| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:37.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to call the Sausalito Planning Commission meeting of June 12, 2024 to order. And at this point, if Director Phipps, if you could go through procedures. Thank you. |
| 00:00:51.58 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:00:51.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:51.85 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Happy to, thank you, and good evening to you, Chair, Vice Chair Saad, Planning Commissioner, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. This evening's meeting is also being held at the JW Marriott in Dubai, Suite 3008, and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. And with that, I will call roll. Commissioner Merlot. Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:01:26.99 | Andrew Junius | President. |
| 00:01:28.02 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:01:30.09 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:01:31.39 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Saad? Here. Chair Luxenberg? |
| 00:01:32.47 | Kristina Feller | here. |
| 00:01:34.30 | Director Phipps | here. All right, back to you, Chair. |
| 00:01:37.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Next item will be approval of the agenda. I look for a motion. |
| 00:01:42.24 | Nastassya Saad | So moved. |
| 00:01:43.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or a second. |
| 00:01:44.25 | David Marlatt | Second. |
| 00:01:45.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, any discussion? Seeing none, Director Phipps, please call roll. |
| 00:01:51.69 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Murlock. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:01:54.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:01:56.91 | Unknown | you |
| 00:01:56.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:01:57.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:57.53 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Assad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. |
| 00:01:58.64 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:02:00.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | GO. |
| 00:02:00.67 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:02:02.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is public comments for items not on this agenda. Director Phipps, if you could give instructions, please. |
| 00:02:08.67 | Director Phipps | Yep, 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 and or my colleagues to my right, Matthew Mandich and Maria Hernandez. I've already received a couple. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. Thank you. |
| 00:02:54.38 | Director Phipps | And Chair, following that introduction, looking to the chamber for interested submitters of speaker cards or raised hands for those who have not yet submitted a speaker card. Seeing none and looking to our Zoom application. Also seeing none, I'll just confirm the cards that I have received are associated with items that are on the agenda, which we can deal with later. So I'll give it back to you, Chair. |
| 00:03:20.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Uh, next item on the agenda is for planning commission minutes from the 5, uh, 22nd meeting I'll look for a motion for approval. |
| 00:03:33.15 | Nastassya Saad | I'll make the motion. |
| 00:03:35.05 | Andrew Junius | Second. |
| 00:03:35.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Any discussion on the minutes from that meeting? |
| 00:03:39.79 | Kristina Feller | Chair, I'll just note that I wasn't at the meeting, so I will abstain. |
| 00:03:43.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank You Commissioner Feller with that director Phipps, please call roll |
| 00:03:48.01 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 00:03:51.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:03:54.73 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:03:54.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:03:54.80 | Director Phipps | Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:03:57.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda is communications. First we'll hear from Director Phipps from the CDD Department. |
| 00:04:04.69 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair, and good evening to you again, members of the public and staff. I have a few communication items this evening, the first of which is associated with new legal counsel for the Planning Commission, who I believe has joined us virtually this evening. His name is Martin D. Los Angeles. Attorney D. Los Angeles is a BBK attorney and currently works and resides in the city of Walnut Creek and has extensive background in providing legal counsel for a number of California cities across the state. With that, Attorney De Los Angeles, welcome to the Sausalito Planning Commission, and please feel free to introduce yourself. |
| 00:04:45.13 | Martin D. Los Angeles | Thank you. It's a pleasure to meet everyone and look forward to joining you for this meeting and for future meetings. Thanks very much. |
| 00:04:52.91 | Director Phipps | Very good. Thank you very much, Attorney de Los Angeles, and we look forward to working with you. My second communication item to commission this evening is related to a project located at 168 Santa Rosa Avenue. I'll provide a short story in connection with the project as I've received a number of requests in connection with status on this project. The short story here is that a zoning permit on the site was approved all the way back in May of 2022. And when the approval was made and when the project was initially submitted, it was submitted under SB 9. Based on the date of the approval, the project was approved under SB 9 at a time when the city had no standards for SB 9 projects in place. Which means that the city was required to permit the project so long as it fell at or under the maximum permitted development under the city zoning code. Based on some of the comments I received, it is unfortunate that the city had to permit the project as required by state law. And I do understand that there was some previous Planning Commission hearings associated with the project. As SB 9 is a ministerial process, a hearing before the Planning Commission for this kind of a project was not required. So just wanted to provide that update to the community and the commission. Thanks very much. That does it for my second update. My third update is related to the odds peer review group. I'll just say the review group held its third meeting earlier this week, and as discussed, I think in a communication item at the last meeting, the separate satellite subcommittees created for the sub-elements of a more robust odds program continue to work together to provide recommendations to city council in line with council direction. The next meeting of the peer review group is scheduled for mid-July, but there may be additional meetings that occur in the interim. And as per usual, I will thank Commissioner Merlot for being a valued member of that peer review group. Thank you, Commissioner. And that concludes my communication items this evening. |
| 00:07:08.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, thank you, director Phipps. Uh, I want to welcome also want to welcome Mr. D Los Angeles. Uh, we do allow, uh, uh, city attorney to provide any updates if you have any. at this time. |
| 00:07:23.00 | Martin D. Los Angeles | No updates at this time, Chair. |
| 00:07:24.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you again welcome aboard we're happy to have you and again to this 168 Santa Rosa so my understanding is now that we have SB 9 regulations still would be ministerial but it would be under the those regulations are now in place |
| 00:07:42.31 | Director Phipps | Correct. We've added a couple sections to our municipal code related to urban lot splits. And those, there's another section of the code as well. Both of those sections will be reviewed for compliance when SB 9 projects are submitted moving forward. You're correct, Chair. |
| 00:08:00.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Other comments, report outs from communications from other commissioners at this time? Not seeing any. We'll move on to item number six, which is business items. The first item this evening is general plan consistency for vacation of Tracy Way. General plan consistency finding per government code section 65402A related to the proposed vacation of Tracy Way in order to close the street to vehicular access and facilitate the installation of pedestrian improvements as part of the ferry land side improvement. I understand we have Sarah core, course should defarred from public works as well as Kristen Tiki to do that presentation. So at this time, if you had come up to the podium that'd be appreciated. Thank you so much. |
| 00:08:10.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:04.08 | Sarah Korshidifard | Okay, hello everyone. I'm Sarah Korshidifard. I'm here on behalf of Kevin McGowan, and I'm here to clarify some of the design and construction details associated with Tracy Way. And if you could move forward, please. |
| 00:09:22.42 | Sarah Korshidifard | So BKF engineers provided the construction drawing and bid package on Friday, June 7th, and Tracy Way, Improvements are considered as a bid alternate item in the package. And they're marked in red, as you can see. If you could move forward, please. Um, Connected to the original concept for the project done by the local professional group who designed the plaza, The entire concept is based off of pedestrianizing the whole site. And the finalized construction drawing is also aligned with that. The only difference between The updated version and the original is that the updated version has to scale back on some of the improvements as cost-saving measures. If you could move forward, please. Here you can see in more detail the minor improvements that are currently included as part of the design. It's basically to level the surface of Tracy way to the curves, adjust on curves and also put paving, gravel pave is chosen by the consultants to put on Tracy way. And if you could move forward, please. Here you can see a little bit more detail on the section on the top, the red block. shows the Tracy way improvements up to the retaining wall on Vina del Mar Park and to the sidewalk and basically in the detail below you can see the improvements are going to a fix the dome issue that is currently on the site. And the image is showing what the gravel pave material that is selected for the project looks like. There is a cell, a mesh underneath, and the gravel elements are going to be put above that. If you could move forward, please. Again, going back, the original intent was to pedestrianize Tracy Way, and it is still the case. The current updated design is still accommodating the same intent of the project. could move forward please. In the two phases that are defined, determined by the engineers, the Tracy Bay area will remain intact and walkways are designed around around the plaza for the two phases of the construction project. Could you move forward, please? I believe Sergio answered Ms. Feller's questions, but I included those in writing in case Sergio would want to comment further on those, but there are basically three questions. One is related to the vacation, and I will allow Sergio to make his comments on those. |
| 00:12:46.12 | Director Phipps | Unfortunately, Sergio Rudin, Attorney Rudin is not present this evening. However, we are joined by Attorney De Los Angeles. And I'll just open the floor up to Attorney De Los Angeles if he has any comments in connection with these responses that Attorney Rudin has provided previously. |
| 00:13:03.92 | Martin D. Los Angeles | Yeah, sure. Thank you. So I know Commissioner Fallegas had a couple of questions. And so based on City Attorney Rudin's responses, He just wanted the focus with respect to the first question. to be that the state planning and zoning law requires that the city's planning agency, which is the planning commission, review and make a recommendation to the city council as to whether the closure of the Tracy way to vehicle traffic and vacation of the right of way conforms with a general plan. So basically the city has previously been sued for closure of streets without following the process for vacation or closure that is authorized under the vehicle code. So this is essentially just a a finding of conformity with the general plan. this is the issue that would be decided before the commission tonight. And then the second question was regarding confirming whether fire life safety agencies have written comments confirming this closing is not detrimental to the access circulation or any of their needs and functions. And Sergio confirmed that in writing, and I also spoke with him earlier today that Southern Marin Fire has been notified and the Public Works Director uh, confirmed that, uh, there's no objection to the proposed vacation. And then the third comment was whether the Planning Commission has the ability to elevate the criticality and necessity of to designated critical evacuation His response was no, because the scope of this agenda item is specifically limited to the City Council's direction that the city consider the closure of Tracy Way to vehicle traffic and the vacation of the right of way in this location. And as mentioned, the planning commission's focus for this item is to find conformity with the general plan. |
| 00:15:03.23 | Sarah Korshidifard | Okay, thank you. And the last slide, there is just one last slide. Just we wanted to put it out there that the city, DPW department and PD, they're working together now to resolve some of the traffic flow and bike parking issues that were raised. And this is mostly at the drawing board, but just wanted to put it out there that we are working on those issues as well. Thank you so much. |
| 00:15:27.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Should we take questions of Sarah first, Director Phipps? |
| 00:15:33.17 | Director Phipps | I'll leave that to the chair. |
| 00:15:35.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think we'll do that. Questions from Public Works? Any questions? No. Yes. |
| 00:15:46.01 | Andrew Junius | the Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Could you describe a little bit about the gravel pave system, how new that is, you know, how stable that is, how it works, how it's been, obviously it's been accepted by the code agencies, it's ADA compatible. I mean, could you just quickly run through all that? |
| 00:16:05.70 | Sarah Korshidifard | Yeah, it is pervious, it is ADA compatible, It is relatively affordable and it has some flexibility built into it because the lattice could be reusable for other types of payments later on. Now there are some downfalls to it as well. It can stick to your shoes and dust and all that, but there are ways to stabilize that in place. It is not, as far as I can tell, it is not an extremely new idea. I think it has been out there. Not sure if I answered it. That's it, thank you. |
| 00:16:44.48 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 00:16:45.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. That's what it is. |
| 00:16:45.78 | Unknown | I think. |
| 00:16:47.13 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry. |
| 00:16:47.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Marlowe. |
| 00:16:49.93 | David Marlatt | Thank you. I have a question also on the gravel pavement, but did I, did I misunderstand the detail that the asphalt on Tracy way will not be removed and the gravel pavement is installed on top of the asphalt? |
| 00:17:00.55 | Sarah Korshidifard | Yes, there's currently a dome shape quality to the asphalt and the lattice is gonna be put on the top of that and then dry. |
| 00:17:03.48 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:17:09.51 | David Marlatt | So it won't be an impervious surface because the asphalt is not impervious. |
| 00:17:14.21 | Sarah Korshidifard | Correct, correct. |
| 00:17:16.00 | David Marlatt | So my concern is that if anyone puts a lot of gravel on their driveway, that over time that gravel wants to move because the water, surface water is moving on the asphalt. |
| 00:17:25.86 | Sarah Korshidifard | if you could go back to that detail once more |
| 00:17:28.74 | Andrew Junius | It can't move. It's in a grid. It's in a fixed grid. |
| 00:17:30.45 | David Marlatt | It's in a fixed grid. It's in a grid twice as large as this room. It can move within the room. |
| 00:17:35.56 | Andrew Junius | The grid moves? It's a grid. The gravel's in the grid. |
| 00:17:37.20 | David Marlatt | that. Yeah, but the gravel will move because it has to float. The water has to move. I mean, it's not what we're asked to float on tonight. I certainly support the vacation. So this is more maybe getting into the weeds. But was a permeable paver ever considered as more of a? |
| 00:17:41.52 | Andrew Junius | Because it has to float. |
| 00:17:56.20 | Sarah Korshidifard | There has been multiple options that have been considered some of them preceding my arrival at the city I believe it has been discussed. There are other options Again, there are Choose from but |
| 00:18:02.65 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 00:18:08.40 | Unknown | Wow. |
| 00:18:17.08 | Sarah Korshidifard | this was the ultimate choice. Pair discussions with the consultants. We'll be happy to hear your thoughts. |
| 00:18:18.86 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. We'll be happy to hear your thoughts. Sure. No, I mean, it's not what we're being asked to vote on tonight. I'm just surprised by the detail, having had some experience with this and other settings. But if you say it works, I would hope that maybe you'd look at maybe scarifying or drilling holes in the asphalt to allow water to escape. I mean, there are some solutions or consider for me a permeable paver would be more in keeping with the sidewalk that surrounds the area. It's obviously a heavy transit to the gravel will move as people of trovers just a consideration. I'm not even asking to put it into a definitely. Maybe look at that. |
| 00:18:30.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:30.32 | Sarah Korshidifard | Thank you. |
| 00:18:30.37 | Unknown | Thank you. other |
| 00:19:01.76 | Sarah Korshidifard | Definitely, these aren't really valid comments. But you maybe look at that. Yeah, definitely. |
| 00:19:05.17 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:19:05.32 | Sarah Korshidifard | you. |
| 00:19:06.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | One conversation. Other comments? I have a similar question on this paper. Given that there's asphalt underneath, there's no requirement to have a pervious paper here. If it was replaced with something solid, an attractive design, there's no reason technically that can't be done here. It's not related to the water or waterfront or anywhere they're trying to do drainage. It was just a solution that came up with that might be less expensive or something. |
| 00:19:20.80 | Unknown | you |
| 00:19:40.27 | Sarah Korshidifard | That is correct, it is not required. It is recommended to have pervious surfaces everywhere for sustainability and better drainage in general, but there are other options that are pervious and maybe better looking as well. |
| 00:19:53.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. Thank you. Other questions from Sarah? |
| 00:19:59.20 | Director Phipps | I just want to note, Commissioner Feller's hand is raised. |
| 00:19:59.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to. Commissioner Fowler, it's hard to see. It's a little bright in here. Commissioner Fowler, questions. Thank you. |
| 00:20:10.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair and appreciate Commissioner Marlott's comments, even though that's not what we're here for tonight. I think it's valuable input because this is an ad alternate. It we might want to just politely suggest to DPW that there can be more than one ad alternate. to this bid and that they could possibly pursue a couple other options and get multiple prices for different solutions on this area. |
| 00:20:39.30 | Sarah Korshidifard | Thank you so much. |
| 00:20:40.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Other questions, Commissioner Feller? |
| 00:20:40.09 | Sarah Korshidifard | Thank you. |
| 00:20:44.93 | Kristina Feller | No, thank you, Chair. |
| 00:20:46.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Sarah, thank you for an excellent presentation. And if you can have a seat, we might bring you back, but Kristen's gonna do another piece of this, I understand. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:21:02.11 | Kristen | Good evening, everyone. It's been a while. You can hear me okay? |
| 00:21:07.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:21:08.04 | Kristen | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm was surprised that Sarah was going to be doing a presentation. So if I repeat anything, she said my apologies on February 6th in 2024 the council approved the preliminary plans for the fairyland side Improvement project and during the May 21st 2024 hearing they directed staff to move forward with making things happen including the abandonment or vacation of the Tracy way right away to vehicular traffic. The streets and highway codes require the council hold a public notice and hearing regarding the proposed street vacation. But prior to this happening, This first has to be presented to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission has to report to the council as to whether or not the action to vacate the right-of-way is consistent with the general plan. So as such tonight, as everyone keeps saying, your charge tonight is simply to provide a recommendation to council as to whether the abandonment of Tracy way to vehicular traffic conforms to the Sausalito general plan. Um, Staff has completed a review of the general plan and provided you with a litany of various sections of the general plan policies and directions that appear to support the idea of improving pedestrian circulation in this area and improving things around the Fairyland side area and making sure we have safe pedestrian access. So I could not find anything in conflict with the proposal, and as such, We have recommended that this does meet the general plan and provided you with a resolution for your consideration that supports this action and recommends to the council that they move forward with that if they so choose. And that concludes my report. |
| 00:23:02.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Kristen. Questions of Kristen. I'm not seeing any. Thank you. And so we'll bring this back up to the dais. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we need to do public comment. uh at this point we will do public comment on this item i will have director phipps give instructions i know he has some speaker cards but he'll give full instructions now thank you |
| 00:23:29.65 | Director Phipps | Yeah, thank you, Chair. So as mentioned earlier in the public comment on items not in the agenda section, now we are opening up public comment for public comment in connection with this item. And this is item 6A, the proposed vacation of Tracy Way and the general planning finding associated with it. If you have a speaker card and have not yet submitted it, please submit it to me and or my colleagues to my right, Matthew Mandich. If you are dialing in by phone, please raise your hand in the Zoom application if you'd like to make a public comment. And if you're dialing in, please press star nine. That will raise your hand. With that, I will first address speaker cards received. And the first one that I have based on the order in which they were received is from Beth, and I will not attempt to pronounce your last name. Beth, come on down. |
| 00:24:24.46 | Beth Swerke | Hi, my name is Beth Swerke. I've been a resident for nine years. Thank you so much for the work that you do for our community. I'm asking that you support, please, in making our downtown safe and walkable by supporting this item. And following the staff's recommendation to adopt the resolution to close Tracy way Closing Tracy way and converting it into the pedestrian area is a key element in the approved landside redesign for the ferry landing, which is something the community has expressed they want at many city council meetings It's been very exciting to attend and see the enthusiasm for this project. throughout the community This will make our town more beautiful, communal, safer, and walkable. Tracy Way aligns with in many ways the general plan including pedestrian safety, walkability, and areas for the community together. They are all things that Turning Tracy Way into a pedestrian promenade will create. And these are all things highlighted in that general plan. I appreciate you taking this procedural step quickly to avoid further delays and expenses By adopting this resolution, we can keep the important project on track and break ground this fall, which your community is excited to do. Thank you. |
| 00:25:36.89 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much, Beth. Next speaker is Bonnie McGregor. Come on down and just want to remind you, you will have three minutes to provide public comment. Thank you. |
| 00:25:46.88 | Bonnie McGregor | Hi, I'm Bonnie McGregor. I've been a resident of Sausalito three different times, and it condenses down to 40 years. So I ain't no kid. But I am also here to support moving forward with this project, the entire project, and this is one phase of it. And I understand there's some administrative steps to take place in order to vacate Tracy Way. as I said in my letter I have spent many times going down in order to vacate Tracy Way. As I said in my letter, I have spent many times going down that way to avoid the traffic, the noise, the pedestrians, and the lack of shade on bridge waves. You can tell from my complexion, I don't need a whole lot of sun. But it also does help with to not have the vehicular traffic there. It helps with pedestrian safety, walkability, and it does, if we have some benches and things there, it's going to provide another place for people to sit and chat and relax in the shade. I have also had several experiences crossing the traffic at the end of Tracy Way. And there are times when you think you're taking your life in your hands, as it currently is. Your head's like in a tennis match and you're being very careful crossing anything there because it's very dangerous. I try to avoid that. So I do support moving forward with this as quickly as possible. Thank you very much. |
| 00:27:15.32 | Director Phipps | And thanks to you as well, Bonnie. Thank you for being here. Next speaker is Gail Schell. Gail, come on down. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:27:24.31 | Gail Shell | Hi, I'm Gail Shell. Thank you for what you do for the city. I moved to Sausalito about five years ago. It was a return to California, and I am thrilled to be back. I have loved becoming involved in volunteer groups here in Sausalito, and I've been really an active supporter of the Ferry Landing Project. This is a really important piece of it, and I encourage you to adopt the resolution. It does align with the general plan, offers pedestrian and vehicular safety, better circulation, and a lovely community gathering space. Thank you. |
| 00:27:58.01 | Director Phipps | Thanks very much for your comments. Next speaker is Mary. Mary Faust? Faust. Come on down, Mary. You'll have three minutes to speak. Thank you. |
| 00:28:13.12 | Mary Faust | Hello, my name is Mary Faust. I want to thank you for your time and attention that you've given to the city. I am the chair of the Park and Rec Commission. And I am also on the board of Sauce Little Beautiful and a longtime resident. And I'm speaking today that I want to recommend that you do move forward with this resolution to close Tracy Way. Being on the Park and Rec Commission, we have, I know that we have a long list of individuals that want memorial benches. We actually have more people that want memorial benches than we have benches. This may or may not be an opportunity for that, but I do think it would encourage that if we have more pedestrians in our ferry plaza and walking in that area, and trees, and a place for individuals to socialize and be safe in terms of the crossing. These are all things that were in the general plan, and I ask that you move quickly and approve this resolution. Thank you. |
| 00:29:12.92 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your public comments. That concludes the public comments associated with which I have received speaker cards. So Chair, I will now look to the Zoom application for raised hands. Going once, going twice, seeing none. Back to you, chair. |
| 00:29:30.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. At this point, I'll have comments from the commission, Commissioner Fallow. |
| 00:29:36.75 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. First of all, I just want to acknowledge that we did receive also written comment from a couple members of the public, and I just want to, as we always do, acknowledge receipt of those. So thank you, everybody, for writing in as well. I also want to make sure that in our hearings that we're completely bulletproof with the information so there's no back and forth and back and forth with revisionist history in terms of what we're approving. So I appreciate the fact that Kristen very clearly articulated what the general plan the specific elements and what sections of the general plan she was referring to and making this recommendation to us. That's very, very important. Obviously this project has taken on some back and forth through Planning Commission through working groups through city council and so on the original idea of closing Tracy way. was to provide sort of a more sheltered area for queuing. |
| 00:30:46.46 | Unknown | What are you doing? |
| 00:30:47.32 | Kristina Feller | I think that that has evolved Tracy Way and its exit onto that very strange and sometimes dangerous intersection of Bridgeway and humbled, I think, you know, we had recommended closing or creating a one-way exit off of Tracy Way. I support closing Tracy way. I think you know, as this evolves further, it would be very interesting to get a little bit more detail in terms of what the real purpose and use would be along Tracy Way, because I think that there's an opportunity there as this goes forward for public use. And I guess I'm assuming Tracy way will will not necessarily be designated as a. Park. but I do believe it falls under the public realm discussion in the general plan and that is one area that I would ask that that we're pretty clear about because it is is public realm is public area and therefore should fall under those elements. There's also a couple other general plan elements that that I would recommend that we reference. as we make potentially a recommendation, well, we're going to make a recommendation one way or the other to the City Council But I refer to the policies under W-1.2. 1.2.1 and 1.3. and 1.5. So I support this, but I really think that we have to be bulletproof in this recommendation and not leave any of the information or detail Um, um lingering so i i would ask that um that that be included in the dialogue and recommendation that we are potentially making this evening thank you chair |
| 00:32:51.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Commissioner Merlot. Commissioner Junior. |
| 00:32:58.86 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Feller, I didn't quite catch the policies. Which additional policies were you thinking of adding to what we're talking about tonight? |
| 00:33:09.14 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think when we were developing the general plan with the general plan working group, there were certain sections under waterfront. that I believe that this that support what we're talking about as well. And so I would recommend that we include in their W-1.2 and particularly a subsection of that 1.2.1, which is shoreline, what that addresses is this, as they call it, a continued pedestrian access as well to the waterfront and creating a promenade or whatever it might be. Thank you. access to that where it's not interrupted by other types of traffic, I think is valuable. And then Although this is not considered a waterfront park, there is language in 1.5 W-1.5. that I think supports this as well. Again, my goal here is not to nitpick this. My goal here is to make sure that we have a robust Karen Hollweg, recommendation that is fully supported by all the elements in the general plan and not just a couple that have been listed in the staff report, because I believe that there's actually more that supports this. |
| 00:34:34.47 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, I appreciate that, Commissioner Feller. So I have some additional comments. I think it looks like we're going in a direction where we're gonna make the appropriate action tonight, and I very much appreciate that. This is an extraordinarily narrow decision we're making. It's about the closure of a street, full stop. Is it consistent with the general plan, full stop? While I think I understand Commissioner Feller's comments, I'm not sure that that's appropriate here since we're not talking about actually what the closed area is gonna be used for. I think it's kind of pretty obvious. It's an expanded pedestrian area. |
| 00:35:17.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:18.06 | Andrew Junius | that moves people you know, back and forth along the new and revised Tracy way. So that's the decision tonight. The reason why I think the staff didn't include any waterfront provisions is because the street hasn't been closed yet. The project hasn't been done yet and I'm not sure I can support that, especially not having reviewed those policies and guidelines. So I think they're well received, but again, in this narrow context that we're talking about, I don't think they're necessary. So that's my initial comment. |
| 00:35:51.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Junius, Vice Chair of Sade. |
| 00:35:56.91 | Nastassya Saad | I think I'm going to look probably to move to make a motion to approve as is. I, with Commissioner Junius, only because I am not terribly familiar with the waterfront comments to Commissioner Feller's point, happy to include them if we can have a slightly longer discussion on them but otherwise i'm just generally in favor for the closure uh regardless of the ferry landslide project regardless of any other projects at stake i think it just makes sense for the area and agree with the recommendations of the general plan from from staff |
| 00:36:38.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. It's almost a motion. Hold off on a motion until I have some comments first. We could do that. |
| 00:36:40.65 | Nastassya Saad | It's almost a motion. |
| 00:36:43.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:36:43.23 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:36:48.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand the need to close Tracy way. I think done properly, it would be a good thing for people trying to get from the Ferry building through to the where the Bank of America building is. I have, I think having a gravel sidewalk downtown is less safe for wheelchairs, strollers and pedestrians than the surface that we currently have in Tracy way I think it's a potentially long-term maintenance problem I think a hard surface of some sort would be a much better option there and since this capital improvement is probably once in a generation I think it's important that if we're going to do it we do it correctly This is a promenade. This is not a park. It's not a trail And the Commission will recall we had proposal for a gravel surface out on Varta landing And we had that changed to something that is solid I think that Give you an example in San Francisco at Salesforce Park they used a crushed granite surface which was harder than what we're proposing with this gravel it after a month it was so bad and it cost us six hundred thirty seven thousand dollars it was so bad they had to completely replace that surface and then at a cost of close to a million dollars so I think that the putting gravel in the downtown urban area is not a one first a great idea but also do not feel it complies with the general plan numbers CP 4.14 CP 5.8 and CP 5.9. CP 4.14, CP 5.8, and CP 5.9. CP 4.14 talks about encouraging a safe and enjoyable pedestrian circulation surrounding the ferry terminal. I do not think gravel is an enjoyable pedestrian circulation method. There are lots of other options, and that isn't a good one.'m also don't think it's really a safe walking environment which is what CP 5.8 says and I in CP 5.9 talks about accessibility for walk sidewalks and pathways that are accessible for people of all abilities and although this is complies with ADA and you can roll a wheelchair on it and you can roll a stroller on it with somebody in a walker it's just not the most optimum thing and we're gonna do this project once let's do it so that we don't have to have a long term two years from now public works gonna have to put more gravel down because it's going to come out of these little, the little, uh, caps that they have in that grid. So my suggestion, if we, when we do get to a motion is very simple. We just, uh, in the middle of that motion where it says, uh, the proposed vacation of Tracy way right away as part of the proposed very land side improvement project. add the following simple statement providing provided that the walking surface is not gravel or loose material and then it's consistent with the Sausalito general plan so I think we eliminate the gravel we can do there are multiple options and I agree with Commissioner Feller if we're going out and this is an alternate anyways you can get an alternate for two different types of materials and but none of them being loose material or or gravel and then we get those prices in and we we figure out what we can afford but I think if we're gonna do it we do it right it's existing right now I mean they're all there you can also you don't necessarily have to even put it the old way you might be able to put some some plantings on either side or some grass or whatever but all I'm suggesting here is we just don't allow gravel or loose material but I I would be recommending moving ahead with vacation of Tracy way with that other comments and questions Oh, my God. Commissioner Junior. |
| 00:41:01.72 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Respectfully, I think you may be raising some very valid issues, but you're raising them in the wrong context. This is a general plan analysis, policies, objectives, goals, not design details. I mean, I think that we have a design. It's actually out for bid as we speak. Things could change. Things could change. But we're not being asked to redesign. We're being asked if it's consistent, if closing the street full stop is consistent with the general plan. now there's there may be a lot of different nitpicks you could say with respect to how you like the design or don't like the design or whatever, but it doesn't have anything to do with the general plan. You're asking about details You're trying to add a detailed condition. to a resolution regarding almost a yes or no proposition is the closure, not the construction, not the design elements, is the closure consistent with the general plan. So I'm kind of confused as to why we would go so far as to muddle the record and add conditions where they're just not appropriate. |
| 00:42:22.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | because my suggestion is that it's inconsistent with an enjoyable pedestrian circulation. It's inconsistent with accessible for people with all abilities. It is a simple statement and quite honestly, that's our resolution. We're not making a decision here. The city council in their infinite wisdom can override and put in whatever they wanna put in in the end. But as a planning agency, putting this type of material, it would be better to leave the material that's there than try to put a porous material over the top of an impervious surface. And I'm not suggesting we design it here I'm not all I'm suggesting is that to make it consistent with the general plan we don't use loose gravel we don't use gravel or other loose material and also I think it would help the it's making the City Council will make the final decision here but we would be making them aware of this issue and the city council is very aware of long-term maintenance infrastructure issues so i think that they would appreciate actually that we're identifying a potential concern that is a long-term maintenance uh issue for the public works department and as we've been told this is an alternate they they can if it is out to bid I don't know if that's a factual but if it is out to bid they can do an addendum saying with some additional materials for this alternate I managed a half a billion dollars worth of construction you and your when, and your bids, you can go with other alternates so that you have that information assuming they can afford it. So again, I think that this is the right thing to do. I can support a motion with that, but without that, I can't find this as consistent with the general plan. And you and I may disagree about that, but I wanted to get this on the record so the city council is aware of this issue. |
| 00:42:44.81 | Unknown | Thank you. whatever they |
| 00:44:32.30 | Director Phipps | Chair, if I'd like to. |
| 00:44:32.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:44:33.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you. I just want to say thank you very much for your comments and always for your attention to design detail. So I want to say the comments are well received from perspective of staff. But I would just kind of maybe make a recommendation as to how we can accomplish both tonight, but keep the resolution before the commission this evening as written. Because I will state, I believe that what's before the commission this evening is a general plan consistency finding that the proposed vacation of Tracy Way is consistent with the general plan, notwithstanding any design elements. So it's a bit of a limited scope, and I think that we've heard that from some of our commissioners this evening. As an alternative recommendation, would the commission consider adopting or yeah, perhaps adopting a second recommendation or a recommendation that complements the resolution but that is separate from the resolution, which recommends to the council that any future design elements associated with the vacation of Tracy Way ought to consider XYZ. And I think in your opinion, having that language related to the gravel would be helpful. So just a suggestion, thank you. |
| 00:45:54.61 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:45:54.74 | Andrew Junius | I would be very supportive of splitting it up like that. That makes sense to me. |
| 00:45:58.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Martin. |
| 00:45:59.65 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:45:59.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:45:59.94 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thanks. And thank you, Director Phipps. Yeah, I would also support Director Phipps' recommendation based on really two items. One is, as Commissioner Junius points out, we're really being asked to vote on the status of Tracy Way, not necessarily if the curbs are too tall or if the crown too much. And the other thing is, if I understand correctly, this is an ad alternate. So the base price, which maybe we're looking at, is in fact the existing hard payment remaining in place as is. Is that correct? So really conditioning it on an ad alternate is not what we're being asked to do and maybe a bit speculative. I would support a separate motion. I think it's quickly done as you've seen from you know my opinion to be brutally frank I think that this gravel solution is poorly advised the gravel cups will follow the crown therefore it won't solve the crown you know it'll fill with water but I won't get into that too deeply so but I would support a separate motion of councils advice back to DPW to reconsider the use of gravel |
| 00:47:08.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would like to ask Sarah to come up and answer a simple question about the bidding process. Two questions. I'll let you get to the podium. One, is this out to bid? |
| 00:47:22.12 | Sarah Korshidifard | Yes, it is going to IJ and it is going to our website very soon. It is within, it's in the process. So yeah, it's |
| 00:47:31.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but it's not physically out to bid. |
| 00:47:33.86 | Sarah Korshidifard | I believe it is actually. The notice was sent. |
| 00:47:34.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:47:37.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | notice was sent yes and um in the event that we cannot afford any of the alternate with this alternate we're talking about what is the and we do approve this what is your understanding to commissioner marlott's comment that the we would still close we if we don't install this gravel but we close the street it would just be the current material that's there |
| 00:47:38.23 | Sarah Korshidifard | Yes. |
| 00:48:06.11 | Sarah Korshidifard | I have to clarify that the bidding process was approved by the council and we need to follow rule on the bidding process, the procedure. that has four alternates. Three of them are add alternates. Tracy Bay is one of them and one is deduct alternates. And the decision is to be able to have some flexibility to select the alternates as we get the bids in place. |
| 00:48:37.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But what I'm asking is if we didn't, if you can't afford any of the alternates, you only do the base bid and we approve, we recommend this vacation of the street and the street is vacated. Would the, would it just be closed and the surfaces there now would be the surface? Yes. In other words, even if we don't do the alternate, it doesn't stop because Mr. McGowan has indicated that there's a safety issue at the end of Tracy Way as you turn right out of there. So you would still close Tracy Way and it would just be the materials that are there now. |
| 00:48:41.92 | Sarah Korshidifard | Yeah. |
| 00:49:16.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:16.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:49:16.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:16.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:49:16.58 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:49:16.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. That's all right. I mean, because it affects how we would word this second resolution, so to speak. Okay. Thank you so much. |
| 00:49:17.00 | Unknown | Okay. All right. |
| 00:49:26.98 | Andrew Junius | So I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the staff's recommended resolution regarding general plan consistency for the closure of Tracy way, with the understanding that we'll have a discussion about a subsequent motion regarding some design suggestions to the city council. |
| 00:49:45.56 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:49:48.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any comments, further comments, questions? Uh, direct Phipps, please take roll. |
| 00:49:54.01 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:49:59.02 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:49:59.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:49:59.56 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Sott. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:50:05.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Now I'll be looking for a motion with regard to, I don't know if Director Fitcher wanna restate what you're suggesting is in that motion and that we can modify it if needed or not needed. |
| 00:50:19.86 | Director Phipps | Certainly, and happy to work hand in hand with Attorney de Los Angeles as appropriate. And I'll say, you know, the Planning Commission could consider making a motion to make a recommendation to the City Council that any future design-related additions associated with the implementation of the Ferry Landside Improvement Project associated with the pedestrianization of Tracy Way does not include insert specific type of gravel that you don't like. |
| 00:50:55.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh... What I'm suggesting would not include gravel or loose material, simple as that. I'm not gonna specify what kind of gravel just, I understand from Public Works, they had a whole series of other options. So it's not like they're gonna have to recreate the wheel here, they have options that exist. Um, Thank you. And I'm seeing a turn. |
| 00:51:17.78 | Director Phipps | I'm seeing Attorney De Los Angeles joining us. Martin, any comments? |
| 00:51:23.51 | Martin D. Los Angeles | Yeah, no, I would agree with your wording, Brandon. I would just... Yeah, I would just want to make clear that this is, you know, the commission is not taking action. This is just a subsequent motion as a recommendation as part of the resolution that's being approved. So I'm fine with that language that if you want to use the, you know, the general language of the gravel, that's fine. |
| 00:51:47.31 | David Marlatt | So I would make a motion, perhaps my first, that the Planning Commission recommends to the Department of Public Works that any pavement or repavement of Tracy Way not include loose materials such as gravel or decomposed granite. |
| 00:51:49.10 | Martin D. Los Angeles | I'm going to try. |
| 00:52:05.87 | Nastassya Saad | Second. |
| 00:52:06.92 | Andrew Junius | Can I ask a question in clarifying before? I'm very likely to vote for that. No, no, please. Are we sure that's specific enough? Because I don't want, you know, it just, again, we're giving a recommendation about a pretty specific design issue. There's lots of different kinds of gravel. There's probably lots of different systems. Is loose gravel, in your opinion, you're the only architect on the dais here, so is that a sufficient guideline, a guidance? I mean, I get it. I think I, you know. |
| 00:52:35.50 | David Marlatt | I think it is. I think that there's various sides of gravel and so forth. But decomposed granite would be the very smallest. So it gives us a range. I admit I haven't fully thought this through, perhaps. And then there are various systems. Gravel paver is just one to contain the granite. |
| 00:52:42.27 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:52:42.32 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:52:51.77 | Andrew Junius | But if the composite material isn't with a binder and it becomes more of a pervious surface, that's not what you're talking about. Then it's no longer a loose material. Then it's clearly not loose. Okay. Okay. Yeah. |
| 00:52:51.79 | David Marlatt | Good. you're going to be a little bit. |
| 00:52:58.74 | David Marlatt | Then it's no longer a loose material. Clearly not loose. Okay, good. Yeah. And maybe there's some interpretation, some subjectivity, you know, on what is loose and not loose with enough binders. But at some point, you're binding the decomposed granite and it becomes like concrete. Right. |
| 00:53:12.24 | Andrew Junius | Right, for example, the DG paths at Dunphy Park would be acceptable to you. They would not be loose gravel, they seem. |
| 00:53:20.00 | David Marlatt | No, I would think there would be a loose material such as decomposed granite. In my view, Tracy Way, unlike Dunphy Park, is a transit. It's primarily transit, and I think over time it's going to develop puddles and people's footpath and so forth. So I would recommend a pervious paver, first choice. Commissioner, Chair Luxembourg suggested maybe a pavement there, although I think we should take every opportunity we can to have pervious pavement. you know that would be Commissioner Jared Luxenberg suggested maybe a pavement there. Although I think we should take every opportunity we can to have pervious pavement, you know, but that would be my opinion, my recommendation. |
| 00:53:23.77 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:53:51.86 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 00:53:52.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But to clarify, I don't think what they have, we have a dumpy park is, well, that would not be acceptable. That has a lot of loose gravel in it. |
| 00:54:02.11 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:54:02.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but it would not be my recommendation. |
| 00:54:02.24 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:54:02.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:54:02.28 | David Marlatt | It would not be my fault. |
| 00:54:02.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Sure. Sorry, Commissioner Fowler has her hand up as well. |
| 00:54:06.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, Commissioner Feller, please. |
| 00:54:09.21 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate the conversation. I'm glad that we're sort of bifurcating this a little bit. I would recommend that we reference the general plan sections chair that you referred to in this sort of friendly recommendation and second action that we're taking here. to the City Council. Um, you know, I would like to get, you know, I think staff has confirmed that they understand what we mean by by the loose gravel and that we're looking for for something a little bit more resilient and hardy that is, you know, has a better Karen Hollweg, opportunity for lower maintenance costs and. Karen Hollweg, imposition to DPW, so I think all of that is clear, but those references to the general plan sections you you you stated earlier is important in this in the second motion. |
| 00:55:02.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, commissioner Marlowe, are you, uh, acceptable to adding the references to CP 4.1.4 CP 5.8 and CP 5.9 to your motion? |
| 00:55:14.62 | David Marlatt | Yes, it's an excellent idea. Thank you very much. |
| 00:55:17.20 | Andrew Junius | I have a question about that. So we just approved a resolution that says closing the street is consistent with all of these general plan policies. Now we're going to refer to the same policies. Well, we're saying that. |
| 00:55:30.38 | David Marlatt | Well, we're saying that paving, the particular pavement chosen is not. |
| 00:55:33.67 | Andrew Junius | and I have to say, |
| 00:55:34.06 | David Marlatt | That's our recommendation. |
| 00:55:34.36 | Andrew Junius | you Yeah, I think that's extremely confusing and somewhat defeats the purpose of splitting these two. So now you're going to have two resolutions, two actions that refer to the same policies. Yeah, I'm not comfortable with that at all. |
| 00:55:51.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would suggest that the first motion is a resolution pursuant to the statute that we're required to do to vacate a street The second one is our suggestions to the DPW and we're Identifying well something in the general plan We don't know that since design isn't before us. We don't know that what they're going to build I forget what's out to bid. What they're going to build is not going to be consistent with the general. isn't before us we don't know that what they're going to build forget what's out to bid what what they're going to build is not going to be consistent with the general plan we're flagging the items in the general plan so that when they go and to make decisions on alternates or whatever |
| 00:56:00.60 | Unknown | Second one is. you know, Yeah. |
| 00:56:29.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | They make it consistent with the general plan. |
| 00:56:32.02 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:56:32.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:56:32.39 | Andrew Junius | That can't be right because Again, we're kind of going in circles now Now, again, you're bringing in general policy issues and trying to apply them to a design criteria. I completely support this separate recommendation to the city, about the material and the design issues, completely appropriate. in a design context which is separate from the general plan issues to bring back policies related to safety and I just don't but I think that foundation |
| 00:56:57.74 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 00:56:57.76 | David Marlatt | Rick. but- |
| 00:57:03.66 | David Marlatt | But I think that's the foundation of the concern. I think it's not just a design issue that you like gravel or you don't like gravel. There's a concern, and maybe we rephrase this slightly, is that out of concern for the various general plan elements that we're making these recommendations. Because |
| 00:57:20.45 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. But we just said that the street closure is fine. We're not questioning the street. |
| 00:57:25.01 | David Marlatt | We're not questioning the street, but the street closer that we just voted on has asphalt, has hard asphalt. This is an ad alternate that we've been, they've shared with us tonight. Arguably, they didn't even need to share that with us tonight and we wouldn't be having this discussion. So I think we're voting on that specific alternate of a paving material. |
| 00:57:44.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. D Los Angeles, do you have a comment or you're just. Thank you. I'm not sure. |
| 00:57:49.63 | Martin D. Los Angeles | I JUST WANTED TO RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSION, I KNOW THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE ITEM THAT'S ON THE AGENDA. I KNOW THIS DESIGN ELEMENT IS RELATED TO THIS AGENDA ITEM, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THE BROWN ACT AND ALSO JUST TAKING ACTIONS, I INITIALLY THOUGHT THIS WAS A FRIENDLY RECOMMENDATION AS PART OF THIS ORIGINAL RESOLUTION. I JUST WOULDN'T WANT THE DISCUSSION TO GET TOO FAR OUT THAT WE'RE TAKING A SEPARATE ACTION. with respect to policy and design of this, I think I'm fine with with sort of just a, a recommendation that's associated with the resolution being approved, but I don't want the commission to get too far involved into a discussion that kind of leads. It sounds to me that like it's leading a little outside of the parameters of this agenda item, which has been approved already. So. I just wanted to let the Commission know my thoughts on that. |
| 00:58:39.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, can I don't know if this will satisfy Commissioner Junius, but in the with the motion that we have rather than citing the specific numbers, if we could just add the following language through we suggest that they not use loose gravel or a pretty exact wording now to provide for safe and enjoyable pedestrian circulation and accessibility for people of all abilities so we'll we'll get rid of the numbers and just say those two things so that explains what the concept of why we're not using gravel you're okay with that and that's still consistent with well what was the previous item and doesn't get as far afield |
| 00:58:54.09 | Unknown | to do. |
| 00:59:05.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:23.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:59:23.41 | Andrew Junius | I'm curious if the city attorney is okay with that. |
| 00:59:23.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:59:23.51 | Unknown | is this? |
| 00:59:23.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:59:27.51 | Andrew Junius | Is that still a friendly amendment or are we getting too far afield? |
| 00:59:34.93 | Martin D. Los Angeles | I mean, I wouldn't call it really a friendly amendment. I would just I would just a friendly resolution or friendly recommendation. Yeah. Yeah. We would just want to make this a friendly recommendation. I think |
| 00:59:38.76 | Andrew Junius | A friendly resolution or friendly recommendation. |
| 00:59:44.55 | Martin D. Los Angeles | I'll defer to staff and the commission on that. I don't think it goes too far afield in the sense of Yeah, I think it's rather general. |
| 00:59:52.57 | Andrew Junius | I think it's rather general. It doesn't reference the general plan, so at least. Yeah, yeah, reference to the general plan. |
| 00:59:54.74 | Martin D. Los Angeles | Yeah, reference to the general plan. And I'm fine with that. |
| 00:59:56.14 | Andrew Junius | and we're gonna make games for sure. |
| 00:59:57.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We have the motion with the additional language and safe and enjoyable pedestrian circulation and provide sidewalks and passways are accessible for people of all abilities. It was seconded. That motion was seconded. Any further discussion? |
| 00:59:57.97 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:59:58.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:59:58.03 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:59:58.05 | Martin D. Los Angeles | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:59:58.12 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:59:58.14 | Martin D. Los Angeles | Thank you. |
| 00:59:58.19 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:59:58.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:00:10.84 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:00:10.98 | Director Phipps | Exactly. |
| 01:00:11.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:14.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Seeing none, Director Fips, can you take roll please? |
| 01:00:17.88 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:00:25.27 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:00:25.84 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:00:26.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:26.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:00:26.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:27.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:00:31.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, moving on. We now come to item seven, which is our public hearing portion of this evening. At this point, I'll be looking for declarations from commissioners regarding public context for the public hearing item. Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:00:52.91 | Kristina Feller | Nothing to declare, Chair. |
| 01:00:54.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Marlin. |
| 01:00:56.86 | David Marlatt | Nothing to declare. |
| 01:00:58.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Junius. Nothing to declare. |
| 01:01:00.18 | David Marlatt | enough. Thank you. |
| 01:01:00.84 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:01:01.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Saad. |
| 01:01:02.75 | Nastassya Saad | Nothing to declare. |
| 01:01:04.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I also have nothing to declare. Item 7A, 412 to 414 Sausalito Boulevard. The applicant, Don David, on behalf of owners Winston Ashmead and David Johnson is requesting a design review permit with heightened design review and an encroachment agreement to replace in-kind a 610 square foot elevated parking deck and to repair and replace in kind three exterior decks and an exterior entry stairway, all of which were damaged or destroyed by a mudslide on February 14th, 2019 at 412 to 414 Sausalito Boulevard. Mr. Mandich, Matthew Mandich, our planner, is here tonight to do the presentation. Welcome again. |
| 01:01:54.72 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. It's quite loud this evening. So, yeah, thank you for stating the request already. Those are the permits before you today. So we'll just go ahead and jump right into the presentation. As you can see here, the location of the property, 412-414 Sausalito Boulevard, located in Hurricane Gulch in the R2252 family medium-high-density residential zone. I will point out this is a very steep lot with more than 80% slope, and it kind of finds itself in a bend in the road there in Sausalito Boulevard. You can see the location of the parcel there, which is... on the left hand side there, kind of an odd Pentagon shape for that lot. And then on the right hand side, you can see an image from Google Earth, which actually still shows the aftermath of that catastrophic mudslide in February of 2019. You can see some of the debris there in those images. That slide destroyed the four car parking deck that we're discussing today, as well as doing additional damage to the house including the the exterior decks and staircase It also destroyed the property next door at 406 408 South Street Boulevard as well as the property down on Crescent Avenue below 57 Crescent so next slide, please Thank you. again just another summary of the project here so design review permit with heightened review for an encroachment agreement to replace a 610 square foot parking deck in kind the parking deck is halfway located in the public right-of-way of Sausalito Boulevard Sausalito Boulevard is actually a 50 foot wide right-of-way but in most of the street it only measures 18 to 20 feet so you have a pretty good portion of public right-of-way on either side of Sausalito Boulevard so that's why we're dealing with the encroachment permit today or encroachment agreement excuse me the replacement of the parking deck will exceed the building coverage or exceed the 80% of the building coverage for the lot which is why we have heightened review it is just returning it to its former uh to its former coverage um it's actually in-kind replacement so uh nothing nothing new being added no no additional square footage uh based on what was there originally but that square footage does exceed the 80 threshold for heightened review and again as we talked about already the slope is 80 and the structure will be a maximum of 36 feet above grade repair and replace three exterior recreational decks on the eastern elevation of the home in kind as well which we'll see in the in the elevations in a bit and then also to repair and replace the exterior staircase which provides the only ingress and egress to the duplex and that will also be replaced in kind next slide please um so just a little bit of background we've already talked about mudslide on february 14 2019 19 destroyed the car deck and damaged the home you can see in the upper slide there the extent of where that mudslide went all the way from sausalito boulevard to crescent avenue it originated actually in ggnra land federal land on the upward slope above Sausalito Boulevard. It was about 4,000 cubic yards of earth that slid down that hillside, which for just equivalency is about 400 loads of a 10-wheel dump truck. So a lot of earth moving very quickly down that slope in 2019 in the wee hours of the morning. City Council voted to waive any permit and plan check fees for the in-kind replacement of structures damaged or destroyed by the mudslide which this is one of those next slide please just a little highlight here of the existing conditions as you can see here see if I have a pointer with me I do great so here. Here's the duplex right here, upper and lower, 412 and 414. They mirror each other in the floor plan. You can see the concrete bulkhead still right here intact. This is where the car deck extended out, right around here. |
| 01:04:36.27 | Unknown | you |
| 01:05:56.02 | Matthew Mandich | in right here and right here and provided the only access point ingress egress to the residents next slide please so here is the site plan as it current conditions as they exist today without the car deck that was once there and here's the proposed site plan with the four car tandem parking deck right here being restored as it was originally here is the concrete slab concrete bulkhead right here which remains intact next slide please this is just a highlighting of the pre-existing plan showing that this car deck was indeed there on the original plans and as a part of the original structure the home and the car deck were both built in 1963 the superposition of the parking spaces is what's bubbled there as you can see again here's the property line extending right here halfway through the car deck hence the encroachment agreement and this is a Sausalito Boulevard right there next slide please just some pertinent elevations here I've highlighted the west elevation which is as we were looking at those existing conditions photos that's looking from sausalito boulevard towards the east here and you can see the west elevation here's the parking deck as it will appear these are large steel beams that will be supporting the deck here's this maximum height of 36 feet these beams will be on concrete and also driven through the bedrock up to 8 to 18 feet, depending on the beam. And this is the staircase right here that will also be replaced in kind. Next slide. Again, just another view of this is the east elevation here looking west. And you can see that you've got the car deck coming in here. Again, steel beam supporting the deck. These are the two. to recreational exterior decks on the eastern elevation we were discussing And again, here is the staircase. these are badly damaged right now about half the decks are there on each side um they'll be reinforced with steel beams underneath so they'll both be reconstructed along with the staircase and the car deck providing that access to the duplex next slide please um so zoning consistency uh this appeared in the staff report as well um as you can see we do have some legal non-conformities here uh including the rear and side setbacks and there's also the height which is over our height limit But again, illegal nonconformities here, including the rear and side setbacks. And there's also the height, which is over our height limit, but again, illegal nonconformity as the home was built in 1963. I've asterisked these numbers here just because this is the current existing conditions after the slide, but once the proposal is going to restore it to what it was originally. So these existing conditions, you know, they're a little bit just different than what you would expect. In fact, the if the slide never happened, the proposal would match the existing conditions. So just wanted to highlight that for you there. Next slide, please. |
| 01:08:02.74 | Unknown | is, |
| 01:08:49.87 | Matthew Mandich | just a little bit of some discussion here on the legal non-conformities that we talked about again setbacks and height why is a non-conformity permit not required i've just highlighted some sections of this table here and brought a section of the code out as well and i'll just read that off for you so any any non-conforming structure that is either voluntarily or involuntarily partially demolished may be remodeled and in this case also with the table replicated as long as the new building elements comply with code and the non-conforming portion of the building is not demolished so the structure the home itself was not demolished that's where the non-conforming setbacks exist and where the non-conforming height exists so this is just a partial reconstruction of an involuntarily demolished structure. Again, highlighting that heightened review is required because the building coverage once restored will exceed 80% of the max allowed. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE ALL RIGHT THAT BRINGS US TO OUR RECOMMENDATION SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE APPLICATION 20 23 001444412414 Sausalito Boulevard and attached excuse me and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit with heightened review and recommending the approval of the encroachment agreement for city council review Staff finds that the proposed project is in conformance with all the required findings for the design review and heightened design review and staff finds that the proposed project is in conformance with the required encroachment agreement findings. Approval, of course, is subject to the conditions of approval listed in the draft resolution as well as any other conditions that may be applied this evening. So that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. |
| 01:10:26.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Manage. At this point, we'll have questions from commissioners of staff. Thank you. I'll look for raised hands and he raised hands Commissioner Feller |
| 01:10:38.41 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Matthew, for another excellent presentation and report. But I did just want to quickly ask the question if the Miller Pacific report was at all applied to any of your analysis, and if a copy of that report was made available to the applicant. |
| 01:11:01.26 | Matthew Mandich | The Miller Pacific report, I'm not familiar with that. |
| 01:11:04.34 | Kristina Feller | the Landslide Task Force recommendation and the report that was in front of both the Planning Commission and the City Council Director Phipps, I think that was a month and a half, two months ago. |
| 01:11:22.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | He's nodding yes. |
| 01:11:22.74 | Matthew Mandich | He's nodding yes. Oh, no, he's here. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, he's nodding yes. That was, he doesn't remember. |
| 01:11:26.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. moved from his normal seat and i was blocked by the by the monitors i apologize director pips |
| 01:11:35.16 | Director Phipps | Correct and I agree that was associated with the GHAD correct |
| 01:11:35.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:11:35.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 01:11:35.66 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 01:11:35.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to say, |
| 01:11:35.93 | Kristina Feller | Correct. |
| 01:11:36.35 | Matthew Mandich | Right. |
| 01:11:36.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I... |
| 01:11:42.53 | Kristina Feller | Well, it wasn't just the GAD. It was the Miller Pacific report that DPW and Miller Pacific presented on their findings for the geologic hazard study, not the district. |
| 01:11:58.24 | Director Phipps | Yep, I will agree with the commissioner. |
| 01:12:02.43 | Kristina Feller | So I'm just asking if any of those findings were applied to the analysis here, Matthew, and if that study was shared with the applicant, although it's obviously available on public record. |
| 01:12:16.16 | Matthew Mandich | No. No, they were not. |
| 01:12:19.54 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you, Chair. That's the only question I have. |
| 01:12:23.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Other questions? Commissioners of staff. With this, we'll turn it over to the applicant who will have 15 minutes to do a presentation, up to 15 minutes to do a presentation. |
| 01:12:36.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:36.14 | David Johnson | All right. |
| 01:12:43.77 | David Johnson | Good evening, commissioners. I'm David Johnson, property owner there. And our only purpose is to try to restore the property to what we had before the landslide. And I think the presentation covered anything that I would be able, more than what I would be able to say. And I would just defer the time to questions. |
| 01:12:58.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:58.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:12:59.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:59.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | morning. |
| 01:13:05.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, questions of the applicant? Not seeing any. Thank you very much. We'll now open it up for public comment. Director Phipps, if you can give instructions again, please. Thank you. |
| 01:13:20.14 | Director Phipps | Certainly. Because of the low number of persons in the chamber, if you'd like to make a comment in connection with this item, please feel free to raise your hand and I will call upon when it is your time to speak. If you'd like to raise your hand in the Zoom application, feel free to do so. And if you're dialing in from the phone, press star nine. Thank you. |
| 01:13:39.86 | Director Phipps | Looking to the chamber for raised hands, seeing none. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands, seeing none. |
| 01:13:45.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. We'll close the public comment portion of the hearing, bring it up back up to the dais. Look for direction from Commissioner. |
| 01:13:56.87 | Andrew Junius | Move to approve as recommended by staff. |
| 01:13:59.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Junius. I'm looking for a second. I will second that. Okay, any discussions? Okay with that director Phipps, please call the roll |
| 01:14:11.99 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 01:14:16.75 | Unknown | Yeah. to the next step. |
| 01:14:18.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:14:18.59 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:14:18.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:14:18.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:20.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:14:20.41 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Motion passes |
| 01:14:22.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item, just to make commissioners aware, the June 26 meeting has been canceled because items we thought would be ready are not ready for that meeting. They'll be in July. So our next meeting is, help me, Director Phipps, July 6th. 12th, 10th or something. |
| 01:14:41.12 | Director Phipps | I believe it's July 10th, Chair. |
| 01:14:42.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | July 10th. So the next meeting will be July 10th. And with that, I'm looking for a motion for adjournment. |
| 01:14:49.22 | Director Phipps | So move. |
| 01:14:51.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All in favor? Aye. Thank you all. |
| 01:14:54.18 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Have a good evening. |
Bonnie McGregor — In Favor: A 40-year resident, she supported the project, citing dangerous crossings and the need for pedestrian safety, walkability, and a shaded gathering space. ▶ 📄
Gail Shell — In Favor: A 5-year resident and active volunteer, she supported the resolution as it aligns with the general plan, enhancing safety, circulation, and community space. ▶ 📄
Mary Faust — In Favor: Chair of the Park and Rec Commission, she supported the closure as it could provide space for memorial benches, trees, and safe pedestrian areas, consistent with the general plan. ▶ 📄