in the elevations as well here. This is the site as it looks today, 27 Central. You can see that that space has since been enclosed. That's something we'll get into later, but really the ask is for the extension here retroactively. So next slide, please. As I mentioned already at the beginning, this is a longstanding code enforcement case, longstanding history here, a lot of background. So kind of the bulk of what we'll be discussing and hearing today will be the background before we arrive at the analysis. So, you know, bear with me through this as we go through about, you know, seven, eight years of history here. So in 2017, a zoning permit was issued to the applicants and owners of 27 Central Avenue. This zoning permit was issued by ZDD for a proposed project of the deck extension, which you just saw, on May 15, 2017. A building permit for this project was subsequently issued on July 6, 2017, and the project was constructed, as you saw in the last slide. However, a complaint was received by ZDD from a neighbor at 31 Central Avenue, which is directly across from 27, describing a view impact and a lack of noticing for the zoning permit. This was received after the building permit was issued in the project was structured on July 20, 2017. In order to investigate this claim, our building inspector issued a stop work order on July 24th, shortly after the complaint came in. And over a period of time, CDD was looking into the project. This was again in 2017. They found that there was no confirmation that the zoning permit was ever publicly posted. Therefore the zoning permit itself was reposted on November 29th, 2017. And within the 10-day appeal period, the zoning permit was indeed appealed by the neighbor at 31 Central Avenue. Next slide, please. Um, that appeal went, of course, up to the planning commission. Um, there was a meeting held on April 11th in 2018 on the appeal of the zoning, uh, permit. This appeal was upheld by the planning commission due to the potential view impacts created by the deck expansion. As such, a design review was required for the proposed project to get a retroactive design review permit a resolution 2018 12 was adopted by the planning commission stating the approval of the appeal and the recommendation that the applicant apply for a design review this ruling was then appealed again by the applicant from the planning commission up to the city council a city council meeting was then held on july 31st 2018 the appeal by the applicant which was denied by the City Council due to the fact that potential view impacts were observed they then upheld the Planning Commission's previous approval of the appeal of the zoning permit and provided the applicant with two options to move forward they were either to submit a design review permit for review under planning commission review or a demolition merit to remove the deck extension that had been constructed. This was adopted in resolution 539 by the city council. Next slide, please. want to show you that resolution here because this is really kind of the the crux of what we're dealing with here so this is the city council resolution um denying the appeal of the of the previous planning commission uh appeal for the zoning permit i know it's a little complicated lots of appeals zoning permits planning commission cc but this wording right here what you see right here is basically the denial of the appeal by the applicant um and further affirmation that the applicant must seek either a design review permit to permit the deck extension or demolish the deck extension that occurred. So those are the two options that were given out by the city council. So next slide please. A design review permit was then submitted by the applicant in line with that resolution that was adopted by the city council. However, in order to coax this application out, there were some certain code enforcement actions that had to take place as the applicant was reluctant to apply for the design review permit. Those code enforcement issues will be discussed a little bit later by our code enforcement officer, Paul Van Hook. But for now, we're just going to focus on the fact that a design review permit was indeed submitted on october 25th 2018. the planning commission then met to consider this permit on february 27th 2019. in this hearing the planning commission instructed the applicant to submit revised plans to reduce the view impact and continued the hearing between hearings the applicant submitted some revised plans that proposed a 45-degree cut to the northeast portion of the deck and roof covering to reduce the view impact observed. The applicant also proposed in this plan set to add a third-story, a third-floor deck, and enclose the existing second-floor deck with windows and a sliding glass door. Next slide, please. These are the plans that that were submitted and as i'm sure you saw in the staff report all these things were attached as well and this is the 45 degree cut that we're talking about here on this northeast portion of the deck this is the third floor additional deck that was proposed as part of these revised plans along with the cut as well as the enclosure and the sliding glass door here so these are the plans that were submitted March 25th 2019 as part of that design review next slide please At the next hearing, which occurred April 3rd, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed those plans that we just saw and suggested edits that requested the applicant further reduce the potential impacts and decrease the project massing rather than increase the project massing as they proposed in those plans. The increase would have been the third additional deck in the enclosure of the space that remained. After that recommendation, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to May 29th. Moving on to that next hearing, no materials were submitted between April 3rd and May 29th, so when that May 29th hearing came around, there was nothing else to consider, and the Planning Commission just set another deadline of June 12th to get new materials and new plans into the Planning Commission for review. So therefore that meeting was then continued to another meeting June 26, 2019. Next slide, please. So June 26, 2019, this is the final planning commission meeting that was over this design review permit. The applicant's architect submitted certification of story poles, which in this case were really visual aids showing what the reduction of the deck would look like. Revised plans were submitted June 18th that show 60-degree, rather than 45-degree, corner cuts to the northeastern section of the deck and the roof. This removed approximately 7.7 square feet of decking and 13.9 square feet of roof cover. Staff then visited the site at 31 Central Avenue, which is where the view impact was reported and the complaint came from, to take photos of those visual aids. Next slide, please. So here's the plan set again showing these. This is the one submitted on June 18th, 2019. This is the plan set that is under review today. This has the 60 degree cut. As you can see, no more third deck here. 60 degree cut here, removing the roofing the decking, which will minimize the view impact to 31 central. Next slide, please. So here are some images of that. Probably better to look at the photos taken in March as there's a very foggy skyline in the June photos. You can see right here, these are taken from the master bedroom and the master deck, which are primary viewing areas. You can see how the deck impinges on the San Francisco skyline right here. And right here as well, and this black plastic that you're seeing here, these are the visual aids to show the reduction in the deck and what that would look like. So you'd see having that portion removed there would open up that skyline a bit more. There were other photos included in this as the attachment, but I wanted to show these because these are probably the most pertinent and from primary viewing areas of the master bedroom and the master deck. The June photos here, a little bit different. They show the 60-degree cut. So this is actually proposing the 45. The 60 degree cut here a little bit different they show the 60 degree cut so this is actually proposing the 45 the 60 degree cut is a little bit deeper you don't really get the same vibe that you get from these showing the visual with the plastic hanging but this is actually a little bit of a deeper cut so that removes more of the the view impact next slide please so based on those plans submitted in the visual aid scene and presented at the hearing on june 26 the planning commission believed that the revised design reduces view impact on to 31 central avenue and at that meeting they approved a resolution 2019-07 adopted by the pc which approved a retroactive design review permit with conditions so this is the important part here so we've approved the design review but that's based on the plan submitted on June 18th and those conditions of approval stipulate that the removal of portions of the existing deck and roof cover are required as shown on the approved plans the applicant in those conditions of approval was given two months to apply for a building permit and six months to carry out the removal after the building permit was approved. The applicant is then subject to code enforcement if there is failure to comply. So June 26, 2019. Moving on to the next slide. We'll discuss a little bit this code enforcement timeline. I'm going to have my code enforcement officer, Paul Van Hook, come up and give some background on what's happened since a little bit before then and then after and why we're here today. Thank you. |
| 01:25:13.76 | Paul Van Hook | Good evening, Commissioners. Commissioner Marlett, congratulations on your appointment. I'm going to go through just kind of a brief timeline for the code enforcement case. This has lasted an extremely long time. There's a lot of attachments. SO WE'VE TRIED TO REALLY CONDENCE IT JUST FOR TIME PURPOSES. SO YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE THAT THE COMPLIANCE ORDER WAS ISSUED ON OCTUBER 1, 2018. I WANT TO TAKE YOU BACK JUST A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THAT JUST SO IT ALL MAKES SENSE. SO ON APRIL 11, 2018, THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANICIOUSLY OVERTURNED ZONING PERMIT 17-146 AND RUL subject to design review due to view impacts on April 20th the applicants filed an appeal and on July 31st 2018 the City Council denies the appeal so that takes us to the compliance order right here in October 2018 so a compliance order was issued by Code enforcement officer Camacho And that was on October 1st 2018 and basically it was the code case was opened a CE 2018-0088 and the applicant was required to submit for a design review or a demolition permit Basically from the revoked zoning permit 17.1 for set or it's 17. dash 146 a deadline was given of October 12th 2018 Um, 17-146. A deadline was given of October 12th, 2018. On October 11th, the day before the deadline, an email was received asking for an extension, which the code enforcement officer Camacho denied as the address was listed on the Marin County Recorder's Office. So a citation was issued on October 15th, 2018, for noncompliance. The applicant applies for a design review permit on October 25th, 2018, which was the second deadline that was given. Afterwards, Resolution 2019, was adopted by the Planning Commission, approving a retroactive permit with conditions of approval, basically removing the section of the deck that Associate Planner Manich briefed you about. Um... Can I go to the next slide please. Okay. Um, And I would just like to state that part of the reason that this code enforcement case had lasted so long is that there's been a turnover of staff whether it be through code enforcement officers Directors and whatnot and it kind of got lost in the mix there. So hence the reason for the the long bill for it so a case review on December 2020 to July 2021 Code enforcement during the covert years was actually handed over to PD. So I |
| 01:27:39.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:58.33 | Paul Van Hook | Code enforcement officer Marie Coleman determines that code enforcement case 2018-088 was mistakenly closed by another code enforcement officer. Um, The code enforcement officer Marie Coleman sends a courtesy letter out to the applicants, basically asking the status of the case, what's going on. And it reveals that the code enforcement case is still active and none of the conditions of approval were met for the deck removal there. Um, Afterwards, it was handed over to another code enforcement officer, Holt. They inherited the case in June of 21 and determines that design review 2018-00397 has expired and no action has been taken by the applicant and the CE case remains valid. After a lot of different communication back and forth, emails, calls, whatnot, a compliance order was issued November 9, 2021, Co-Enforcement Officer Holt advised the applicant that a new design review permit, application, or a demolition permit is required. And if this seems to be a reoccurring theme, it's because it is. They've been told the same information over and over again and unfortunately there's no compliance. So I'd also like to state that on October 6, 2022, the applicants applied for design review modification with basically all the same arguments they're making now, And on December 12, 2022, a notice of incompletion was mailed out to them, basically letting them, informing them that they needed to meet all the same conditions of approval that were mandated before. Um, And there's a lot of different, as I mentioned, a lot of different emails, calls, whatnot, trying to inform the applicants of just the status and that they needed to either apply for a design review consistent with the conditions of approval or a demolition permit to remove the improvements made from the zoning permit in 2017. So, This brings me to my portion of it, which I got hired in basically of February of 2023. I inherited about 70 open code enforcement cases and was trying to make my way through them. So I, |
| 01:30:24.64 | Paul Van Hook | I issued a stop work order on July 25th, 2023. A complaint was received basically about non-compliance for the removal of the view impact, nothing had been taken or nothing had been acted upon. And also there was an installation of four unpermitted windows, hence the stop work order. With a lot of research meetings, digging through software and some other things, it was determined that this code enforcement case was still active and none of the improvements were made from the previous design review. The applicants came in at a meeting and I was told that the deck was fully permitted and compliant. that after six months the Planning Commission and the City Council's rulings expires, which it doesn't. It's the design review that expires, not the actual thing. And after talking to the City Attorney, there is no statute of limitation on the City Council's decisions. Um, I was also told the matter was resolved and the current owner was okay with the deck extension, Obviously they are not. Design review 2018-00379. was only applied for under duress, according to the applicant. I'm not sure. So after explaining that to them, There was no compliance and a citation was issued on October 3rd, 2023. So on October 3rd, 2023, $100 citation was issued by myself via mail, certified mail. to the property owners are 27 central for failing to comply with the City Council resolution and not making the appropriate modifications to reduce the view impact caused by the deck improvements under revoked zoning permit ZP, Uh, 2017-146. Once again, more meetings. calls emails and staff was inundated with a lot of information along these things as far as just excessive multi-page emails received a lot of questions there was insistence by the applicant that his owning permit be issued and that they don't have to go through the design review process, They also wanted to apply for a variance to the council decision which does not exist. and compromised to remove a smaller portion of the roof cover. In all instances, they were given the same options that they either needed to submit for another design review with the conditions of approval, or they needed to apply for a demolition permit for the improvements made under the revoked zoning permit. I don't know. A second citation was issued November 29, 2023. On November 29, 2023, a $200 citation was issued by myself. for failing to comply with the given deadline. and a new deadline of December 13th was given to reapply for designing permit and obtain the corresponding building permits. Once again, more calls, emails, Zoom meetings, all kinds of stuff. And finally, a third citation was issued on March, 7 2024 for non-compliance for $500 and a deadline of March 13 2024 was given and miraculously a new design review was submitted on March 13 2024 following the code enforcement actions So that's about it for the code enforcement. Are you gonna take one? |
| 01:33:55.28 | Matthew Mandich | thank you very much um so yes back to the design review portion here so as uh paul walked you through all of that or officer van hook walked you through all of that code enforcement history there which was off an awful lot so thanks for hanging with us um new design permit application submitted this year march 13th so this is the the case number 20 240049 which we're hearing tonight this project is compliant with zoning standards for r225 zone however it is not consistent with general plan policy cd 3.1 which discusses private views and design review finding number four cannot be made the project and i'll read that finding out to you the project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public and private views from private property photographic evidence evidence that I've shown previously that the San Francisco skyline, which is a protected view for the Sausalito Municipal Code, is obstructed by deck extension as viewed from primary viewing areas, which we saw at 31 Central Avenue. Next slide, please. and those are those images again just highlighting the san francisco skyline right here with the view obstruction from the expansion of the deck and the roof in particular next slide please so that brings us to our recommendation today staff recommends that the planning commission approve application dr 2024-0049 with conditions and adopt the trap draft resolution conditions of approval apply to the project plan submitted on june 18th sorry that should read uh 2019 not 2024 That's an error in my presentation there. Excuse me. the trap draft resolution conditions of approval apply to the project plan submitted on june 18th sorry that should read 2019 not 2024 that's an error in my presentation there excuse me conditions require that within two months of approval the applicant must apply for building permit to remove portions of the existing deck and roof if removal does not occur within six months of issuance of the building permit, applicant will be subject to code enforcement fines. So we're just back to the beginning, where we were again in 2018, when that original design review permit was approved about six years ago. So with that, I will conclude the presentation and open it up to commissioners questions, thank you. |
| 01:35:58.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Assistant Planner, Mandage and Code Enforcement Officer. That is a very robust report and a lot of detail to get through. So thank you for breaking it down in such a comprehensive manner. I'm going to open it up for questions here. Thank you. |
| 01:36:15.58 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry, go ahead. |
| 01:36:16.16 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I saw Christine in first. Commissioner Feller, may I have you kick us off for questions of staff? |
| 01:36:18.54 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:36:25.24 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair, Acting Chair at the moment. I, like probably many of you was surprised to see this back on the agenda. I think I'm probably um, the only one left on the commission that remembers it back to 2019, when I first heard this project, and even then there was the history, but the question really is, for staff and thank you for the extreme detail that you've gone through. The question is, Um, ha what is the maximum fine that you can apply? Number one. And the second question I have is the plans that you've recently received, which is the subject of this conversation and hearing items this evening. Um, Are they generally consistent in your opinion with 2019, with the exception of those conditions that you've called out? |
| 01:37:26.95 | Matthew Mandich | I'll let officer Van Hook answer the question about the fines first and then I'll touch on the plans. |
| 01:37:33.41 | Paul Van Hook | Yeah, so in connection with South Salido Municipal Code, 1.10.110 under administrative citations, the fines, the first initial fine is $100, the second fine is $200, and now we're up to $500. And those can be issued per day for noncompliance. |
| 01:37:52.60 | Kristina Feller | And it is this design review permit. Um, does it restart any kind of clock or is this sort of the continuation? |
| 01:38:01.02 | Paul Van Hook | This is a continuation. |
| 01:38:03.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you both very much. |
| 01:38:07.75 | Nastassya Saad | Any other questions, Commissioner Fowler? |
| 01:38:10.28 | Kristina Feller | No, thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 01:38:12.19 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Marlowe, I'll turn to you. |
| 01:38:12.98 | David Marlatt | Yeah, just a couple of just clarifying questions again. Thank you very much. On the June 18th, 2019 drawing that we have, it says as billed deck, but that's incorrect I assume. |
| 01:38:26.20 | Matthew Mandich | Um, so yes, the deck itself is built, but those, the plans from 2019, June are proposing the 60 degree cuts. |
| 01:38:35.31 | David Marlatt | Okay, so it's just erroneous that it says as-built. These are not drawings of an as-built deck, which... |
| 01:38:40.96 | Matthew Mandich | correct. |
| 01:38:41.37 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 01:38:41.65 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. |
| 01:38:41.98 | David Marlatt | Correct. And then also I assume that by approving this implicitly or explicitly, they're also removing the windows which were installed without a permit? Yes. So this becomes open deck. |
| 01:38:52.13 | Matthew Mandich | Yes. |
| 01:38:54.43 | David Marlatt | And I guess my last question is if there was a new design review application filed in this year, a month ago, two months ago, did they file just this sheet A1B? There were no, I mean normally when there's a new design review application, you know, it's 2022 code and it's, there's a cover sheet and a site plan and drawing. |
| 01:39:16.47 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, there were actually no plans submitted with the new application, just the application materials themselves. As you will hear from the applicant in the next presentation, the applicant does not believe that this design review is warranted. So we are using the plans that were previously approved under the last design review permit of 2019. |
| 01:39:36.78 | David Marlatt | Thank you, but just so I understand, but the applicant filed for the design review in March. |
| 01:39:40.67 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, they did, after receiving citations from code enforcement. |
| 01:39:42.89 | David Marlatt | That was fun. Okay, all right, thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:39:46.86 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:39:46.88 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:39:48.09 | David Marlatt | hard to follow. |
| 01:39:48.66 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 01:39:49.31 | David Marlatt | you |
| 01:39:49.32 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Junius. |
| 01:39:50.47 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. Matthew, wow, that was something else. Just one question, and this is kind of the origin of the whole thing back in May of 2017. I know you were not here. None of us were here, not in this room. But it does appear that the permit was properly issued until such time as it was determined that the notice wasn't issued and wasn't posted properly, right? |
| 01:40:16.46 | Matthew Mandich | the zoning permit in 2017? Correct. Thank you. |
| 01:40:19.93 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:40:19.97 | Matthew Mandich | you. |
| 01:40:22.06 | Nastassya Saad | I just have one question. I counted, I think, attached to the agenda six public comments. Do you know if you had any other public comments or any late mail come in? |
| 01:40:30.43 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. Nothing that's not attached to the agenda. |
| 01:40:32.42 | Nastassya Saad | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:40:32.57 | Matthew Mandich | Everything was uploaded before noon today. I hope that's the one you're referring to, I think, Vice Chair? Okay, great. |
| 01:40:36.59 | Nastassya Saad | I think. |
| 01:40:38.51 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:40:38.55 | Nastassya Saad | Great, okay, I don't have any. |
| 01:40:38.97 | Matthew Mandich | Nothing additional to that. |
| 01:40:41.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I don't have any other questions and seeing none, we can turn it over to the applicant, who I believe is Ms. Mika Stefani, yes. Mika Stefani, thank you. |
| 01:40:50.11 | Matthew Mandich | Mika Stefani, yes. |
| 01:40:55.47 | Nastassya Saad | you can please state your name and address for the record, and you will have 15 minutes that is up on the clock. We can reset that at the 15 mark. And if we stop you, it won't count against your time, and you are welcome to reserve any time to rebuttal any other comments that you hear. |
| 01:41:13.06 | Meike Stefani | Okay. My name is Meike Stefani, and this is in regards to 27 Central Avenue. and Yeah, I'm not a modern woman, so I'm just going to give this as a prop here. So I'm going to read this off, if you don't mind. This retroactive design review, I need to correct certain statements that have been made before. It's just not correct. This retroactive design review concerns our once fully permitted and structurally completed conversion of a previously existing balcony into a dining room addition of a multi-family residence at 27 Central. This here, this view, is currently enjoyed by 31 Central Avenue at the time. The zoning permit was also approved and has been maintained up till 2022. as you know that 31 Central inundated the whole neighborhood with false information to instigate rumors. So anyway... As evidenced by emails from 40 Central Avenue and by 21 Central Avenue, 25 Central Avenue, Permits has indeed been Post-its. as well as photographic evidence, as well as a police report that has been filed when 31 Central Avenue witnessed me posting the zoning permits. And you can see on the records of the police report that was filed on May 16th, 2017, that I posted that zoning permit. So. whatever allegation here is false, that it was not done, Our dining room addition was structurally completed in August 2017, but before the final inspection, 31 Central alleged that our addition impacts the view of the Sausalito hillside, However, her late appeal was denied. Contrary to the evidences mentioned above 31 central then alleged that the approved zoning permit was never posted. So the city reposted it, they believed in her, reposted it, and she happily appealed. The design review ignored the fact that we already mitigated this anticipated view impact in May 2017 by allowing 31 Central to create a world-class panoramic view of San Francisco and the Bay Bridges at the expense of our oak trees and privacy. And I want to show you also our neighbors. that this is the current view of 31 Central Avenue. What you have seen, No, let me see. Thank you. What you have seen. |
| 01:44:40.91 | Nastassya Saad | Excuse me, I do need to ask you to speak into the microphone, please, so we can all hear you. |
| 01:44:43.93 | Meike Stefani | Oh. What you have seen is that the view is determined only on one side of the oak tree. So. All the pictures are taken from this side of the oak tree and not here. So this whole view has been ignored. And that is their current view. It's not to the little side of the oak tree. So it's very deceptive, all the pictures that have been presented. So we effectively reduced the anticipated view impact to less than 1%. Despite 31 Central's written consent to our proposed addition, Despite the less than 1% impact on 31 Central overall panoramic view, and despite all the evidences that the zoning permit was indeed posted in May 2017, the Planning Commission's prisoners ruled the following in 2019. View impact is calculated on the view that existed at time of purchase. of 31 Central in March 2017, when their view of San Francisco and both bay bridges was blocked by our oak trees. Two, that 31 Central was not entitled to that newly acquired panoramic view. And three, that this unprotected view could be obstructed again by my growing oak trees. Four, that I had to partially demolish my once fully permitted and structurally completed dining room addition. No. The reason that I'm here for design review is it changed in circumstances. Before we partially demolished our once fully permanent edition, 31 Central got sold twice. At the new time of purchase in 2019, and again at the new time of purchase in 2020-22, The subsequent owners at 31 Central inherited a now protected panoramic world-class view as is. The owners at 31 Centel, including their agents, stated that our addition did not impact their view. And if we allow them to trim down the pitosporum, we can keep our addition forever. So we allowed them to print down the pitosporum, thereby further expanding their views. So we should therefore be entitled to keeping our edition as built if they can keep their now protected panoramic view as is per the following stipulation. One. Design review is a function to prevent a proposed project from potentially reducing the value of neighboring properties. 31 Central's property value increased from 1.5 million to 3.2 million in 2022 to increase in view. Obviously our addition had no negative effect on 31 Central's property value whatsoever. Two. Per the 2019 Planning Commission ruling and VIEW ordinance, VIEW is determined at time of purchase. Our addition no longer impacts 31 Centro's view, not even the 1% that you see on this poster. The subsequent owners of 31 Central and their agent have communicated to the previous community development director, Dan Hurtert, that our addition does not impact our views, and the Planning Commission decision expired in 2021. Three, per Social Leader Municipal Code 1054-040, paragraph number two, our addition adds less than 1% to the existing total floor area of our multifamily residence and no longer impacts any private views. It is an estimated 100 feet distance from 31 Central Avenue to our north. It's an estimated 100 feet distance from 31 Central Avenue to our north. It's an estimated 20 feet distance from 25 Central Avenue to our south. And it is exempt from design review. Based on the above, we hereby respectively ask the Planning Commission the following. One, to reactivate zoning permit 17-1.2. as posted in May 2017, ministerially approving our dining room edition. to reactivate our building permit B 2017-296 so we may pass final inspection and close the permit. And I'm reserving the rest of this time for my husband. |
| 01:50:26.44 | Joe Stephanie | Can you stop the clock just for a few seconds while I |
| 01:50:30.57 | Nastassya Saad | we can stop the clock and could you also state your name, please? |
| 01:50:35.08 | Joe Stephanie | My name is Joe Stephanie. I'm the husband. |
| 01:50:37.96 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, we can get started, please. |
| 01:50:39.50 | Joe Stephanie | Let me. |
| 01:50:43.04 | Joe Stephanie | Okay, I'll just add some background so you understand where our heads are at in all of this. Okay. So first I want to talk about three community outreaches on our part, which is part of what you asked for. A, we had indicated to Ms. Wilds back in 2017 our intentions for this addition, which in a cordial face-to-face meeting she signed off on. So she was well aware of it beforehand. If you sign something, it might not be legally binding, but if you're signing a piece of paper, your eyes are on that piece of paper, logically, and you see that something's going on. OK, so something's going on. But she did not complain at the time, or else she would not have signed off on this understanding. It turns out she was flipping her house and therefore had second thoughts, thus generating a late appeal. B, the subsequent owner, Mr. Lucero, wrote a letter to the PC in support of our audition, because after all, he had inherited a permanent view easement, a panoramic view with his purchase. Wonderful. C, Upon the second resale, the realtor representing Mr. Lucero in his resale stated in an email to us that if we trimmed our pitosporum trees, then, quote, your porch will be able to remain in place forever, unquote. we authorized her to trim our pitosporum trees, which she did. And with the new resale, that extra view was also locked in. at the time of resale. Question, was this realtor speaking for the PC? Or was this a misrepresentation? My next point. We are concerned that Ms. Wiles was granted a late appeal after she signed off on our proposed addition. She could have informed herself of its details at the Planning Commission desk, because she knew from, we told her what was going on. She could have further informed herself Yet she did not. Yet the PC granted her late appeal. That's a little funny. Even though we provided a date stamped photograph of the zoning permit posting, and even though from a previous hearing, we could infer that at least one other neighbor had also seen it based on their comments at this hearing, at that hearing, the Planning Commission decided to believe Miss Wiles, a person who had called the police twice on us based on her delusions, which had no merit as stated in the police report. Look for yourself. Why did the PC automatically give Ms. Wiles these free passes and benefits of the doubt against our evidence? Note that she had temporarily joined the Sausalito Historical Commission precisely during this time between Purchase and Flip, which met periodically with the Planning Commission. This is at minimum a perceived conflict of interest. Doesn't the Brown Act have anything to say about this transparency? My God, I would be fired at my previous employer if I had this even a perceived conflict of interest and that seems to just be OK. Other points. We protest some of the negative, inaccurate, and prejudicial comments made by some neighbors in this affair. Misstatements from neighbor Chang. Our addition sits on the opposite side from him and therefore does not advance even one inch. And so this is just mudslinging, should be condemned. Misstatements from neighbor Chameleon. Caprillion, we do not encroach on Ms. Weil's property as stated, in fact, she called the police thinking It was her property line 20 feet into our property. She was delusional. She called the police. We were weeding the garden 20 feet from the property line. She called the police for no reason. We had it resurveyed, and indeed we were right, and she was wrong. The current owner of 31 Central maintains our addition has a view impact without considering the expanded view of the expense of our oak trees. Furthermore, we trimmed our pitosporum trees so that we could keep the addition as is, according to the Realtors email. We got hoodwinked once in a false quid pro quo agreement with Ms. Wiles, goodbye oak tree canopy, and we apparently got hoodwinked again by the Realtor. Goodbye, pitosporum tree cover. Can you not see our frustration? Put yourselves in our shoes and you might understand. Given the further pitosporum trimming that occurred after the PC's original site and given the new makeup of the PC, we request that the PC revisit 31 Central this time with us in attendance to reassess the alleged view impact. At the end of this affair, we have permanently lost most of our tree canopy privacy and may have to suffer a partial demolition to boot. How are we to be made whole after these slights of hand by neighbors? Considering the PC told us we did nothing wrong, We were told point blank at one of the hearings, we did nothing wrong. And that the planner, at that time David Chersenoff, said the city made procedural errors in giving us the green light. Given that, I hope you can understand our sense of outrageous violation. Tell us, this is not a rhetorical question, tell us how are we to be made whole again? The only ethical path forward is a site revisit with the new view conditions and new PC membership. How is this not a reasonable request? You must understand, we're in a Franz Kafka short story here. We're getting crapped on. The neighbors, quid pro quo, no, yeah, you could keep the balcony, oh, goodbye, Oaks. Quid pro quo, oh, you cut the pitosporum, okay, goodbye, pitosporum. And at the end of the day, we've got nothing to show for it. How are we to be made whole again? And given the city admitted mistakes, the city's got some financial burden here. |
| 01:56:27.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for your presentation. I was attempting to give you a time check, but you did use all your 15 minutes, so if you'd like to return to your seats. Actually, excuse me. No, that's completely incorrect. We're going to do questions now, but thank you very much. If you can actually stay up here, we're going to open it up for questions from the commissioners. And I'll start with you, Commissioner Junius. Do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 01:56:53.79 | Andrew Junius | Sure, thank you for the presentation. You presented this to the Commission. Is this the date stamp photograph you're referring to with respect to the 2017, the original notice? |
| 01:57:05.90 | Meike Stefani | Yeah, that's the posting. Actually, the background kind of shimmered through from where the posting was posted, actually. And so, and underneath that is a transcript by ETRACT of the posting of the permit that was posted at that time. And below that is the building permit description. So the description is to convert a previously existing balcony into a 200 feet addition. And that's what we did, and that's what happens. Thank you very much. It's completed, yes. |
| 01:57:43.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you very much. |
| 01:57:47.05 | Nastassya Saad | In the interest of having public and participants on Zoom, can I ask staff to take this attachment that was handed to us up here to be able to at least share it or post it so that others can refer to what we are physically able to see here? Do you have any other questions, Commissioner Junius? Commissioner Feller, do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 01:58:15.66 | Kristina Feller | No questions for the applicant, thank you. |
| 01:58:18.77 | David Marlatt | I have a, against clarifying, just to help me with the process. If you, this design review permit that we're being asked to consider, you are the applicant. Yes, I am. And you provided as support the drawing on dated June 18th, 2019, but you'd like us to reject the drawing that the applicant has? |
| 01:58:22.35 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:58:22.55 | Meike Stefani | Thank you. |
| 01:58:28.39 | Meike Stefani | Yes, I am. |
| 01:58:39.22 | Meike Stefani | This drawing has been coerced on us. It's involuntary because we believe that if she has the right to this view, we should have a right to our audition. But the main change of circumstances here is that on June 26th, this drawing was forced upon us, that we have to partially demolish our previously fully permitted dining room addition, which is a very invasive process because it involves support posts and the resulting crooked composition of our house. Compared to the gain that 31 Central gets, the minimal gain, it's just disproportional. Sure, I understand. |
| 01:59:40.34 | David Marlatt | Sure, I understand. Thank you. |
| 01:59:41.37 | Meike Stefani | Thank you. the most important part is the change in circumstances is that the house got sold. |
| 01:59:48.19 | David Marlatt | is that the house got sold. Yeah, that's what I wanted to get to, I guess, is that because your position is basically asking us to deny the design review permit that you're applied for. |
| 01:59:58.99 | Meike Stefani | Yes, I'd like to keep my edition as is, as fully permitted. |
| 02:00:00.31 | David Marlatt | Okay. But if we deny the design review permit application that's before us, your addition doesn't become legal. It's just- |
| 02:00:11.11 | Meike Stefani | I'm asking to reinstate my zoning permit as previously approved in May 2017. |
| 02:00:18.70 | David Marlatt | OK, but I don't think that's the question before us from a purely technical level. |
| 02:00:23.51 | Director Phipps | Yeah, so if I may just add a little bit of color to that, Commissioner Merlot. Matthew did an excellent job summarizing the history, and I think the most important element of that history is that the Sausalito City Council denied the appeal from the applicant before us and directed the applicant to do one of two things, submit a design review permit application and have that project permitted, or submit a demo permit. Unfortunately, council's decision is final on these matters, and I'll leave it at that. |
| 02:00:52.59 | David Marlatt | Sure, okay. |
| 02:00:53.23 | Meike Stefani | OK, so it changed. I'm sorry. |
| 02:00:55.47 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry, I know I'm just a little bit confused on the process because normally when you have an applicant, you're defending the project. |
| 02:00:59.88 | Meike Stefani | Thank you. |
| 02:00:59.89 | Nastassya Saad | So I think it would be a bit. Yeah, Commissioner Marlott, sorry to interrupt you. I think if we have a process question, we'll keep it here with staff. So if you have anything specific to the project that you'd like to ask the applicant, that's not a process oriented question. |
| 02:01:02.61 | Meike Stefani | Thank you. |
| 02:01:13.34 | David Marlatt | No, no, I don't. Thank you. |
| 02:01:16.55 | Meike Stefani | Yeah, so I have been encouraged by Director Phibs and the planner to apply and to accentuate the change in circumstances. We understand. The views determined at the time of purchasing. Yes, ma'am, we're going to have. |
| 02:01:25.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:01:26.25 | Jack Carlson | Thank you. |
| 02:01:30.69 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to have, yes, please. Yeah. So this portion. Ma'am, we're going to have to, I don't want to have to cut your mic. We're only in the portion where we're able to ask you questions. So we're not going to engage in a conversation or debate here. So I just want to look back one more time. Any other questions? No, I'm not going to have any questions at this time. Commissioner Feller, any other questions for our applicant here? Okay. Thank you. Thank you for staying at the podium. You can return. And now I believe we open it up. Thank you. |
| 02:01:53.15 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:01:59.27 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:01:59.29 | Joe Stephanie | Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you for staying at the point. |
| 02:02:05.92 | Joe Stephanie | them. Is there any chance you can answer my non rhetorical question that I asked? |
| 02:02:09.65 | Nastassya Saad | So we're not going to be answering questions at this time. If you don't mind just both taking your seat and we are going to open it up for public comment. If anyone has been able to submit a speaker card earlier, I'm going to turn it over to CDD director to help manage the public comment period. Can I allow for three minutes for public comment, please? |
| 02:02:31.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much, Vice Chair Saad. So I have not accepted speaker cards for this item, but I will be accepting raised hands. So anybody who is interested, yes, sir. I see one raised hands behind the computer. Please step forward. Please state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:02:49.33 | Jack Carlson | Hello, thank you very much. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Jack Carlson. I am the current owner and resident at 31 central. So I am the guy who subsequently purchased this property in late 2022. When I purchased the property, I was aware of the outstanding code enforcement related to this balcony. And I was aware of the outstanding code enforcement related to this balcony. And I was aware that the city, the commission and the city council had determined that the balcony needs to be uh, uh, that. you know, made smaller, this issue needs to be remedied basically, or it needs to be demolished. And of course, I purchased the property on the basis of that understanding and with that knowledge. Of course, it would feel like a sort of bait and switch if that was retroactively reversed now. And I just also wanted to say that Uh, The balcony most certainly does pose a very significant view impact. We saw earlier in the presentation from the city staff, the view from the upstairs bedroom and upstairs balcony. Ms. Stephanie showed a poster with the view from the downstairs balcony. What I am just sharing on the screen now is the view from the living room. And as you can see, the balcony specifically, the roof of the balcony. actually impedes almost the entire city skyline almost directly. You actually couldn't probably impede it more perfectly if you tried. So I did just want to share that as well. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. |
| 02:04:57.48 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. Looking for additional raised hands. Folks interested in making a public comment. Yes, the gentleman in the green, or excuse me, in the gray button up, please. Come on down and please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:05:17.61 | Nastassya Saad | Sir, can you please just approach the microphone and this will be the time for the public comment. |
| 02:05:21.76 | Dr. Dilworth Cannon | I'm Dr. Dilworth Cannon. I've lived in Sausalito for 49 years, and we were at 35 Central, so we don't have a problem with the obstruction and all that, but my neighbors do, as Jack just outlined. So, Agnes Capraelian, who's across the street from 27, couldn't make it today because she's been ill. And Parrish Chang, who lives on the other side of 27, he had some dental procedures today and he couldn't make it. But he did submit the drawing from his deck and how the new proposed deck, actually it's a constructed deck, imposes on his privacy. It's like he's in a fishbowl and people are looking into it. And I must admit that I think that some of the statements made by Mieke Stephanie were not correct. I was at the meeting on July 31, 2018. My wife and I were there. We heard the city council decide against the proposal and there was supposed to be some demolition and I have pretty good view of 27 from my house and to the best of my knowledge I never saw any demol demolition taking place. No 45-degree cuts, no 60-degree cuts. And I also am pretty sure, based on my memory, that there was never, never a discussion of a dining room mentioned at the July 31st, 2018 meeting. It was only an extension of the deck. And as as building permits are concerned Agnes Capri Elin and I Both were complaining about the fact that the building permit was put at the very southeast edge of the property on a post This behind parked cars so neighbors could not even see that it was there unless they really did a search And so according to the code the building permit is supposed to be in a position where neighbors can see it and it was there unless they really did a search. And so according to the code, the building permit is supposed to be in a position where neighbors can see it and it wasn't. And I think that Mieke actually posted the building permit herself and then took a picture and then there was a lot of back and forth with the city about whether that photograph that she took was actually valid or not. So I had outlined a letter that you have, and I took pictures of two of the slides that were presented on July 31st, 2018, and you've covered it already, so I'm not gonna go over that. |
| 02:07:48.62 | Sandra Bushmaker | I would love to hear you. |
| 02:08:01.82 | Dr. Dilworth Cannon | particular part of it. And |
| 02:08:09.12 | Dr. Dilworth Cannon | One of the things that really bothers me most is that I really think it is an embarrassment to the city of Sausalito to retroactively approve her multiple layers of new construction when she didn't follow the rules and regulations of the city over the past six years or so. |
| 02:08:25.81 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your public comment, sir. |
| 02:08:27.74 | Dr. Dilworth Cannon | Okay. Your time has elapsed. |
| 02:08:29.00 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:08:29.04 | Dr. Dilworth Cannon | Thank you. Oh, can I read part of Mrs. Capriolian's |
| 02:08:33.95 | Director Phipps | Unfortunately, you may not. |
| 02:08:36.09 | Dr. Dilworth Cannon | OK, but you have the letter. |
| 02:08:37.73 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:08:39.20 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:08:39.28 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:08:39.33 | Dr. Dilworth Cannon | Thank you. |
| 02:08:39.38 | Director Phipps | Okay. |
| 02:08:39.65 | Dr. Dilworth Cannon | And you have Mr. Cheng's comments too. |
| 02:08:43.01 | Nastassya Saad | We do have all the public comment attached to the agenda. |
| 02:08:46.08 | Director Phipps | Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. And thank you, sir, again, for your comments. looking to the audience once more. Yes, the gentleman in the blue shirt. Come on down. Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:09:00.83 | Bob Leff | Ugh. Hello members of the planning. My name is Bob Leff. I'm a tenant of |
| 02:09:07.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:09:07.06 | Bob Leff | Thank you. |
| 02:09:07.07 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, may I ask you to just speak a little bit closer into the mic? |
| 02:09:10.11 | Bob Leff | Sorry, my name is Bob Leff. I'm a tenant of, we live at 25 Central, so we are right next door to the applicant's house. And I'm representing Parrish in the sense that he couldn't make it tonight. So he had some views in the sense that, and I've been involved in planning in the past and one thing that really stuck out, because I came very late in the game, everybody's been in that neighborhood for 20, 30 years and the one thing that I'm getting from everybody is it's a question of mass and scale. I do understand the zoning is multi, but everybody else in that neighborhood has kind of the dignity to maintain the level and the scale of their houses. And this particular house has been expanding continuously in such a way that It's offensive to all the neighbors, and that's why there is this problem right now. And so that's pretty much all I can add is it seems to me it's a mass and scale, and the house and the way it's progressing as expanding outward is different than other houses in the neighborhood. So that's about it. Thank you. |
| 02:10:23.60 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you, sir, for your public comment this evening. Looking to the audience once more for interested speakers. Raised hands, going once, going twice, seeing none. Looking to the Zoom application, seeing one raised hand, and that is the hand of Sandra Bushmaker. Sandra, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:10:44.59 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you very much. My name is Sandra Bushmaker. I'm a resident of Sausalito Boulevard. I've been in Sausalito since 1979, except for a brief period where I was absent. I really hate hearing these kind of process questions. Uh, I just want to speak to one issue. I'm not a member of this neighborhood, so I'm not intimately involved with this specific issue. instances here however i have I've read all the letters. that were attached to the agenda And my point is this, is that I have, serious difficulty with projects being built without a permit. and the windows were built without a permit and it sounds like the addition to the deck was built without a permit. and to come back years later and ask for a retroactive approval basically defeats our entire system. And that is something that I would not like to see happen. I think that we've got our rules and regulations for how this how projects are built and approved and For the most part, people obey the laws and proceed with the proper rules Procedure. So to to violate that and then come back for retroactive approval as I said, undermines our system, and I have difficulty with that. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:12:19.23 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much. Sandra, for your comments. |
| 02:12:23.06 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to please not comment on any of the public comment. Your time has elapsed, so we're going to continue with public comment. Looking forward. |
| 02:12:23.43 | Director Phipps | Sorry. |
| 02:12:32.27 | Director Phipps | Looking for additional raised hands in the Zoom application. Seeing none, I will turn it back to you, Vice Chair. |
| 02:12:40.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I'm going to turn it up here back to all of us. If it's just a point of privilege, I think I'm going to start with Commissioner Feller because I think she was the only commissioner on the June 26th hearing. So if you could kick us off and get our discussion started, please. |
| 02:12:57.77 | Kristina Feller | Sure, and thank you for that, Vice Chair. Once again, I'm... not very pleased that this has come back to us and that this particular applicant has not honored the process or has honored the decision, not only of the planning commission, but the city council Um, I can assure everyone, even though a couple of us are newer commissions, that's not a reason to take advantage of the body of the planning commission. that should transcend any singular person But this was debated heavily. This was reviewed and considered through many, many hours and quite a lot of effort of predecessors and other staff members and so on and so forth. the decision ultimately did not come lightly and it ended up being more of a compromise. And there was an option given to the applicant uh, you know, either remove the whole thing or the compromise that it is in and of itself what was permitted and and that was held up by the city council. So I heard a couple things from this applicant that I just want to correct the record because there is such an elaborate record on this matter. the planning commission decisions, the city council appeals, they do not expire. So I wanna be really clear about that. The planning commission also does not hear appeals. We don't hear appeals on the Planning Commission. Only our decisions are appealed to the City Council. I want to make sure that The record is very clear on that in terms of process and procedure. Um, we did find that the balcony did have significant impact and that they're ultimately in 2019 had been somewhat a lack of good faith So the idea that, that, that a solution was forced on an applicant, I don't think is completely accurate. This applicant might not have been happy with any Any decision that would touch what was, what had, had been, uh, put in place. But ultimately, we came up with a compromise that we imposed after it was agreed upon. So I want to also be extremely clear. about all of that. I appreciate the staff coming. to this body so prepared with all of the back and forth and the toing and froing. And, I would like to make a motion to approve this design review with the conditions that have that are identified in our in our draft conditions of approval. and articulated by associate plunder mandage because This needs to move forward. Um, And I'm hoping that this applicant will actually exercise some good faith, not just in Sausalito, but with their neighbors as well. Thank you, Vice Chairman. |
| 02:16:14.67 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. I'm not necessarily going to look for a second given our presentation earlier. If there is one, feel free to make it. Otherwise, we'll continue the discussion. |
| 02:16:26.30 | David Marlatt | Well, we can continue discussion, but I would second that motion. |
| 02:16:30.06 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. I'm gonna look to Commissioner Junius if you'd like to continue our discussion. |
| 02:16:35.04 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. I actually still have a few questions for the staff. You know, Matthew, if you have a second, |
| 02:16:35.65 | Nastassya Saad | I, |
| 02:16:42.01 | Andrew Junius | So again, back to that original 2017 permit, it does appear from the staff report that, again, notwithstanding the notice questions and notwithstanding the subsequent appeals, notwithstanding any of that, that there was a permit issued by the staff that apparently was compliant with the code. and that the project was built under. |
| 02:17:06.22 | Matthew Mandich | Correct, so there was a permit, if I'm getting right, I think it's 17146, the ZP that was approved in 2017, that was later appealed, and we heard a lot about how that process unfolded, and there is an appeal timeline that I attached to the staff report as well. So yeah, a lot of consternation over that, but yes, confirming that a zoning permit was approved and issued, as well as a subsequent building permit. As commenting on current staff and our understanding of the code and how we view the code, I will comment that that zoning permit may have been approved in error. We're always told to look whenever we're dealing with decks or anything that has to project into the skyline or anything like that, that any kind of potential view impact would trigger a design review. So that was not the case for that staff member, whoever that was at the time, that approved that zoning permit. They went ahead and approved that. And the question about the noticing, whether the permit was properly posted, the appeal period, all of that, I think you've heard enough on that tonight to understand what happened there. But it was ultimately the decision of the department, after doing research and talking to applicants and appellants and everyone in the neighborhood, that the zoning permit maybe was not posted properly and public notice was not given properly. So therefore, the permit was then reposted and appealed. |
| 02:18:25.97 | Andrew Junius | And then second question for you. A member of the public kind of described as almost like a serial permitting illegality. I didn't kind of get that sense through the citations, and maybe this is a question for the citation officer, but it seems to me that once the appeals were lost, essentially, and the city council made a final order and we got into this merry-go-round of re-approval and nothing happened and citations and then re-approval and nothing happened and citations. Were there additional Was there additional unpermitted work I think I might have heard some windows, but was there any expansion of the envelope of the edition that were in question? |
| 02:19:08.57 | Matthew Mandich | No, just windows that were added and a sliding glass door. The room was, again, on that original zoning permit, if you do look, it's 430 square foot expansion of a deck expansion, and it matches the plans that I showed at the very beginning of my presentation with the blue and the green shading. It was never approved as additional floor area or as an additional expansion, which it has now become as well. So we count towards floor Floria now that was never the nature of that original zoning permit approval it was never designed in the original approval to be an addition and that's very clearly stated on the zoning permit and in the plans that were submitted at that time so yes it has since become a dining room addition |
| 02:19:48.97 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 02:19:49.03 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not sure. |
| 02:19:49.24 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:19:49.71 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:19:49.76 | Andrew Junius | Okay, and then thank you. Those are my questions for you. I also have a question for the city attorney, if you don't mind. Is Annie still around? |
| 02:19:59.53 | Attorney Branham | Yes, I'm here. |
| 02:20:00.78 | Andrew Junius | So Annie, so what happens, there does appear to be kind of almost like a stalemate here, right? I think we might be taking the third potential action here that replicates several previous, very similar if not identical actions by the Planning Commission to present a final option to the homeowner here that they don't appear to ever want to do. I did fines, I suppose, but Yeah, so it is as has been. What's the next escalation, and who makes that decision? |
| 02:20:27.49 | Attorney Branham | MS. Yeah, so it is as has been. make that decision. A very unique situation. So assuming the action tonight were to be approval of the design review permit as submitted, which seems to not align with the applicant's actual desires, it would... as far as I'm aware, I think that would trigger the posting requirement again, and then the appeal window. So theoretically, the applicant could appeal their own approved design review permit. So it could make its way back to the city council. depending on the outcome of that appeal, assuming the applicant ends up in the situation where The final word is you must conform to the plans that were approved as part of the design review permit, which requires reducing the scope of the deck, then if that were not done, then you would be back in the escalating fines universe. You are tethered to certain amounts based on your code and state law. So it doesn't escalate past a certain amount, the fines can continue to accrue. based on continued violation, if that makes sense. |
| 02:21:37.47 | Andrew Junius | Understood. And has there been an abatement order recorded against the property for the citations that we're aware of? I mean, apparently some fines have accrued, maybe not even significant fines given, but has anything been recorded against the title of the applicant's property? |
| 02:21:57.28 | Paul Van Hook | To my knowledge, no, Commissioner Junius. In the past, it's just been handed over to code enforcement and then just, you know, fines have been levied in the amount from the administration citation. |
| 02:22:06.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:22:10.34 | Paul Van Hook | It's however, it's at the, discretion of the community development director and city manager to determine how they want to move forward with that. |
| 02:22:18.88 | Andrew Junius | City Attorney, is an abatement order eventually another option the city will eventually? I mean, if we do this again and nothing happens in two years from now, we're right back, you know, who makes the decision to escalate it to an abatement order and for even, you know, Thank you. leaving the city and moving on to you know, the courts or other, you know, |
| 02:22:37.56 | Attorney Branham | Right, right. There are civil mechanisms and criminal mechanisms based on nonpayment of fines. So yes, theoretically, that is in the universe of options. It's a call typically made by the code enforcement staff in connection with planning staff city management. So that's, that's what I would say is the, the, the role of the policymakers will stop at the approval or denial, and then it's up to code enforcement and city management staff to determine where that goes in conjunction with the city attorney's office i should say we certainly would represent the city in any action that needed to be filed |
| 02:23:07.40 | Andrew Junius | Of course. Thank you very much. |
| 02:23:08.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. That was a great question. Any other questions? |
| 02:23:16.07 | David Marlatt | No, but if I understand correctly, I mean, for me, I guess it's part of just the discussion. Fundamentally, as Director Phipps has informed us, you know, we can't overturn a city council decision. So whether we may agree or not agree about the view impact and whatever, that's actually not relevant whether we, in my mind, as a commission. And if the applicant feels like the design review permit is taken in error because circumstances have changed, notably the tree impact and so forth, Thank you. They actually and did provide a basically what could be a path is to appeal their own design review, which would send them back to the council and the council does have the right to overturn itself should it choose to do so. But we don't have that option. |
| 02:24:04.98 | Nastassya Saad | That is correct. We're only here to determine the design review, but that is correct. Yes. |
| 02:24:10.39 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 02:24:10.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:24:10.97 | David Marlatt | That is a path if they choose to follow that path. |
| 02:24:13.94 | Andrew Junius | And just to make it clear for the applicant and everybody listening, the request, you know, as rational as that may sound, we just can't even entertain the request to go back to the beginning and reinstate an original, you know, an original decision. That's just beyond our power. We're confined to what's in front of us with respect to what's been noticed. And this is, I think, Commissioner Marlott explained it very well. So it's an interesting situation. |
| 02:24:41.71 | Nastassya Saad | So with that, we have a motion on the floor, and we have a second, and I'm going to look to see if there are any other motions or any other points of discussion. Otherwise, I'm going to look to CDD. Yes. |
| 02:24:51.58 | Andrew Junius | I do want to just make a comment before I think I know what's going to happen. You know, I really am sympathetic to the situation in 2017. I think a lot of anybody who's listened to me comment on view issues in the past realizes that I don't have a huge amount of faith in the fairness of view decisions like this. That said, there's an enormous body of history here. I think it's an unfortunate history. I do think the view problems that Salcelito has is typified by this case. There's a massive record. I tried to review as much as I could. I really... For me, it's extremely difficult as a practicing land use attorney to see somebody get a permit and do the work and feel they've complied with the law and then have this happen to them. To the extent that that's a good faith argument and a true set of facts, I'm very sorry about that. But here we are seven years later and we do seem to be going around in circles. I'm not sure I'm going to vote, but I think this is a really unfortunate situation and I'm just sorry to see it. |
| 02:24:52.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:26:19.45 | David Marlatt | And I'll just add as a practicing architect, I've been literally in this situation in Sausalito in 2017 with the same planner who's no longer with the city. But, you know, things were done erroneously. It was uncomfortable, but it was turned around without a multi-year, a multi-week discussion. Things were turned around, and everybody kind of got on the right side of the situation. But it is painful. It's frustrating for homeowners and I actually empathize with the frustration. |
| 02:26:52.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for all the comments. Commissioner Feller, any last comments? Otherwise, I'd love to take a vote on your motion. |
| 02:26:53.41 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:26:53.42 | Kristina Feller | All the comments. |
| 02:27:00.32 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I very much appreciate what Commissioner Junius is saying and Commissioner Marlott. and will, um, point out though that the issues of 2017 were addressed extensively in 2019. So we're not really here to go back to 2017. Um, And I don't want that to sound insensitive, but I wanna make sure that we're focusing on what it is we're supposed to do this evening. um, Yeah. And there have been a lot of circumstances that have happened since 2019 and a lot of opportunities um, for Um, further engagement by this applicant with the city. And unfortunately it's only ended up in Amen. emails and calls and fines. you I'm ready to vote Vice Chair when you are. |
| 02:27:54.05 | Nastassya Saad | Ready. I think we're going to look to you, CDD Director Phipps, for a vote. |
| 02:27:56.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:27:56.79 | Director Phipps | Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. |
| 02:28:00.23 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:28:03.64 | Director Phipps | No. Commissioner Feller. Yes. |
| 02:28:07.20 | Unknown | justice. |
| 02:28:07.76 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. And just to note for the record, Chair Luxenberg has recused himself. That puts us at 3-1 and the motion passes. |
| 02:28:09.22 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:28:18.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:28:20.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. The next item on the agenda, I believe is adjournment. |
| 02:28:25.12 | Joe Stephanie | Can I ask a procedural question? Thank you. |
| 02:28:27.48 | Nastassya Saad | We're going to adjourn the meeting. We can't engage with you at this time. All those in favor for adjournment? Aye. Aye. |
| 02:28:37.78 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, members of the community for attending. Have a great evening. |