| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:02.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | ready. I'm going to call the October 23, 2024 meeting of the Sausalito Planning Commission to order. At this point, before we get to call to order, Commissioner Feller, I think you need to provide information regarding serving room up this evening. Thank you. |
| 00:00:24.60 | Kristina Feller | Yes, thank you. |
| 00:00:24.82 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:00:25.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:00:25.33 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 00:00:25.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:25.78 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I'd like to communicate Commissioner Feller is attending this meeting pursuant to AB 2449's emergency circumstance provision. Commissioner, could you firstly let us know if there's anyone over 18 participating in the room with you? |
| 00:00:40.67 | Kristina Feller | There's no one in the room, so no, nobody over 18. |
| 00:00:44.41 | Director Phipps | Excellent. And as required by statute, the legislative body must actually allow the commissioner to participate in this meeting remotely. And with that in mind, I'd like to just do a quick roll call in connection with the request. Commissioner Merlot. |
| 00:01:04.14 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:01:04.97 | Andrew Junius | THE CITY. |
| 00:01:05.24 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Vice Chair Assad? Yes. Chair Luxembourg? Yes. Motion passes. Christina, happy to have you. |
| 00:01:06.87 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:07.18 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:12.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:13.50 | Director Phipps | And with that, good evening, Chair Luxenberg, Vice Chair Saad, Planning Commissioners, staff, members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. And with that, I will call roll for the full commission. Commissioner Merlon. |
| 00:01:35.41 | David Marlatt | here? |
| 00:01:36.23 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Junius. Present. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:01:39.34 | Linda Hodum | here. |
| 00:01:39.93 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Saad. Here. Chair Luxenberg. Here. We have quorum. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:01:41.28 | Linda Hodum | Thank you. |
| 00:01:45.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. First item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Still moved. |
| 00:01:51.91 | Andrew Junius | Before we do a second I'd like to make a motion to make an adjustment on the agenda this evening |
| 00:01:58.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, please do. |
| 00:01:59.61 | Andrew Junius | So I think we were thinking that 6A and 6B would move quickly. I think 6B might take a little longer than we anticipated. So I'd make a motion to just adjust the order of items on the calendar, moving 6B, the 122 San Carlos matter, to after the study session on item 7, making it like item 7.5 so that they would come next, and then item 8 would stay at the very end. So that's my motion. |
| 00:02:27.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there a second to that motion? |
| 00:02:31.84 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, can you clarify? So to move that after the study session? Yes, that thought is. |
| 00:02:35.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:35.23 | Unknown | Yes, I thought it. |
| 00:02:36.11 | Director Phipps | Thank you. I just recommend, I think that we would call that item eight, and that would be another public hearing item. |
| 00:02:44.28 | Andrew Junius | That'd be fine. That's it. Make it animate. |
| 00:02:46.89 | Director Phipps | very good and then adjournment would become item nine. |
| 00:02:50.23 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:02:51.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:51.11 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:02:51.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:51.23 | Andrew Junius | So I'm... |
| 00:02:52.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm looking for a motion willing to accept that amendment. |
| 00:02:52.22 | Andrew Junius | I'm looking for. |
| 00:02:52.98 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:02:56.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I am. Okay, and is there a second? |
| 00:03:00.02 | David Marlatt | I'll second. |
| 00:03:01.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Can you take roll, please? |
| 00:03:05.57 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Place Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:03:06.58 | Kristina Feller | you know. |
| 00:03:06.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:09.76 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:03:12.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Thank you. Next item would be public comments for items not on the agenda. Director Phipps, if you could explain the process, please. |
| 00:03:23.85 | Director Phipps | Certainly. 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 to be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment 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, we've got Maria Hernandez and Matthew Mandich in the house. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when it's 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. Chair, I'm going to look first to the chamber. Raise your hands. Oh, excuse me, for any submitted speaker cards. And I have received one from Jan Johnson. Jan, come on down. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:04:24.50 | Jan Johnson | Thank you for the opportunity. I live at the corner of 2nd and Richardson. And I believe that there are Four to five years ago, you approved a building permit for the old Valhalla property at 205 Bridgeway. And one of the provisions for the approval was that the applicant build beach access at the end of Main Street. The estate is beautiful. It's been occupied, I believe, at least two years. There is no beach access. We used to be able to access the beach from the edge of the concrete roadway underneath the boardwalk, and when they redid the boardwalk, that was eliminated. So presently, there's no way to get to the beach. And historically, that was the way most of us got to the beach. Being that I have a gimpy hip, I find the stairs down at Valley much too steep for me. So I'm just wondering what's become of the beach access and what can I do to... have it provided as was a condition. Thank you. |
| 00:05:41.11 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. I have not received any additional speaker cards in connection with this agenda item, but I will give audience members one more chance if they simply have not had the opportunity to submit. Okay, looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. We have one raised hand. That is the hand of Babette McDougall. Babette, welcome. You will have three minutes. |
| 00:06:10.27 | Babette McDougall | Now can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes, you can? |
| 00:06:13.41 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:06:13.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:16.41 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:06:16.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. We have a great day. |
| 00:06:16.82 | Babette McDougall | can hear you. Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. So this actually is my first time sitting in on one of your Planning Commission meetings. since you folks have been convened as a panel. And I just want to say it's a real honor. opportunity to say something to you all this evening on the agenda. I wanted to start by just asking why in the tradition First of all, let me say thank you for the tradition of allowing public comment up front. which is wonderful. Sausalito has long held that this is the best place for it. Maybe someday the city council will join arms. In the meantime, I'm wondering why you don't begin your meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance, which has also been traditional. In Sao Suleiro there's not a service organization, in town. with rare exception, I mean, I don't know of any personally. don't begin every single meeting by reciting the pledge of allegiance is there a reason why the planning commission couldn't do it I just like to plant the seed for future opportunity hoping that democracy wins on the ballot this, uh, coming weeks. Thank you so much. |
| 00:07:18.75 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Babette, for your comments. Looking to the Zoom application once again for raised hands. Going once, going twice. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:07:30.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda, item four is the Planning Commission meeting minutes from October 9th. I'm looking for a motion to approve. |
| 00:07:39.54 | Nastassya Saad | So moving |
| 00:07:41.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | like, |
| 00:07:42.04 | Andrew Junius | and I'm not sure. |
| 00:07:42.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Are there any comments on the minutes? Seeing none, Director Phipps, if you'll take the roll, please. |
| 00:07:48.43 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlon. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. I believe I saw your lips move, but apologies, your audio was not activated. |
| 00:07:58.15 | Kristina Feller | Sorry about that. Yes. |
| 00:08:00.28 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:08:01.10 | Kristina Feller | Yes. you're going to be a |
| 00:08:06.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is communications at this point. Do we have an update this evening from CDD? |
| 00:08:12.71 | Director Phipps | None from CDD this evening, Chair. Thank you. |
| 00:08:15.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. As far as commissioners, I do want to comment if you could have code enforcement find out why the ramp from Valhalla has not yet been constructed, because I do know that that was part of our approvals, and I don't know if they're waiting for permits. But if you could do that and give us an update at the next meeting, that would be appreciated. Okay. Other commissioners, are there any other comments on any other? With that, we'll open item five, communications for public comment. Are there any comments on item five? |
| 00:08:54.02 | Director Phipps | No speaker cards received in connection with this item chair. Look into the Zoom application for raised hands. Going once, going twice, back to you. |
| 00:09:03.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, next item is item six, public hearing for 50 Crescenta Lane. The applicant, Samantha Herman, on behalf of the owners, Joseph Eschens, with the Marin Municipal Water District, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit, design review permit, and a variance application to facilitate the replacement of an existing 20-foot-tall telecommunications facility and equipment with a new 20-foot-tall monopole and foundation at 50 Crescenta Lane. Kristen Taiki is going to present from the Community Development Department. |
| 00:09:45.26 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you very much. Good to be back. And nice to meet you, Commissioner Marlett. We haven't worked together yet. Brandon, can you go to the survey? I think it's the next page down. or Maria, whoever's doing this. One more. Okay. The subject site's a 2,400-square-foot lot owned by the Marin Municipal Water District. It's developed with an existing water tank. It fronts on the southerly, southwesterly end of Crescenta Drive, and it abuts Highway 1 on the west side. 40 Crescenta Lane abuts it at the north, rear, and east side. There's an existing wireless T-Mobile site, as you said earlier, Chair. It has an existing monopole and ground-based equipment, and there is a separate generator that sits forward of the current site. The entire lease site is also enclosed in Chainlink. The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit, a design review, approval, and setback variants to modify the existing site by removing essentially the majority of what's there except for the generator. And replacing it with a new 20-foot-tall mono hole with 8-foot panel antennas, an RRU and a range of ground-based equipment that would be right adjacent to the westerly side lot line. Can we go to the elevations? just so they can see what it looks like. The subject site is adjacent to Highway 101. It's vegetated with a variety of trees and shrubs. The arborist did provide me with an, I'm sorry, the applicant provided me with an arborist report that evaluated 12 trees. Of these, eight fall under what we consider a heritage tree based on size. They range from 2 inches to 50 inches in diameter and 14 to 50 feet in height. Of these trees, generally only a few are really impacted by the development. Tree 5 and 8, both lemon-scented gums, are located in the 101 Corridor. The arborist has indicated that depending on the extent of the, grading for the pad and the removal of tree canopy, it could be high to moderate impacts, and he recommended the arborist be present during work. Tree 9, which is a three-inch diameter toyon, is recommended for removal. Because it's in the 101 corridor, we don't issue permits for tree removal in outside our jurisdiction, but I have included a condition of approval recommending that they have to provide us evidence they can remove the tree. and also imposing the protection measures that are identified in the arborist report for this. But in general, the trees are all expected to survive this work. The application for the wireless facility is reviewed solely under chapter 1045 of our municipal code. um, generally as demonstrated in the staff report and in the resolution in much greater detail than I promise you I will go into. We have recommended approval. The site's a preferred location under SMC 1045110. The location is established. It's well screened. It blends into the surroundings. With regard to the variants, the site is steeply sloped. The location is behind an existing water tower surrounded by trees. It again blends into the existing site conditions. And there are no residential structures anywhere in the vicinity of the tower that would benefit from requiring the setback. So, as you'll see in the resolution, I've gone through all the findings and provided justification for why the variant should be. We did receive one public comment on this site, and it was the property owner of 40 Crescenta, which surrounds two sides of it. He was more concerned about his T-Mobile service being shut down. than the site itself. He did support it to me verbally. So staff has recommended approval of application 2024-00071. 50 crescenta, subject to the findings and conditions in the resolution provided with the staff report. Are there any questions? |
| 00:14:10.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you miss teckey uh at this point uh thank you for that very thorough staff report as well uh are there any questions from commissioners Seeing none, will we also have a presentation from the applicant? Yes. you'll have an opportunity after we hear from the applicant on the project. Thank you. Is somebody here from marine water is or as Samantha Herman here? |
| 00:14:40.92 | Kristin Teiche | They indicated they would be here. I don't know them personally. |
| 00:14:45.17 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:14:45.88 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah. |
| 00:14:46.00 | Kristina Feller | You're here on Zoom, Chair. |
| 00:14:48.47 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 00:14:48.52 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 00:14:48.53 | Kristin Teiche | I'm sorry. |
| 00:14:48.60 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 00:14:48.75 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 00:14:48.80 | Beth Thompson | you Thank you. |
| 00:14:49.68 | Kristin Teiche | Can you hear me? |
| 00:14:50.30 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:14:54.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. So if you're on Zoom, you have 15 minutes to give a presentation, up to 15 minutes to give a presentation. The floor is yours. |
| 00:15:03.89 | Samantha Herman | Okay, thank you. Thank you to chair Luxenberg and the commissioners for taking the time to review and consider our project today and thank you Kristen for the presentation that. covered a lot of the project in detail. I'm Samantha Herman. I'm with Assurance Development. We represent the applicants who are actually Vertical Bridge and T-Mobile, who is the carrier on the tower. They are leasing this site area. from Marin Municipal Water District, who is the owner of the property. And we are proposing the removal and replacement of a communications facility located at 50 Crescento Lane, It's a 20 foot tower. existing originally approved for construction in 1996, which currently stands at the property, It's owned by the Marin Municipal Water District and the equipment has become outdated and the existing tower cannot structurally support the equipment that's needed for the most current wireless services. So as proposed, we will be replacing this existing tower with one of the same height, which can support the weight of the upgraded equipment. And by upgrading this equipment, the surrounding neighborhoods will have increased data ability and improved access to internet services, which bridges the digital divide amongst communities. And as mentioned, we are also requesting the approval of a variance for the proposed modification for the five foot side setbacks due to the limited space on the property and the hillside. The majority of the parcel is used for a water tank as well, so there are limited opportunities for the relocation of this tower elsewhere that would be outside of those five foot setbacks. Essentially, the proposed location is the least obtrusive option to provide adequate coverage for the surrounding community and neighborhood. And as the applicant representatives, we have worked closely with Kristen and the planning department to ensure that the site and its proposal meet jurisdictional requirements maintained by the city and the federal government. And we would like to request Chair Luxembourg and the commissioner's approval for the proposed removal and replacement of this wireless facility. Thank you so much for your time, consideration, and assistance throughout this process. And I look forward to any questions anyone may have. Thank you. |
| 00:17:14.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ms. Herman. With that, questions from the Commission. Seeing none, but stick around. We're going to provide public comment so there may be questions when we come back to the dais. At this time, we're going to open this up for public comments. Director Phipps, if you could give instructions for public comments for this item. |
| 00:17:37.16 | Director Phipps | Certainly. Same instructions as before. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me. I'll just state I haven't received any speaker cards in connection with this item. So if you'd like to make a comment, now would be the chance for you to Oh, Mr. Johnson. Excuse me. Is that right? Oh, it says, excuse me, it's marked as item 18. That's my fault. Mark, 50 Christianza, come on down. |
| 00:18:09.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, at the podium, you need to speak into the microphone, please. |
| 00:18:12.37 | Mr. Johnson | Okay. |
| 00:18:12.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:18:13.11 | Mr. Johnson | Thank you for this opportunity. So I live at 51 Crescento Lane, directly across the street from the water tank and this cell phone improvements. I'm not sure if you're I'm here because I regard the existing cell phone equipment on this site as a bit of an eyesore. Um, Just to give you some perspective, when I bought my house at 51 Cressy and Delaney in 1991 at that time, the site was There were a number of trees. It was fairly heavily vegetated. There was a small wooden water tank at the back of the water district's parcel. After moving in some years, the water district announced that they were taking out the old water tank and putting in a large tank, which you know, is something that we have to deal with. They were pretty cooperative in terms of locating the tank toward the back of the site. and doing what they could to preserve the existing trees on the site. Um, So that happened. And then some years thereafter, without any notice that I was aware of, the cell phone development started on the site. And the first, you know, set of equipment in this the monopole with antennas appeared and I complained to the water district about just sort of the unsightliness of it. So they send somebody out who took a look at it and said, Yeah, you know, I see what you're talking about. And they said, we'll build a fence around this. And the fence pretty much took care of the problem. And it was a tall wooden fence. you know, painted eco greens. And I was happy with that. A few years after that fence went up, additional cell phone equipment was added to the site that removed probably two thirds or more of the fence. And You know, so it The unsightliness was, you know, back. And then, you know, some years later, this large... A diesel generator was added to the site. You know, in that they put it like a cyclone fence with the green slats in it to kind of conceal it. And I do appreciate that, but- It's covered with signs, you know, danger and stay away and no smoking and all sorts of things. And I just fear with his additional, with the replacement of this, The unsightliness of the site will continue, will be increased. Um, I would what I would like is for that the approval of this be conditioned upon putting a fence, you know, a tall fence. |
| 00:21:16.51 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment, sir. I'm sorry your time has run out. |
| 00:21:20.61 | Mr. Johnson | Okay. you |
| 00:21:21.16 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:21:21.18 | Mr. Johnson | Thank you. But a wooden fence that would obscure the |
| 00:21:21.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Understand. With that, we'll close. Are there any other, I don't see anybody else on Zoom. |
| 00:21:34.93 | Director Phipps | There is one more raised hand on Zoom, and that is the hand of Babette McDougall. Babette, welcome back. You'll have three minutes. |
| 00:21:40.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:21:40.92 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:21:41.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:21:41.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:21:43.59 | Babette McDougall | Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. |
| 00:21:46.17 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:21:46.88 | Babette McDougall | Okay, thank you. So first of all, let me say that I THINK I'M GOING TO BE A Shortly after the turn of the current century, I was put on a telecommunications commission And it was my honor to serve. It taught me a great deal. And I have personally visited that site. I would like to acknowledge the former speaker and the concern over co-location of antenna among multiple carriers. That is a problem. When I was on the Telecom Commission, I want you to know that the FCC mandated that we should not have a citizen voice. We should not be concerned for health impacts. There are all kinds of things, and there were limitations on no location of cellular equipment like this in residential areas or near schools, primary, secondary schools. I don't know if that's changed. Perhaps it has. I would like to just simply say that having thoroughly read this particular report, I find it disconcerting that there is so much acquiescence to the federal government and what the federal government mandates, because most of the federal government through the FCC. actually deprives individuals of their First Amendment and other constitutional rights. So I would like to encourage you to be a bit more vigilant and maybe even a little more vigilante would be a good phrase. But really, there's nothing wrong with pushing back when someone tries to take away your constitutional right. You have a right to stand them down. And I don't think Sausalio should keep rolling over like this. And I think the idea, I think that gentleman is quite correct. Once you build a larger tower, you build it, they will come. So right now, T-Mobile might be the one that occupies it, but their business model is as follows. As you know, they rent. They rarely own. So, There's no reason why more people shouldn't want to move into a brand new teller. and co-locate as happens all over the land. These are dangerous areas. There's a reason why they are dangerous to our health. There's a reason why we are told we may not consider health impacts. This despite, the unprecedented rise in blood cancers, and these horrible brain tumors. These are all directly relevant to this very technology and the high frequency telephone wires and other electrical wires at through the countryside. that unfortunately expose us to harm. Public policy. has to address these issues in a more realistic way. And I'd like to encourage Sausalito to get a little bit more serious and a little bit more stiff-shirted about it. I think we can really dig in and protect ourselves better than what we're doing now. Thank you so much. |
| 00:24:26.10 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Babette, for your comments. Looking to the Zoom application once more for raised hands. Seeing no additional raised hands. Back to you, chair. |
| 00:24:35.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, at this point we'll close public comment on item 6a we'll bring it back up to the dais. If I could ask Ms. Herman, what is the proposal for fencing for the new monopole? |
| 00:24:48.12 | Samantha Herman | So, We are not proposing any effect to the fencing. We're not proposing a new fence. Due to the size constraints of the lease area, I will have to consult with our design team about maybe adding slats to the chain link fence, if that would help screen the area a little bit better. But unfortunately, due to the constraints of the parcel itself, a tall fence constructed on the outside of the current fence would not be possible, unfortunately. |
| 00:25:22.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Could a new fence that is more attractive replace the existing fence where it is? |
| 00:25:30.81 | Samantha Herman | I would have to consult our design team on that as well. |
| 00:25:36.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. Okay. Questions from other commissioners? |
| 00:25:42.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so at this point, we'll be looking at, yes. |
| 00:25:47.21 | David Marlatt | One question. |
| 00:25:48.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:25:48.68 | David Marlatt | And I'm just wondering, is it, what are the ramifications if the commission chooses to condition this on replacement of the fence with a more attractive fence? I'm not sure what that does to the agenda item before. |
| 00:26:03.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let me ask Ms. Herman, if we were to approve that this evening, but require you to replace the fence with a more attractive fence, the details of which you could work out with the Community Development Department, would that be acceptable to your clients? |
| 00:26:21.42 | Samantha Herman | Thank you. |
| 00:26:21.47 | Bonnie McGregor | Thank you. |
| 00:26:22.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:26:23.02 | Samantha Herman | Thank you. |
| 00:26:23.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:26:23.48 | Samantha Herman | this. |
| 00:26:24.09 | Bonnie McGregor | I would say yes. |
| 00:26:24.73 | Samantha Herman | Thank you. |
| 00:26:25.35 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:26:26.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, thank you. With that, I will look for a motion with that amendment, I think, or with that change. |
| 00:26:34.04 | Andrew Junius | I would so move to approve the item as agendized with the condition as Commissioner Marlott referenced regarding the replacement of the existing fence with a more attractive screening fence that can't be seen through and is with the help of the staff on design issues. |
| 00:26:51.59 | David Marlatt | Second. |
| 00:26:55.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, any further discussion? Seeing none, Director Pips, please call the roll. |
| 00:27:01.13 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Filler. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:27:05.24 | Bonnie McGregor | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:27:10.29 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:27:11.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. We're now moving on since item 6B is now number eight. We're moving on to item seven. First one is 7A. 7A is a study session. |
| 00:27:25.60 | Director Phipps | if I made sure. |
| 00:27:26.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Go. |
| 00:27:26.98 | Director Phipps | I'd like to address the now item 6B, 82 Central Avenue variance, as shown on the agenda. |
| 00:27:36.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You would like to adjust that now. |
| 00:27:38.62 | Director Phipps | So, |
| 00:27:38.67 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:27:39.03 | Director Phipps | Did I say 6B? Excuse me. |
| 00:27:39.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. 6. Item, either A, you mean? |
| 00:27:45.20 | Director Phipps | No, there are three items as part of the public hearings that we are hearing this evening. Item 6A, we've done. Item 6B, we moved. We now must address item 6C before moving to item 7. |
| 00:28:03.50 | Andrew Junius | Move to continue item 6C as identified on the agenda to November 13th. |
| 00:28:10.43 | Kristina Feller | Second. |
| 00:28:10.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I need to ask, 6C was item, That item has been changed in the lesson 24 hours ago. I have it as 8. I have it as on item 8. Has that been modified, and when was it modified? |
| 00:28:27.98 | Director Phipps | The agenda was slightly modified as we're continuing the item, so we didn't want to hear it and continue it after the study sessions. We'd like to just get over with it and continue it now. |
| 00:28:40.98 | David Marlatt | I see. So there's been a format change from the first. |
| 00:28:41.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yeah, I mean, it would be helpful if we don't change the numbering on such short notice because that's not what I have in my notes. But now I'm seeing that was changed this afternoon, I guess, but that's less than 24 hours. So technically, is it 6C or is it technically what it was when it was posted 72 hours in advance? |
| 00:29:08.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm asking, I'm asking Kylie. Ms. Otto, I thank you for this evening. So that item was previously item eight, but it was changed on short notice this afternoon. So what number is it? |
| 00:29:24.31 | Ms. Otto | I think the number is less important, but for the record, could we just identify it as 82 Central Avenue Variance and Zoning Permit Project ID 2024, 00128. APN 065-202-05. and Adam Blair is the planner that has been working on this. For clarification, that is the matter that is before us for the motion if I understand the commission correctly. |
| 00:29:52.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That is the item. |
| 00:29:54.62 | Andrew Junius | That is what it is. |
| 00:29:55.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:29:55.03 | Andrew Junius | Emotion, yeah. |
| 00:29:55.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The motion is to continue. Is there a second? |
| 00:29:59.85 | Kristina Feller | And I've seconded that. And I think we have to take the |
| 00:30:01.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think we have to take a look at that. |
| 00:30:04.36 | Kristina Feller | No, we have to take public- |
| 00:30:05.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:30:05.29 | Director Phipps | Can we open it up to public comment, Jer? Bye. |
| 00:30:07.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have to have public comment. Okay, at this point we're talking about item 2. Well, if we're going to do that, then I'm going to explain what it is because I don't want people not to know what it is so Item what was 8A previously, now labeled 6A, 6C, I'm sorry, I apologize. Applicant Heather Wright Foy on behalf of owners Yvonne Goldschmidt and Laura Gelson, they're requesting approval of a variance in a zoning permit application to construct 176 square foot rear addition on the bottom level of a three-story residence expand an existing deck at the second level of the residence onto the new addition as a roof deck replace existing wall windows and doors and repair and replace stucco as required at 82 central avenue APN 065-202-05. And this item is being requested by the commission to be continued, a date certain to November 13th, 2024. But at this time, since it was advertised, we'll be looking for any public comment that anybody would like to make this evening on that item at this time. |
| 00:31:28.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see none in the audience. Is there any on Zoom, Director Phipps? |
| 00:31:32.28 | Director Phipps | Sure, sing them. |
| 00:31:33.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, with that, is there any further discussion on this side? Seeing none, I'll look for a roll call vote on the motion to continue. |
| 00:31:44.95 | Director Phipps | All in favor? Bye. |
| 00:31:46.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. All of our votes are roll call. |
| 00:31:48.26 | Director Phipps | Oh. Commissioner Merlatt. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Filler. Yes. Vice Chair Hassan. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:31:54.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay, at this point we will now move on to Item seven, which is our study session seven a is for the housing element. It is a study session and presentation regarding the draft amended 2023 to 2031 housing element, including modifications to the housing element programs and proposed opportunity sites. This is for the audience. explanation. This is a study session the we will take a present we will have presentations this evening we will also open it up for public comment we will have discussion by the commission but the commission will not take any formal action this evening uh that will come at a later time uh so with that uh mr toft uh we'll give a presentation |
| 00:32:50.24 | Director Phipps | We actually have Beth Thompson joining us from the Novo Planning Group this evening. Unfortunately, Principal Planner Toph is not feeling well this evening, so I will give the introduction to the item. |
| 00:32:53.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Good. |
| 00:33:02.15 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:33:02.47 | Director Phipps | as you may recall. The city adopted its current housing element on January 30th of last year. And based on changes to the city's approach regarding the creation and adoption of more robust objective development and design standards, which we'll discuss in more detail later this evening, feedback from the county and other state agencies, such as Caltrans and the State Department of Housing and Community Development, as well as feedback from council members in the community, particularly related to concerns associated with the potential scale and impacts of development in the historic district and in waterfront adjacent areas, staff initiated a process to work with DeNovo Planning Group to develop an amended housing element. And in developing this document, it's staff's intent to provide revisions to the site's inventory, as well as other programs that address the concerns raised by the city council and public while promoting the goals of the housing element to preserve housing and neighborhood assets, support housing diversity opportunities and assistance, reduce constraints to housing development, rehab and preservation, and to affirmatively further fair and equal housing access and opportunities. The proposed amended housing element contains both an amended sites inventory as well as changes to housing element programs, mainly program four related to ensuring the city's sites inventory addresses our arena. Program eight related to public property conversion to housing and program 19 related to development review procedures to clarify implementation of streamlining provisions for permitting and the city's obligations to adopt odds. We will discuss these amendments in more detail shortly. As you're aware, City Council conducted a study session on the amended housing element on October 1 and received substantial public feedback at that meeting. While staff received several comments from the Council on various issues, I think the one consensus seems to be that the housing element ought to maintain or reduce the amount of housing proposed on the MLK site. Currently, the element calls for 80 units and the amended element would call for 94. There were several other comments related to efforts to reduce the city's RENA obligation and or rebalance or reduce the amount of housing on MLK through realizing more ADUs, SB9 units, or increasing units at other sites. Again, these matters will be discussed in more detail by Ms. Thompson. So hearing from you tonight, your comments, your feedback, your ideas related to this amended housing element are very important, as finalizing these amendments are necessary in order for the city to implement its time-sensitive programs of our housing element and prepare complementary amendments to our general plan and zoning ordinances. While the next steps associated with the sequencing and approval of these items is called out in the staff report, it has recently come to the attention of staff that there may be need to recirculate our draft EIR for technical purposes, and this will likely result in an adjustment to that timetable, which we'll be updating as we receive new information. While we want to maintain an aggressive timeframe to adopting an amended element, this does open the door to further modifications or proposals or feedback on the draft amended element before the next public hearing on these matters. So again, your input is invaluable. And with that introduction, I'll turn over the mic to Ms. Thompson of the Novo Planning Group, who will provide a more detailed presentation on the amended housing element. Ms. Thompson, welcome. Thank you for being here. And I will give you the floor. |
| 00:36:23.44 | Beth Thompson | Thank you, Director Fitz. Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. It's a pleasure to be before you with the Housing Element Project. |
| 00:36:23.66 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 00:36:24.55 | Unknown | That's good. |
| 00:36:30.61 | Beth Thompson | And so I will go through just a little bit of information on the background of the housing element, what is part of this amended housing element project, We're not asking for any decisions from the Commission tonight, just feedback And if you have any recommendations for potential modifications or requests for consideration as we continue to develop the amended housing element and go through the CEQA process where we're looking for that type of input. So. As Director Phipps mentioned, the city adopted its updated housing element of the general plan on January 30th of 2023. And the housing element provides Sausalito's blueprint for how it will meet the housing needs of its residents at all economic levels. And it also addresses segments of the population with special housing needs. The adopted housing element is available on the city's website, as well as various materials that have been prepared in association with the project. The draft amendment to the housing element is also available on the city's website. One of the key components of the housing element is addressing how it will accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RENAT. And this is an allocation of housing units that is given to the city of Sausalito and the city must demonstrate that it will be able to accommodate and encourage and facilitate development of these units during the planning period. The RHNA is established by the Bay Area the Association of Bay Area Governments, or ABAG, and that has already been adopted. And so that was finalized in 2021. And, RENA plan is adopted and identifies every for every city and county in a bank jurisdiction how many units each jurisdiction will accommodate. Sausalito received arena of 724 units for the sixth cycle, which is the 2023 to 2031 planning period, as I mentioned, the housing element addresses and demonstrates how the city can accommodate its RENA. The goals of the housing element. So the housing element, I'll back up just a little bit, has two components. It has a housing plan, which sets forward the goals, policies and actions that the city commits to undertaking to address housing issues during the planning period. And it also has a background report that has a lot of information, a lot of data, and it supports the development of the housing plan. The goals of the housing plan and the supporting policies and programs adjust the following how the city will preserve housing and neighborhood assets. Supporting housing diversity opportunities and assistance reducing constraints to housing development housing rehabilitation and preservation of housing, including units that are. affordable to lower income households and then also addressing how the city will affirmatively further fair and equal housing access and opportunities. The proposed project consists of the adoption and implementation of an amended housing element. So this includes changes to a number of components of the original project. It will revise housing plan program four, which addresses ensuring that the city has an inventory of sites to accommodate the arena throughout the planning period. This would add two new zones, two new overlay zones for the city's opportunity sites. And these correspond to slightly lower minimum densities. So these would minimum and maximum densities So these two new overlays would establish a housing 29 and a mixed use 29 slash 85 overlay. And what this means is these two overlays would allow up to 29 units per acre. The adopted housing element has four overlays, two of which allow up to 49 units per acre and the other two allow up to 70 units per acre. So this creates two new overlays that address slightly lower densities on select sites This would provide additional variety in housing types that would continue to meet the city's RHNA requirements and it would also continue to affirmatively further fair housing. Housing Plan Program 8, which addresses how public property will be converted to accommodated housing, including affordable housing. is also advised to address making publicly owned sites available for development during the planning period. So this program is revised to ensure that the city makes its sites available, as well as coordinating with other jurisdictions that have, or other entities, public entities that have control of sites such as the school district, to ensure that those sites are also being made available and being encouraged to develop during the planning period. Housing Plan Program 19 is also revised, and this is the Development Review Procedures Program, and it's basically revised to clarify how various housing streamlining provisions will be implemented. So concurrently with the work of the housing element amendment, the city has worked with its consultant team, which is a separate consultant team from Denovo Planning Group to develop the draft objective design and development standards or odds. And we will be hearing these at your next item on tonight's agenda. So the draft odds were revised to address the housing element amendment with study sessions on these updated odds conducted by the Planning Commission in February and in the city council in March of this year. And the city council did provide direction to refine the odds related to a number of issues. And so the outcomes of the city staff, city council housing working group, and then the odds peer regroup that was formed by the city council are going to be presented as a separate study session item. As part of the housing element update, we look at how these odds will be implemented and are just addressing that these are addressed, the odds, the creation of the odds is within the umbrella of the housing element amendment. And the housing element amendment continues to be consistent with the odds as they're being proposed. So the main changes to the housing element, in addition to the revisions to the programs that I mentioned, are some changes to the opportunity sites that have been identified to accommodate the city's housing needs. And there are several changes. Site 85, which is not a parcel, but it is an area along Bridgeway that is part of the Caltrans right-of-way. is removed and HCD had questioned whether or not this site was realistic. The city had reached out to Caltrans and it looked like the site may not come to fruition. This site would accommodate about 25 units. realistically, so that site is removed. And then site 209 is also removed. And so a number of the sites that have been removed in addition to 85 or that have had a reduced unit count are associated with the changes that are proposed to the two overlay zones, which I'll get to in a couple of slides. We have sites 401 and 402 were added. These are two new sites in the northern portion of the city, one at 2400 Bridgeway and then the other at 2680 Bridgeway. And I'll go through each of these in a few slides. So these are two new slides that have been added to accommodate some additional development. And in addition, there are a number of changes to the various sites. The majority of these changes are associated with, as you can see, we have the adopted housing element designation and then the proposed designation And a number of these changes are associated with revising the overlay designation to the new 29 unit per acre, the housing 29 and the MU 29. And so I have some slides that will go through each of these parcels or sites in more detail. So with these changes to the housing element, the city continues to be able to accommodate the regional housing need allocation. So there is no change to the existing capacity and the housing element. So the city's existing approved entitled projects, the inventory of the city's existing sites, and the projection for ADU and accessory dwelling unit and SB 9 units to be able to accommodate housing. Those assumptions remain unchanged. What has changed is the capacity of the potential opportunity sites. So table one of the housing plan would be revised to show a revised capacity And then with this total capacity, the city continues to have a surplus of sites. So the city would still have more than enough sites to meet the RHNA. And this does slightly increase the number of units that can be accommodated when compared to the adopted housing elements. So the city still has a buffer and the extremely low, very low income category, the low income category, the moderate, the above moderate, as well as for the total unit. So the city continues to maintain a buffer in all of those categories, giving you some flexibility as development projects move forward. So as I mentioned, there are changes to a number of the sites and I went through these back when I showed the first slide that summarized program four, program eight, and then program 16 is also being changed. This includes a number of amendments to the zoning ordinance. And there's just some minor amendments along here to continue to address changes to the city's residential commercial zoning districts to address design components, to ensure streamlined ministerial review, to continue to support historic preservation and to continue to support creation of historic design guidelines that would remove governmental constraints and make the sites identified by Program 4 available. And then program 19, as I mentioned, addressing development review procedures, also has some minor revisions, but it would continue to support adoption of the odds to address multifamily development. And it would also revise some zoning code findings to ensure that your findings for approval of residential projects are objective and to limit the number of public hearings. So- On October 1st, we took this item to the city council and the city council held a study session to consider the amended housing element, not to make any decisions on the amended housing element project, but just to provide some initial feedback regarding the approach being taken, the revisions to the sites, and to provide some input on. ideas and methods that we may be able to consider to further refine the sites. The city council listened to a lot of public comment and considered that and providing their direction. And so some of the feedback we heard from the city council revolved around the following issues, looking at site number 84, which is the Martin Luther King Park site, MLK site, looking at how we could maintain the original housing element number of units, which was 80 units as opposed to the increase to 94, or potentially reduce the number of units being proposed at the MLK site. They requested that we look at opportunities to revisit The RHNA process and methodology to eliminate the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the GGNRA area, lands from the RHNA plan analysis. That is not something that can be done at this point. The arena plan has been adopted and there are no opportunities at this point to change it. That's something that for the next cycle, the city could look at getting working with A-Bank earlier in the process to see how they're developing their methodologies and working to refine how Sausalito's numbers are determined and arrived at. The council also discussed working with BCBC to increase liveaboard units from 10 to 15% of the total permitted slips. looking at opportunities to increase the accessory dwelling unit, junior accessory dwelling unit and SB 9 units to accommodate the arena. And the housing element does have pretty Robust assumptions related to the ADU, JDU and SB9 units. So the city's on track to meet its ADU and JD units currently. And then there's not a lot of capacity necessarily to increase SB9 units unless the city were really to see a huge uptick in its proposed SB9 projects. The city council also recommended that opportunities be reviewed to study the Spencer Avenue fire station site and or the city hall site to offset potential reduction in units associated with the MLK site. And also just to look at these sites as potential backup sites in terms of as changes may occur to the housing element site. So just looking at those for opportunities. And then also to consider increases at a number of sites, including site 202, which is the also Mira facility, site 401, which is currently the FedEx offices. And then several sites that have significant parking areas, including site 303, which is the office buildings at one and three Harbor drive. as well as site 72, which is a retail use and site 402, which is some storage and office uses. So looking at opportunities for some increases at those sites. |
| 00:49:01.99 | Beth Thompson | During this process, city staff has worked with HCD to go through and review some of the preliminary feedback HCD has had on the proposed amendments to the housing element. And HCD identified a number of issues and concerns, which is typical of HCD, the California Department of Housing and Community Development. So they did identify concerns that the reduced densities, they wanted more analysis and reasoning of why there are reduced densities in the downtown and waterfront and requesting information substantiate how the proposed changes to the inventory of sites would further the actual creation of multifamily housing. And that's can be easily discussed in terms of looking at the interest on the changes to the sites and interest in property owners on some of the proposed sites, as well as the cities work with the odds to develop some measures to implement development on those sites The HCD was also concerned regarding the potential for the mixed-use overlays that require a minimum of 85% residential that these might constrain development by not making mixed use easy enough. So they wanted to see some more information on how mixed use development would be accommodated on those sites. They identified some concern related to the city's lack of historical conversion of office uses to residential uses and whether the office sites that are included in the inventory are realistic for the proposed multifamily or mixed use development to accommodate the arena. They requested additional analysis to support the proposed increase in capacity at Site 84, the MLK site. And then, City staff, as a result of these discussions, did request that HCD provide their written comments as early as possible. That gives us more time to review those comments and to develop a detailed response to big HCD. likes to see a very detailed response to their comments. And they also, once they see the response may have more questions. So we don't anticipate that our first draft that their response to HCD will necessarily be the final input on the matter, but they will ask some questions and that will end up refining the response to HCD's comments. As I had mentioned, the city's Amended housing element web page has a lot of information regarding the housing element update process and the housing element amendment process and that's accessible through the city's website through the Community Development page. And then with that, I have some detailed information on the changes to each of the sites that are in the housing element. I'm going to pause at this moment and just check in with the commission, see if you want me to go through this site by site, or if you have any questions so far. |
| 00:51:42.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think it would be useful to go through the sites before we ask the question, so why don't you proceed with that? |
| 00:51:49.67 | Beth Thompson | Absolutely. So some of the changes in the housing element are minor. So site 23 located at 10 Reed Lane was modified from housing 49 to housing 29. So this change in reducing the density also just results in a reduction in the proposed unit. So it was adopted to accommodate up to three units. It would now be revised to accommodate up to two units. and it's located here. just off of Bridgeway between Reed and Excelsior. Site 24, which is located on the other side of Excelsior Lane from Site 23, has the same revision. So this was also identified as a Housing 49 site to accommodate up to 49 units per acre. And it's being revised to a Housing 29 site to accommodate up to 29 units per acre. accommodated units would decrease by one unit. Site 39, which is an a compilation of three sites located at Johnson and Humboldt and associated with With the marina use, there's some retail, different retail uses along here. was initially designated as mixed use 49 with allowing up to 15% of that to be non-residential. With the change to the overlay, it would now be a mixed use 29 units per acre. Also, continuing to be mixed use and allowing up to 15% non-residential units. And with this change, it would go from accommodating 24 units to 13 units. So there would be a decrease in the units accommodated at this location. And this site has a number of different zoning designations. And I'll note that it's only this parcel is actually larger, this water |
| 00:53:32.90 | Kristin Teiche | Bye. |
| 00:53:32.95 | Michael Rex | Bye. |
| 00:53:33.08 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 00:53:37.00 | Beth Thompson | parcel, so the waterfront parcel. So this is only the land-based portion of the parcel that the city's counting as part of the site for purposes of accommodating the arena. Site 44, which was initially re-different APNs, has been decreased. And this is primarily because when we recalculated the site under the mixed use 2985 as opposed to the mixed use 49, the two of the parcels no longer would accommodate an increase in units. So initially this was anticipated to accommodate up to five additional units, it would now accommodate one unit under the proposed changes to the RHNA. Site 47, located at 300 Locust, which is just a little south of Dunview Park, was designated also to accommodate the mixed use 4985. And this has been decreased to the mixed use 2985. And one of these changes with the mixed use is, there's a decrease in density. And with that decrease in density, we anticipate a decrease in building height. So we anticipate that in the historic areas and along Bridgeway, views would be maintained and the character of the community, including in those historic areas, the historic character would be better maintained by this reduction in density. And so with this change to this site, it would be decreased from 13 units in the adopted housing element to |
| 00:54:34.98 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah. |
| 00:55:00.24 | Beth Thompson | accommodate 11 units and the proposed draft housing element amendment. And I will note that when I discuss the units that are being accommodated under the amended housing element, this is considered the realistic capacity by HCD. So there's a slightly higher amount of units that could be accommodated if developed at the maximum density, but we're typically looking at development at a lesser portion of that density. where we have some assumptions there that provide some flexibility. Site 55, located on Napa Street, which is what accommodate, it has an existing two units and it was designated for housing 70 and it's being reduced to housing 49. So it goes from accommodating four units to five. And the reason for this increase in capacity is when we apply the minimum number of units under the housing 49, the calculation actually bumped it up. a little bit. with this would accommodate one additional unit than initially anticipated. Site 84, which is the MLK park site, and I will note that Site 84 is not the entire park, but rather it only is a portion of the park, approximately two acres of the park. And so this site There's no change to the proposed designation. It was mixed use 49, 85%, and it will remain that designation, but it is anticipated to accommodate an additional 14 units. So the number of units proposed for the site has increased from 80 units to 94 units. Site 85, which is the one I mentioned along Bridgeway, that's the Caltrans right-of-way is removed from the housing elements, and this had been anticipated for 25 units. It would now no longer be included in the inventory of sites or as an opportunity site. site 201 located at 605 and 613 Bridgeway. as an existing, the real NAPA development, and the site does have a proposed project. This site is currently designated Ms. Ms. Site 207, which is also several parcels located along Bridgeway, This site would also shrink in size in association with the change to the land use designation. The adopted overlay is housing, there's a type of here, it's housing 49 and it would be decreased to housing 29. And with that change, one of the parcels would come off and it would go from accommodating eight units to accommodating a net increase of two units. And there's an existing two units on the parcel. Site 209 located next to the area I just mentioned along Bridgeway. would also be removed from the inventory. And that's because when we change this parcel from housing 49 to housing 29, there would no longer be a potential net increase in units. Site 301, located at Humboldt and Locust, would also be changed from the mixed use 49-85% to mixed use 29-85%. And this change would also reduce the number of units that could be accommodated from 29 to 22. |
| 00:58:44.12 | Beth Thompson | Site 303, which is located at 1 and 3 Harbor Drive, and this is existing office buildings with a large parking area. In the housing element, in the adopted housing element, the site was anticipated to accommodate 90 units. The property owner did indicate they'd be interested in increasing the area of the site dedicated for housing. And so there's the potential to increase the site area and to increase the number of units proposed on the site. So the housing, the amended housing element would accommodate up to 125 units on this site. |
| 00:59:20.77 | Beth Thompson | Site 401 is a new site that's been added to the inventory. This is located at 2400 Bridgeway. This is the FedEx office building. And so this would be proposed to be designated mixed use 29-85% so that existing non-residential unit uses could be continued and a portion or all of the site could be converted to residential uses. So with this change, it would accommodate about 16 units. And then the last new site, site 402, is located at 2680 Bridgeway, so just north of Coloma Street. This is some existing office and storage uses that are located on this parcel. And the housing element does not anticipate forward development of this site, but rather that a portion of the parking area would be able to accommodate housing similar to site 72 and some of the other sites in the adopted housing element. And so that approximately an acre of the full parcel could accommodate housing. And with the application of the housing 49 overlay, this site would accommodate approximately 43 units. And with that, that is the full extent of the changes to the individual sites, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. |
| 01:00:38.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ms. Thompson. Excellent presentation at this point. I will look to commissioners for questions of Ms. Thompson. Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:00:48.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And Beth, thank you so much. Good to see you again. Can you just sort of straight out of the bat here, The numbers that you're quoting for either new sites or revision to sites, those are based on the base zoning. They don't consider any density bonuses. Is that correct? |
| 01:01:11.02 | Beth Thompson | Correct, correct. With HCD, they do not give you credit for those density bonuses, so we have not factored those into the number of units that are being counted for each site. |
| 01:01:20.45 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then I'm still, I mean, forgive me, but I'm very unclear. what the precipitating issue was to trigger a, um, revision to this, uh, housing element. Um, You know, we started on this in spring of 2021. and, We've had I mean countless hundreds of meetings regarding the housing element, so I'm not really clear at this time, why we're revising what we just approved less than a year ago, or well, a little over a year ago. Sorry. Yeah. Almost two years. |
| 01:01:59.75 | Beth Thompson | So there are some several things that precipitated the revisions for the housing element. As part of the housing element implementation, staff has worked closely with HCD. One of HCD's concerns was the Caltrans right of way site, site 85. And they recommended that it be removed since it didn't look like that site was going to come to fruition. So with that site being removed, it gave the city an opportunity to look at the comments received on the draft EIR that was circulated in 2023. There was a lot of concern about heights, about the city character and various changes. So we looked at opportunities to, along the waterfront and in the historic district, to potentially reduce some sites through creating two new overlay districts. So that was the majority of the revisions. And then looking at how those changes could be offset, which was through the MLK site and site 303, as well as identifying a couple of new sites, 401 and 402, to give you a little more flexibility in the event that some of the sites change later in the process or don't yield the number of units that are anticipated. |
| 01:03:08.06 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And I mean, I certainly recognize, what did you call it? Site 85, the Caltrans site. Am I calling it the right number? 80, is it 85? the Caltrans. Yes, that is the Caltrans. I want to make sure that I'm calling it the right thing. |
| 01:03:20.11 | Beth Thompson | Yes, that is the CalTest. |
| 01:03:24.55 | Kristina Feller | Totally accept that, you know, that obviously was was not going to ultimately pan out in Sausalito's favor. But that only was accommodating 25 units and based on a fairly substantial buffer that we already had in the approved and certified housing element from 2023. you know, those units could have been absorbed by the surplus that we had identified. potentially. But what is triggering all these other changes and playing with numbers now? you know, if we already had a surplus there to buffer changes like this or, you know, reality to some of these sites. |
| 01:04:15.87 | Beth Thompson | As I mentioned, the changes are mainly looking at that historic area and looking at opportunities, especially as the city, so the city adopted the housing element, began implementing the housing element, went through the odds process. Yeah. And in response to some of the heights that were being envisioned, just looking at some opportunities, as I mentioned, to decrease heights in the historic area. And so and of course, also using those 25 units from the Caltrans site right at the outset. does make the housing element implementation more challenging. So just looking at some opportunities to offset that. |
| 01:04:49.35 | Kristina Feller | And so, I mean, it sounds like the city's in conversation with HCD. Has there been any kind of legal analysis to risk of modifying other sites that they didn't have problems with? |
| 01:05:04.32 | Beth Thompson | I think there are discussions with HCD and we can, we can, we will get feedback from HCV on the amended housing element. once the city has that feedback, the city can look at what it wants to do in terms of changes to the housing element. |
| 01:05:23.57 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I'm not sure that that answered the question, but I know you're not a lawyer. No, you're probably not the right one to answer it. So I don't want to put you on the spot, Beth. But I do believe that that that very basic thing needs to be answered as as we move forward here. And then you made a point about Um, And I'm looking at the notes I was jotting down as you were speaking, the RENA and the GGNRA. That, I believe, was also part of the appeal that the city issued about, you know, originally with when we were originally given the 724, that number. And so that we were, you know, I would encourage the city or I'm curious to know if the issues regarding the results of sea level rise and bay wave and vulnerability studies of the waterfront are also being considered in those conversations with HCD. It's not just the GGNRA, it's how they calculate actual viable. Building pads, let's call it. |
| 01:06:29.82 | Beth Thompson | And HCD isn't looking at any of that because the arena plan has been adopted and they've approved it. They're not looking at any of that right now. So that really will, |
| 01:06:30.26 | Kristina Feller | the, |
| 01:06:39.17 | Beth Thompson | inform your next seventh cycle numbers. And so I think the city has, at the time that ABAC starts looking for input, the city can pull in all of this information the city's developing as to the feasibility of development and really work to hopefully a much more realistic picture of the potential for Sausalito to actually accommodate new development in the seventh cycle, particularly given what may occur in the sixth, you may have a lot less land remaining following the sixth cycle. |
| 01:07:07.99 | Kristina Feller | Got it. Got it. And then, I mean, I'm sure other questions will come up, but these are just sort of clarifications just to start off here. Again, looking at my notes, so sorry for looking down, but You know, when we were putting the original, you know, the housing element that was certified together. with your assistance and your team, we issued questionnaires across the city. of many, you know, of all property owners, whether it's single family home, commercial, whatever. properties to see if there was voluntary interest, let's say, in, in, um, a site being put on an opportunity list. And so I'm noticing that some of the sites that you've now identified Um, the property owners had declined and specifically stated that they weren't interested they didn't just not answer. They said that they weren't interested. So I'm curious if there's been additional conversation with those property owners to understand. FedEx is an example. Let me just throw that out as one example. have they now magically come back and said that they're interested in putting their site on this opportunity list? |
| 01:08:21.06 | Beth Thompson | They have expressed interest in developing housing on their site. |
| 01:08:21.21 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:08:25.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:08:25.40 | Beth Thompson | When did that happen? I would have to defer to staff, but I believe around May. |
| 01:08:29.92 | Director Phipps | around May. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Beth. Commissioner, we've had multiple discussions with the owners of the FedEx site, as well as their architect, who I believe may be in the house this evening, Mr. Rex, and they have expressed interest clearly to us. And I'd probably say that was enough. We met with them probably in the last three months. |
| 01:08:49.51 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And any other new site, the property owner, there's no site on this list a property owner has not been enthusiastically engaged with the city. I wanna make sure that we're putting sites on there property owners actually are interested in having on a list because that was a big issue the last time around. I just want to be clear that That's the case this time. |
| 01:09:14.22 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:09:16.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:09:16.23 | Beth Thompson | So we haven't received feedback from Site 402 yet. We haven't received a note from Site 402, but they have been reached out to about feedback. We haven't received any feedback yet on that site. But that would be the only other new site, 401 and 402, FedEx, and then that storage office site North of Coloma on Bridgeway. |
| 01:09:34.48 | Kristina Feller | Okay, got it. Well, let me, you know, I've taken up enough airtime here for the moment. Let me give it back to the chair. But eventually I'm going to come back and ask you about some of these programs as well that we didn't get into. Okay. |
| 01:09:46.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Feller, Commissioner Merlin. |
| 01:09:46.53 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:09:46.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:46.77 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:09:50.26 | David Marlatt | Yeah, I'll just ask maybe a few questions and then throw the ball over to my colleagues. One question I have, maybe more for the staff than for Beth, is I'd like to know more about potentially having to re-notice the EIR and missing the December deadline and kind of consequent with that, following up on Commissioner Feller's questions about what has been accepted, do we currently have a certified, accepted, whatever the right terminology is, housing element, notwithstanding the Caltrans site, so that if we did, in the extreme case, if we did nothing except yield on the Caltrans site, would we be in violation of any of our obligations regarding HCD? Does that make sense? |
| 01:10:39.10 | Director Phipps | So I'll just answer, I think just answer the question simply, the city of Sausalito has an adopted and certified housing element in place. And that housing element contains Site-85. |
| 01:10:51.96 | David Marlatt | And if the EIR has to be noticed and therefore cannot be adopted by council by December deadline and voted in March, the odds, which we'll discuss shortly, continues to move on that calendar. the housing element the odds continues to move on its calendar uh being adopted by december but um the housing element main the revised housing element may be on a separate calendar for adoption |
| 01:11:06.77 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 01:11:09.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:11:09.46 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 01:11:25.84 | Director Phipps | We have to adjust our timetable and I'll be providing you with more detailed information as related to those adjustments as I receive new information. |
| 01:11:25.86 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:11:25.89 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:11:25.91 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:11:26.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:26.40 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:11:35.75 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. I'll have other questions too, but I'd like to just give Laura to |
| 01:11:41.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Marlott. We can come back to people. Commissioner Juniors. |
| 01:11:46.73 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. I, too, I want to thank Commissioner Feller for asking all my questions about kind of why we're here, given that it does seem like there's only one change necessary. And I do agree that the city's got a certified and accepted housing element at the moment. So I'm not sure what the rush is to get all this done. Um, A quick question, though, on new site 402. Just the staff or Beth, is that site technically in the marine ship? Is it zoned industrial? |
| 01:12:21.31 | Beth Thompson | Yes, it is. |
| 01:12:23.03 | Andrew Junius | And the same with Site 303 Harbor Drive, that's also in the Marin Ship Zone Industrial. |
| 01:12:27.98 | Director Phipps | Right. |
| 01:12:28.15 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:12:28.16 | Andrew Junius | I'm sorry. |
| 01:12:28.28 | Unknown | All right. |
| 01:12:28.30 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 01:12:28.35 | Unknown | to the next one. |
| 01:12:28.67 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Great. And I'm kind of curious, you know, during the housing element that the planning commission worked, an incredible amount of effort put into, there was a site also in the Marin ship at Marina Plaza. I don't recall the number of that site, but it's, it was taken off. And it's not part of the approved, the approved housing element and doesn't appear to be being reconsidered as we reconsider other sites. Beth, do you remember the number of units in that site? It was at the corner of Marin ship way and testa. |
| 01:13:04.63 | Beth Thompson | I do not remember off the top of my head, but let me, I can pull that up and see if it's in. |
| 01:13:11.41 | Andrew Junius | but it was a multifamily site with I think, you know, a number of units that was not small. |
| 01:13:19.83 | Beth Thompson | Yes, let me just, and we may have merged it with the adjoining sites. So let me just see what I have there. |
| 01:13:31.51 | Andrew Junius | I apologize, I wasn't able to get back through all the old documents before the meeting and answer that question for myself. |
| 01:13:39.83 | Sophia Collier | This is |
| 01:13:49.06 | Andrew Junius | We can answer that later. |
| 01:13:49.90 | Beth Thompson | Okay, site 67, 1.36. So here, let me just do the quick calculation. |
| 01:14:01.67 | Beth Thompson | I would say approximately 170 units. |
| 01:14:05.07 | Andrew Junius | 107 units were at- 170, approximately. Thank you. |
| 01:14:06.43 | Beth Thompson | 177, approximately. |
| 01:14:08.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:09.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you just clarify whether that's 70 or 49 or 29? Well, it wasn't even. No, I know. But just now that we have this new terminology, I'm just curious. I believe it was previously. |
| 01:14:22.76 | Beth Thompson | I believe it was previously... I believe it was previously site 67. |
| 01:14:31.15 | Andrew Junius | Yes, exactly. |
| 01:14:31.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I was asking, was that based on 49? I think that was the standard we were using? Correct. Okay, thanks. |
| 01:14:38.67 | Andrew Junius | And then my only other question, Beth, the program eight with respect to the public property conversion, that's an existing program, and we're just making a tweak because of the Caltrans site? |
| 01:14:48.78 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 01:14:49.64 | Andrew Junius | I kind of assume that that's a general, that's found in a lot of other Marin County housing elements. Yes. |
| 01:14:56.66 | Beth Thompson | Yes, whenever you have any publicly owned sites, you have to have a program that addresses how they'll be made available. |
| 01:15:01.15 | Andrew Junius | is how they'll be made available. Even if you just have one, right? And South Toledo has got a lot of city-owned property. So, okay. Those are my questions for the moment. Thank you. |
| 01:15:05.18 | Beth Thompson | Right. |
| 01:15:05.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:15:12.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Junius. Vice Chair Saad. |
| 01:15:16.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Beth. Thank you to my colleagues for asking a lot of great questions already. Can you clarify for us what our original buffer is, excuse me, was, and what it has now become, just so we can talk straight numbers on the buffer? Thank you. |
| 01:15:34.97 | Beth Thompson | Sure, let me pause that up. |
| 01:15:35.39 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 01:15:37.30 | Beth Thompson | So in the draft amendments to the housing element on program, program four, so in the revised document, it's the second page of the cut sheets of revisions. The initial total capacity for the city was 908 with program four and the adopted housing element, which gave you 184 units of buffer surplus. Your revised, the amendment would increase that capacity by 50 units to 958 units and give you a buffer of 234 units or a 24% buffer. |
| 01:16:16.40 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for that. And then from the staff report, on page seven so it was discussing maintaining or reducing the number of units on mlk which i think there's always been a lot of um public feedback and comment on and that the intent from that city council study session on october 1 was to maintain or reduce but we're saying now in the amended version that site 84 mlk has increased to 94 units right Correct. Okay. I just want to make sure I'm understanding. and, you know, |
| 01:17:00.54 | Beth Thompson | And can I just take one minute to backtrack to site 67 and 68, Marina. Sure. And so what we had identified was for site 67, we had identified 47 units and site 68, which is the adjacent site with the existing office, the Marin Plaza office buildings. We had identified 106 units. So those two combined would have been 153 units, just the banquet parcel was 47 units. So, excuse me. |
| 01:17:31.91 | Kristina Feller | Okay, good. Forgive me, but just Beth, one was one is zoned industrial, one is zoned commercial, right? |
| 01:17:40.06 | Beth Thompson | And I believe those are both zoned industrial, both of those parcels. |
| 01:17:40.25 | Kristina Feller | Exactly. |
| 01:17:45.53 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Sorry, Commissioner Osan. |
| 01:17:48.45 | Nastassya Saad | No problem. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Okay, so just to clarify on, and so in the intent, and you mentioned this as you were speaking, I'm terribly sorry. Do you just mind if we keep it quiet in the chambers so we can all concentrate? In the event, since we have some voter initiative sites, and MLK site is a contentious issue, although I think we're all now understanding, as this process has been going on for so long, that we will have to meet these numbers one way or another. But if we have, if some of the voter initiative sites do not pass, are we then confident in this? Is this buffer, let me ask it this way, is this buffer going to, cover us if an example site like MLK that has so much riding on it does not pass when we have a special vote. Are we in an okay place with this amended element with the increase in buffer, or would there be further concern? Because I have concern on the additional buffer, but I would just like to understand it in the context specifically to site 84% So up to 94 units. |
| 01:19:08.45 | Beth Thompson | So, They're related to site. So the buffer of very low and low income units is not high enough where site, 84 not to not receive voter approval. The city would have to look for some additional capacity. |
| 01:19:28.18 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so our buffer is not going to cover the very low and low. Yeah. |
| 01:19:31.94 | Beth Thompson | not not the site. It was a smaller site than MLK. You would you would be able to absorb some smaller sites not making it. But MLK is a large enough one that the city would need to look at some additional options. |
| 01:19:44.18 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you for clarifying. in the presentation. Site 39, which is the Marin ship Johnson Humboldt, Could you just kindly clarify, because there's, I guess, those three parcels, and- |
| 01:19:58.91 | Kristina Feller | And, |
| 01:20:00.56 | Nastassya Saad | And you mentioned something about the waterfront, that parking lot. Was that not included? I mean, it was for 13 units. But are you saying that those 13 units are then spread out on those more land-based areas? parcels or how does that break out? |
| 01:20:17.45 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:20:17.52 | Nastassya Saad | So, |
| 01:20:18.27 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:20:18.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:20:18.35 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:20:18.42 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:20:18.65 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:20:18.70 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:20:18.84 | Beth Thompson | Yes, that whole site, which is a compilation of three separate parcels, it only looks at the land-based portion of the site. So it's not anticipated that the water-based portion of any of those parcels would be included. that just reduces the actual acreage of each site that we're applying that 29 units per acre too. |
| 01:20:43.27 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you. And I think that's all just for the moment. Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:20:50.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Saad. I have some clarifications based on the questions I have. I have some other comments, but I can bring it back to the dais for those. The first is on the density bonus. You indicated that they would not be counted, but if we didn't change the housing element, it went on as it is now, and somebody builds a density bonus which has twice the density and we add up all the numbers at the end of the eight year period those units will count |
| 01:21:24.38 | Beth Thompson | Yes, those units when when approved will count towards your RHNA, but when we are calculating the capacity of each site and how it theoretically is applied to accommodate the RHNA, we can't proactively count density bonus units before the city has a proposed project with density bonus. |
| 01:21:42.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to be, as we go forward in all this, making it clear to everyone, if a density bonus unit happens, then those units count, not towards this element now, but they do count. |
| 01:21:54.49 | Beth Thompson | Yes, towards achieving your RENA, you'll do an annual report. Those would be included in the annual report as part of your efforts to meet the RENA. |
| 01:21:54.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:22:02.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. I just want to make that clear to the public. The second is about the GGNRA. And when people, at least when I think of the GGNRA, I think of this vast, beautiful area to the south of Sausalito. But most of the GGNRA is not inside the city limit. So when they did all any calculations, there's no way that they even talked about the GGNRA that isn't inside the city limits, correct? |
| 01:22:34.89 | Beth Thompson | Correct. A significant portion of the city's acreage is in the GGNRA. Yes, as a whole, the GGNRA, that is a smaller portion of the overall GGNRA. But when you're looking at the city's land area, it does include a portion of the GGNRA. |
| 01:22:50.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, but it's not the whole, isn't this? No, not the whole GGNRA. The idea that that whole vast area to the south is what they're counting and they're not counting that. So thank you. The third is on this site 85 that needs to be removed. If, to Commissioner Marlott's question, if we did not amend the housing element and it was, it went around as it is now and we got all the units that we needed, but but 85 was not built on because we couldn't. We have a buffer and with 85 taken out, if it if the housing element as is got built, we would have enough. We would still be over the arena. Correct. |
| 01:22:53.73 | Beth Thompson | to generate. |
| 01:23:33.93 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, you would still, with Outside 85, let me just... quickly double check, but I believe you would still, let me just look at the actual numbers here really quickly. |
| 01:23:44.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, to help you, you said there was a buffer of 184 out of 908. |
| 01:23:48.53 | Beth Thompson | Right, so we're with the- |
| 01:23:49.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens |
| 01:23:51.84 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, 14 and seven. So with the adopted housing element and not the buffer, the 184 buffer, yes, there would be enough. So yeah, site 85 goes away. You do have enough buffer with the adopted sites. Thank you. |
| 01:24:04.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So 85 itself isn't a reason to amend the, if the only issue out there was site 85, that would not be a reason to amend the housing element. That was the only point I make. That was the only issue. We wouldn't need to amend the housing element because one site by Caltrans got not be able to be built. |
| 01:24:28.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 01:24:28.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:28.17 | Beth Thompson | Right, you could move forward. |
| 01:24:28.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:28.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can... |
| 01:24:29.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:29.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I admit. |
| 01:24:31.09 | Beth Thompson | with the housing element. However, I will note that the EIR prepared for the housing element does address the housing element as the amendments are proposed. But yes, you're adopted housing element and certified. you have enough buffer. |
| 01:24:45.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. I just don't want anybody to think that this one Caltrans site is the reason we're doing this. The last is to clarify on Vice Chair Saad's question. What you showed us for those three sites, when you said all three are in, that when you showed that, even though one of the boxes was blue, it's blue because it's zoned for waterfront. It's not blue because it's in the water there is other areas next to that that's in the water that was originally considered but what was shown on that map that is a parking lot i just go make that aware for the public so uh at that point this is those are the questions i have now i have some comments but we'll state it later yeah there are other questions to commissioners vice chair junior i mean commissioner junior says hand was up first so |
| 01:25:33.98 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. Just a follow up. Commissioner Saad, I thought, raised an interesting question. I just like clarified for the public and for the record, whether it's the city attorney or Beth, the reference to the MLK site and then any other sites. Is the MLK site the only one that has to go to the ballot? And can we just get a quick explanation as to why MLK and any other sites are going to be voted on as opposed to acted on by the city council? |
| 01:25:59.75 | Beth Thompson | Absolutely. So you have two ballot measures in Sausalito that have resulted in, you have two adopted ordinances in Sausalito that require specific sites to go to a vote of the people. You have ordinance 1128. This addresses the city's parking lots and park sites, including the MLT site. |
| 01:26:12.84 | Kristin Teiche | You have. |
| 01:26:21.38 | Beth Thompson | the MLK site to be designated for a residential use and not to be used for parks and recreation purposes or the existing non-residential uses, you would have to get the approval of the the electorate, so that's ordinance 1120 Then separately you have the Fair Traffic Initiative or Ordinance 1022 and that constrains increases in density floor area ratio and various development standards for a number of non-residential sites. And so that would affect your sites that are designated industrial. I believe that would affect your community commercial neighborhood or the CN sites that commercial waterfront, waterfront, So you have a number of sites that also would be restricted by that separate Ordinance 1022. So those two ordinances would each result, each of those ordinances would result in sites that are constrained by those ordinances needing to go to a vote, and needing to be on a ballot measure. |
| 01:27:22.40 | Andrew Junius | Really appreciate that. Thank you, Beth. |
| 01:27:25.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner, |
| 01:27:26.01 | Andrew Junius | fellow. |
| 01:27:26.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:27:27.67 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Junis, for asking that clarifying question. That was helpful. Um, Beth, if you could just kind of walk us through the programs. We didn't really... get into some of the detail. And before we move to public comment, I want to make sure the public hears some of that explanation. So if that changes or Um, triggers them to want to make public comment that they have that information in front of them as well. So we were talking about program four, eight and 19, I believe. Or are there others? |
| 01:28:00.77 | Beth Thompson | I'll just go through, I'm just going to actually not go through my PowerPoint, but just go through the housing element, the amendments itself, and quickly just cover those changes. So, Program 4 is revised to include the new Housing 29 and Mixed Use 29, 85% overlays. So, it includes two new overlays, and it reflects the changes to the inventory of the opportunity sites that I discussed. So the changes to program 4 are to change the number of units counted for those opportunity sites based on the changes proposed to the sites. So that's the primary change to Table 1 of Program 4. Table 2 of Program 4 identifies the timeline for the election or for the ballot measures for the MLK site and the sites constrained by the Fair Traffic Initiative. And so that's also been revised to be a timeline that's more realistic and achievable by the city. So looking at going to a special election in March or November of 2025, as opposed to November of 2024. Yeah. So that's the change to program four and then Program 4 also specifies the acres that would be required to be rezoned for each of the overlays, but those acres just correlate to the sites that we had identified. Program eight, which addresses the public property conversion to housing is revised to remove the CalTrans site. So that it continues to have the same language for the city to declare the city own site surplus to work with the school district and then the CalTrans site is deleted from program eight. Program 19 looks at the development procedures, so reviewing the city's procedures to accommodate development. So this addresses the odds. It looks at creating a pathway for the multifamily projects through the odds. It also revises some of the language. There was a lot of information about how how the process would be streamlined and it refines that language to be more specific as to what the odds are intended to do in terms of accommodating multifamily development at the specific densities envisioned by the general plan so we could have a program for us. So it provides a more specific discussion of what the odds are intended to do And then it also ensures that the city provides an alternative pathway to the odds. So it includes language that the city will also maintain its existing discretionary procedures so that you have the odds and your discretionary pathways and developers where applicants can choose which of the paths they wish to take It includes language to, um, prepare a or establish a permit tracking database this year that would help to track projects in the city. Provide some more specifics regarding the timing of the odds. And then also providing for annual review of the city's processing procedures. So those are the main changes. to program 19. |
| 01:31:04.31 | Kristina Feller | And does 19 also include language about our approved development agreements or make any amendments to those? |
| 01:31:13.42 | Beth Thompson | that you're approved, so existing development agreements that are in place. |
| 01:31:17.76 | Kristina Feller | We do. Well, we have a tool, a development agreement tool. Um, I just, I'm asking if this program addresses it or tries to modify it. |
| 01:31:30.45 | Beth Thompson | I don't believe so. I'm just quickly searching for the words development. |
| 01:31:34.30 | Director Phipps | I'll time it on that one. No, I don't believe that that program intends to modify that section that currently exists in our code. |
| 01:31:44.86 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you, director. And then just, you know, I'm curious about this. You know, we have an approved EIR for the general plan. which theoretically was not really that long ago. Obviously the housing element, is considered part of the general plan, although it's, you know, on a different cycle. um The EIR that is being that is circulated or will be recirculated, whatever might happen. Um, How does that? incorporate the existing and approved EIR. |
| 01:32:26.98 | Beth Thompson | So we looked at a lot of the analysis prepared for the general plan EIR, but because the housing element significantly increases the capacity of the city to accommodate development, we really analyzed a lot of that in use. So a lot of times if you have a housing element that just has minor modifications to your general plan, you would really look at doing like a subsequent or supplemental EIR that just refines the analysis of the general plan specific to those sites. But because there's such an increase, we had to look at every single environmental topic. So it's basically a separate program EIR that uses a lot of the analysis and the general plan EIR, but also expands upon that to the extent necessary. |
| 01:33:07.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you for that clarification. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:33:17.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Additional questions of commissioners, Commissioner Marlott. |
| 01:33:21.92 | David Marlatt | Just one kind of clarifying question. Something that came up, I guess, at the city council session. And just want to clarify that the recommended number of units per site is based on a kind of a And I don't know about my question is, what kind of analysis? It's just understanding what could fit. Because in most cases, if you apply the densities of 49, 29, what have you, there's a significantly larger number of potential units. And a developer actually has the right to go to that full potential. That's correct. Not simply, notwithstanding building codes, but not simply stop at the recommended. So a 13 unit envisaged site may be 26 units or whatever the FAR, and then of course beyond with waivers. |
| 01:34:08.47 | Beth Thompson | Is that correct? So yes, you can develop a larger number of units under the maximum density than you take credit for and the analysis of the opportunity sites. And that is because HCD requires that we look at something called realistic capacity. typically that's based on past performance. The city has not had a lot of single family or multifamily development over the past 10 or 15 years. So there's not a lot of, historical development trends in the city that show that the city has been improving projects that are at 100% of capacity. And HCV just does not like to see assumptions that you're going to develop at 100% of capacity unless you have recent data that supports that. So we typically look at either 80% of capacity or we look at the minimum density that would be required. So for example, the housing 49 category requires a minimum of 43 units per acre. So we know that when those sites are developed, you would get at least 43 units. So the housing element takes credit for that 43. One of the items we talked about with when this went to the city council for their study session, this is probably what you're referring to, would be to include language in the housing element that identifies the maximum units allowed under the density. So where we have like the housing 49, what would be the maximum units allowed under that 49 unit per acre, as well as the realistic capacity? |
| 01:35:39.32 | David Marlatt | Thank you. And as I said, one last question. Maybe it's for Director Phipps. What's being proposed also requires some substantial changes to our Title X zoning. In particular, I'm thinking about putting some meat on the bones of the HOS zoning with respect to FAR's building coverage and so forth. What's the timeline? Does that also have to come back to the Planning Commission and then the Council? And does that need to kind of all happen quickly and together? Is there a timeline or a plan for that? |
| 01:36:08.21 | Director Phipps | As mentioned, we do have a timeline that has been set. However, as mentioned, that timeline may slip or it may change, and I will be providing you that information as I receive it. |
| 01:36:22.87 | David Marlatt | Okay, but we should anticipate simultaneously with adopting whatever is adopted with the housing element revisions, also adopting some changes to Title X. |
| 01:36:31.97 | Director Phipps | at the end. |
| 01:36:32.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:36:32.09 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. |
| 01:36:33.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:36:34.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Marla. A follow-up question on the densities. The maximum for the 49 unit per acre is basically 49, not counting any density bonuses or anything like that. But if realistic is 43, and that's what we're using, and we use an overlay zone, and we're going to be talking about that in the next item with the odds, and it's what we're using and we use an overlay zone and we're going to be talking about that in the next item with the odds and it's at 49 the most units they can have is 49 unless they're allowed some bonus but for the the zoning is going to have a number in it is what i'm saying that defines uh you know uh would be defining it at 49 as opposed to 43 |
| 01:37:21.77 | Beth Thompson | The zoning will identify the minimum required and the maximum allowed density for each of those new overlay designations. So yes, the amendments to Title X will specify what the density is for each of the new overlay designations. |
| 01:37:35.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks. Okay, I just want to make sure there was no parameters. There are parameters. There will be, yes. |
| 01:37:40.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:41.01 | Beth Thompson | There will be, yes. |
| 01:37:41.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Other questions? Vice Chair Saad. |
| 01:37:47.25 | Nastassya Saad | I just have one note and to Director Phipps' comment just now with potential changing dates, but on page four of the draft housing element with the tracked changes, I just think we have our dates. I think we need to make a correction. The housing element was adopted January 2023 is correct. And then the next section below, preparation use elements it's quoting 2025 and I think you just I think we mean to just call out 2024 so I'll just have somebody maybe check that but it's page four of the draft housing element in the anticipated date section We'll say go with it, bye. |
| 01:38:34.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Saad. Any other questions from the commission at this time? So, yes, Commissioner Felic. |
| 01:38:42.97 | Kristina Feller | I'm just still waiting to hear if we have any kind of legal analysis here in terms of risk, in term, amending. amending our certified and approved housing element to this extent, if this is only being triggered by site 85 so i'd like to understand that better. |
| 01:39:08.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Ms. Otto, if you could come on and thank you. |
| 01:39:13.16 | Ms. Otto | as as outlined in this, beautiful presentation there's more than just the one site that's being done this is a cumulative on how the city is now through analysis decided to try and address some changes that they wanted to make after the adoption of the housing element. as to risk and, uh, all of those issues I'd like to wait on addressing those. Right now we're simply doing a study session. There's no decision that's before the planning commission right now. So I don't know that that, is something that we need to discuss at this moment. |
| 01:39:55.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for that. Our consultant told us that this was sort of being triggered by that Site-85 was no longer an option. Although we've also confirmed that we have enough buffer should that need to come off. I come back to the same question of sort of why we're here. You know, if we have a certified and approved housing element, then I'm a little unclear. Because, you know, this was not an easy task and, you know, this community spent hours and hours as well as, you know, commissioners and city council members, reading information and weighing in and making their voices known. And so we seem to be kind of regressing backwards and I wasn't clear why. And so I wanted to understand what some of those risks really are. even if it's a study session, I want to know what, what, what we're dealing with and why we're here. |
| 01:40:56.91 | Ms. Otto | Why we're here is the The staff and based off the recommendations of staff, the city attorney's office and the consultant, these are the recommendations to modify and the housing element. for to the benefit of the city and to try and actually address our RHNA numbers and trying to make this a workable document that will satisfy both the community and the state. and get us to that place where we will be able to move forward in a positive way for housing. |
| 01:41:34.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner, additional questions at this time? Not at this time. We're moving to the section where we bring it back to the dais. Yeah. |
| 01:41:38.44 | Kristina Feller | Not at this time. Yeah. Yeah, let's move on and get some public comment then, Chair. I'm with you. |
| 01:41:49.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. Thank you. uh given seeing no more questions of uh of the commissioners of staff at this time we're going to go to uh the public uh comment section of this agenda there are signature there are cards to fill out if you want to speak and you'll if you want on zoom you need to raise your hand and director fix will explain this we've got extensive written comments from lots of people including some some of the people in the audience. We have all those comments. We get them all. So they not only go to the staff, they go to each of us individually. So I want you to be aware of that. Some of those comments are honestly somewhat repetitive. They're saying exactly the same words from multiple people. So if you come up to this evening, given the number of people in the room, you'll have three minutes to speak to whatever you want to. But if somebody said exactly what you want to say, just say, I concur with so-and-so or something. We don't need a reiteration of the same words. We're fully aware of the concepts in that regard. With that, Director Phipps, if you could explain the process here. |
| 01:43:00.64 | Director Phipps | 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. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine and each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. With that, I'll start with speaker cards. I have Justine Kahn as the first speaker. Justine, welcome. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:43:31.16 | Justine Kahn | Hello, thank you, Commission, for being here. I want to first say that I really appreciate all the work that you guys have done on the housing element. I am a business owner here in Sausalito and a parent. I live next to MLK Park. I also have a business that's located inside Um, one of the, um, housing elements, um, areas to build in. And I have a couple of comments. One of them is, Truly, you know, I'm not against increasing housing in Sausalito, but we have so few green spaces. And as a parent, my child also goes to school at the New Village, which is inside MLK Park. I urge the committee to come together to find another solution. It sounds like there are plenty of spaces that are still available for adding to this plan, including the space that is, I believe it's called Marina Plaza. That space is slotted, site number 67, for 170 units, as we just heard. That would alleviate the pressure on MLK Park. I'm already going to have to move my business. I prefer to keep the green space if I can, and will do everything in my power inside my community to advocate for that. There is a growing number of people that surround the park that are concerned with the public's or with this commission's desire to place housing in the park when there are plenty of other spaces to place housing. There's not enough parking around MLK Park. That is already an issue for my family and the families that live around the park. It seems like There are a massive amount of housing being placed In the north part of Sausalito, I counted that at the site 300 Locust Street, there's only 11 units on half an acre. On a full acre on the Coloma Street at 2861, there's 43 units. That just doesn't make sense. I also have a space that I lease over at that 300 area of Locust Street. So I'm well aware of that area and it would not obscure the waterfront. more than the housing across the street. So I don't see why they have placed such a small amount closer to town other than you know, politics and really the north side of town is getting the brunt of it. I urge you guys to think of a more equal housing element that spreads out the load throughout Sausalito. Thank you so much. |
| 01:46:34.85 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. |
| 01:46:38.86 | Director Phipps | Next speaker is Jane Johnson. Shane, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:46:46.62 | Jan Johnson | Hi, thank you. I'm confused a bit about Measure F and the certificates of participation and how putting housing on the site affects that since I don't think we've paid them off. And in addition to 1128, you need the vote, but how can you get rid of paying businesses in the site when you need that money to pay off the parks measure F. So I'm totally confused about that. To avoid coming back, please... accept the odds and please preserve our views for which we've all labored our entire lives to pay for. And please maintain the height limits that make for a civil society. And again, if you're going to put 700 more units in, that's 1400 more people, potentially 2100 more people or up. We need the green space for recreation and for the children. Thank you. |
| 01:48:04.33 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Fahri. All right, come on down. You'll have three minutes to speak. Thank you for being here. |
| 01:48:16.59 | Fahri | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. I'm a property owner in the MFP region, and my concern is both for preserving green space and public safety during emergencies in that area. I have two main points, and basically they revolve around, as I mentioned, Site 84 or MLK. It seems like... Site 402 is very closely associated with 84, almost across the street from Site 84. 84 and 402 are very closely associated. So we are talking about actually putting about 120 over 120 some units in the MLK area. So it's not really a reduction. of 84 units of the current units, it's more of an increase with inclusion of site 402. which, you know, which, the community should become aware of. The second point that I want to bring up is that it's really, I do hear the talk about the requirements for 728 units approved by HCD. but I really don't hear a coherent plan on how to get that number corrected and amended based on inclusions of sea level rise and inclusion of part of GGNRA acreage in that. So could you please develop a plan or let us know of the plan that you have about how to revise that unit and propose another plan? another appeal to HCD for this revision. That's all, and thank you for your time. |
| 01:50:35.33 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Ayumi. Ayemi, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:50:46.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a note, please make sure you speak into the microphone because the people at home won't be able to hear. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:50:52.81 | Ayumi Nishi | Hello, my name is Ayumi Nishi. I have been living in South Sarito for the last 22 years. I have a strong concern about the proposal of the housing element in the MLK Park. I live on Lincoln Drive and they share the same concerns who spoke at the last meeting, as well as tonight. I also read the comments posted on the city website. I strongly agree with the ones submitted by Jennifer and Stacy Nemo. I am not repeating those great reasons they presented, but I want to mention a couple of things tonight. First, I assume the whole housing elements and the mandates from the states based on the DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, It is so ironic that if we push through the low income housing on the north side, we are creating the very problem, very problem of what the AI wants to solve. the affluent South Sausalito versus this affluent average or below average North Sausalito. The massive number of units in the MLK park would cause a further divide inside of the source a little. Second, What would happen if California decides to put illegal immigrants on those low-income housing? With current open border situation, millions of migrants are pouring into the country without proper background check or reviews. This could be more than a hypothetical question. In fact, in the state of Maine, They put illegal immigrants in a low-income housing site that was originally built for American citizens. The similar situation could happen here. how the city of South Surito will be granted for us. I'm not opposing a reasonably sized housing projects for teachers, firefighters, seniors. veterans, essential workers, so forth. But the current idea of the large scale housing on the MLK Park and also North side is very risky. Thank you. |
| 01:53:07.95 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Steven Woodside. Steven, welcome. And you will have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:53:20.06 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, commissioners. I very much appreciate the tough spot that we're all in because under the pressure from the state to build so many units in such a short period of time, I think it's really, really stressful for everybody. Having said that, I think we should talk, though, a little bit about the number. From a cycle where we were required before to build, what, or hopefully plan for 79 units, it's now almost 10 times that much. It just doesn't pass the smell test. And it's not too late, it's never too late to go back and to suggest to ABAG and others that the number is too high for all the reasons that were put forward in a 40 page appeal long ago that didn't succeed, but there's really never been a response. Satisfactory to my way of thinking as to why |
| 01:53:20.47 | Kristin Teiche | I mean, |
| 01:53:39.77 | Kristin Teiche | I'm sorry. |
| 01:54:04.84 | Steven Woodside | the numbers that we criticized or the council criticized as being too high, why those arguments weren't accepted. Part of it, a little bit of the GGNRA where we can't build. Part of it, sea level rise, which makes... some sites perhaps very problematic and so forth. But anyway, having said that, The numbers also, I think, are driving... Um, us to question the process whereby We're we're looking at the number. more than the appropriateness of the site. So you've heard people criticize MLK. Let's also talk about the historic district. It was a mistake. to put anything in the historic district. The numbers was not that large. It should have been reversed. You do have a surplus, speaking of numbers, and it should be reversed as quickly as possible. This has been said before to the council. I say it now to you because it's simply too many in that site. It should be zero in the historic site. |
| 01:55:04.82 | Kristin Teiche | in. |
| 01:55:09.65 | Steven Woodside | Anyway, having said that, going to the CEQA process that we're in right now, um, I hear something very disturbing. It may have to be recirculated. And the success of this housing element depends in large part on a successful vote of the people at some point. And now it looks like you're going to be reduced to one chance in November of next year. That's really tough because given the level of opposition to some of these sites, it's going to be very difficult to get an affirmative vote. I think that's just a practical reality. that we're all, I think, troubled by at this point. So unless these things get sorted out and the numbers made more manageable, and particularly the sensitive sites you've heard about tonight, MLK and historic, unless you deal with those, promptly, the whole thing is in danger and at great risk. I think Commissioner Feller is wise to question Are we at risk even now? But will the risk be even greater if we don't act properly at this point? Thank you. |
| 01:56:16.44 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Woodside, for your comments. Next speaker is Michael Rex. Michael Rex, come on down. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:56:27.34 | Director Phipps | Calling again for Michael Rex. Now you'll have two minutes and 50 seconds. Just joking. Three minutes. Welcome. |
| 01:56:34.79 | Michael Rex | Thank you. Michael Rex local architect. We're here to improve the housing element that was adopted. to reduce the mass on potential sites so they have less negative impact. I want to suggest, and I'll do it as quickly as I can, a number of additional revisions and programs I'd like you to consider. Spread out the units. We need it so it's more equitable. including south of Harbor Drive and the Marin ship, including Marina Plaza, Please look at the 2008 WAM report that shows housing and where it belongs in the Marin ship. identify and include Senate Bill 9 opportunities for greater density in the AR zones throughout town on big lots and promote ADUs and junior ADUs. Be proactive, reach out and collaborate with property owners and developers now. Use the proposed odds and ESRI model and view sync. That's proposed tonight. to model potential projects and opportunity sites and other sites where development could occur. create incentives to reduce masks. by providing subsidies and waiving development rights and other incentives to developers. We found this can work very well. Elsewhere, use LOIs leading to development agreements to better negotiate with property owners and developers and provide greater surety of what we'll get. So we're at the table. Add more publicly owned properties, including behind City Hall and up at the top of Spencer. Those sites should have never been rejected. Thank you. Reach out to nonprofits such as EAH, Rotary Housing, Spirit Housing. to focus on housing for seniors, workers, fire and police, city personnel and teachers. increase inclusionary percentage for affordable units above what we have now, and a greater percentage would go to lower-income earners, not moderate-income earners. consider adopting an expanding radius From Sausalito. So housing goes first to those who live and work nearby. This is legal. There's no reason not to consider it. establish a group of architects, legal and financial experts, Uh, uh, to assess a lack claimed of financial feasibility in unfeasibility. that developers use to justify density bonuses. If they won't produce the numbers, we need a group who will. encourage BCDC to increase the limit on 10% live aboards, and even consider new arcs on both public and private underwater land. all of these will help spread out the units and reduce the mass on specific units. Thank you. |
| 01:59:26.07 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Rex, for your comments. Next speaker is Tom Hoover. Tom, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. Thank you for being here. |
| 01:59:38.84 | Tom Hoover | See, the best way to do this is I immediately want to concur with one of the things that Michael Rex just said, and that is to work with BCDC to raise the number of liveaboards that will be low income. Like I live in Galilee Harbor, so I know something about that. And so that's something that should be looked into. And that'll require more propaganda than just yourselves. The other one is that I wanted to agree with Mr. Woodside about the historic district. I've lived here and worked here for 55 years. I helped create the historic district and document it. |
| 02:00:17.16 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 02:00:23.68 | Tom Hoover | I think that there may be places where there could be residential. But like, for example, there is a very specific project coming up, which is just a horror. And geologically, as well as geographically, is an assault on the historic district. And so I think that that needs to be opposed. And if anything at all were built on that site, every single unit should be low income, no big international plutocratic rich people, and a couple of token poor people. And so that's basically what I wanted to concur with. So thank you. |
| 02:01:02.20 | Kristin Teiche | you know. |
| 02:01:12.82 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. The first raised hand I see is that of Bonnie McGregor. Bonnie, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:01:30.57 | Bonnie McGregor | I'm mute. I tried that earlier and I said, no. Good evening. Yes. Start your video. trying to do things and trying to speak at the same time. It's not easy. Okay, thank you for letting me speak. And I don't have a great deal to say because a lot of it goes to probably before where we are right now tonight and things that kind of bug me. I one question is not even philosophical, but it is a question I want to ask. I'm getting very more and more concerned about why the city is always acquiescing with a question to every demand that some state of level of government above city is requiring. They're taking over our city, they're taking over a lot of everything else. And here they are now telling us how to run our city. Do they understand how many cliffs and things we have here? We don't have a flat land like Plano, Texas or someplace like that. We can only do so much. And another thing I wanted was the traffic impact of adding all these places ever considered. If you look at most places now, every person here has a car. So you're gonna add, Well, if you've got, what, 700 units, you've got 1,400 people. |
| 02:02:42.93 | Robert Brown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:45.51 | Bonnie McGregor | That's 1,400 more cars out running around the city. Let's say, let's reduce it to 13, five. If some people are always gonna take the bus. I take the bus whenever I have a parking place. It's that difficult. to park that I pay for parking in my area. So these are things that I wonder, you know, how much was really put into these aspects are put into this uh, housing plan or the revisions of it. Also, how long is that buffer going to last? This strikes me as being a little bit like blackmail. You give them so much. This is what they demand. So you give it to them. And then a few years down the road, they come on. They want more and more and more. Where does it stop? And for how long does it stop? Thank you very much. |
| 02:03:30.74 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Looking at the next speaker, that is Babette McDougall. Babette, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:03:41.57 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. Can you hear me all right? |
| 02:03:44.57 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 02:03:46.08 | Babette McDougall | So, Let me just say that I kind of feel your pain, Planning Commission. That's why I made it a point to sit in on tonight's meeting. It's very rare. I've been in Sausalito a long time myself, since the 80s. And it's very rare for something to move out of the planning commission up to the city council and then get kicked back to the planning commission, as you now have before you. There are some big picture problems here. I've been in constant contact with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. I think it's very quaint of our consultant to speak about a bag because we all know a bag really doesn't exist anymore. But the point is this. We have been taken over by a large regional agency that does have designs on Sausalito. My personal concern. is why we're here. We're here because we still have open shoreline We still have open water. And we still have open parcels of land that connect the shoreline, the water, the people from the land. And I think these are all elements that are worth protecting with life if necessary. Initially, this idea of Dunphy Park being built out. |
| 02:04:44.60 | Kristin Teiche | the list. |
| 02:04:44.85 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:04:44.97 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 02:04:54.12 | Babette McDougall | when there was a big, huge 300 plus berth and four office buildings down at what we now called Bridgeway Marina, used to be called Sausalito Marine. Well, the citizens managed to defeat that whole thing, raise some money to help buy these parcels. And then I heard from Stephanie Moulton-Peter's office, Well, the city never pulled the trigger. That's why all of those parcels didn't get collapsed in Tendonfee Park. |
| 02:05:16.44 | Kristin Teiche | and then, |
| 02:05:18.10 | Babette McDougall | This is a problem. We have a problem of not really know how to take this beautiful personality of Sausalito that longtime people adore that newcomers move here for. And now everybody's ready to bugger it because they can't wait to have 10 story buildings up and down Bridgeway. This just strikes me as odd. How in the world do you think Sausalito's personality can survive? So this coming back to the Planning Commission to me is actually kind of good news. because the planning commission is where the rubber hits the road on these kinds of projects. And I do concur that we really need to continue fighting this big number It's not over until the fat lady sings, and I haven't heard any singing in a long time. So I think it's still something that needs to be fought. They have tried to push it aside, acknowledging that their whole premise is fabricated on false data, the Plan 2050, totally inaccurate data. And yet they're pushing forward anyway. And I'm just urging you to just get your backs up. We really do need to fight this to the bitter end because it will fundamentally irreparably change the character and nature of this. Town of ours, and as some have pointed out in their letters, make a huge negative impact on property values. So those of us that were planning on having these real estate values hold market fair, Well, we might just have to rethink that. I know lots of people who have already sold and left in anticipation of this. |
| 02:06:45.97 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Babette, for your comments. Next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker. Sandra, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:06:55.47 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening. Good evening, Planning Commissioners. It's good to be here tonight. Well, I share Commissioner Feller's concern about why we're amending our housing element when we just adopted it not that long ago. So I would urge that we do minimize any dickering with the adopted and certified housing element. That adoption and certification helped us Avoid the builder's remedy. However, if we I remain concerned that if we do too much dickering with the housing element, that we may have some exposure. I did read the appeal that the city filed and they did raise all the issues that some members of the public have raised. And the BCDC, excuse me, Yeah, BCDC at that point rejected it outright and they gave no reason. It was just outright rejected along with many other communities in Marin County and who were fighting the uh, RENA numbers. I agree that the RENA numbers are arbitrary and capricious and downstream. We should, uh, take action on those. With regard to adding any sites, I really have problem adding some of the sites Other than the two that were mentioned, particularly the Carvana or Cartelagent site, I think is a good one because it's along a transportation corridor. But any other sites, at this point, reduces the number of sites that are available to us for the next go-round. And. We have so many issues to deal with. I would just like to see our housing element as it was approved 5-0 by this city council. on time and certified by the state implemented. Thank you. |
| 02:08:47.50 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Sandra, for your comments. Looking to the Zoom application for final raised hands. Going once, going twice, and closed. Back to you, Chair. |
| 02:09:02.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. At this point, we're closing the public comments on this study session item. We bring it back up to the dais. I know we'll look for, we're not taking any formal action, but thoughts and whatever to give direction to our consultants and to the council is useful. So at this point, who would like to start? Commissioner Marlott. |
| 02:09:32.17 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. Well, I'd just like to just kind of piggyback on some of the public comments, but also Commissioner Feller. And I know we don't have the answer here tonight, but encourage staff and our consultants to maybe come back to us to help us understand, does the potential of this revised housing element and potentially not being accepted by HCD expose us to any kind of issues with decertifying or revisiting what has already been the adopted housing element. So are we risking something by going down this road? And that kind of couples with some of the comments we heard and Mr. Rex in particular, that if that's the case, and if, you know, with this engagement we're receiving, maybe this is an opportunity to step back, accept that the current housing element, minus Caltrans, is the law of the land, so to speak, and take this opportunity to really rethink in a more fundamental way what the next revision really should be. I think it's a good thing. |
| 02:10:35.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Merlot. Um, let's see. I'm seeing Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:10:43.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Marlott. for your comments there. I also really wanna thank the public that wrote in. We got a significant amount of public comments I can see here on the camera that there's a full audience. So thank you everybody for taking the time out of your Wednesday nights to come in and discuss this. a very critical issue for our community and something that should not be taken lightly or we should not be cavalier about. But I go back to the fact that this Planning Commission and the City Council both approved the housing element 5-0, 5-0 for the Commission, 5-0 for the City Council. That does not necessarily mean that there's absolute perfection here. And I certainly would not try to peddle that. But it seems to me that the real culprit with triggering any kind of changes is that site 85 for the most part, and I'm not sure that that this revised housing element has any strategy whatsoever. I don't know why it would be a good strategy to show so much more in surplus than we had previously Plus modifying all these sites. I mean, if I were HCD, that would tell me that 724 units wasn't enough. So I'm really curious what the strategy is here. I want to talk, I want to share with the commission, you know, these comments about MLK You know, we really agonized significantly over MLK originally. And again, I mean, perfection is a little bit of an illusion as it relates to something like this. So I know it's not going to make everybody happy. But again, I'm not really clear why we are increasing the units as much as we are. We really whittled down and carved out the area that we did for the what I'll call it the certified housing element. And and again, I don't know why we're poking the bear here for only another 14 units. I think there could be a better strategy and I'm not sure why we need an additional 14 there, unless it's solely to compensate for the 25 or part part of the 25 that we're losing on site 85. I want to be also pretty clear that The. Spencer Firehouse, was Adjudicated in the public a thousand times. And we had so many comments and opposition over that. not to mention We went to painstaking efforts to model a potential, you know, potential options for development up there and consider different things. um, with the constraints that are on that site as it relates to the title. I'm not talking about the topography or anything like that. I'm talking about the title. So I don't know why that's even being considered again. That is not a good use of resources, volunteer or otherwise. Um, So I don't I think we are I think we're lacking a strategy here and I don't want to start fiddling with a certified and approved unanimously housing element If there isn't a real significant reason to do it, particularly with the status of the EIR as it may or may not stand at this time. So I, I, I'm still not really clear why we're here looking at this amendment. |
| 02:14:42.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Vice Chair Sao, Commissioner Junius. |
| 02:14:48.96 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. You know, obviously this is really the issue of our time here for not just Alcalino and Marin County, but all of California. whether we like it or not, there are state laws that we need to be attempting to comply with. know and this is this is probably the first of many years of discussion and hearings and changes and projects and uh votes um i personally think it's pretty it's unfortunate that salsa lito was saddled with these two older ordinances 11 28 and 10 22. it just makes a hard problem so much harder to try to figure out how we're going to deal with uh the state requirements it's endlessly complex. We could be debating this forever. I am, I, to some extent, agree. I, I think the answer, nobody really wants to say it, but I'm just going to say it. I think the answer to why we're here again is because enough people didn't like what we came up with the first time. And, you know, I mean, we, you know, Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Saad devoted endless hours and meetings to the first plan. And here we are not two years later trying to change it. So, but that's the way the process works. And, you know, we're... here to do the people's work. So we're going to do it. Um, I'm also, you know, the risk question I think is an interesting one. I personally. Don't believe there's an enormous amount of risk in that everybody keeps saying, and it's true, we have an adopted housing element HCD is, is questioning a few things. I don't think they're serious questions that worry me a great deal. There is gonna be delay. Obviously there is more expense, Beth and her team, and it continues to burden staff endlessly while we try to keep redoing this a second time. But honestly, while we're here, I'm not gonna deny, if we're gonna make a change, let's make some changes. I think there were a few public comments and a number of letters You know, if we're if we're the marine ship is an is a third rail issue for Sausalito. I completely get that. But. There's two sites that are, you know, we talked about and confirmed that are in the Marinship that are proposed for some housing. There was a third site. that I referenced and it's number, I think it's number 67. at Marina Plaza, that site should go back in at this point, clearly. And especially if both that site and the other Marineship sites and the MLK site and frankly probably other sites that we don't, you know, I haven't even seen the complete list of what we're going to vote on and what we're not, we probably should have a lot more sites. and get the buffer as big as possible, frankly, because God only knows how this vote's gonna turn out. And I don't even, I really, you know, that's gonna be fascinating to see how that's even presented to the voters. So, you know, and other things to consider, you know, the Marina plot, the, the, um, the MLK sites is a city piece of property. Not only does it have to go to a vote, then somebody that wants to buy it and build on it has got to, you know, do a deal with the city, which is very different from doing a deal with a real estate deal with a private party. So there's again, endlessly complex. Um, but I don't think there's any reason why, why, while we're here, we shouldn't put on a site that shouldn't have been taken off to begin with. And then finally, I really want to thank Commissioner Marlott. Excellent question about, let's all be clear, the opportunity site numbers, as Beth described, these are what, because Sausalito has essentially produced no housing, for decades. I mean did that you know the The HCD folks and the planners, you know, in their in their ivory towers up there, you know, they don't think we can do it. And so a site that could accommodate 10 units, they think we're probably gonna produce two. So there's actually a lot more capacity here than what we're seeing in the list of opportunity sites. And then as the chair said, Chair Luxembourg, the density bonus is something you can't say no to. So there's more density we're going to get credit for there. Um, And You know, and I, you know, anyway, I think I think this has been an interesting hearing. I very much appreciate the public's input. It's a very complicated and difficult issue for every city. And and those are my comments. Thank you. |
| 02:19:01.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Juniors, Vice Chair Saga. |
| 02:19:04.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:04.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:19:06.14 | Nastassya Saad | Um, I guess I'm going to keep it short and straight to the point. I agree with my fellow commissioners, and this is not anything to do with the fact that Commissioner Feller and I put in the work. We are happy to support whatever is best for the city, but I am having a hard time following the overall plan. I would just say, especially given the fact that the staff report alone says that council intended to keep site 84 at or even reduce from the number of units to increase it just doesn't make it doesn't even make sense from from what they said themselves so i would look to remove those extra 14 units. Unfortunately, for us as Sausalito residents, this is something that's going to affect every single one of us. It might seem disproportionate to some parts of the north part of town, but it is this housing element and these units are going to affect everybody across town that being said I do agree that Excuse me, I do disagree that we should have increased any part of MLK, so I'll just put that out there for my fellow commissioners as general comment. I would at least reduce it back to what we had. Site, excuse me, The concept about making a change now I'd even be open to then further discussing the historic district in hindsight that that could be something that we might want to relook at or suggest back to Council as an area of opportunity, since they're. There is concern. There are some new other objective design standards coming along that may help out, but I could also understand the concern for the historic district. But overall, I would personally leave it as is. Let's accept what we already have as our approved housing element. And I'm generally not supportive of the extra 29. Is it 29? Sorry, I have too many paper in front of me. But the new overlay. And just to the point of the marins ship, we did have extensive discussion. We had extensive public comment on a few sites. City Hall was one, MLK was another, and the Marin ship had extensive public comment as well. And that is one of the reasons that Site 67 also didn't move forward. And so I would like to keep the concept of the core part of the Marine ship to be without housing. move forward and so I would like to keep the concept of the core part of the Marin ship to be without housing and so I'm not supportive at this time of putting site 67 back in just to speak site specific but those are my those are my general comments |
| 02:22:18.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Saad. I also would like to thank all the public who have come out both tonight and submitted written comments. We appreciate it. It helps us in the work that we do here. Let me give you some specific comments on what I've heard tonight. First of all, we have an approved, everyone be aware, we have an approved housing element, as multiple commissioners have said. We're going to hear in a minute in a study session about odds with subjective design standards. We do need, pursuant to the existing housing element, and we revise the housing element, we do need to do rezoning. And so the odds and the rezoning is needed, whether the sites change one here or one there, the whole concept of the rezoning is part of what we have to do. So these have always been on parallel tracks and questions on the first one do affect the second one, but they don't stop the process in figuring out exactly what the language for rezoning is and how it works. So I wanted to make that clear. I do want to comment on this. There are a lot of comments about the RENA, and we should change it. We should appeal it. I want to make clear the city appealed this, and they lost. We would like to not have 724 units. San Francisco would not like to have 82,000 units. That's well beyond anything they've ever been able to accomplish. But basically, the state divided this up and mandated these numbers, and we have to deal with the numbers that were given, and we can try in the next cycle to change whatever the numbers are. But we have to to deal with that reality so i want everybody to be aware of that um on some of the comments we heard from the city council i concur that we should be trying to increase the number of liveaboards uh and we should work with bcdc i don't know that we can do that in the housing amendment but i think that is an important aspect we are a waterfront community and to have houses on the waterfront is important for us and a you know five percent increase in the liveaboards if we can get that approved would be a good thing so I concur with that there's some discussion of City Hall we talked endlessly at the Planning Commission that that is a bad, that this is the center of our community. There have been lots of communities back in the 70s. They had excess public buildings and excess schools, turned them into housing. They became housing forever, and then people had more children, and they needed public land back. This is the center of our community for the extra 10 units that we could get out of this project. We don't want to give up City Hall. We don't want City Hall to be in a basement of a housing complex. So I think that that is a bad idea and similar to the comment about the fire station. Those have been taken off the list for really good reasons. I don't think we should revisit that one. As far as the MLK side, I concur with what has been said by the other commissioners i see no reason to changing the existing housing element it had 80 units i don't see if you're adding 14 units uh to that site is is beneficial in any way uh so those are some general thoughts um uh i don't know i guess i'll ask Director Phipps. We're not taking any action. Do you want further comments from us on that, or what are you looking for in that regard? |
| 02:25:54.75 | Director Phipps | I've tallied all the comments that you've provided, and I've created summaries of each of those comments, and I'll be re-reviewing these comments on video to ensure that I've accurately portrayed the comments that you've provided. One thing that I would like to request based on some seemingly clear and consistent feedback is a specific potential density reduction number that the commission would like to see on that site. I heard your comments, Chair, as related to potentially reducing it back to 80. I heard a similar comment from Vice Chair Saad, and it seems to be the subject of much discussion. So, you know, a perhaps vote by the commission to provide some recommendation on that, but not make any decision, I think would be helpful for me so that I can bring that feedback to council. |
| 02:26:45.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be fine. I also wanted to note that HCD has said they don't concur with it either. So increasing density on a site where they have concerns about it seems to make no sense at all. We have a number at 80. We have a buffer and HCD doesn't think we can do more. So I my thought, well, I'll poll everybody. But my thought is keep it out what's in the approved housing element at 80. I agree. Okay. Commissioner Junius. I agree. |
| 02:27:16.96 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 02:27:17.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:27:20.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Commissioner Marlott. Agree. I agree. Okay. So we're not taking any formal action, but you see where we're at on that. |
| 02:27:23.73 | Tom Hoover | I agree. Okay. |
| 02:27:29.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, are there any other comments? |
| 02:27:31.71 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, actually, where we leave this item, Commissioner. So while we're giving specific direction, I completely understand where Commissioner Saad's coming from with respect to the Marina Plaza site. I'm curious. I'm pretty sure I understand where Commissioner Feller would come on that one as well. Although I'm curious if we would If anybody, if either commissioner Marlott or Chair Luxembourg has any interest in making a recommendation beyond the comments that have already been made specifically with respect to Marina Plaza and the 157 units that were proposed there and taken off. |
| 02:28:05.39 | David Marlatt | Well, as an architect and someone who has their office nearby and frequently walks by Marina Plata and lives in the north of the Solito area, I pretty much concur with Commissioner Junius. I just can't look at that site and not see housing. It's kind of, I don't want to flip about it, but it's kind of a slam dunk. And it's not specifically being used as a boatyard. I understand and really support the idea of a diverse economy, not being just Epcot Center of Northern California with tourism. So I think it's very important. But what I see and don't see, because the buildings are partially vacant, is any activity that is specifically marine oriented. So I think a good solution is totally possible on that site. |
| 02:28:26.67 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 02:28:53.28 | Andrew Junius | And one of the sites is actually vacant. I mean, there's a building there, but there's also a vacant place. |
| 02:28:55.92 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:28:56.15 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yeah, completely vacant. |
| 02:28:59.56 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, there are two different sites, I think, Commissioner Junius. One is the industrial zoned looks like an office building. And then there's just a completely vacant site kind of on the corner across from maybe the entrance to SWA and their offices there. |
| 02:29:14.58 | Sophia Collier | but. |
| 02:29:19.71 | David Marlatt | The boat building is not it. |
| 02:29:23.47 | Kristina Feller | So, I mean, the issue at the time about those sites is the rezoning when we had enough inventory for the automatic conversion from commercial to residential. There was also significant concern from the community traffic and circulation in that area. As you know, and you know, if you walk there, drive in that area you're, partially at a one-way street. You're right there at the Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you. So I think there were better sites that were better suited for what we needed, and that was really predominantly what this came down to. But we certainly got a lot of public comment about it. we did not need to include those sites at the time because we had plenty with the commercial to residential conversion. |
| 02:30:22.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. My thought on this one is that, well, first of all, we need to maintain, as I said about the liveaboards, we are a waterfront community. We need to maintain the maritime uses. Now, this site is not maritime. It's office. So I would need to see some conceptual idea how that could work and still maintain the maritime uses. but'm not sure if we even get there so i'm hearing from a lot of the commissioners why are we amending the housing element in the first place at this point in time so whether whether there's the future possibility of really looking at that site uh that's one thing if we're reopening the housing element to other sites, I don't know. I think we're going circular on that. So at this point, I mean, I think, you know, it was rejected before. If it needs to be reconsidered, I think we would need to conceptually see how that works to maintain the maritime uses of the marine ship and how it would coexist. So at this point... would need to conceptually see how that works to maintain the maritime uses of the marine ship and how it would coexist. So at this point, you know, again, we're still figuring out whether we were going to vet the housing element. So Commissioner Saad, you look like you're making a comment. |
| 02:31:40.87 | Nastassya Saad | I just think maybe in the interest of equity to the last site, do you want to just do a roll call just to make a concept or are you, I- |
| 02:31:48.82 | Andrew Junius | I mean, honestly, I was to the extent that it looks like we don't have even close to you. I appreciate all the comments, but I would like to respond to the chair. I think we're going to amend the housing element, which is why we're adding some of these, because there's two new sites that are being proposed here that are likely to go to the city council. probably get added to the opportunity site. you know. and changes to MLK are on the docket as well. You know, 14 up, 14 down, leave it alone, whatever. So... It's my I mean, I think. the staff is going to accurately portray, it sounds like Mr. or Commissioner Marlott and myself think this is a good housing element or housing site at, at Marin or Marina Plaza. It actually, it was analyzed in pretty significant detail before it was taken off. I mean, I was, I was part of some of the objective standards meetings where we ground that site down to these 150 units, these two sites. So a ton of work was done there. There was absolutely a ton of work that was done to look at that, to look at that, those, but the existing office building in the vacant lot. So just, you know, I don't, we don't need to drag this out. I appreciate the input. And I just, that, those are my comments. And I think we can just move on. |
| 02:32:57.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, with that, we'll close this item and we'll move on to item 7B. Okay. uh, There's been a request to have a five minute recess, so we'll take a five minute recess. |
| 02:33:18.22 | Unknown | you |
| 02:33:23.72 | Unknown | you |
| 02:33:27.20 | Sophia Collier | are you, I'm going to just sort of |
| 02:33:30.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, planning commission meeting will come back to order. Thank you. We're now going to move on to item 7B. Now, this is a study session for the Municipal Code Amendment for adoption of more comprehensive objective and development standard odds and form-based code. The odds and the form-based code would form the basis for rezoning, which is necessary to implement the housing element. But tonight's session, as I mentioned earlier about the earlier session, is just a study session. We will take no formal action tonight, but we will hear a presentation about the odds, and then the commission will ask questions, and then we will open it up for public comment, and then we'll bring it back to the dais, and the commission will give some direction to staff. So with that, Mr. Brown, you're going to start this presentation this morning? |
| 02:34:25.84 | Director Phipps | And I'll do a quick intro, Chair, prior to... Thank you. |
| 02:34:29.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:34:29.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:34:29.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the mic. podium, so that's why I was wondering. |
| 02:34:32.51 | Director Phipps | And we appreciate him being there. Good evening again, everyone. Happy to be here, this time in connection with our odds study session. Program 19 of the city's adopted housing element indicates that the city will adopt a program to address streamlined permitting for housing development through a more comprehensive odds than currently exists in our code. And just so everybody is aware, odds is objective development and design standards. The purpose would be to provide more robust objective criteria to assure that new multifamily and mixed-use buildings are compatible with the character Sausalito in cases where only ministerial review is allowed by state law. Anticipating this, the city retained Robert Brown and Optico's design in 2021 due to their experience in working with other Marin County jurisdictions, particularly on the development of a countywide odds toolkit with a consortium of the county and a number of Marin County cities, including Sal Salido. After working with the commission subcommittee and conducting a series of study sessions with the commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the city council consultants, our consultants ultimately developed a draft odds for new multifamily and mixed-use development, and those draft odds were presented in study sessions to the Planning Commission in February and then the Council in March of this year. The Commission generally supported the proposed document with some minor and mostly technical revisions. However, the City Council received substantial public feedback on the proposed document, and in response to that feedback, the council directed that a peer review group of local professionals, including architects and historic preservationists, be created in order to conduct an additional evaluation on the draft odds and recommend potential revisions to both staff and the council. And as mentioned in the staff report, the peer review group performed a substantial overhaul of the odds, improving and simplifying a significant portion of the document while providing a framework for objective historic and view preservation regulations. While there remains some work to do to finalize this effort, the peer review group accomplished a tremendous amount in a limited time in consideration of the time-sensitive nature of the city's rezoning program and in response to council direction. And we should note that one member of the peer review group, our very own Commissioner David Merlot, was instrumental in revising and simplifying the document. Thank you, as always, Commissioner Merlot, for your work and commitment to the city. With that said, Bob Brown is here to provide more detail on the previous process and the work of the peer review group, and Sophia Collier, a member of the peer review group, will also be joining us this evening to provide a summary of the additional standards that were developed, particularly as related to objective view and historic preservation. And with that, Bob, the floor is yours. |
| 02:34:56.45 | Kristin Teiche | and then, |
| 02:37:18.17 | Robert Brown | Thank you, Director Phipps, and good evening, Chair Luxenberg and members of the Commission. I would note that my colleague- |
| 02:37:24.14 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry to interrupt you. I'm not sure if the microphone is on. you |
| 02:37:27.57 | Robert Brown | I think it is. |
| 02:37:28.19 | Nastassya Saad | Is it? Okay. |
| 02:37:30.47 | Robert Brown | I'll speak a little closer. I also wanted to let you know that my colleague, Tony Perez from Opticos, is going to be joining us via Zoom. So he and I will tag team on specific questions about the odds. We were last together in February with a previous draft of the odds, and a significant amount has changed since then. So tonight, next slide, please. |
| 02:37:57.89 | Robert Brown | There we go. So tonight, what I'd like to do is provide a brief overview of the process that we've engaged in both prior to and now with the peer review committee. And also give you a high level overview of how the document has changed and also how it relates to the housing element opportunity sites that you heard about previously. Next. So for those of you who haven't been following this three and a half year process, we have been engaged in this in response to state housing laws that have severely limited local discretion in how you can review multifamily housing projects, basically to compliance with the locally adopted objective development standards or odds. Next. So the preparation of this draft started with a planning commission subcommittee. Again, they met over about a two and a half year period, and that was commissioners Feller and Junius, who put a great deal of time into working with staff and the consultants. And then more recently, the council appointed a, as Commissioner Phipps noted, a peer review committee of local architects and historians that significantly modified the document, made a number of recommended changes. And as Director Phipps mentioned, Commissioner Marlott served in a role of sort of a clearinghouse for all these subcommittees and then tried to translate those into edits to the actual document. So that was a pretty Herculean effort. Thank you very much for that. So the peer, next slide. So the peer review committee took a very deep dive into the draft and recommended some major changes. So I'll summarize these and then we'll drill down in the presentation. Um, The first change was they deleted the odds zones that were proposed. And so the odds zones were sort of a parallel zoning universe to the existing zoning districts. And so by eliminating them, now the new document, the odds, refers back to the existing zoning district and those basic regulations, the setbacks, the height, the flurry ratio, the coverage. Those things are still going to stay in the zoning ordinance. They also proposed to reduce the number of allowable building types that an applicant could choose from 11 down to four. also reduced the number of allowable frontage improvements. So these are how the building relates to the street. And those are reduced from nine to six. And as part of that, the group added a front garage and a front garden frontage option. And those really relate very much to Sausalito developments, particularly on slope lots. Um, And they proposed to modify the privacy regulations. Previously, they addressed window-to-window visibility when new developments are next to existing. But now they also provide privacy to adjacent balconies and outdoor decks as well. They also added regulations that are applicable to properties in the historic district, and we'll talk more about that, and also added regulations that would seek to limit view impacts from both private and public vantage points. Next, please. So the city council held a study session on October 1st, looking at the revised draft. And in general, we're supportive. They asked that staff go back and reconsider an earlier proposal from the review committee that would provide adjustments in the regulations for projects that couldn't achieve the allowable floor air ratio based on the new restrictions so that they could back in and try to get up achieve the allowable floor air ratio based on the new restrictions so that they could back in and try to get up to the allowable FAR. They also asked staff to develop scopes of work and budget estimates. for two things one is the creation of the software that would do the analysis for the view preservation impacts and then also for an update of the historic building inventory which would play into the what's called the defining characteristics list that would be adopted for the historic properties in the district and they also asked that staff discuss the proposed view preservation regulations with staff at HCD. Next. So very important, what projects would the odds apply to? So tracking the new state laws, they would apply to projects that have two or more new multifamily units in multifamily projects or in mixed use projects that are a minimum of two thirds residential. These would apply to sites that are currently zoned R2, R3, CR, CC, and CN. It would also apply to the new housing opportunity overlay sites. And then it would also apply to projects that would be applying under the state laws SB35 and AB2011 or other subsequent legislation that the state will come up with because there will probably be more. next. |
| 02:43:50.97 | Robert Brown | The odds would not apply. to single family homes. either new or modified. It would not apply to SB9 projects. Again, these are on single family zone sites and we are not dealing with those. It would not apply to modifications to existing multifamily or commercial projects unless they add two or more new units. Next, please. |
| 02:44:16.95 | Robert Brown | So it would also change the review process. And what this does is the odds would create an alternative streamline approval pathway. for projects, again, that would add two or more new multifamily units. So projects that would comply with both all of the new odds and all of the objective development standards currently in your municipal code They would qualify. for approval without going through discretionary design review and instead there would be a new process that would be a staff housing compliance review permit. So it really is just a matter of checking all the boxes. And if full compliance is is achieved by the applicant, then the projects would be approved. And again, projects that apply under SB 35, AB 211, 2011, or any successor legislation that falls in line with these. Again, they would have to meet all of the new odds standards and all the municipal code objective standards and would then qualify for ministerial approval. Next. And I pointed this out every time we've met and every time we met with the city You can design the best odds in the world. But. under the state density bonus law, that law giveth and taketh away. So it allows applicants that provide a relatively minimal amount of affordability in their projects to qualify for waivers from your zoning standards. And so that includes all of the adopted odds. And I have to say, In all of the great majority of multifamily projects that I've seen applied for in the last few years, almost everyone has applied and requested waivers from zoning. And a lot of it has been around height, floor area ratios, setbacks, et cetera. So, again, I think you can expect that that will likely occur, even with, again, the very best adopted code in the world. Next, please. |
| 02:46:21.31 | Robert Brown | So Beth Thompson in the last item talked about the new housing opportunity site overlay zones. And what we would have is, again, these will be applied to 48. currently 48 of the housing opportunity sites. And again, as Beth pointed out, these would either be subjected to maximum densities of 29, 49, or 70 units per acre. And in addition, we would then be proposing to modify some of the basic development standards to allow these higher densities. So for example, the height limit for both the 29 and 49 unit per acre projects we believe can be accommodated within your current height limit of 32 feet. But to get up to 70 units an acre, that's just not really realistic. And so we're recommending a 45 foot overall height limit. And also that the top floor, the fourth floor would be set in five feet all around. So to reduce its appearance a bit. There's also higher floor area ratios proposed, either for a strictly residential, multifamily project or. use project And I would point out that the FARs that you see on the screen, these are based on an average unit size of about 750 square feet. So this is not an FAR that's going to accommodate large units, and that is both an attempt to reduce the overall scale of these housing developments, but also I think equally important is that it increases the chances of them being affordable, because they will be smaller and therefore more affordable by design. And then we also recommend eliminating building coverage limits for these housing opportunity sites. primarily as a means to try to encourage developers to build on more of the site and reduce the height. Next, please. |
| 02:48:21.51 | Robert Brown | So to describe the draft odds, I want to make clear that these are, again, because we're referring back to the existing zoning district standards in many cases, these are additive standards. In a few cases, they supersede what exists, but in most cases, these are simply additional design standards that have to be met in order to qualify for this alternative approval process. And so one of the things, as I said, there are four different building types that applicants will be able to choose from. A house, a duplex, a multiplex, or for mixed use, what's called a Main Street building. And each of these have regulations that go with them. Next slide, please. including limits on the dimensions of these buildings. And again, the attempt is to try to keep individual buildings somewhat smaller. And it could be that you will have multiple buildings on a larger site, But again, the idea is not to allow larger gargantuan attached multifamily product. Next, please. As I mentioned, again, there are frontage types that applicants can choose from, and these are how the building relates to the street and the public realm. And these are generally residential, such as porches, front garage, front garden, or in the case of, again, a mixed-use project, a shop front on the ground floor. Next, please. And with each of the building types, there are massing composition allowances that have to be followed. And the purpose of these is to both work help organize the facade into logical divisions, et cetera, but also to create some articulations, some ins and outs in the building form. Next. And again, I want to make clear that what the odds do is really try to regulate and make predictable the building form and its placement on the site. It does not attempt to regulate the design of a building. So there's nothing in there about how what the architectural style is. There are no restrictions on materials, nothing on the types or dimensions of windows and doors, none of that. That's all at the discretion of the applicant. Next. So the odds also includes other regulations that aren't specifically about building form, things that deal with screening of mechanical equipment, screening of trash enclosures, that sort of thing. Additional regulations for landscaping and lighting beyond what the city code has currently. The parking, even though we refer back to the zoning code for the number of spaces required and the dimensions and all of that, There are regulations added about where you can have the parking and the maximum size of a parking lot so it's not a dominant visual feature. and also the landscaping of parking lots. We propose an increased bike parking, and I think that that becomes more important because of state law within a half mile of the ferry terminal no auto parking is required. So we think that in those particular cases and just generally more bike parking is pretty essential. Um, There are also streetscape standards. So, you know, street trees, how frequently how sidewalks and planting strips are done. And then also, as I mentioned earlier, there are privacy standards for when a new project abuts a residential site. in terms of the ability to look into adjacent windows or adjacent balconies or deck space. Next. So among the major revisions, one has to do with view preservation. And I know the Planning Commission subcommittee and staff and the consultants worked on this. for a long time. Um, before concluding that it was really, really challenging legally and practically. But the review committee has come up with a proposal that would do the view analysis objectively using a software tool, which will be described by Sophia Collier in just a few minutes. So it looks at data files looking at the existing topography, the existing buildings, the existing vegetative forms, and figures out from various vantage points, private property or specifically identified public vantage points, what view angles there are to specific identified items to be preserved, views of. What are called iconic views, these are views of the two bridges, Angel Island, the San Francisco skyline, Mount Tam. Um, also a different category for water views of the ocean and the bay and also views of what are called vista views which are of undeveloped natural space so it looks at the the the building frontages and the vantage points and the public vantage points and using those data sets determines what the various view impacts are currently, what the various views, excuse me, what the various views are of these three categories currently, then it drops in a digital form of a proposed project, reanalyzes and determines if any of these views are are blocked or reduced by maximum percentages. So the project could not reduce from any vantage point, an iconic view by more than 5%. couldn't reduce water views by more than 10% or the vista views by more than 10%. And as I say, the software would have to be created and tested. before it can be effective in terms of the ordinance adoption, but the council's already put that process in place to start developing the software. Next, please. |
| 02:54:26.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:29.28 | Robert Brown | In terms of historic preservation, This would apply to the designated district and all the sites there. It does two things. One is the regulations would limit building height, Ground floor height, window and door proportion on a facade. building coverage based on the average of surrounding neighborhood context buildings. So those are defined in terms of the number properties on either side or across the street. from the subject site. Next, please. And in addition, um, The regulations propose to have the council by resolution adopt a defining characteristics list. for all the properties in the district. So these are based on the existing historic inventory forms, and they're distilled down to identify the character defining features, the historic features of each of the buildings that are there. And the idea is that for new construction for modifications to existing facades those character defining features could not be eliminated. yet be retained. For new construction, they would have to incorporate at least two of those defining characteristics into the new design so that there's some continuity and relationship to the historic structure. It's noted that the current... Draft, excuse me, defining characteristics list needs some additional refinement and the peer review committee has recommended. that an update to the historic inventory be done and update this DCL that will be initially adopted, but the idea is to come back and update it in the not too distant future. And so the Council has also put that process into place. Next. |
| 02:56:24.76 | Robert Brown | So lastly, as I said, the council wanted staff and the consultants to revisit this and also the review committee to revisit this idea of providing a backup in case projects cannot meet the allowable density or FAR because of restrictions from the new Title 10A. And so under the provisions of the Housing Crisis Act, an agency cannot enact new development restrictions Thank you. that keep a project from achieving its allowable FAR and density. So we're trying to respond to that. And so what's proposed is adjustments. So if a project can't meet its allowable far, there are two tiers of adjustments that would come into play and be offered to an applicant. The first deals with certain proportions of those buildings, the ones I showed earlier. It deals with the amount of parking lot landscaping. amount of private open space. And building frontage requirements, so those kinds of things could be deviated by a certain degree to increase the FAR. And if that project still then cannot meet that, achieve that allowable FAR, then there's a second tier that gets into modifying view preservation, historic preservation, and building height requirements. And the next slide. So these are in your packet as part of the draft. I won't go through all of these, but you can see there's a list of both tier one and next please, next slide. And these are the fewer allowed under the tier two. I would say that these don't provide complete adjustments to allow to achieve the FAR. They provide partial in some cases. So it's not a complete waiver of the standards to allow FAR. So in some cases, projects may not be able to get all the way there. It's gonna be a case by case evaluation. Next. So anyway, I think this slide regarding dates was provided prior to Director Phipps' indication that the schedule is going to change, so we won't go through that. And then here we are at the end of the presentation. Happy to. Field, any questions? And as I say, Tony Perez from Opticos is also on the line. |
| 02:58:53.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Brown. At this point, before I turn it over to other commissioners, I have some just clarifications on conceptually how this process really works so bear with me with these questions and i have others but i'll defer to other commissions before i get to those so if i understand this correctly in order order to implement the odds there's going to be a zoning amendment that will come later probably at our next meeting uh that will add section 10a 10a which is the thing that was attached to the agenda to be used under certain state laws and this will be an option developers who could also go through the normal discretion review process if they wanted to but we're going to put overlays and you mentioned there will be three overlays but there was an attachment It's called where is it? uh, it's called Opportunity Site Density Overlay, Late Edition, and it has six, not three. There are three for housing and there are three for mixed use. Is that correct? So there's six zones. Yes, and that's- Okay. |
| 03:00:04.37 | Robert Brown | Yes, and that's something that Ms. Thompson and I need to sort of work out. I believe it can be done with three. She's recommended six. So we'll put that together. But yes, the idea is that in addition to Title X, there would also be amendments to Title 10A, there would also be amendments to Title 10, which will include these housing opportunity overlays. |
| 03:00:19.77 | Kristin Teiche | ME. |
| 03:00:24.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. So in Title X, there's a zoning map, and there's going to be a zoning map change, and it's going to have six overlay districts or three, depending on what you work out with, Beth, for those items. Now, those overlays, they're similar. We have three overlays right now. There's a marineship overlay. There's a historic district overlay. And there's a senior housing overlay. So these will be similarly. And as you said, the basic zoning elements are staying. So there's an underlying zoning. And so I just want to clarify that if we rezone a site, let's take example, site 303, which is opposite where Molly Stones is, and it has an mu 49 and then the current owner will have a choice if they want to develop that private property of a building under option 10a and it's prescribed and although you said there were four building types if i read this correctly there are, there's only one building type for overlay district because there's a mixed use and single and duplex are not allowed in those zones. So therefore, it's either the mixed use one or the other one. And if it's a mixed use, it's a mixed use. And if it's not, it's residential. So there's really only one building type. |
| 03:01:01.24 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 03:01:54.02 | Robert Brown | Probably two, the multiplex, which is all residential, or the Main Street, which is mixed use. |
| 03:02:01.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, but the Main Street wouldn't be applicable to the ones that are the three zones that don't allow any commercial. Correct. So there would be that. Commissioner Fowler, I see your hand, and I'll get you after I lay this out. So on Site 303, they also have the option of going through the normal design and review under Chapter 10 as well. And let's say that owner who was interested in building this sells that property to somebody else and he just wants to change it. It's an industrial zone and he wants to put in maritime, some sort of maritime use. And so he doesn't want to go through 10A, he just goes through the normal process. Nothing would prohibit him from using the underlying zoning, correct? |
| 03:02:07.62 | Robert Brown | Correct. |
| 03:02:49.57 | Robert Brown | That one's a little trickier because again, we have minimum densities. I'm not really sure I can answer that question. I don't know if... the city attorneys on, but that one I think we'd have to get back to you on. |
| 03:03:00.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you say there's a minimum density and there's a maximum density and he wants to do what's in the underlying zoning, that would be unconstitutional. We would be prescribing that he has to build X. And I don't think under zoning you can do that. He has to have the option because if, for example, it says he has to build X number of units, he goes to financing to get financing for that. And there is at the interest rates now and the construction costs he finds that it's not affordable to build that and uh he if we tell him that's the only thing he can build and we're having minimums and maximum he has to be able to go to the underlying zoning i'm hoping we're not telling all these 48 sites that the only thing you can build is this one building type at these densities, or you can't do anything with your property. That would be unconstitutional. |
| 03:03:54.88 | Robert Brown | I don't think you're wrong. I just don't want to commit without having, you know, again, discuss with staff and the city attorney exactly what would occur in that instance. But again, I don't I think you're probably right. I don't want to commit. |
| 03:04:05.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Well, if we weren't doing that, we'd be rezoning it to a specific zone, and it wouldn't be an overlay district. It would be something else other than an overlay. I would think. |
| 03:04:16.18 | Robert Brown | That's it. |
| 03:04:16.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:04:16.46 | Robert Brown | We'll get back to you on that question. Okay. |
| 03:04:18.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Well, I frame that. I have a couple other questions, but let me go on, now understand how we're implementing this. Commissioner Feller had her hand up. Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:04:29.49 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I only wanted to sort of piggyback on the line of question you have about the overlays because You know, some of these parcels have multiple overlays now. And so that's going to start to get confusing or we're going to start to conflict. So I want to understand from Bob what we're doing when we have multiple overlays. And for instance, we have a residential overlay across Sausalito right now because of the general plan knowing that the housing element was coming, can we retire any of these overlays that are no longer necessary? |
| 03:05:04.17 | Robert Brown | I hate to say, Commissioner, but I'm not familiar with the overlay you just referred to. But again, the housing opportunity site overlays are really intended just to adjust the density, the FAR coverage. And that's about it. So, again, everything underlying will still apply. But I'm not familiar with the particular residential overlay you just referred to. Sorry. |
| 03:05:29.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Chair, I'll hand it back to you. I just wanted to piggyback off that. |
| 03:05:34.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, before I have other questions, I'll go to Commissioner Junius. |
| 03:05:39.00 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Just a quick clarification, Bob. Thank you for that. It was really informative and helpful to get our arms around all the issues. The tiering thing you discussed at the end, That's kind of fascinating. Just to clarify again, the state density bonus would override even that, right? I mean, none of that would be applicable. So it's kind of a – it's smallish projects that, you know, may not be able to figure out a way with the view thing or to get to what they're – seems to be entitled to under the objective standards. So then you default into there. But since the whole thing can be thrown out the window with density bonus anyway, it's kind of irrelevant at that point for a density bonus project. You would just wait, you would just ask for a waiver for any of these things. Sure. |
| 03:06:20.34 | Robert Brown | Sure. As you know, it applies to sites of five or more units and with certain affordability. But yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. |
| 03:06:29.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Merle. |
| 03:06:31.50 | David Marlatt | Thank you. I had a couple questions, but I wanted to come back very quickly again to this issue that you raised about overlays, because my understanding in working in various jurisdictions with overlays, they all apply. So in other words, if I've got a residential project in the historic district, there's an historic district overlay, I can't choose not to also respect simultaneously the historic district overlay. So if there's the HOS overlay on an MU district, the short answer is, I think, you have to respect both. And whatever the sum of those things are, I work in Sonoma, and they've got five or six overlays on their basic zoning. It's terribly confusing. But you basically add them up. It's kind of additive. These are sort |
| 03:07:13.67 | Robert Brown | I was trying to make that sort of stacked regulations, unless one of the overlays specifically supersedes and states that it supersedes the underlying regulations. |
| 03:07:15.31 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 03:07:22.97 | David Marlatt | That's right. Yeah, I can see you've worked in Sonoma too. So that occurs. But my real questions were maybe for the staff or for Bob. I've always been curious, roughly how many parcels are we talking about affecting through the R2, R3, CCCN? Does anybody look at, are we 1,000 parcels, 2,000 parcels? Does anybody have looked at what the number of properties is? Because then my, well, that's not helpful. But because my follow-on to that was then a lot of these parcels we know are small. Sausalito is full of small parcels. So of those parcels, how many could potentially have a five-unit development, even potentially? And what that percentage is. So coming a little bit around to what I anticipate Commissioner Junius' remarks about whether this whole thing is just worth it, is I'm just curious, and it might be worth it. brief study to find out if the odds pertains to I'll just say 75%, 80%, 90% of the units that may come before us. I really have no idea. And maybe Commissioner Feller has an idea. |
| 03:08:34.08 | Kristina Feller | You know, it's such a great question, Commissioner Marlott. We took a full inventory of these sites. when we were putting the odds together and on the housing element, because it started to come up with SB9 specifically. And there's such a small number of SB9 lots in Sausalito, but we started to A prior CDD director had put a full inventory together of exactly what you're talking about. So I think that it would be very worthwhile pull those documents back out of the emails or files and to look at that, because I think it's well worth, you know, understanding the perspective that we're looking at this. Through. |
| 03:09:20.89 | David Marlatt | That's true. I really think it's critical. And maybe one thing that the commission can do tonight is give some guidance to try to recover those studies and try to pull that data out so we really know what's at stake here and what we're fighting for. |
| 03:09:34.79 | Robert Brown | We can look for that. And also all that data is available on MarinMap. And I think probably DeNova, Beth Thompson has it as well. So we can find this information for you. |
| 03:09:42.62 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:09:45.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions? |
| 03:09:48.80 | David Marlatt | Yeah, sure. But I can give it back to other people. |
| 03:09:53.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was just going to add a comment on one. I concur with Commissioner Fellow. I remember seeing there was an inventory of a number, to your question, number of R2, R3. There is a chart that shows that. So it's somewhere. It's not. It doesn't have to be redone. I mean, I think it's out there. Second is, going back to my example on Site 303, it's in the Marin District overlay. So as opposed to being stacking think it if if they took advantage of 1080 they could get the development that you're talking about with the bonuses and whatever but if they want to use the marin ship overlay then they could get the industrial maritime use that they want so they would have the i don't think it would be they'd have to meet both because they'd be in conflict. They would have the choice of doing that. I think that's the only way to do it. If not, we would have to get rid of some of the overlay districts and change them. So it wouldn't be simply adding this. You would have to rezone, take out some of those, which I don't think we want to do. I think we want to be able to have both options available. So back to your additional question. |
| 03:11:00.75 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you. So my other questions aren't so much about the document. As you say, I'm a clearinghouse, so I kind of know it. Didn't know I was a clearinghouse. But maybe for Director Phipps, a little bit, or staff, is about how they foresee implementing the odds. So, for example, the odds call for an organization of bays, and a bay is kind of loosely defined as could be just windows in a regular rhythm and so forth. How will the staff, have you thought about, how will the staff objectively say to an applicant, I'm sorry, that's not a bay? And what level, because some of these things are kind of loose, I think, and what has been thought about. And in particular, with regard to the defining characteristics list, which the historic preservation section requires reusing, I think, a minimum of two DCL features in the new program. How will staff? it's going to be up to staff to determine compliance objectively, not commission. Have you thought about how that works? |
| 03:12:05.57 | Director Phipps | Well, I appreciate the question. I think what I'm most concerned about now is actually preparing and creating an odds that can be adopted. So that's kind of step one. And I think that that's why we're here this evening. But to your question, if there's any question as to whether or not a particular proposed development is compliant with an objective standard, my first question would be, or my first comment would be, that's probably not objective enough. We need to ensure that the odds that we've created are clear and satisfy the definition of what an objective standard is as being one that's universally verifiable by both applicant and staff prior to the submittal of any application. So if there are questions as to whether or not a certain proposal would comply or not, I would say that we would probably want to be more exacting with our language |
| 03:12:56.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director. Additional questions? |
| 03:12:59.56 | David Marlatt | I'll just make one more mostly observation or question, and this is a little bit further down the road. We know that through SB 450, there's going to be some major changes in how SB 9 is implemented. And that's coming up in January, I believe. So it's coming right up on us. Will these odds, or do you think these odds will then effectively extend into the R1 district for these SB 9 projects? |
| 03:13:22.08 | Director Phipps | Yeah, thank you for the question. I think it's excellent that you're aware of the new legislation that's coming down the pike for Californians. I would say that the odds as proposed does not apply to R1, would not apply to SB9 projects as a result. Now, is there an opportunity to address those moving forward? |
| 03:13:41.20 | David Marlatt | Yes, because we're going to need something. when this thing |
| 03:13:45.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:13:45.34 | David Marlatt | everywhere. |
| 03:13:45.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:13:45.61 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Okay. We'll. |
| 03:13:47.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Paul Sainz- Rephrase differently, are we going to have to relook at the SB nine changes we made and see if they comply with the law and then amend those J doesn't have to be odds, but do are we going to have to amend the code to comply with the new law. |
| 03:14:00.84 | Director Phipps | So my understanding is the new SB 9 standards would essentially not permit a city to apply specific standards as related to SB 9 to those kinds of projects, and that they would essentially default to the underlying zoning district. So those sections in the code, and I don't want to get into a discussion of this specific piece of legislation because I'm not prepared to do so, but my initial response would be, I believe that that legislation, when passed, will preempt those sections of our code and will be preempted by state law. |
| 03:14:34.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, additional questions. Vice Chair Saad. |
| 03:14:38.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I just have two questions. One is for the proposed view preservation with this proposed software. Are there examples of anybody else, any other jurisdictions using such a software? Because the last line saying that it would have to be created and tested prior to the ordinance adoption leaves me with little to no hope. So what is the deal with the proposed software? |
| 03:15:07.87 | Robert Brown | I will defer on that and have Ms. Collier address that when she gives her presentation. |
| 03:15:13.37 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. And then let me just ask one last clarifying question on the on the council directing staff to develop that scope of work in a budget for a historic building inventory. Is that something different than our historic, our citywide historic context statement? So that was, so that would be different. |
| 03:15:38.09 | Robert Brown | Yes, and it's individual per property. |
| 03:15:42.09 | Nastassya Saad | OK. |
| 03:15:42.72 | Robert Brown | Yes. |
| 03:15:43.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. are they able to leverage that at all? There is a list of inventory in that historic citywide context that |
| 03:15:50.87 | Robert Brown | That I don't know. I can tell you, though, that the forms that the defining characteristics list is based on, I think that they were done back in the late 80s. So the idea is to significantly update those, not just in the district, but elsewhere. But the ones that pertain to the district are the ones that were specifically interested here for the odds. |
| 03:16:10.68 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. OK, thank you for clarifying. Thank you, Chair. |
| 03:16:13.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, so I have three more questions, one based on the last one just happened. So, I'm very confused about this tier two thing. Why would any developer start with tier one? It's like if you can, they're gonna make an argument that they can't meet the FAR and then they wanna go to tier two and they wanna relieve some of that. So why would we have two tiers? What's the point? |
| 03:16:42.31 | Robert Brown | Because tier one is the first shop that they can go into. So again, they have to pick from those. And if those don't get you to the allowable FAR, only then can they go to tier two. Again, the idea is that tier two are less desired adjustments from the city's perspective. They would rather not get into tier two if tier one can satisfy. |
| 03:17:06.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand the basic concept, but it seemed to me that by putting it out there, they're already going to go to that as soon as they're going to design their project to argue they can't make the first one because they want to get to the second one. I don't know that throwing that out there is the best way to address this problem. |
| 03:17:25.69 | Robert Brown | I think that as part of the application, they would have to identify, you know, how the tier one applies to the project or not before they can jump down to tier two. |
| 03:17:35.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. I don't know. I think it's a little problematic, but we'll get to that more once we get a chance to review that in more detail. Now, as far as the historic district, could you just run through an example? I'm a little confused on, first I have a question on the historic district. The Secretary of Interior Standards, which has been the gold standard for how you review historic districts, is made very clear that if you're going to add to a historic building, that you are to make sure that the addition is clearly not identifiable as part of the original building. So taking a couple characteristics out of the existing building and throwing it onto the addition seems in conflict with the Secretary of Interior Standards and what they're trying to do. Am I missing something there? |
| 03:18:27.79 | Robert Brown | I think that there's so many elements of design that you can distinguish between an old building and a new, despite the fact you might have a couple of design features that carry through between the two. But I think that there's enough difference there that an architect can easily design a building that doesn't mimic the historic building, but again, is somewhat compatible. |
| 03:18:39.01 | Kristin Teiche | you know, |
| 03:18:51.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But I mean, we don't have language that say you should make sure the addition like the historic is not the same, even though you're taking these two elements, but you should not make the addition look like the original. |
| 03:19:03.28 | Robert Brown | We don't attempt to recite the Secretary of the Interior Standards in the odds because for the most part, they are not objective. |
| 03:19:10.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand that, but that is the gold standard for historic buildings. So giving them this list seems somewhat counter. I just throw that out there for folks to think about. Can you run through an example on historic? I'm confused of, you know, it's going this way and it can't be higher. Give me an example downtown of what the odds does to a historic building. You know, so you wanna put an addition, pick any building you want downtown. How would the odds that are in 10A work? So you would |
| 03:19:49.97 | Robert Brown | look at the neighborhood context buildings, and that's defined as to how many properties on either side or across the street that entails. You would look at how those neighborhood context buildings are designed in terms of height, in terms of the percentage of window, and door fenestrations in a facade and building coverage, et cetera. get the averages. for each of those. Average of height. What are the other? Average of site coverage. Average of percentage of window and door percentage on the facade. Also, the ground floor, floor to ceiling height, the average of those. And so for each of those regulations, the new building would have to meet that average and be no higher. Yeah. |
| 03:20:21.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | AVERAGE. |
| 03:20:28.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:20:28.30 | Unknown | All the time. |
| 03:20:28.72 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 03:20:45.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:20:45.74 | Robert Brown | So. |
| 03:20:46.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that's how it would work. So the ground floor could be no higher than the average, or it could be the highest that's of the neighbor. How does it, I mean, it's objective. |
| 03:20:56.73 | Robert Brown | Thank you. Yeah, it would be the maximum of the average of those buildings. So, for example, let's just say the buildings, all the historic context buildings are two-story. Okay. And you've got a 32-foot height limit, so that would allow theoretically a third story. Well, if all the neighborhood context buildings are two-story, then the new building for the first 15 feet from the facade can only be two stories. It can step up after that, but it would be limited in that way. |
| 03:21:02.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you know, |
| 03:21:02.79 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 03:21:21.87 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:21:26.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:21:26.29 | Unknown | Okay, I see. Okay. |
| 03:21:28.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions? |
| 03:21:31.75 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:21:32.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:21:32.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:21:32.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:21:32.94 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF |
| 03:21:33.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner fellow. |
| 03:21:35.24 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. So I have a number of questions. I'm going to rapid fire go through these with you, Bob. It's good to see you again up there at the podium. Um, Was there a comment about the average size of 750 square feet per unit? Is that something that we have to be that we need to think about? |
| 03:21:57.19 | Robert Brown | Well, again, this was based upon analysis that DeNovo did to determine, again, average size units that have been produced here in the city. And so we think that that's a reasonable size. We went from the initial figure that's an average size and then added another 20%. There can be, you know, hallways and other, you know, non, non, usable square footage. So it's based on, as they say, 750 square foot averages. So, you know, developers could build, you know, smaller units with some larger units. So yeah. Okay. I just thought that an FAR figure. |
| 03:22:21.86 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:22:37.00 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, okay, got it. I just thought they were- Yeah, I thought there was a comment from the state on that. Okay, let me move on to the next question. Um, You know, when on the, working group that Commissioner Junius and I were on for a couple of years with you putting odds together. we view preservation was a very big deal. you know, we went back and forth and, you know, tried to figure out all of this. And, you know, we also proposed a, um, like a digital twin model system, which we discarded because unfortunately the information that you're putting in it to analyze, although it might be factual or measurements or things like that, it's still subjective. in terms of what is constituted by a primary view, And then you know, even in our existing code, you know, nobody's guaranteed an unobstructed view. And we have a pretty stringent you know, albeit subjective, standard. Um, the, the view preservation that is being recommended here is actually more stringent than what we have. that brings me to a couple of questions. One is, How do you handle sort of the collective impact when you talk about no more than 10% of a view of Mount Tam or something. What if they're like multiple properties that have a right to build And collectively, they start to obstruct somebody's view. Can you then say to somebody, well, you can't build it that tall? You're not eligible for a density bonus? How does that work? |
| 03:24:17.80 | Robert Brown | You know, again, this probably ends up being more a legal question than a planning question. So I sort of hate to answer. But yeah, I think that is a problem, potentially. |
| 03:24:25.86 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:24:29.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then the next question with that is, you know, part of the other thing that we were thinking of sort of in this collective view. is, You know, how do you combine maybe some type of digital twin modeling with also Shadnoll ordinance with also these public few quarters and you know it's not like one you know, silver bullet. It's like, you know, the collective analysis. Was that discussed any further? or incorporated |
| 03:25:00.13 | Robert Brown | No, no. But I think, again, you've hit the nail on the head that, you know, particularly with the view regulations, when you're taking view angles from, you know, potentially sites that surround a property, you know, yes, they all overlap and they all are individually restrictive. So, yes, they are additive. Okay. |
| 03:25:21.55 | Kristina Feller | And then regarding the historic preservation, of course, we met with them a number of times. about developing odds. And They were really hesitant about developing anything that, and I wrote this down, that they called Disney-like. They didn't want to like mimic And I think this goes to Chair Luxembourg's question, or line of thinking and questioning to you, that was something that they were absolutely adamantly opposed to. What has changed? Because it sounds like what is being proposed here is sort of that Disney-like. Follow me. |
| 03:26:00.78 | Robert Brown | I think that the original concern that the Historic Preservation Commission had was adopting specific styles, Victorian, Mediterranean, you know, Tudor, whatever, that would be limiting to the historic district. And they felt that, you know, that was sort of trying to mimic historic styles and would be inappropriate so this does not do that so this you know we do as i said earlier you know there's nothing in there about defined design styles that would be required this is only just saying take a couple of specific architectural features with the building and replicate them but not try to you know sort of mimic the whole architecture of the of the building |
| 03:26:45.47 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, And then, you know, part of what we were developing before the whole idea behind it was obviously to address odds as as are required and as are needed here. But there was a lot of discussion, particularly with legal about. how to develop these as sort of that parallel code to ultimately morph into a replacement code You know, the planning commission has long, um, lobbied, requested, you know, what have you to the city council for funding to actually update our existing municipal code, let alone a parallel code or odds or something like that. part of what we were achieving with the previous version that is sort of lost on this version was the ability to really do that. And I'm concerned that all of that is gone. Because that's a lot of abortive work and a lot of abortive effort that was incredibly valuable to a very seamless transition from frankly, some of our 1970s code requirements that are, I don't even think stand up legally anymore. People smarter than me would know that. But, you know, we've kind of lost that here. And I don't know, was the remit completely I wasn't aware of that from the city council at all, but we've lost that. |
| 03:28:15.12 | Robert Brown | I guess I'd say that the objective of creating sort of a standalone parallel code with a different format that could be replicated in the current zoning code at a later date, that really wasn't a priority of the peer review committee. They really wanted to streamline the document, and they did. I mean, they reduced the volume of the document by about half. So I think that was the. |
| 03:28:39.10 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, but they've lost the good stuff. That's the problem. So anyway, I'm just, you know, I'm not, I'm not questioning what's there. I'm kind of questioning what is not there that maybe should be. that we've already done the hard work on And there was a very deliberate purpose for having it. And so that's why I'm asking. It just seems like a completely different. I mean, as Commissioner Junius and I worked with you and Tony and then the team for so long, I mean, we were, you were, passionate about what we put together and why, and it seems like a completely different Um, approach. And I'm just curious, Well, Where, you know, is, is, are you taking direction from staff or is this a direction that you have... advocated. |
| 03:29:29.48 | Robert Brown | Again, the city council asked the peer review committee for their best shot and recommendations and and this is what they provided and at the last city council meeting they they seem to be appreciative of the fact that the document itself was was less complex and less lengthy so that's all I can say. |
| 03:29:48.17 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to preserve comments or questions for a later time. |
| 03:29:55.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler any more questions of mr. Brown mr. Brown I want to thank you and the review committee for all the extensive work you've done I Appreciate the changes in what you've done at this point. We're going to get a presentation on the view done the view sync I believe is that correct? |
| 03:30:16.93 | Sophia Collier | We're actually presenting, we're going to answer some of the questions on the historic as well. |
| 03:30:21.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, well that would be useful. You need to speak into the microphone though, because the people at home can't hear. |
| 03:30:29.77 | Michael Rex | I am Michael Rex, local architect. |
| 03:31:11.77 | Unknown | . |
| 03:31:22.05 | Michael Rex | Amen. As a member of the peer review group, I've been asked to give a brief introduction. When we were reviewing the draft, myself and others, that the Planning Commission prepared and sent to the City Council for adoption, Uh, Many of us were concerned that the document is too generic. that it needed to be better tailored to fit Sausalito with its steep topography. and its small village-like character. We felt that Sausalito could not have a development standard that provided no view protection because views are so valuable in town. We felt that the privacy guidelines. uh, would not provide sufficient privacy between properties. We were terribly concerned that there wasn't enough standard to preserve our historic downtown district. |
| 03:32:28.82 | Michael Rex | So, When we took upon ourselves to tailor refinements to this document. So, We can achieve these needs, but still remain. as mandated by the state. development standards that are objective. measurable and known in advance. And ultimately, acceptable by HCD. We were told it wasn't possible to do these things. We didn't believe that. We knew it could be done. We put together a group of people you see here. peer review that was endorsed by the city council. I won't name them all, but you can see them there. We broke into subcommittees. We met weekly, each subcommittee. One was on privacy. One was on view protection. One was on form-based design and historic preservation and wordsmithing. We added to the committee the folks down in the bottom who joined not the peer review team, but the subcommittees. We had a total of 98 meetings overall, most of four month period. The city had two years. We had four months. Uh... |
| 03:34:06.77 | Michael Rex | We took our concerns to the city council. about the draft that was prepared by you and sent to them. They shared our concerns. They agreed that this town had to have some view protection. Privacy. protection, historic preservation. and aesthetic analysis to some degree. We, um, proposed to the Council of this group of people, all who have volunteered their time. And they not only made that group official. endorsed their study. They directed staff to assist us not only our planning staff, but Bob Brown and Tony Perez. Also joining us in many of our meetings, many of which resumes was Joan Cox and Sergio Rudin, our city attorney. and we had a very robust dialogue. And we took it as far with David Marlott's help to actually do the wordsmithing. So there was a real document you can consider. And, um, |
| 03:35:29.20 | Michael Rex | They decided to direct this draft document to you for your input. And that's why we're here tonight. I want to thank Sophia and David. for a significant effort on their part. and as well as these other members, also planning staff, Brandon Phipps and his team. This was not just a group effort by the peer review group, but it engaged your consultants and city staff. an attorney. Okay. So I'm going to turn it over to Dave to get into some of the specifics, and Sophia will explain in more detail the view protection program. Thank you. |
| 03:36:19.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:36:19.30 | Michael Rex | Thank you, Mr. Ray. |
| 03:36:20.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks. |
| 03:36:20.15 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:36:21.68 | David Marlatt | Thank you, Michael. So I'll just say a few words here as a, wearing my hat as a peer review group member and representative of the Planning Commission within that group. And this was very quick because the Planning Commission, I think, is fully aware. But I think we wanted to just show or illustrate how our work, we see, what the framework that we should evaluate our work is, how it fits into the larger context. So currently, we have a system where we have subjective standards and we have objective standards. Setbacks, heights are objective, FAR is objective, and character view, et cetera, completely subjective as we know. But within those objective standards, already there are form based standards, things that produce shape and things that are formula where we can't predict the shape but they are just as objective. So flow area ratio, lot coverage, even decibel requirements at property lines. They don't tell applicants how to do things. They just give a performance standard that they have to meet. So we go to the next. So we saw it in the draft that was presented to the council in March and the commission had seen in February. That original draft did a good job of moving the character defining features privacy and screening from the subjective column over to the objective column. But as Michael identified, view and preservation, which are important values for the community, we thought were left kind of orphaned. And council authorized this peer review group to try to deal with that. So we'll go next, please. So, and this is the important, I think slide is things like preservation, which we're introducing, fundamentally deal with form. They set standards for height. I mean, it's all debatable, of course, but they set specific standards for height, for setback, for window arrangement, and so forth. And the view reservation that Sophia is going to present fits within the framework of the way jurisdictions all over the country, really, regulate their communities to reflect the values of those communities. We do it now with Florida ratio. We do it with lot coverage. Other places do it with daylight planes, with mass reduction ordinances. They're all objective, even though ultimately they don't tell you exactly what shape your building should be. So that's kind of the framework within which we as a group are working. We took on a little bit more. Next, please. Sorry, I'm looking at my screen. So we sought to accept all the concept of form-based criteria, but try to optimize it. We felt like there was a lot of redundancy in some of the types and zones and so forth, so we wanted to streamline changes, partly for the sake of applicants, partly for the sake of staff, so that we tried to streamline and get at the essence of what we thought the criteria were trying to achieve. We added some facade types and modifications that we felt were more Sausalito specific. We introduced something new that was not in our original brief, but we thought it's important with as a condition of an application, a requirement for neighborhood notification and a staff pre-op meeting, understanding that if these are ministerially reviewed, there's not a whole lot they can do about it. But as a community, we thought encouraging and even requiring transparency and communication was important and not too imposing. And privacy standards, we enhanced those. And then the historic preservation, I think Sophia will talk a bit about that, and the view synchronization methodology to help predict and help preserve in an objective manner the effect of view preservation. So with that, I will turn it back to you. |
| 03:39:39.84 | Kristin Teiche | with, as |
| 03:40:27.26 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:40:28.23 | Sophia Collier | Well, first of all, I'd like to say that I can't take that up. But first of all, I'd like to say that thank you so much for the work that you've done. Like one of the things I felt like a little bit of tension here in the sense that, hey, we did a great job and now you guys came in. So the truth is we built on we built on what you did and that the key things that we focused on were historic district and view protection and the privacy. And then when we began working on it, we saw ways it could be perhaps simplified or we saw things that were redundant. sweeping away some of those things, but it is done with full, respect and honor to what you did. So I just want to start right there. And one of the things that when our very first meeting that we have, Andrew Junius told us, well, you're not going to be able to solve view protection. You will not be able to. So I don't know if it was kind of a Tom Sawyer that he's like he's putting us up to it by making it such a challenge. So we're happy to have had the opportunity to build on what you did and to be part of this team, you know, Team Sausalito. So first, I want to just start with that acknowledgement. So first of all, you know, our historic district, you know, it's world famous, a million people visit every year. And of course, it's one of only 12 certified districts in all of the state of California, which is pretty amazing. But generations of Sausalitans have worked on this, and we know it's great. I mean, that's why we live here. So our current approach to historic preservation, people know, of course, it's the trained professionals, such as historic architects, supervision of the historic preservation yourselves, and the use of the Secretary of Interior standards. That is the gold standard, 12 standards that stand for a nation intended to protect all of America's resources. However, the problem with them is that they are subjective. And they contain I'm not sure. a lot of subjective words that is to be compatible, things like that. That just doesn't work in our environment now. We need objective words. We need math words. So we said, let's take a look in there and what it's got. So we went through the standards and, and that we developed a two-step approach The first step was to find the math words. define specific objective parameters for each math word that we found. Then we would identify the building specific words and reference the building itself. Obviously, the building itself is the ultimate objective standard. So, for example, here, like this is standard nine. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size and scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. So we just went through and we separated these out into the math words. and the building specific words, and that we came up with the concept that we would have a neighborhood-based context, And we would say for each building, we'll define neighborhood context and to be used to calculate the percentage changes allowed. So like mass, scale, size. We just went through each and every one of those, and we tried to say, okay, not in it. I think that Bob, you know, may not have exactly characterized what we did correctly in the sense that it's not to say it has to be the average. It has to be within a range within the average. and that if you look at some of our work that we did before, for example, in 2011, there was a beautiful document that was created basically to help with historic preservation. And that it laid out concepts like this. And these are from that historic design guidelines. So it sort of shows you how, okay, we would preserve the size and proportion of the size. of a historic opening. and that things would have to relate to one another. So we try to objectify to take the spirit of this and put it into an objective way. So that's basically what we did. And then we originally did it using, we went through Mr. Chair, we went through and we said, okay, let's do it based on the standards. But once we kind of wrote that out, it looked a little bit strange. So Bob recommended to us to just place it into some tables. Thank you. Thank you. So we sort of went away from it, identifying, OK, these are the things that the Duke standard one. These are the ones that are standard two. We just said, okay, these are the things that it is. But every single standard is reflected in these parameters. So we came up with four recommendations. One was, okay, separate standards within the odds. adopt objective standards based on the 10 historic secretary of interior standards, define a neighborhood context, and then finally update the resources. And that we did create a detailed list of all of the defining characteristics And we did base that on the original documents from the, when the, you know, some of the folks here talked about when they started the district. So there was a lot of documentation, but there's been change since then. So we went through and we said, okay, let's get a good listing of what it is now, but basically we really need historians to do that. That's not kind of work for amateurs, it's work for qualified professionals and that the council, Vicki Nichols, as you know her well, she is an ardent advocate and one of our members on our committee. are an advocate for the historic district and and the documentation And she made a great case to the council that we need to update the historic interest inventory? And the council said yes. So that's what we're working on, and that will be part of this. Okay, I take any questions on that or just go on to view. |
| 03:46:29.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I guess we can take questions on the historic part. I'm going to ask the same question. If the Secretary of Interior Standards says, do not replicate with an addition, and you're taking two elements, and basically it is so much so that it is replicating, it would violate the Secretary of Interior Standards. |
| 03:46:47.58 | Sophia Collier | Like, okay, I'm like, this is that one of the, what I quoted here is standard nine. Okay. So standard nine states that it shall be compatible with, with the massing size and scale and architectural features. So, okay, how are we going to get to that? Compatible with the features? So we thought, okay. Let's take two features and put them on there. So that was how we tried to get to that, to the spirit of what this says here in Standard 9. |
| 03:47:17.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I understand that, but there's also another standard. I forget. I don't know the number. I apologize. But it says that you should not replicate. In an addition, it needs to be distinct from the original. |
| 03:47:29.86 | Sophia Collier | This is standard nine here, which is on the new additions. This is the standard nine is on new additions. So we can we can maybe go offline afterward and go over it in more detail. differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with these things. |
| 03:47:47.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so in your proposal, what language do we use to say that you have to differentiate, that you need to take these two elements, but you have to make sure you differentiate? And the addition is shown to be different. |
| 03:48:00.54 | Sophia Collier | Okay, well, we've- Okay, we didn't say that you had to, it would be very difficult to say in my mind, it would be hard. I don't know how to make it sound object, to be objective, to say it would be those exact idea that differentiated. So we didn't, we were silent on it. We didn't say, we didn't tell design like this, design like that. So we're silent on that thing. So we're not saying that anything on that. to differentiate because it's pretty tough to, we didn't say unify, So basically it, we have to come up with objective words. So we went through each and everything in here. We tried to Find the things that were objective and codify them. Things that weren't objective, we couldn't bring them in. |
| 03:48:48.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | understand what you were trying to do and I understand the difficulty of the task what I'm concerned about is by adding these provisions from and requiring them to do something that from a design point of view might be better off not actually doing that it might be better off not to require them to have two elements of the bill on an addition it an addition, it might be better to, that, that, in other words, we might be causing more damage by adding that requirement than having it, not having it at all is what I'm saying. |
| 03:49:23.89 | Sophia Collier | Okay. I mean, certainly those would be judgments that one could make. And so I'm not going to debate that. Thank you for that comment. |
| 03:49:32.90 | Unknown | Okay. All right. Other... |
| 03:49:35.68 | Sophia Collier | I was telling you the reason we did everything we did was kind of these to the green and the yellow. And we just tried to get hit that green and yellow for every single standard. |
| 03:49:45.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand the task and I understand the complexity. Let me go back to within a range of the average. So correcting what Mr. Brown said, we don't go to the average. You go to anywhere because it's objective. So somebody wants to do it as anywhere between the minimum and the maximum of the average. You take an average and they can use the highest of a neighboring building or the lowest of a neighboring building. |
| 03:50:06.04 | Sophia Collier | Right. |
| 03:50:12.39 | Sophia Collier | The height, the ultimate height is 32 feet. So let's say there were like, let's say there were several buildings that were one story. And then, you would be able to go up to 32 feet. However, there is a requirement to step back by 15 feet. So there are parameters and the 15 feet, David, correct me, you know. |
| 03:50:37.01 | David Marlatt | Yeah, that's right. Yeah, it's 15 feet set back. |
| 03:50:39.67 | Sophia Collier | Yeah, so the 15 feet is the setback, but also there is the requirement that of the context-based from the from the other buildings around it. So basically, Bob, pretty much describe you correctly on that part. |
| 03:50:57.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if the building on the left is 28 feet high and the building on the right is 26 feet high, the front of the building has to be what? And then you can go to 32 feet, but it has to be set back 15 feet. Right. |
| 03:51:09.98 | David Marlatt | Yeah, but the front of the building has to be, if I recall right, within 10%. Right. So you get a 10% range. So if your average is 27 feet, then you have to be within 10% of that 27 feet. |
| 03:51:10.35 | Unknown | I don't think it's a good thing. |
| 03:51:10.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | none of the business. |
| 03:51:15.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:51:15.75 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:51:24.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So it has to be within 10% of the 27 feet. So it has to be 10% of the average. But if there's one higher and one lower, you can't just match the one next door that's at the 28 feet. |
| 03:51:36.32 | David Marlatt | Correct, that's currently written correct. |
| 03:51:37.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | have to get 10% from the average. |
| 03:51:39.68 | David Marlatt | And it takes the three neighboring properties. What's that? It takes the three neighboring properties. |
| 03:51:41.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What was that? Yes. |
| 03:51:44.98 | David Marlatt | So, |
| 03:51:45.86 | Sophia Collier | Take a look up here. This is the context. So this would be where the subject building is. So most of the historic district doesn't have a building across the street, but some portions do, like Princess Street. |
| 03:51:45.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:51:45.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:51:59.61 | Sophia Collier | But most of them are on Bridgeway. It's facing either the water or park. |
| 03:52:04.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And this goes to height, it also goes to the height of the first floor and where the windows are? |
| 03:52:09.99 | Sophia Collier | It goes through quite a few elements, and I'm not sure of each element that it goes through, you know, in terms of the height of the windows, but I'm pretty sure that most elements have a parameter like that. |
| 03:52:24.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's 10% of the average. |
| 03:52:25.87 | Sophia Collier | It's around 10%. In some cases, it's not. It's around 10%. |
| 03:52:28.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Objective. |
| 03:52:30.61 | Sophia Collier | It's a known number. |
| 03:52:31.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to go. |
| 03:52:31.66 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 03:52:31.96 | David Marlatt | So no number, I believe it's 10%. |
| 03:52:33.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's an objective number. Is it 10% for all of them? |
| 03:52:37.72 | Sophia Collier | I think there are some that have other values. I think that there was like one that was 35%. So there were few ones that were had a greater amount, and in some cases they were unbounded. So, So we tried to think what it was for, and not just say 10%, 10%. We try to think what it was and then say, okay, this makes sense. And again, the architects, I'm presenting this, but the architects who worked with us were the ones that really went through that had been expert designers of buildings. Folks like Michael, Barbara Brown, Mary Griffin, you know, folks that are, you know, serious architects. |
| 03:53:17.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | is the people that are going to review, they're going to implement it are not architects. So I want to make sure that the standards we have to director Phipps comment was if the developer says one thing, the staff says something else, it should be absolutely clear. No, it's absolutely up to interpretation. |
| 03:53:30.58 | Kristina Feller | Well, |
| 03:53:34.80 | Kristina Feller | No, it's absent. The chair. |
| 03:53:37.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:53:38.04 | Kristina Feller | Chair, can I suggest that maybe an example is used within These documents, since this is just a study session, this is some feedback. maybe kind of use a graphic example So it's easier for somebody to interpret and answer the questions that you're making, which are good ones. |
| 03:54:00.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for that, Commissioner Fallows. So there's a graphic on the screen. So if you could go through how you would determine, I guess, window size or something. |
| 03:54:08.18 | Sophia Collier | I believe that the odds document as it, I mean, the, the Opticos produces a beautiful document. And I believe that their beautiful graphics are reflected. These elements are reflected in their beautiful document. |
| 03:54:08.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:54:22.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So Bob, can we have OptiCoast do this? They're online, right? Yeah, let's have OptiCoast do this, thank you. |
| 03:54:32.63 | Kristina Feller | I have two very, very quick questions also, Chair. |
| 03:54:36.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Related to that or other things? |
| 03:54:39.11 | Kristina Feller | related to Ms. Collier's presentation. |
| 03:54:42.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, do you want Opticus to answer the question first? |
| 03:54:46.27 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:54:46.28 | Robert Brown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:46.30 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, sure. |
| 03:54:46.62 | Robert Brown | Thank you. you |
| 03:54:47.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 03:54:47.75 | Robert Brown | I would just say I don't think it's necessary to have Tony respond because we don't have a diagram in the odds that relate to the historic regulations. I think it would be a good idea, and I've actually mentioned it to staff. So if staff so directs Opticoast, we can try to have them create a graphic that is a bit more illustrative. |
| 03:54:47.97 | Kristina Feller | Exactly. |
| 03:54:48.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:55:07.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you We don't need a graphic, just have them explain the concept. Because it sounds like it's better for opticals rather than having a supply of. |
| 03:55:16.59 | Robert Brown | Actually, Opticos didn't write these standards. They just incorporated what was provided. So I don't think that, again, it would be probably appropriate to ask Tony. |
| 03:55:25.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we don't have any examples. Can we, before the next meeting with this, can we get an example of this? |
| 03:55:31.65 | Sophia Collier | I mean, there is, Mr. Chairman, there is a full draft that is extremely explicit on each and every one of these parameters that is in the draft. |
| 03:55:41.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I read the whole document and it's hard without an example. That's why I'm asking. No, I agree with you. Before the next meeting, can somebody develop an example, take downtown, a specific example, somebody's coming in, how it would be implemented so we know staff can… |
| 03:55:43.56 | Sophia Collier | Yeah. |
| 03:55:46.97 | Sophia Collier | Okay, so that's, yeah. |
| 03:56:00.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | implement this it's supposed to be completely objective and so it should be easy so |
| 03:56:06.32 | Kristina Feller | So I have a couple of questions. |
| 03:56:08.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Ask questions on the presentation so far. Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Sorry. Commissioner Fowler has questions on the first part. Thank you. |
| 03:56:14.59 | Kristina Feller | That's cool. These are very quick, and thank you, Ms. Colliers, for presenting what you have so far. The first is, are you aware or anybody on the team aware if the Secretary of Interior is updating any of their standards to reflect objective standards that might kind of make this a little easier for us and other communities as well. |
| 03:56:38.10 | Sophia Collier | Right. They are not doing that. And that we are, we did go out to do research on what other communities were doing, particularly large communities like, for example, that have a lot of historic districts like Sacramento. But we went to Pasadena, we went to the other certified districts, we went out quite a bit to find out what other people were doing. And a lot of people were adopting a context-based approach. So like Alameda was kind of way ahead and they were one that was where the context-based approach, but San Francisco also has context-based approach as well in some of their areas that they, so- |
| 03:56:51.01 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:57:12.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you define context-based approach? I'm not familiar with that term. |
| 03:57:15.80 | Sophia Collier | Yeah, this is... This is the context-based approach right here, where the other buildings become the context of the context. |
| 03:57:24.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 03:57:24.13 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 03:57:24.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:57:24.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:57:24.29 | Unknown | We got it. |
| 03:57:24.54 | Sophia Collier | Yeah. So context-based is a great way to make things objective pretty much instantly. |
| 03:57:24.57 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:57:29.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the same that you're suggesting here. They're doing what you're suggesting here. Exactly. |
| 03:57:33.47 | Sophia Collier | Yeah. |
| 03:57:33.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. All right. |
| 03:57:34.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:57:34.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. And my second quick, very quick question is, did I hear you correctly that the city council has now finally approved and funded a historic inventory for Sausalito, or is this just for the historic district? It's for the entire city. Excellent. Thank you. I'll hand it back. Thank you. |
| 03:57:55.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you commissioner uh sophia thank you can you go on with your the the view part of the president |
| 03:58:02.03 | Sophia Collier | Okay. And I apologize for not having a table that showed each and every item. I would have included that had I anticipated your question. So apologies for that. So, okay, so views, everybody knows that views are treasured part of the Sausalito experience. and that Really, if you look at our city, The view compliance has really shaped the city. It looks like what it looks like because in many ways that view ordinance and that neighbors have worked together over time. and worth architects so that everybody can find a little place for themselves on the hills and on the flat areas. And that basically we have stadium seating. So unlike many cities, Sausalito is laid out along the contours. and that it's a natural stadium looking at the bay. And this street plan together with the view ordinance allows each property to maximize its potential. And an amphitheater by the sea is an old idea. The way we used to do this, though, old school approach, and the approach is still going to be used for single family. is that working together, design with the neighbors in mind, put up story polls, and communicate. But now we're in a different world. We're in a world of objective standards. And so we thought, let's see what we can do. And we introducing ViewSync. So this is specialized software tool set for developers and city planners. It's highly accurate and totally objective. and it is designed to objectively enforce Sausalito's existing view ordinance. And that while there was a statement made that, quote, the software doesn't exist, It actually does exist. And our task is to modify it for Sausalito's situation. So what we will do is we will, the output of ViewSync will be a pass-fail report for developers to submit with their project applications. And this will objectively support the city of Sausalito's required finding three which is an essential finding for any property project to be approved under the current code. And what that is, is people probably heard, you've heard this, 14 findings, finding three. The proposed project has been located and designed to minimize the obstruction of public views and primary views from private property. So this software is built on Esri's system. And Esri is a system that is in use worldwide. It is ArcGIS Pro and CityEngine. It's a proven technology. and it will initially be deployed in a desktop application and using an approved service provider. But first I'd like to speak a little bit about the science of views. So a viewshed is a geographic area that's visible from a specific location. You can kind of think about it. If you took a flashlight and you shined it, it's what the light is cast on. Software-based viewshed analysis was originated 56 years ago by the United States Forest Service in 1968. And as we all know, software development has improved a bit. in the last few years. So using software, the exact shape of any viewshed can be calculated and visualized. So the way we're going to do this, spoke before about a digital twin So this will be a precise 3D model of Sausalito and it will be based upon high resolution photogrammetry base model with a six inch accuracy. And this is an example of what that kind of model looks like. And people that go, if you ever use Google Earth Pro and you start cruising around, you can see these forms. And they don't look perfect, but they're very, very accurate. And these can be used to create Hey. digital model that can be very, very accurately understood what can be seen in the viewshed. So we have designed this to apply our objective standards and it will be fully automated. The developer will provide a digital model of the proposed project to the City-authorized provider. the provider will run a fully automated six-step analysis and generate a pass-fail report. Our strategy to implement this is outsource. the map. For the digital twin, we will purchase high resolution From a service provider, for example, NearMap is one that I have visited with. and receive proposals from and we're experimenting with it now. looks very good. This will save time. It will lower the initial investment. and it will also give us semi-annual or more frequent updates. So we will be able to maintain it in a very consistent way. We also recommend retaining Esri itself or an Esri qualified partner to write and maintain the software. We've already met with them and are receiving a proposal. Then we will authorize third parties to use this software and provide the required reports. regulatory We will complete a comprehensive analysis of the opportunity sites to demonstrate the view software will not hurt housing goals. And we're already working on this. you We will go do an education campaign about it. We already actually have presented to HCD They gave us questions and we will be responding to them at the end of the week. It was very interesting at the end of the presentation, the Representative of HCD, Grace Wu, said, You know what you should do with this? You should use it to design where you would have your housing. located. went ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. That's what we want to do. We will finalize our budget, determine our model for funding. It could be private funding, cost recovery through applicant fees or grants. Okay, so now the interactive demo. I'm using a low resolution model. kind of like this, um, Mona Lisa here. However, the actual program would be the high resolution. |
| 04:05:09.63 | Sophia Collier | Okay, so the first thing we're going to do is we're going to just take a quick little visit to just a little house on Main Street. |
| 04:05:22.98 | Sophia Collier | Now we're going to come back in on the digital model, same place. I'm going to place a point. Thank you. at window height. and we're going to pull out a center line to a view target. Now, I'm doing this in an interactive mode. This, when it's done by the service provider, it's be fully automated. So this is just an interactive mode to demonstrate it, to show how it works. and I think you're going to like it. Thank you. So we're gonna pull out to our target |
| 04:05:58.55 | Sophia Collier | Okay, so we can see that the green is visible and the red is not visible. Obviously, you can't see behind Angel Island. But boom, we're looking out the window. |
| 04:06:12.52 | Sophia Collier | The software shows the exact percentage of the view and all the elements So for example, there's the water. That's its exact shape. from that view. |
| 04:06:30.87 | Sophia Collier | Now watch how the numbers change. Let's find out what's going on in the neighborhood. As we move around the buildings, we'll visit some other homes. In real operation, ViewSync will use millions of points to get all the details. |
| 04:06:47.76 | Sophia Collier | Now, one thing I'd like to show here, too, is that when you look at this, the red area, what you're really looking at is that is the shadow of those buildings. So you can kind of see that it's shaped like them. It's kind of an interesting thing. |
| 04:07:08.82 | Sophia Collier | Okay, so let's go somewhere else on that building. Take a look at how the window changes and the numbers change. Maybe look down, maybe a lower floor. go across the street. |
| 04:07:29.81 | Sophia Collier | Just see the changing numbers here. Not quite as good of you right there, but still nice. |
| 04:07:45.52 | Sophia Collier | Kind of going up the hill a little bit towards the banana belt. You're still down below. |
| 04:07:58.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You're going to be adding a building to this, right? Is that... I want to do a time check. We still have to get the public comment. I understand. |
| 04:08:01.99 | Sophia Collier | Okay. |
| 04:08:06.02 | Sophia Collier | I understand. Right. Just three more minutes. |
| 04:08:11.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's very impressive. |
| 04:08:12.45 | Sophia Collier | Just three more minutes. |
| 04:08:12.96 | Unknown | Bye. Thank you. |
| 04:08:13.62 | Sophia Collier | I don't care. |
| 04:08:13.96 | Unknown | All right. Thank you. |
| 04:08:16.12 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 04:08:16.13 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:08:17.60 | Sophia Collier | So first, so demonstrating that we can document and quantify any view. Now I'm gonna go through site 53, which is 14 bonus density units that we synced. with ViewSync. So here it is right around the corner here. Here's the housing element, this six realistic 14 bonus maximum. So what we did, well, here it is. the location. you So we said, okay, where are the first step in ViewSync is identify what are the potentially impacted properties? So, Let's take a look at what they might be. It will do this in an automated way, but this again, just an interactive So here may be this one. Okay, so now let's take a look through the digital model. |
| 04:09:12.04 | Sophia Collier | They're the properties. Okay, now we're going to bring in the buildings. |
| 04:09:22.67 | Sophia Collier | So again, this is a building that has 14 units of 750 square feet. So it's the cube, we identified the cubic volume that this building would represent with parking. |
| 04:09:38.92 | Sophia Collier | So the first we find the impacted properties and then we document their views. |
| 04:09:46.74 | Sophia Collier | You can see what's visible, what's not visible, and what's visible for multiple advantages. |
| 04:09:55.59 | Sophia Collier | Now we're going to bring back the model, run this exact same analysis again. |
| 04:10:07.96 | Sophia Collier | We're looking out the window so you can see the property right in the window there. |
| 04:10:15.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Which window are we in? |
| 04:10:17.38 | Sophia Collier | Right now we're looking at on an upper floor from Girard, So this is the Gerard's Windows. |
| 04:10:28.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is it a certain height of a person? |
| 04:10:31.05 | Sophia Collier | In this particular, I'll tell that in a second, but let me just show you this. And basically what I did was I just picked up upper floor window, one point, upper floor window. just to demonstrate this. Okay, so in the Bonita, This is the garden unit, but the garden unit had no view. It was right back in the garden. So you can see the property, but now look what happens. Okay, the side window, though, is blocked. |
| 04:11:04.11 | Sophia Collier | So that would fail. |
| 04:11:09.02 | Sophia Collier | Okay, but now what we're going to do is we're going to... redesign. get an improved model. Instead of putting the bulk in the back, we're going to use the Sausalito system, which is built against the hill. Okay, we're looking at Gerard again. It still looks good. Okay, so there's the side window. So you can see right across it. It's not blocking anymore. |
| 04:11:42.16 | Sophia Collier | go back and forth. That's right. |
| 04:11:50.58 | Sophia Collier | So we show that through design, we can get 14 bonus density units on that little site. |
| 04:12:03.19 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. This to me is the real magic, that using it as a proactive planning tool, identify the areas and configurations where view impact is the lowest, and plan for those versus being reactive. I personally believe that we have... tens of millions of cubic feet in Sausalito that are not view blocking. that we could, HOOK. buildings and sites on, that we can invite We could publish this model and invite people to come and apply. So that's what I think is the real power of this, in addition to obviously the compliance approach that it solves as well. |
| 04:12:50.69 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 04:12:50.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:12:58.30 | Sophia Collier | Okay, that's it. you |
| 04:12:59.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you. At this point, we're going to do this very impressive software, and we appreciate all the hard work that you and the other members of the PIRU group did to put into both the ViewSync and the other methods, as well as Bob Brown and Opticos' information on the odds. At this point, we have questions of the second half of this presentation from any commissioners. Commissioner Junius. I see you, Commissioner Fowler. You'll be next. He raised his hands first, so. Thank you. |
| 04:13:33.00 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. So a very specific question, so that when you got to the model that you were toggling back and forth and showing the views that were going to be blocked or not, you were selecting places with your cursor that you were saying were windows, but you don't really know where the windows are in those buildings. Right. Oh, exactly. |
| 04:13:44.28 | Unknown | That's right. |
| 04:13:56.52 | Sophia Collier | Right. I'll explain that. Yeah. Our concept is we do not know where the window is. Thank you. So our concept is to take a make an array of points and place it upon the building on the theory that people tend to place their windows where their view is. So by doing this, we will be able to characterize the view available from that location. |
| 04:14:25.93 | Andrew Junius | That is exactly what the document says, and that's why... I'm asking the question. It seems to me that what you're doing is you're, I've never heard of a theory like that. I mean, Windows, you're right. |
| 04:14:31.30 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:14:40.04 | Andrew Junius | Windows. Actually, I'm not sure I would even agree with you. Let me finish. Let me ask you a question. |
| 04:14:44.80 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:14:44.85 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:14:45.41 | Andrew Junius | And I think that's a good thing. you're supposing that people put windows where their view is, but a lot of older homes have tiny little windows that have great, let me finish, please, that have great views, and a lot of times people will try really hard to change a historic home so that those little windows become really big, but those windows aren't all around the house, and your model here says that for each of these potentially impacted locations, in other words, every house that could possibly be affected by the 14 unit project you just described, on all exterior walls of the private viewpoint, you're going to have observer points based six feet apart, horizontally and vertically. So it's almost like you're making like a glass house, like, like you can see through all the walls and all the windows. And that's not reality. |
| 04:15:34.11 | Sophia Collier | One of, but what is reality is that people look out the window. |
| 04:15:37.74 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:15:37.77 | Sophia Collier | So, |
| 04:15:37.84 | Andrew Junius | They don't look through walls. |
| 04:15:38.76 | Sophia Collier | But let me finish. Okay, think about, okay, let's say you're looking out the window. You might look like this. You might look like this. You might look like this. You might look like that. So you don't just look out the window straight ahead. So your view is looking this way, this way. So that's the actual experience of a person. experiencing the view. So they're looking this way, this way, this way. They're not just looking straight out. |
| 04:16:04.94 | Andrew Junius | So that's a much broader interpretation of the view standard that Sausalito's had for a long time. Thank you. Sausalito's view standard asks the people that are affected by the potentially blocked view to pick a primary window. And it's usually in the front room. We don't usually protect windows that are bathroom windows or bedroom windows on a ground floor. I mean, you make an enormous amount of assumptions here that I think are just very odd. So that's cleared up. |
| 04:16:33.25 | Sophia Collier | So that's cleared up. I mean, I think that certain, I think that... It is... a calculating lines of sight that do not um, I'm not sure. impact of you is just a waste of a computer cycle. So there's nothing wrong with calculating things that don't impact a view. One of the things that we have is houses that are oriented in every single direction. So we need to find a way to identify the parts of the House that are facing the view. |
| 04:17:14.21 | Andrew Junius | But those parts could be blank walls. |
| 04:17:16.81 | Sophia Collier | Those parts could be blank. Well, there could be portions of them that could be blank walls. However, by going in an array of, our opinion is that by going in an array of six feet, we are going to hit where those windows are. So maybe we wouldn't. So maybe for some people, it may not protect their most treasured view. But it is going to, on the average, it will hit their windows. |
| 04:17:47.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a follow-on to that? Sure. What if no matter what you do on the site, it fails? |
| 04:17:47.89 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:17:53.95 | Sophia Collier | Well, I think that the project can't meet the objective standards. I mean, and then obviously there might be an element of, okay, was it entitled to receive a waiver for some reason or something like that? But if it cannot meet, just like today, if I come to you with a project and that's the ender in that finding three, you cannot make it, you're going to reject that project. |
| 04:18:15.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But no, the process today has this commission reviewing stuff and developing and identifying issues, and there's a little back and forth, and they resolve the issues. If everything you say fails, the state law says that there is a minimum number of units on a site, so they're allowed to build that. And if it fails, because you've added a bunch of different areas that might not have windows, and it then fails, then what mechanically happens? I'm just trying, I'm all about how the mechanics of this are going to work, because we have to meet the state law, and it can't fail. Commissioner Fallon, do you have a question or an add to that particular issue? |
| 04:19:01.10 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean, I do. And again, I mean, Ms. Collier, thank you for also coming and walking us through this and being innovative. But I go back to some of the same questions, and this is something. something that we have struggled with for quite some time. And specifically, If you look at our existing code, just for reference, it identifies what those primary view corridors are, what they are of, like Angel Island or Mount Tam or the city or what have you. Um, The issue and where we have struggled, even when we were looking at you know, computer generated models like this is, you know, you can get into this situation where exactly what Commissioner Junius is saying, where you have an existing home of some kind or building, you know, multifamily building, whatever it might be. And maybe it's an older building with small windows or this, that, or the other. Maybe you want to add an addition on it, something like that. And maybe, you know, to, to, to create a multifamily situation. And what I consider to be the primary view might be different from the person I sell that property to later on. And maybe they renovate the whole place. So what is the primary view for me is the secondary view for them. And so are you, you know, it's a slippery slope And it's hard to capture... the view preservation and believe me there, we all want this view preservation. Don't think anyone, is working against that goal. But it's not just what's there today, that we have to project ourselves into the future of two years, five years, 10 years, where we have continued development and these standards in place. |
| 04:21:06.97 | Sophia Collier | I definitely support that. The key point, though, is that we will continuously maintain the model so that this model will be reflown when a project is built. That project will become part of our model. So it will if if a person has a different subjective understanding of what their favorite view is, we can't address that point. |
| 04:21:24.31 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:21:32.41 | Sophia Collier | That's a different point than what we can address. But what we can do is we can protect The view, the basic view that people have in a fully objective way. And just, we cannot allow the pursuit of perfection to get in the way of the good. Understood. Certainly, like if others have ideas about, okay, baby, there's a better way to put a point on a building, you know, maybe after time, we will have machine learning that will know, okay, boom, that's your window, baby, you know, that's it. |
| 04:21:50.22 | Kristina Feller | Understood. Understood. |
| 04:22:03.58 | Sophia Collier | But today, This approach of coming up with an array That is a good approach that can go a long way. towards getting this done. |
| 04:22:15.97 | Kristina Feller | Please don't think there isn't one person that wants this to be successful. But part of this line of questioning or this kind of study session is to, in essence, you know, poke holes in it to make sure that it holds water, first of all, and kind of war game through it. to make sure that this does uphold what is defined to be objective. That being said, though, I think it's all about the information you put into this and how we are actually defining. the code and the standard, Because again, I go back to our existing code which theoretically will still remain in place for portions of Sausalito. And, you know, we have issues about how we define primary views. And, you know, we have to be careful with the with odd standards that we're not, you know, completely. changing the intent of what our existing code is. That was part of the parameter that we were looking at originally as the state requires. So we can't all of a sudden require all these extra things you know, a burden, an applicant. So I'm trying to figure out, how this is exactly objective because You know, You know, as you think through this and as properties change hands, they're remodeled, they're added on to, they're torn down and rebuilt, whatever that might be. you know, what you're capturing in time today, which might be objective, might not be in the future. And that's what we need to think about. |
| 04:23:56.97 | Sophia Collier | But I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what you're saying, because I feel like if indeed every time somebody wants to do something, let's say, Their property as it exists at that time is what would be considered. So like, let's say technology didn't advance in the next five years, so we weren't able to pinpoint every window. But so we're just doing the same old thing, the grid system. So that grid system will be used for each one and that that's the system you have. So that's the system that protects you from having some property that's built right like this for you. So that's what it would do. And it would protect the first person, the second one, the third one, the fourth one. So it would all- Well then how does that apply |
| 04:24:40.72 | Kristina Feller | and had a set up. |
| 04:24:42.65 | Sophia Collier | But maybe I'm missing what you're saying. So I might not- |
| 04:24:44.81 | Kristina Feller | But then how would that apply, you know, to density bonuses? You know, how would that apply to the R1? Like it wouldn't, but you still have the potential of blocking views in areas that this doesn't apply to. That is part of the struggle. I'm not telling you I have the answer. This has been part of the problem that we've been struggling with mightily. And I definitely don't want to, |
| 04:25:04.57 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 04:25:04.67 | Unknown | So, |
| 04:25:04.72 | Kristin Teiche | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:25:04.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:04.80 | Kristin Teiche | This is... |
| 04:25:12.80 | Kristina Feller | completely discourage the work that's been done, but we still need to work together to address these things. And I... |
| 04:25:20.26 | Sophia Collier | And I'm- Karen Hollweg, In with respect to bonus density that I think that's a different environment of a different type of standards and code in terms of if folks are entitled to a waiver. there isn't that much you can do about it. So that is that situation. You know, maybe there is something that can be done about it. |
| 04:25:39.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think I get to ask that question, though, to add on to that question from Commissioner Feller. The density bonus pretty much applies to wherever we're using this because this is only being used primarily in the housing opportunity sites. Therefore, the density, if you fail the project, they will just come in for waivers. So we want to do, I'm very impressed with the software and we want to do this. And I think it's a great idea, but we have to be careful that it doesn't arbitrarily, because this is ministerial, making something fail. So then the remedy is they just ignore it completely. So that's the problem. |
| 04:25:41.12 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 04:26:19.95 | Sophia Collier | I thought- I think the thing to me that once you know about this software and once this is a tool in our toolkit, we will be able to use it to like we're talking about how to reorganize, we're talking about should we change our housing element? Is it we had it now, should we change it? Should we add sites? Should we take out sites? The point is if we have a software tool that can help us design That's going to help us all day long. And that will be almost self-solving. |
| 04:26:52.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not questioning. I think it's a great tool and we will have it. For the city-owned LAN, it would be a fantastic tool because then we could model what we want to do because we're going to put out a request for a proposal and we can tell them what kind of massing we want. The problem actually comes when we have developers coming in and they want to do X and then they do the model and it fails and they do the model again and it fails. Then they say, oh, we're going to just waive it. So we have to be careful. |
| 04:27:20.09 | Sophia Collier | We have to be careful. There's nothing we can do about that, though. |
| 04:27:23.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I understand, but we want to develop this so that we're not having a system where it has an overt amount of failures because we're taking it from all these random points, and therefore it fails more often than not. |
| 04:27:38.03 | Sophia Collier | It wouldn't, though. Like, I would like, if you would be willing I would love to come back and do a more fulsome technical presentation. And to really show why we think different things and explain more about it if you wanted. You know, or again, I could meet with you personally about it. Well, no, I think you can. |
| 04:27:59.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd love to do it with the commission as a whole. We can work on that. We still need to get public comments. So do we have other questions? |
| 04:28:00.73 | Sophia Collier | Yeah. |
| 04:28:04.57 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:28:07.22 | Unknown | Well, I've got some other questions too, but please. |
| 04:28:10.56 | Unknown | . |
| 04:28:10.73 | David Marlatt | It's not so much a question, but maybe I can try to offer my perspective on this, because obviously we've been talking about it and developing it, and there's different nuance. I think that view sync, and I like what it's called view sync and not view preservation, is what view sync is, like we used to use in school, a paradigm shift. View sync is not preserving any specific view from any specific window. And I think Commissioner Junius and I agree that nobody really has a right to somebody's view over somebody else's property. |
| 04:28:10.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:28:10.92 | Unknown | too well. |
| 04:28:41.19 | David Marlatt | What it's doing in the community interest is producing, reproducing, if you like. It's simulating the effect of view. So that's why it's going to be potentially a blind spot on a wall, catching a bunch of spots that may or may not have a window. But it's producing for the city that visual effect. It's also going to, in the net of things, scoop up and save people's specific views. But mostly it's a community thing, like floor like floor area ratio like lot coverage it's producing that effect of the amphitheater type city in the name of objectivity so yeah would it be better to look at every individual window well that's as commissioner feller has has known has tried to do is that's not realistic at all so this is a this is a simulation tool it's simulating would be the effect. The other point, and then I'll yield back to Commissioner Junius, is I don't necessarily agree that this is going to be used primarily for the HOS sites, and that was behind my question to Brandon, is it's going to apply to every two-unit and more site, and it might be 1,000 units, and there might be 48 HOS sites. So what are we doing for the other 950? Some of those could be five unit sites. They could go to bonuses, but a lot of them won't. Right now, they're all past a subjective design, but they will qualify all for odds. And so even if we only catch 90% of the projects with this, I think it's worth it. And I don't know another way to simulate what would otherwise be view protection except through this sort of computer modeling approach that's been taken. But I just wanted to point out that I don't like, and Sophia knows this, I don't like the idea of view window protection. It's taking the entire average of a given house if a given house has five windows and If one of the windows, and as a major window, is blocked 50%, and four windows are blocked 0%, that averages out to 10%, it's going to pass. There will be cases when it passes. but it's producing the overall visual effect that qualifies it as an objective standard. That's my spiel. |
| 04:30:53.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The Commissioner Juniors. |
| 04:30:56.00 | Andrew Junius | All right, I'll move on from there. I'm very skeptical that that's going to pass muster, but God bless, and I hope it does. But the other part of this, I think, is very much a process problem. And I'm really curious. So this will become the idea that this is going to be considered by HCD as something that's a uniform verifiable standard that is a reference to an external and uniform benchmark. that's available and knowable by both the developer, the applicant and the public, like before they even file. And then, And so, and so you're, you're asking somebody to use a piece of software. just like I suppose they're going to, They would go to the code and they're going to look at the height limit And instead of looking at the height limit and going and measuring, you know, doing the stuff that they know how to do, They're gonna be told, Hire this consultant. give them your plan and cross your fingers. And then it's gonna come back and you failed, okay. And you don't really know, and I suppose you'll be told, this is how you need to redesign your building, completely different from what you thought you were allowed under the code. and then you're going to iterate which is, I don't think that's the objective. |
| 04:32:11.10 | Sophia Collier | The truth is though, as you're, as you're well aware, that people, when they design projects, there are a number of iterations of them for a lot of different reasons. You know, so iterate, it's not like, you know, architecture is not like, And there's it. That's it. So there is iteration. And so I think that the idea that there would not be iteration is not realistic. |
| 04:32:33.53 | Andrew Junius | but that's not the question. The question is, of course you're going to iterate with your client, But to have to go that back and forth discretionary design review iteration with the planning department is what they're trying to get away from. And you've just put kind of a, |
| 04:32:48.80 | Unknown | to me. |
| 04:32:48.97 | Kristin Teiche | and you can see that. |
| 04:32:50.69 | Andrew Junius | black box in the middle of it. And, I mean, again, I guess if people you know, accept that and aren't, curious as to you know, how the software works, or should I go get a second opinion because I don't like the way it works, Am I going to complain that you know, you're taking a view from a blank wall. You know what I mean? It just seems like there's a lot going on here. that can be can be attacked and I'm just concerned well I mean I think |
| 04:33:17.13 | Sophia Collier | of the I mean, I think, you know, what I would ask you, would be to work together with us and identify, okay, what are the areas of attack that you might think would come |
| 04:33:28.10 | Andrew Junius | These are the two. I'm giving you two right away. |
| 04:33:28.84 | Sophia Collier | I'm giving you a little bit of a Right. But I'm saying that. The, I feel like, for example, publishing the digital service model is one way of providing the information to anyone who would want to see it. So that's one way. The other way is that we've talked about ViewSync as a compliance tool, because that's what we need right now. We need a compliance tool. However, it's really a design tool. So we would see it and we have to avoid feature creep because we've got to execute as at the first of the year or whenever the new deadline is. But the point is, so we have to execute on that. But the truth is that having it as a design tool where it just like I'm operating at interactive mode, operating it in a, opening it up to operate it where it is a design tool, just like any other design tool. And I also think that on the report, that's the pass fail report, it should have a visualization of why it failed. So it's gonna show, okay, you know, such and such building here, here's what happened. And that's why, you know. And the interesting thing though is that You may be thinking about those points in terms of what they might do in a negative way. There's actually what Dave is pointing out, there's doing some things positive. So they're not necessarily as bad as you think in terms of what the actual results might be. |
| 04:34:56.93 | Andrew Junius | No, I get it, and I totally agree that as a planning tool, like if this had been part of the housing element Maybe this would have worked out great. But as a project-by-project analysis tool, I just think there's going to be so much pushback from anybody that doesn't agree with the results. Well, of course. |
| 04:35:17.58 | Unknown | Well, of course. |
| 04:35:18.53 | Andrew Junius | Well, well, but then not just, of course, I mean, you're, we're, you're asking the city to spend an enormous amount of money on a tool. that you know, as, the chair just mentioned is likely just going to be overridden constantly because of the density bonus. And then, and so you've got a small, you know, window of projects that may or may not be able to have to use this. And then somebody is going to use it and they're going to say, I don't even understand what's going on here. My, you know, you know, I'm, You're all you're just creating another iterative process with the city to try to fit into a box, you know, and I'm just concerned that it's that for that small segment of projects is just not going to be considered objective. And maybe this is kind of irrelevant because I just don't think it's going to apply to that many projects. |
| 04:36:00.09 | Sophia Collier | I just don't think it's going to apply to that many projects. I don't think. I think that you could argue that for that small segment of projects, it's not going to be considered objective. I think that's tough to argue. because it is objective. So it is objective. So. |
| 04:36:15.74 | Andrew Junius | I agree it's objective to the point where you're using numbers and there's no discretionary words like you were talking, I would totally get that. But I still think when somebody says, but your honor, that there's no window there. They're projecting, they're telling me I'm blocking a view from a blank wall. I mean, if you can fix that problem, that's, you're getting- |
| 04:36:37.27 | Sophia Collier | I mean, if you can fix- No. We're telling you something that's knowable. in advance. And that is, that's used in our city. |
| 04:36:47.46 | Andrew Junius | That's I disagree with that as well, because you've got a multiple step process here to know it in advance. You don't know it in advance. You've got two or three steps here. |
| 04:36:49.22 | Sophia Collier | because you're not. |
| 04:36:56.25 | Andrew Junius | By using the software. So you're you're you are creating a more objective process than we've ever had. I totally agree. All I'm trying to warn you about is that I think I'm still concerned you're not going to meet the standard that the state is requiring. And our job is to comply with the state law, as well as preserve views. So we don't do both. We got a real problem, right? |
| 04:37:15.90 | Sophia Collier | So- Of course. So I guess for you. |
| 04:37:20.18 | Unknown | AI? |
| 04:37:21.43 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 04:37:21.80 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 04:37:21.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | we're veering off into sort of where we want to head which we haven't had public comments so if there are specific questions let's do those now and then we'll have public comment then we can decide where we go from here commissioner judas if that would be okay are there additional specific questions uh okay sophia again we very much appreciate and very very impressed with this software can do. And we're more looking at how this implements in zoning and not so much in the software itself, which is a great tool. |
| 04:37:25.60 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:37:25.62 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:37:25.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:37:25.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:37:58.08 | Sophia Collier | Right. And I'll just mention, it's not my software. It's our software. |
| 04:38:01.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. No, I said the software, so I didn't say your software. So anyways, at this point, thank you. We're going to go on for public comment. And so people have an opportunity to provide three minutes, fill out a speaker card if you're in the room, raise your hand in Zoom. Again, same comment i made earlier we got a number of comments on on this item in writing a lot of which said exactly the same thing so if somebody says something and you agree with it feel free to give it especially given the lateness of the hour to say i concur but on the other hand if there are additional things you want to say you do have the full three minutes to say whatever you would like to say with that uh uh i will turn it over to uh director for that i don't think you have to give instructions we've done it multiple times so we just need people to uh thank you chair use the cards thank you |
| 04:38:08.51 | Sophia Collier | Right. |
| 04:38:57.26 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. The first picker is salt. |
| 04:39:03.76 | Director Phipps | Do we have a Saul Pichardo in the house? Very good. Linda. |
| 04:39:16.87 | Director Phipps | Carolyn. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 04:39:22.00 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. Good evening. I'm Carolyn Revell. I think that we should, first of all, thank the peer review committee and the planning staff and all those who have spent so many hours trying to develop these new odds and standards. And it's extremely complicated, and I've found it very enlightening, the discussion about this innovative view tool. I think the council did give direction that their scope of work be developed and cost estimates, if I understand correctly. And so that it will be explored and I think It should be an attempt should be made to look into this very innovative tool to just see if it could work. |
| 04:40:02.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:40:02.10 | Kristin Teiche | to do. |
| 04:40:05.39 | Carolyn Revell | I understand all the questions that you've been asking, but I think at least it should be explored as an attempt to meet the state's mandates for objective standards. I also was very interested in the historic preservation section of the revised odds, and I'm pleased to see that there's an effort there to ensure compatibility with the historic district through those standards. So meeting the new state mandates for increased housing in Sausalito is a challenge to civic leaders the Council's appointment of a peer review committee of experienced professionals has produced a revised draft odds. It's a gift for the city, and I look forward to the Planning Commission. I've enjoyed hearing the Planning Commission's review of the odds. Thank you so much. |
| 04:40:50.01 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Carolyn. I have a speaker card with S. Woodside on it. Stephen, welcome. You'll have three minutes. |
| 04:40:58.51 | Steven Woodside | It's awfully late and I don't want to take your time unnecessarily, but I think you make some very good points. I think what I'd like to say is, in contrast to story polls. |
| 04:41:10.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:41:10.21 | Steven Woodside | MR. |
| 04:41:10.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 04:41:12.70 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:41:12.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You should direct your comments through the chair, not directly to Mr. Junius. |
| 04:41:15.65 | Steven Woodside | Not the right. Very well. In light of the comments made by Mr. Junius, I think it's important to contrast the potential of this tool with what you have now, which is essentially story polls and months of arguments between neighbors about what's going on. And there's one thing that hasn't been addressed yet tonight that I think is very important. And this is something that is new proposed by the group, and that is prior to the submission of plans that neighbors be alerted what's going on. That may save a whole lot of problems. One neighbor might say, this is the view I care about right here, this point right here. And bingo, maybe. the developer can accommodate to that view. And you don't have an argument. You don't have discretionary view. You saved a lot of time, et cetera. So those are my comments. Thank you. |
| 04:42:11.95 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Steven. Next speaker is Tom Hoover. Come on down, you'll have three minutes. |
| 04:42:22.70 | Tom Hoover | because I've not been able to be in public for so long. But what I wanted to say is I wanted to really praise the peer review group for what I see that they've done since I've been doing some of this stuff, obviously, for nigh on to 40, 45 years. And I also think that what the tool itself that she just said, I think a lot of the... I would say that some of the things that you're saying are being a little snitty. It's very good to be careful. But the fact is that tool is absolutely marvelous. And It can be used both before and after, and any person can explain it. They can see exactly what they want to see, as well as, I think it's very important, still the real world, as it's sometimes called, that you go out with the neighbors, and story poles are still really good. They have a real thing to look at. But I think that the computer thing is the possibilities that it can give both before and after of what people want to design. It's silly to me to be talking about, well, there's a wall. Well, that's what this is for. You can see through the wall, or you can put the wall up. You know, the whole thing is there. All of those questions are answerable. And so I think that it's, I just think that it's wonderful. And I want to praise the people who have been doing this because I see incredible work and incredible completeness and people who have, how shall I, what am I trying to say? Because my brain's going to, fulfilled all of the things that I would do if I had been able to be working through this time and what's come forward. And I'm just really amazed at how complete and how careful I've been to try and preserve the historic district downtown and some of the things that have gone on, because I have my own personal stories from years ago about how the facades of the downtown were not properly or were specifically wrecked against the laws of the city because the landlords and any of that stuff. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. |
| 04:44:18.19 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 04:44:44.62 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Tom, for your comments. Next speaker is Niels Carlson. Welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 04:44:53.65 | Niels Carlson | Thank you. I think we are talking about a system that will work in a building. What is the view going to be from that building? I would think they can also be used for... when you're putting in a building, what does it do for the existing buildings. Will that new building take the view? So we have to look at it from two sides. And I think it's a fantastic system. and we should Absolutely go for it. Thank you. |
| 04:45:30.52 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. That does it for comments as related to speaker cards and folks in the chamber. I'll look to the Zoom app for raised hands. The first hand that I see raised is that of Babette McDougall. Babette, welcome back. You'll have three minutes. |
| 04:45:48.52 | Director Phipps | And we cannot hear you. Please unmute yourself. |
| 04:45:51.07 | Babette McDougall | Can you hear me now? |
| 04:45:52.22 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 04:45:53.00 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. So I just first want to make sure I'm clear that we're talking about this software concept that clearly has its champions. And I want to say thank you to everyone in this room. The brain trust is very impressive. And that was a really vigorous discussion that I personally appreciate. So thanks for doing that. So the other thing that I'd like to bring forward, so I'm a little bit confused. It's brought forward within the context of the housing element. And we already know that the builder remedy density bonus thing is something that's kind of off the table for us. If I understood correctly, I think you said earlier that these bonuses do not apply to help fulfill our number obligation in terms of the 700 odd units at the moment. So, you know, we're sort of left with that part of it. The other part of it is, since we are focusing to some extent on the ODD with relationship to. this housing element project Of course, as Michael Rex can attest, because I remember hearing some of his stories, from months ago. That, in fact, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which now owns ABEC, does not even allow, they have a policy against any view or view corridor considerations. So, I mean, they can override us on any level with regard to future use as it applies |
| 04:47:06.06 | Kristin Teiche | you |
| 04:47:14.08 | Babette McDougall | to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, as we currently know it, and what they get to tell us what to do with our city. But going in the broader scope of things, I do think that these standards do help us get to where we need to get. Because over time, there will always be the pressure for increased population density. It's just the way of the world. for now. And, you know, the Club of Rome report came out and said, gee, the world's going to max out when we reach 4 billion people worldwide. Well, guess what? We're twice that number now. No wonder we're suffering. So. You know, go figure. So we've got to somehow find a way to get our arms around it. So I'm not opposed to the software. I just want to be clear. that you know what, no matter how much we might try, they can still override it in the long run. So thank you for that. And again, thank you so much for this vigorous discussion. It was most educational. Thank you. |
| 04:48:04.50 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Bebe, for your comments. Looking to the Zoom app for additional raised hands. Seeing none at this time, and I will give a final opportunity, going once, going twice. Seeing none, back to you, Cher. |
| 04:48:15.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | PB, David Ensign PB, Hewlett-Ow |
| 04:48:31.42 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Commissioner Judy. I'll start the end here. I... Want to make it clear it's a great tool. I'm most concerned about it satisfying state law. That's all, that's really what I'm trying. I'm pressure testing this. Um, It's, there's no question It's better than what we have now. Because what we have now, with all due respect, is story polls and neighbors not agreeing. I mean, neighbors fighting like... tooth and nail over inches of view. It's frankly ridiculous. We've had some cases here in the last three years that have just blown my mind. about how just, you know, the house to house fighting over slivers of view is mind boggling to me. So I wish we lived in a world where people could get along and it would all work out, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where be. discretionary process with respect to views results in us becoming the mediators of view disputes. And that's just, I've never agreed with that. I've got a lot of views about, I've got a lot of opinions about personal property rights or real property rights with respect to view that we're not going to get into. But this model would eliminate that problem My concern is that I'm just not sure it's going to get over the finish line with the state. because the state standard is so high. I mean, I really think when the state started laying down the law and these objective standards, they really kind of just wanted it all to fit into that. you know, put it on one piece of paper. It's height, it's FAR, it's lot coverage, it's a setback here too. It's just a bunch of numbers that everybody knows how to deal with, and that's the program. And if you do that, you can build your house or build your housing project, and if you don't, you know, you can't build. But, The idea was, very simple and it's grown into this monstrosity of form-based zoning that we started with three years ago. It's like deja vu all over again, right? Commissioner Feller, here we are again, you know, we three years of, trying to figure this out. And we started with like an encyclopedia from, you know, the Marin County folks built this. mind boggling form based code. that we shrunk down and now it's been shrunken a lot farther and it's, you know, it's all good. I mean, I didn't just pick one. We'll work it out, right? I do think one high level comment with respect to it getting smaller, the question that you asked about the bay windows is pretty spot on. The smaller it gets in the, you know, the less defined it is the less subjective. It is the more the property owner just going to be able to do what they want. Cause the, cause the staff is going to say, if I don't have a rule, and it fits within the box. do it. Right. So, you know, it's, you're, we're making choices here and I really don't have a, I don't have a, um, you know, dog in this fight with respect to which one it is. I mean, I'm seriously, I was, you know, blown away at the beginning of the whole process when Mr. Feller and I started this years ago and you guys have done a great job too. It's very different, different approach, different opinion, whatever the view thing I think is really difficult from a compliance standpoint, but there's no question it's worth fighting for. I just hope it works in the end. And I just had one more comment about One more comment about the historic stuff. That's also incredibly soaked in subjectivity, right? I mean, it's every, you know, as Sophia said, and as everybody that, you know, deals with this stuff, all those secretary of interior standards, it's all subjective. I mean, even the idea of frankly, honest, I think even the idea of a context is a subjective context. You know, what, which context is it? It's just, it's endlessly frustrating I think when the state did this, I think the good news for our little historic district downtown is, is one thing. I don't think too much with the expectation of one project that we're all very familiar with. I don't think there's going to be too many large scale housing projects that are going to have to comply with the objective standards in our historic district. Because there's just... There's existing buildings. Those existing buildings, frankly, I think should still be protected by CEQA, even if they're not protected by any other local preservation law. So there's it's really complicated. I'm frankly not sure I've got my whole legal land use brain around that part of it. But but for the most part, I'm not too worried about the historic district because commercial activity will be fully discretionary. And we'll get everybody will get a chance to touch that and make comments about that. Housing added down there, you know, a little tougher, but it's built out and I think that's going to be a lot harder. So I'm not nearly as worried about that, but I do really hope that, the next steps toward the software. are enough. to satisfy our city attorney and ultimately HCD. So best of luck. |
| 04:53:36.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Krishna Mala, any comments? |
| 04:53:39.34 | David Marlatt | I think I'll give the opportunity to my colleagues. I've spent a lot of time. |
| 04:53:43.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. I'm a commissioner fellow. |
| 04:53:44.33 | David Marlatt | He's settled. |
| 04:53:44.90 | Unknown | . |
| 04:53:48.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair and thank you Commissioner juniors for your comments i'm pretty pretty much in line with it. I really do want to see a solution to the view preservation and certainly a computer program, similar to what we had looked at before. is a great way to generate a lot of data The question is that the, you know, objective result, not just initially, but, you know, long-term. And I don't have an answer to that, but I think it's an answer that we need to find or figure out. So and I just I support what Commissioner Junius said regarding that. I do have other comments though about the odds. I don't have a problem with what version is in front of us tonight. Other than I find it to be a little bit anemic. and focus more on this sort of first wave of RENA numbers and our housing element and is not necessarily looking at it through the lens of something more substantive that will be, have a better permanence in terms of of our of our building codes. I really believe there was a lot of effort that was aborted for purposes beyond, I think, what the remit of this, um, local group was And I think that we've missed that in the translation. And I would really encourage that information to be looked at again and sutured back together with, whatever the base document is going to be. Because that is just a huge missed opportunity. And I don't think. it puts us in a stronger position. I think it kind of weakens us a little bit. from a longer term view. So I really feel pretty strongly about that and how that is being used and what the purpose of that was originally. doesn't seem to have translated to this effort now. Again, I don't want to get into splitting hairs about versions. That's not the purpose of the comment at all. I just think it's a little anemic and should be a little bit more robust for the use it was intended for when we initially started off. And the good news is you don't have to recreate the wheel too much. So I think this still needs a fair bit of work. I would encourage... staff to work with the consultants to generate actual examples. Not only do I think that's valuable for this commission, I think it would be valuable for the, the public at large for the city council, et cetera, and actually sort of demonstrating and using graphic examples of exactly the intention of some of the language. And if we do that, that's a great way to kind of test and war game you know, what that language is and how it would apply in a couple different situations. I think that would just get us leaps and bounds forward. And I would encourage that to be incorporated both in presentations, but also in the document. So staff, Today, future staff, as CDD has to grow to put all these programs together for our housing element. staff will know how to interpret it and apply it correctly. Karen Hollweg, There there's an academic element to this that has to be in place as well, so I really want to thank miss colliers Thank you for. Karen Hollweg, Your presentation, Commissioner Marlott Thank you as well for for your time and attention to this, and thank you Cheryl yield back. |
| 04:57:47.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks, Commissioner Feller. Vice Chair Saad. |
| 04:57:51.60 | Nastassya Saad | I don't belabor all the same points, but I do agree with my fellow commissioners, Commissioner Junius and Commissioner Feller. I do want to thank the peer review group. I do think there's some great improvements in here as well. My sole concern is the tool with the state, so I won't belabor that any further. But I do want to thank the group for all the work that they've done and Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Junius for the years that it's a little bit of a revolving door tonight with what we're seeing but um I you know it's a it's a group effort Team Sasslita as you say and I think with with everyone's efforts we'll get there but I will call out um that I share the concern on on the tool in the interest of what we're trying to achieve with the state. Otherwise, I don't have any other issue with the report or suggestions from the peer review group at this time. |
| 04:58:44.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Saad. All right, so my comments and directions, suggestions for the staff. First, I think this tool is a great tool. I'm very excited about this tool. I think as a tool to be used by the city on their properties, and if a developer can come in and use the tool, I think it's good. I am a little concerned about a pass-fail thing, and so it fails, so they come back, and it fails again, of how the mechanics work so the developer, instead of fully designing the project, can use the tool before they fully design the project. I think they need to get the tool when they have an idea that they want to put 14 units, see what the does and then go design the project so i think how how it's implemented is important uh on the historic stuff i think about before the next meeting uh because this is going to be on our november agenda or at least it was planned to be on the november agenda uh we need an example of taking something downtown of how it works because if if Opticos hasn't done it, then no one has done it. Then take a specific example and show how it would work, because architects aren't going to be using these odds. The staff or more planners are going to use these, and they have to be specific enough to implement it. So take one example downtown and show us how it would work. The third thing is going back to how we implement the odds is before the next meeting, we need a zoning map change. It needs to be specific. It needs to be either three or six zones. What is it? it obviously has to make it clear that if you use it, which is what it does say right now, so that is clear. If you use it, it is prescribing how to go through Section 10A. If you don't use it, you go through the standard process. And if you decide if you're in the marineship overlay and you want to use the marineship overlay rather than using the housing overlay, that you can do that. Obviously, you can do that. We can't prescribe somebody they have to build 14 to 16 units on this project. And if that's not financially doable, it's basically a taking. So we need to have in the words, in the document, that it's an option that they can use the underlying zoning that already exists as the document sort of says, but it's not 100% clear, and we need to make that 100% clear. Anyway, so those are my comments at this time. Commissioner Marlott, any additional comments? |
| 04:58:44.33 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:01:24.99 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that. And I would just like to make one proposal or offer, maybe with Commissioner Feller, that I work by email offline with you to try to identify from the earlier draft from last February those specifics or those characteristics that we've lost. Certainly the intention was not to be anemic, and that's fair enough. And certainly we were only working within a four-month window and trying to think, well, you know, what's essential and what's not. And certainly we could have thrown some babies out with some bath water. So I would welcome the opportunity, maybe just by email or something to identify for those, you know, those things in particular you think are missing. And we can go back and work with staff on that. |
| 05:02:05.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 05:02:08.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Absolutely. Any other comments? With that, that's the end of this item. We'll move on to item 8, which is 122 San Carlos. I'll give people 60 seconds if the people are going to leave so that we're not getting disrupted. |
| 05:02:25.01 | Kristina Feller | chair Luxembourg. |
| 05:02:27.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 05:02:27.07 | Kristina Feller | It's me, Christina. I have to recuse from this item. |
| 05:02:32.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 05:02:33.82 | Kristina Feller | Due to proximity to my home, it's just a couple doors down. So I will go off camera and mute myself. |
| 05:02:42.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. We'll see you at the next meeting. |
| 05:02:45.01 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:02:47.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Before we, I'm going to, this item, I'll describe applicant Picardo Architecture, Inc. on behalf of the owner, Linda Childs. Autumn is requesting approval of a design review permit and a recommendation of approval for an encroachment agreement for the installation of an eight-foot, six-and-tall, decorative iron-electric fence, seven-foot, four 7 foot 4 inch tall stone pillars with lighting atop for an existing driveway and a 6 foot iron fence and side gate, as well as new address numbers, relocated mailbox and a gate access box at 122 San Carlos. Our new planner, welcome Katieie nelson is here to describe this however given the lateness of the hour and before we get into this uh as uh had a conversation with the city both city attorneys in the last two days and we contacted you earlier in the day and you were going to try to get a hold of the owners of the property. Are these the owners of the property? So there's a zoning violation here, and the question is if you're willing to adapt it, then we can address that. But if not, we may want to continue this to allow you to redesign this to meet the zoning code. So I guess before we go into a long presentation and then get to that, we could ask you to come up and address that issue. |
| 05:03:23.58 | Kristin Teiche | Okay. |
| 05:04:17.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So she informed you of the zoning issue. |
| 05:04:20.92 | Linda Hodum | I was informed at 4 p.m. that there might be an issue. |
| 05:04:24.40 | Unknown | Okay. Okay. |
| 05:04:27.71 | Linda Hodum | And so that's why I came. |
| 05:04:30.22 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 05:04:31.49 | Linda Hodum | And so I'd ask for a picture. Can we put the picture that you have up? I think it'd be much easier if you just see what is being proposed, because when I hear what you read, And when you look at what the project is, I think it'll make more sense. So... |
| 05:04:46.47 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:04:53.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, we can have her do the full presentation. We can have the full presentation that she was going to do. I'm just making you aware because we have a six-foot limit for fences at the parcel line. And so you have something in excess of that. So no matter how it looks or the design of it, it still violates the zoning ordinance. So I'm sort of asking you if you want opportunity. If we have an option tonight, let me make it clear, that we can deny the project. So I'm sort of asking you if you want opportunity, if we have an option tonight, let me make it clear that we can deny the project and if we deny this, you will have to resubmit a new thing and submit a new application and go through a whole new process. I'm trying to help you here that if you're willing to adjust to what the code says, we have a way to do that. But if you're not willing to do that, then we'll go through it all. |
| 05:04:55.42 | Linda Hodum | Okay. It's a full presentation. do. I'm just |
| 05:05:40.39 | Linda Hodum | Well, through it all. Of course, I'm willing to adjust. Okay. Always. |
| 05:05:42.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:05:42.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | going. |
| 05:05:43.51 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 05:05:44.03 | Linda Hodum | you |
| 05:05:44.12 | Unknown | you |
| 05:05:44.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 05:05:44.39 | Linda Hodum | It's always adjustments. |
| 05:05:44.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE FAMILY. |
| 05:05:44.66 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. Okay. |
| 05:05:47.22 | Linda Hodum | And what I'm asking, well, first of all, I'm Linda Hodum. I've lived here for 45 years. I'm a business owner here on Caledonia Street. |
| 05:05:51.97 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 05:05:52.45 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 05:05:58.87 | Linda Hodum | And the home had a gate. That was bigger than this gate. And we took it down to put the driveway in. So we have a pre-existing gate that was even bigger than now the ordinance allows for. because of the grade of the property, It. is lower. from the street level because it goes down. So why it is eight feet and that's the top of the light. the simple adjustment would be to move the light. |
| 05:06:47.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:06:47.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will have it will will have Katie do her whole presentation. I'm just making you aware. I'm making you aware ahead of time that if we were to deny this based on this zoning issue, that that you would have to resubmit this, that there is a way to condition this, but we would have to get a redesign which will when we were allowing you the time to do that, and we'd end up continuing it. But we can have the whole presentation that I'm happy to do that. And because it's on the agenda. |
| 05:07:16.02 | Linda Hodum | I've sat here for six hours. |
| 05:07:18.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Of course. Thank you. |
| 05:07:19.09 | Linda Hodum | you |
| 05:07:19.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 05:07:19.19 | Linda Hodum | you Thank you. |
| 05:07:19.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I am. |
| 05:07:19.75 | Linda Hodum | Sorry. |
| 05:07:20.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to let Katie do her presentation. |
| 05:07:21.00 | Linda Hodum | I'm going to let Casey I, if we could have had this conversation, I maybe would have left. |
| 05:07:29.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought you were informed earlier today. I thought Katie tried to reach you and give you this information. |
| 05:07:34.38 | Linda Hodum | She did inform us that there was an issue with the height that came up after we've been working on this project since March. |
| 05:07:38.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:07:39.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:07:39.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | for us. |
| 05:07:39.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:07:39.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Hey. |
| 05:07:45.21 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 05:07:46.51 | Linda Hodum | And security at the house has been an issue. You can check with the police reports. There's been many people that have come to my door. I want to put up a gate. I want to put up a gate. |
| 05:07:59.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're happy to have the game. We just needed to get to six feet, I guess is what I'm telling you. |
| 05:08:03.89 | Linda Hodum | Thank you. |
| 05:08:03.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:08:03.94 | Linda Hodum | So, yeah. |
| 05:08:04.03 | Nastassya Saad | So we take. |
| 05:08:04.70 | Linda Hodum | Thank you. |
| 05:08:05.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:08:05.09 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:08:05.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we'll let's go. |
| 05:08:05.87 | Nastassya Saad | have the presentation and get into our standard format. |
| 05:08:06.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. We'll have the whole presentation. I just didn't want to go through all this. And if we could expedite for you, because we know you want to have the security. |
| 05:08:20.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Again, I... Let's get into our standard format. We'll go through our standard process. We thought you were informed earlier today, and I was trying... The reason we moved this, because I thought you were informed earlier in the day, and we could have resolved this so you wouldn't have to sit here. So I guess that didn't happen, and we can figure that out for the next time. And again, I apologize for that. So Katie, at this point, I'll let you do this presentation. |
| 05:08:22.20 | Nastassya Saad | Let's get into our standard format. |
| 05:08:44.16 | Katie Nelson | Thank you so much. Good evening. Almost morning. I want to extend my sincerest gratitude to the applicant and the owner for hanging in there tonight. and we'll pull up the presentation. My name is Katie Nelson. I'm the associate planner for the city of Sausalito. I'm here to present the design review permit and encroachment agreement request for 122 San Carlos Avenue. The applicant, Pichardo Architecture Inc., has submitted this proposal On behalf of the property owner, Linda Childs Houghtam, Tonight I'll walk you through the details of the project, including its location, existing conditions, the proposed improvements, and staff recommendation. Next. The project is located at 122 San Carlos Avenue, identified by APN 065-12307. The property is approximately 20,000 square feet in size per survey performed in January of this year and is designated as medium low density residential in the general plan. The zoning for the site is single family residential. The property is currently in conformance with the site development standards outlined in SMC 10-22040. |
| 05:10:01.02 | Katie Nelson | next. |
| 05:10:04.77 | Katie Nelson | The applicant is proposing to install an 8-foot, 6-inch-tall, at-peak, decorative iron gate structure flinked by two stone pillars that measure 7 feet 4 inches in height. The pillars will also feature lantern-style lighting atop with seedy glass. Additional improvements include a six foot tall iron fence along the street frontage, a side entry gate, new address identification numbers, relocated mailbox, and minor plantings. Since some of these elements of this proposal encroached into the public right of way, including a four foot, six inch wide portion of the gate structure, one pillar, the front fence, the mailbox and minor plantings. An encroachment agreement is required alongside the design review permit. next. To provide some background, the initial application for a building permit was submitted on March 19, 2024. During the planning division's initial review, it was determined that parts of the fencing improvements were over 42 inches in height. and along with portions of the gate structure extended into the public right of way, thus requiring both the design review permit before the planning commission, and an encroachment agreement to be ultimately approved by city council per smc 10. 54050B13. The applicant formally submitted these applications to the Planning Division on July 17th. The property at 122 San Carlos is currently developed with a single family residence, totaling approximately 5,500 square feet of living space on 0.46 of an acre. The lot has an average slope of around 26% and abuts Harrison Avenue at the rear. Currently, the driveway and existing mailbox are located in the public right-of-way. |
| 05:11:51.08 | Katie Nelson | This slide illustrates the proposed improvements. Here we see from a bird's eye view that the iron gate structure and stone pillars are the focal points of the design, with portions of the gate structure and one pillar extending into the right of way. A six-foot iron fence will be installed along the street frontage. However, the majority of the fencing is concealed behind mature hedges. reducing its visibility from the street. Overall, the project has been designed to ensure minimal visual impact |
| 05:12:21.61 | Katie Nelson | The fence and gate structure proposed are both located beneath the primary view shed from adjacent properties, and the proposed plan is intended to enhance the aesthetic view of the property from the street and surrounding environment. The gate and pillars are designed to blend with the architectural character of the neighborhood in which this is a prevailing style. The pillars will feature LED lighting that is dimmable. with lantern style pictures using seedy glass to minimize glare. Perhaps most importantly, Due to the downward sloping topography of the property, the driveway improvements sit three feet lower than the street level. which ensures that neither the gate, the pillars, nor the proposed fencing will obstruct any existing views from adjacent properties or public vantage points. |
| 05:13:06.92 | Katie Nelson | A new six-foot Ironside entry gate and address numbers will also be installed, supporting the clear identification of the property, aiding in mail and parcel deliveries, as well as emergency response. |
| 05:13:21.04 | Katie Nelson | In this image, we see a panoramic view of the current street frontage with the proposed gate and fencing overlaid. The iron fence inside entry gate near the garage are six feet high, but are largely concealed behind the existing mature hedge, preserving privacy and, while maintaining the visual character of the street. The hedge will remain, providing natural screening that ensures that the fence is largely unseen from the road. A stone pillar which anchors the gate structure stands only four feet, four inches tall from street level and is positioned behind the hedge to blend with the surrounding foliage. Overall, this visualization demonstrates how the new design integrates harmoniously with the existing landscape, maintaining a discrete street presence while enhancing both security and privacy. |
| 05:14:08.97 | Katie Nelson | In these two images, we see the location and the design of the proposed gate from different perspectives. On the left, the current view shows the designated location for the gate structure marked against the cobblestone driveway. This highlights how it will integrate into the sloping landscape. On the right, the rendering shows A detailed view of the gate design with stone pillars and intricate wrought iron detailing offering both an ornate decorative element and improved property protection. This slide demonstrates that the encroachment is necessary for the functional and secure use of the property. Given the site's downward sloping topography and the positioning of the driveway, a slight extension of the gate structure, pillar structure, fencing, and plantings into the right-of-way is required. This configuration ensures that the gate can operate smoothly while allowing vehicles to completely exit the roadway. for stopping to enter the property. This enhances both traffic safety and ease of movement. The project ensures that there are no adverse effects on public circulation or safety. as the encroachment is modest and set far enough back from the road to avoid obstructing pathways or creating hazards. This minimal encouragement will not affect the usability or enjoyment of adjacent parcels as it does not impede access or obstruct sight lines preserving the visual openness of the area. The next two slides reveal some neighborhood context. The proposed improvements complement the surrounding neighborhood where many properties already feature similar ironwork gates characterized by elegant designs and associated stone or masonry elements that coordinate with the overall landscape and maintain a harmonious appearance. |
| 05:15:57.19 | Katie Nelson | Here we have some more examples. And in conclusion, after careful review, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve application number 2024-00129 for 122 San Carlos Avenue and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit and recommending approval of the encroachment agreement. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. |
| 05:16:22.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Katie. If we're now have questions, and I'll start with mine, which I started to ask previously. Can you go back to the elevation of the gate and the fence? |
| 05:16:38.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll back one more, I think. Okay, so on the lines, which you can't really read closely, that last one that's the closest piece of the gate, the pillar indicates that that fence at that point is six feet six inches. Right. Okay. And the gate itself is eight foot six inches and then halfway through the |
| 05:16:54.70 | Katie Nelson | Right. |
| 05:17:03.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Gate on the right, it's about seven-something feet. I mean, there's a dimension there that's in red in the document. I don't remember the exact number, but it exceeds six feet. So the code in my discussion with city attorney 1044-020 indicates that at the parcel line, you cannot exceed six feet. So my question here is either it needs a variance or I think it needs a variance or it needs to be redesigned to be less than six feet. So and the city attorney provided us with language that we can adopt as a condition to reduce it down to six feet but but I'm not sure how the design changes if it becomes less than six feet. So is there any, have you had any conversation with the owners and they're going to do a presentation. Yes. Have you had any conversation with them of how they would scale it back to six feet |
| 05:17:57.30 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 05:18:02.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Or would they want to do a variant? |
| 05:18:03.92 | Katie Nelson | We have not discussed that in detail and I'm not sure that this configuration would be applicable for a variance. The specific code section that you cite is pretty specific about regulations along parcel lines. Doesn't discuss any heights within the right of way. |
| 05:18:20.03 | Unknown | Thank you. It doesn't matter. |
| 05:18:20.54 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 05:18:20.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:18:23.66 | Katie Nelson | And, um, In terms of intruding on required yards, it only discusses the side and rear setbacks. So no discussion about the front yard. There is a zero foot setback in the front yard of this property. Furthermore, I think we can make the argument that this is a structure and we allow accessory structures to be 15 feet tall at the property line. and we have allowed similar architectural features and structures within the right of way that exceed this height limit. |
| 05:18:57.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If we're gonna call it a structure and not call it a fence, it's gonna affect, it has some bulk, it'll affect FARs, we'll need a zoning analysis for that. |
| 05:19:06.05 | Katie Nelson | Sure, I mean, I can tell you what the- |
| 05:19:06.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. That's not what the staff report implied it was a fence. Are you saying that you're not, you're saying it isn't, the gate is or isn't a fence, I guess is the question. |
| 05:19:18.35 | Katie Nelson | So I'll read you the definition of a structure. |
| 05:19:21.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I know what the, I know, thank you. I know the definition of a structure. Thank you. A fence is a structure and they're in our code. There is additional information about fences. Right. Are you arguing that this is not a, this is not a fence and it's something other than a fence, which makes it an accessory structure. A fence is a structure, but there are specific requirements for a fence. And you're saying you're not going to apply this to that? |
| 05:19:22.01 | Katie Nelson | And a bunch. |
| 05:19:25.81 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 05:19:50.45 | Katie Nelson | Sir, respectfully, my role here is to present to you the details of the project in a thorough manner. |
| 05:19:56.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 05:19:56.02 | Unknown | Right. |
| 05:19:56.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:19:56.69 | Katie Nelson | and your responsibility as the commission, you're tasked with interpreting that and making a recommendation or a determination. |
| 05:20:03.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand what my role is. Thank you very much. Thank you. I've been doing this for four years. I fully understand my role. What I'm asking you is, is it your interpretation, because I have something different from the city attorney, that this is not a fence, that this gate is not a fence. You're saying you're trying to make this thing as a structure, like a shed, and you're not counting it as a fence, because we have specific rules about fences. |
| 05:20:06.90 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 05:20:07.46 | Justine Kahn | Thank you. |
| 05:20:35.13 | Katie Nelson | Right, and they're under the accessory uses and structures section. |
| 05:20:38.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 05:20:39.12 | Katie Nelson | So I think the code is unclear and it's conflicting. That's my opinion. |
| 05:20:44.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see, okay. At this point, we'll have the applicant provide a presentation. |
| 05:20:50.51 | Unknown | We asked him. |
| 05:20:51.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. It's late. I apologize. No worries. So, yes, at this point, commissioners will ask questions, and then we will go to the presentation by the applicant, and then we will go to public comment. Yes, Commissioner Junius, I apologize. |
| 05:20:54.32 | Unknown | No worries. |
| 05:21:05.58 | Andrew Junius | So thank you so much for your patience tonight, everybody. Really appreciate it. It's interesting. If we could go back to that one slide, which is the key slide. |
| 05:21:15.87 | Katie Nelson | Where are you at? |
| 05:21:16.80 | Andrew Junius | Sorry, I think the slide with the elevation on it you know, it's, it's, it's a little interesting because measuring something with such an ornate, beautiful, well-designed great gate. That's got the curly cues on top and all that stuff. It's like, to me, it's almost like I think you're measuring, you should be measuring from the grade to the highest, you know, solid body of the gate, which is, |
| 05:21:37.24 | Unknown | the body of the pig |
| 05:21:40.54 | Andrew Junius | Very, very close to six feet might even be six feet, because there's one measurement that says just past it. It's like six feet, 11 inches. And then and then at the very peak, it's eight feet. But the whole freaking gate is not eight feet tall. period. I'm not sure. And I'm also I'm not sure I quite understood the the proximity to the property line. Isn't just a tiny bit of this over the property line? Is that what we're saying? |
| 05:22:02.68 | Katie Nelson | So the northernmost pillar starts 19 feet into the driveway. And so the right of way takes up a significant portion of the driveway. |
| 05:22:09.38 | Andrew Junius | the way. |
| 05:22:13.15 | Andrew Junius | of... It is in the right way. |
| 05:22:16.28 | Katie Nelson | So just one portion, the southernmost portion of the gate Like, yeah. You can see the property line. I know it's not very clear, but you can see the dashed line is the property line. |
| 05:22:28.64 | Andrew Junius | So most of the fence is on the property, and then it crosses. |
| 05:22:28.79 | Katie Nelson | so, so, |
| 05:22:32.04 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 05:22:32.10 | Katie Nelson | Correct. |
| 05:22:32.13 | Andrew Junius | Correct. Again, we're faced with an awkward situation that, you know, is there's thank God we have discretion, right? The staff has discretion to make calls like this. And I think this is a pretty straightforward, easy, you know, move to approve the situation. Thank you for the presentation and the question. |
| 05:22:54.62 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 05:22:58.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other kind of questions from commissioners? You're the youth. He has thoughts, but he doesn't have questions. |
| 05:23:08.75 | Nastassya Saad | I don't have any questions for staff. |
| 05:23:10.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Saad, question? |
| 05:23:12.56 | Nastassya Saad | I don't have questions for staff, but I did not see anything circulated from the city attorney, so I am unclear exactly what you're referring to because I don't see it on the public record anywhere. |
| 05:23:25.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, it's not yet on the public record. I got a language from the city attorney that in order for us to be able to proceed tonight and so that we're not doing stuff on the fly, they drafted a condition that would require it to meet the six-foot requirement and gave me language to that effect to use tonight if that's where we were going to go. And i thought that information was transferred to the uh property owners and so they were aware of that so i apologize for that because that was the intent of what we wanted to do and so they'd be aware of that and then i thought if they were accepting of that we could dispense with this tonight however i if if that's not i think obviously, I believe it violates the code. It's different than we've only approved one gate. It was four feet high, not six feet high. And there's some discussion here about the street. I just want to make it clear that the street includes, the street is where the property line is, whether or not it's paved by a driveway, it's still part of the city's right away. So the street is the street. |
| 05:24:33.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I was just going to ask, could we please hear from legal just to chime in here? |
| 05:24:39.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, Kyle, Ms. Otto, can you chime in here? Because you have a copy of what Sergio sent me. |
| 05:24:46.79 | Ms. Otto | I can. It sounds like you're starting to head into discussion. If we could please open the public hearing before people are saying whether they're opposed or for a project, we should probably have the public hearing first because you shouldn't prejudge before you have all the evidence. If the commission decides that they believe that there should be limits on the height, the city attorney's office has prepared that to modify the condition, but obviously that will be at the discretion of the Commission and the vote the way it goes. After we have the public hearing, I'm happy if that's the direction the Commission wants to go to discuss that in greater detail. |
| 05:25:28.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So at this point, if there are any other questions from the commission, we'll have the applicant do their presentation. You have 15 minutes to do a presentation. |
| 05:25:46.58 | Unknown | Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. So. We started this project back in March, and... It seems simple enough to create a secure home for Linda Houghtam. And through the process, since March, we've met with, I think, three, maybe four planners now. I think Katie's either a fourth or fifth planner. So the information that we were given sort of trickled in. I asked questions about the zoning ordinance in particular. And, It's unfortunate because we weren't aware of there being like a very strict issue. Not that it helps us in the design, and that we could certainly lower this structure, but then it serves no purpose. One key element in how we've designed this is I always imagined and intended that what you're experiencing from the gate structure and I'm referring to the gate as a structure. And then there is a section of fence that's in the right of way. What we're looking at are these stone pillars with a gate structure so how that's applied to might ask for some information in terms of how the zoning reads that it's now a structure rather than a fence. But looking at the gate structure, its height really is dominated by our horizontal line. Would you mind going to the next slide? A second one, one more. Yeah. Again, that's the images that we looked at earlier. So the dominant feature of this iron gate is that horizontal line, which is at six. I think it varies between six and six feet four. which it then meets the pillar on the right, which is the pillar that we're looking for in encroachment on the right of way. And that height is at seven four. So, Looking at the structure of the gate, the intent really is a six foot high, six foot four high gate with these decorative elements that are within the property line. So let's see, the higher elements of that gate are within the property line. Property line sits at about midway of the white of the right panel at the gate. Um, Both Lynn and I were very sensitive in terms of what we were creating on site. We've worked together on that house for years. 25 years. And it's been an important element component that we're respecting what's there on site, integrating the design decision and materials that we're selecting as well. So we were quite sensitive to the overall design and scale of this project. Again, The purpose is security. And so I don't see a way that we could possibly lower that gate to a six foot max level. The gate, I think we're okay to lower a bit. Let me rephrase that. The pillar is a bit taller there. within that public right away. that's governing the height of the fence. The intent is that the fence remains at six. We're very clear on that along the public right of way. To be clear, also the experience, I'm not sure you can see the outline of a person there, We're about three feet lower from the street. So your experience really as you're passing by certainly isn't, oh my God, it's eight feet or six feet or seven feet. It's you're about four, four and a half feet max on the experience. If you could go to the first slide there, that gives you and maybe zoom in a bit too, if you don't mind. So that's a rendering that was based on site mockups, meaning we had someone in the center of the street trying to experience what it would be like from the center of the street. That's a six foot two. figure there and then the pillars are also based on the heights that we generated both in the elevation and plant. So you can see that the height in terms of scale is much less than the dimension height. Again, the dimensions height, is being taken from where the pillars leave the ground. They're at a much lower elevation. |
| 05:30:07.11 | Unknown | Could you forward two slides there? one more. Yes. So coming back to the elevation again, this is an elevation, uh, On paper, you don't experience it quite like this when you're on the street or when you're actually at the driveway as well. So what I'm asking for, what we're asking for, is an approval of this design. with the encroachment and also the elements that are within the property. I mean, I do know, just doing some research, just looking at what the city has reviewed and approved, there are other accessory structures that have recently been approved at 9 feet 4, I believe, and 9 feet 8. And those are structures that are right on the street. Our proposed project here is set back about 12 feet from the street. Could you forward to the last slide in this presentation? Yeah. So there's an example. Back up one, please. There's an example of the I believe that's the nine foot eight. structure. um, Thank you. |
| 05:31:22.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that. |
| 05:31:22.63 | Unknown | is certainly... |
| 05:31:23.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right off of the street. Just for the record on that, just so you know, that gate is five feet high. The structure over it is nine feet, but the gate itself is only five feet high. Understood. So the fences, |
| 05:31:34.96 | Unknown | it. |
| 05:31:35.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And the fence is only six feet high, not above six feet in that exam. |
| 05:31:35.22 | Unknown | in the fence. |
| 05:31:42.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:31:42.17 | Unknown | And then there's a second. |
| 05:31:43.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The next slide. |
| 05:31:44.78 | Unknown | Thank you. This actually this is a project that's still under construction, but that was also an entrance trellis at nine feet four. Again, these are structures in this case, they're on the street where we're actually proposing buffering the street edge, pulling down the structures down to. |
| 05:32:02.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Again, this is not a gate. I just want you to be aware. This is not a gate. you |
| 05:32:06.44 | Unknown | understood. Okay. |
| 05:32:07.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:32:10.77 | Unknown | So again, I'm asking for consideration of the proposed project. If you're feeling that it cannot be approved, I would be interested in the variance approach to see if we can get the variance on the pillar, which is past the six foot height mark. I'm looking at, again, the pillar and the gate, those are structures. And I don't know if Saucy Ludo has specific definitions that define a gate as opposed to a fence. Because I think that's part of what we're reviewing now, the definition of fence, and we're applying it to a structure. that I'm not quite sure meets the definition of offense, both in terms of its built structure and also its function. |
| 05:33:02.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:33:02.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of Is that the end of your presentation? Yes. Do you want to make comments? |
| 05:33:06.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:33:06.60 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 05:33:11.37 | Linda Hodum | You know, we've also you My long, very long-term neighbors love the design. So I just wanna express that I've met with all of my neighbors and they're very excited about this new structure coming in to the neighborhood. |
| 05:33:38.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. At this time, we'll have questions from the commission. And then so you might want to stay up there if you can. I'll follow on with the question because I'm a little confused about what you said. Can we go back to the elevation drawing, please? |
| 05:33:38.52 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 05:33:56.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Again, we understand you need security, and we understand you want to get this, and we understand you set it for six hours. So I fully understand all of that. |
| 05:34:05.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We understand it's been since March, but unfortunately for us, we have codes and we have requirements. And if we give you a special privilege that we don't give to everybody else, if we approve something for you, we're basically approving it for anybody in the future. So on this particular drawing, I'm confused. The fence on the right side, which, first of all, is a fence, says six foot six. It's not six feet. So on the right, are you saying that the dimensions on this drawing are incorrect? Because it says six foot six for right next to where the pier is. |
| 05:34:44.56 | Unknown | No, I would say then that the, and we could modify that and make it clear for the record, that should be six feet. Okay. |
| 05:34:50.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so that's six foot six. Now, are you saying the gait itself is not really the eight foot six and the gait is only six feet and it's high? |
| 05:35:02.75 | Unknown | So the eight foot dimension is taken from the center, the decorative scroll. |
| 05:35:10.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:35:10.32 | Unknown | That's the eight foot dimension. |
| 05:35:12.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:35:12.74 | Unknown | So thank you, commissioner. |
| 05:35:12.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, Yeah, that's the eight foot. Yes. But even to the line, the horizontal line, at least the last time I saw this, exceeds six feet as well. Thank you. |
| 05:35:24.70 | Unknown | I believe that should be at six feet. That's the intent. |
| 05:35:27.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't think that was, but I can look at the drawing in a minute. And then the piers are clearly higher than that. That's right. They're seven feet something without the, not even counting the lights on top of them. They're like eight feet six. |
| 05:35:40.33 | Unknown | They're seven foot four top of the pillar. That's right. |
| 05:35:43.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | up to the top of the light. Thank you. |
| 05:35:45.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:35:45.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF |
| 05:35:45.69 | Unknown | to the next episode. |
| 05:35:45.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:35:45.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:35:46.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of the pillar and then there's a light on top of it which means the whole structure goes up to about eight foot six |
| 05:35:54.72 | Unknown | And that's something that we can certainly reconsider. |
| 05:35:58.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so I will look and see what the actual dimension to that one line is, while others ask questions if they have it. Who else has questions? |
| 05:36:10.96 | David Marlatt | Just to clarify, I know you mentioned it before, but to remind me since the hour is late. You were saying you're more willing to lower the gate than the pillars, or did I get the opposite? you the priority for you. The opposite. Okay. |
| 05:36:31.24 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 05:36:34.97 | Linda Hodum | you you Thank you. Thank you. You will be. Thank you. |
| 05:36:39.85 | Unknown | Could you kindly just speak into the microphone? |
| 05:36:42.83 | David Marlatt | I'm like, |
| 05:36:43.13 | Linda Hodum | Lower the gate. |
| 05:36:44.49 | David Marlatt | Right now, I see that it will. |
| 05:36:45.45 | Linda Hodum | It will be. I see that. We'll just forget it because it'll be so low. You can jump over it. |
| 05:36:49.43 | David Marlatt | I see that. |
| 05:36:56.30 | Mr. Johnson | Well. Thank you. |
| 05:36:56.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. Are you suggesting you can jump over a six foot gate |
| 05:37:01.14 | Linda Hodum | I'm suggesting with the grade of the driveway, a six foot gate becomes a three foot gate. |
| 05:37:09.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It might look like a three foot gate, but if somebody is out at the street where you're saying it's three feet, they can't jump that far. When they come up to the gate, Okay. The gate is six feet high. Are you actually saying that somehow the thing is relatively level where the gate opens? Because it has to be able to open. |
| 05:37:29.56 | Linda Hodum | Right. But a deer could certainly jump over it. |
| 05:37:33.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | A deer probably can jump over an eight foot six gate. I don't know. I mean, that's, are you concerned about deer? |
| 05:37:44.22 | Linda Hodum | I'm concerned about... |
| 05:37:45.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or people. |
| 05:37:46.30 | Linda Hodum | People, deers, both. |
| 05:37:49.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Both, okay. Yeah, again, the code is the code, it's sort of irrelevant. but, you know, I'm looking at the dimensions and they only dimensions you have on here the dimensions you have on here, |
| 05:38:02.04 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 05:38:04.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | in red. for to the curly queue about where the parcel line is is six foot 11 inches so uh it's it's not dimension so i don't know that that part is six feet but again it's it's it's it's uh you know uh it the if there's a six foot requirement it it has to be six it's six feet or less or it needs a variance or somehow if there's a provision in our code for us to override that i don't know if there is uh but i would want to continue it to research that uh so i mean if you're |
| 05:38:43.56 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 05:38:43.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:38:43.64 | David Marlatt | Are we in the discussion portion now, |
| 05:38:45.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, we're still in the question thing. We haven't had public comments. So I'm just asking, I was trying to understand whether you're, why somebody else, the only gate with this commission is approved, which is a comparable example as a four foot gate. and so that i don't know that people can jump over that one either but i don't you know so my question is, you're saying that either you want to put it up an eight foot, I guess the question is, you either want to put up an eight foot six gate or, or you don't want to have it at all. Is that, I'm asking that question. That's a question. So is it my understanding that you're |
| 05:38:45.77 | David Marlatt | . |
| 05:39:25.24 | Unknown | So is it my understanding that you're considering this gate as an eight-foot-six gate based on the scroll? |
| 05:39:33.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | sorry this is an eight foot six gate so there's there's no question it's an eight foot six gate whether we have some way to do it or they whether the other commissioners want to do something else i don't know but my question for you is if we were to put a condition on which a city attorney has provided to limit this to six feet would you just abandon the project or would you do the six feet that's my question |
| 05:40:00.17 | Unknown | I think we would have to abandon the project at that point. It doesn't serve its purpose. We're talking about lowering the pillars, lowering the horizontal part. In other words, if you just imagine, take the top of that gate. |
| 05:40:09.69 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 05:40:09.79 | Tom Hoover | Thank you. |
| 05:40:09.87 | Kristin Teiche | to the |
| 05:40:16.82 | Unknown | and just bring it down. So if you're considering the height of this gate at 86, the top of the decorative scroll in the center, then proportionally bringing that down. the actual gates or the height of that gate at that point, is going to be two feet less. So you're at about a four foot high entrance gate at that point with the decorative scroll in the center, making it up to the six foot mark. So at that point, yeah, it really defeats the purpose of trying to provide security for the property. |
| 05:40:43.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:40:49.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Would you consider a gate that doesn't have the scrolls on top and it gives you the full security because it goes up the full six feet? Would you consider that? |
| 05:41:06.03 | Unknown | We're being asked to design |
| 05:41:08.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not asking you to design. I'm just trying to figure out, just give you some context. We can approve this, possibly, if we can figure out a way. We could deny this, or we can condition it. So one condition would be to limit it to that height. One option is to continue this so you could come back. We don't want to design it here right now and come up with another design. If we deny it, then you have possibility to submit in the future, but then you've got to go through the whole process again. And I'm trying to help you avoid that, given that you want to get security on your house. So my question is just simply, whether you could come back with a six-foot fence that does what you want, because you don't have to have |
| 05:41:11.53 | Unknown | All right. |
| 05:41:11.68 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:41:11.74 | Unknown | out. |
| 05:41:12.38 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 05:41:12.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:41:12.61 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 05:41:57.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You only have to have only partial on the 6b, you could have all of the 6b. That's a question. I don't know what my other commissioners will do. |
| 05:42:05.94 | Andrew Junius | why don't you let us have a shot at it here I just want to find out |
| 05:42:06.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I think it's a good thing. I just want to find out whether they're interested in doing that because it will affect the conversation before we have public comment. But |
| 05:42:19.47 | Unknown | But at this point, no, we're not interested. I would love to hear from the other commissioners to get a broader sense and understanding of, A, in my mind, I think there's... One key component to this discussion is how are we defining that gate? Is it a structure similar to the structures that were approved on the two examples I showed you? Or is it in the ordinance and definitions, is it a fence? What would help me answer your question is to have that basic understanding and |
| 05:42:51.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will get to that when we have our conversation. So we can't do that right now. I can only ask you questions at this point. Understood. Other questions of the hour. |
| 05:42:57.47 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 05:43:01.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you very much. At this point, we are gonna have public comment. Director, we have nobody in the audience. Can you check on Zoom? Seeing none. To see if anybody wants to make any public comment. With that, we will close the public comment and bring it up here for discussion. |
| 05:43:22.58 | David Marlatt | Well, I'll start with my thoughts. I don't, I don't, obviously, we've sort of rationalizing here. I recognize that. I don't have any trouble saying that the pillars are structure based on the precedent of trellis structures and other typical structures. I also don't, even though our code section on height could be better, like so much of our code sections, in terms of what counts, what doesn't count. It does allow in the height definition, admittedly for buildings, for accessory elements, chimneys and so forth. And I can easily rationalize placing the lamp on the pillar as an accessory element that adds to the height of the structure. So basically allowed. For me, it comes down to what can we do or what should we do with this gate slash fence slash structure. I would lean, it would be interesting to see what my other commissioners think, towards defining or setting the height of this gate at that major horizontal bar. And the rest of the frou-frou above it is just decoration. I could live with that. Admittedly, we're sort of trying to twist the code and rationalize a bit based on some ambiguity and height, what is height. But that's a place I could go. |
| 05:43:39.37 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 05:43:39.39 | Unknown | you |
| 05:43:39.42 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 05:43:57.94 | Tom Hoover | Thank you. |
| 05:44:02.24 | Kristin Teiche | Yeah. |
| 05:44:41.95 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 05:44:56.42 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 05:44:57.20 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to make |
| 05:44:58.65 | Unknown | Please cheer us up. |
| 05:44:59.40 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to make a motion to approve this as is, and I'm going to tell you why. I'm born and raised here. I remember your gate. So I remember how your home was. since I was little and I've watched your progression, I've watched the change, knowing that there was a basic exact, I mean, there was a very high gate there previously. I'm going to make the call that this is a structure with all due respect to our city attorney and to you, Chair. I have not seen that correspondence. I have not heard our legal that is here tonight make any reference unless you care to chime in Thank you. you, Chair. I have not seen that correspondence. I have not heard our legal that is here tonight make any reference. Unless you care to chime in, there's nothing on the public record, and we have not had a discussion with Sergio personally. So I am not privy to that conversation. And so I'm not going to include that because I'm not privy to that, unless our city attorney on here right now would like to make a comment on behalf of being aware of that. if you want to help us to find this out, but if you don't, then I'm going to go with the staff report. I'd like to put a motion on the floor to approve this project. |
| 05:46:18.30 | Andrew Junius | second And I'll just, you know, people can disagree about the application of the code. This is extremely fuzzy to Commissioner Marlott's point. It's, you know, there's probably six different ways that we could approve this. There's a lot of reason to approve it from a design standpoint. I don't think there's any question that the design elevation, it will look ridiculous if it's a code compliant. I don't care about the security. It will look ridiculous. if it's code complying. or at least if it's reduced in height by two or three feet. That's just unacceptable. we're, We're, we're here. you know, it just seems This is a no-brainer to me. And I'm glad I seconded the motion and I hope we can get this done tonight. |
| 05:47:09.55 | Tom Hoover | I can't remember a lot. |
| 05:47:09.69 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 05:47:09.70 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 05:47:09.91 | David Marlatt | I know. I've made my comment. I could also support the motion. I guess I was sort of offering a halfway point, if there was any interest or takers in it, by just lowering that major horizontal bar about five or six inches, according to what I see in dimension. Well, if there's a need for precedent and so forth. But I also can be supportive of the motion. |
| 05:47:31.22 | Andrew Junius | You know, I disagree with that. Honestly, there is no precedent in land use law. There's the concept of precedent. We always talk about it, but there's no legal precedent. Every case is different. There's no case, there's no home in Sausalito that's exactly like this house. Not even close. This is a unique situation, and we're applying the discretion that the staff has. The staff has made a call on this. It seems like a no brainer to them. Very clear to me, fuzzy area. They've made it. They've made an interpretation of the code that allows this gate to go forward. It just seems... silly to, you know, be trying to you know, make this, it's not a perfect world. Our code is so far from perfect. And it's just it's the right thing to do to approve this fence and and to make them lap off four inches five inches is just |
| 05:48:20.60 | Unknown | THE END OF Thank you. |
| 05:48:20.88 | Andrew Junius | is just like not necessary. So I hope we can |
| 05:48:25.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just vote. Obviously I disagree and I'm gonna outline why because the This Commission has approved various things in the past and then somebody takes that goes to another project and says, well, you approved this outdoor dining here and we're gonna therefore I should allow it here. This is a case that they had a gate and for some reason it came down and they grandfathered it in, that's one thing. The code, to me, is very clear that fences, and if we're going to define a gate as not a fence, that concerns me because we're going to set a precedent that gates are now structures as opposed to accessory structures or whatever. The staff report clearly identified this issue and then contradicted itself. So that's what concerns me. And this is not really about this project. It's about what the next gate that comes in. We've only done one of these gates. It was four feet high. The trellis, calling this gate a trellis is just wrong. I mean, that trellis was approved as a trellis. I can agree with the argument that Commissioner Marlott had that the pillars could be structures. I get that. The fact that the fence next to it is at 6'6", clearly violates the code. I mean, we have a code. And if we want to just close our eyes and say it's 11 o'clock at night and we want to approve this because because they had one well a long time ago that's a problem for me because the next project that comes in that doesn't have curly cues on top it has solid wood eight feet six inches high and it wants to do it they're gonna say well that was 18 six inches high this should be allowed to be 18 six inches high the app the the staff report says the following which is you know why I was concerned about it in the first place it says pursuant to section 1044 020 D fencing is allowed to be installed with the required yard areas as long as it does not exceed 6 feet a night when located along the parcel line. The proposed project ensures no section of the fencing exceeds six feet, which is not true because there's a six foot six section. along the frontage of the property, nor the side entry gate to the north. The proposed section of the gate, illuminated stone pier and the light located, will not exceed 8 feet 8 inches. So first it goes on and specifically says it can't exceed 6 feet, and then goes on and says this is 8 feet 8 inches. And so it didn't say it's a structure. it didn't say we're going to improve this in some other thing of of the code and we have a code if we're not going to look at the code i mean i'll tell you we we spent hours tonight on the odds if this was under the odds The requirement would be three feet And somehow somebody would come in and say, oh, I don't know why the odds says three feet, but that's what the odds says. And we're adopting regulations that have specific numbers. And if we have a six-foot requirement and we're just ignoring it here, then when we're doing these odds, I don't know why we have 86 pages of odds if no one's going to listen to what the code says. I mean, I'm sorry. I understand they just want a simple gate. And and for me it's not about their one simple thing it's about the next four projects that come in and want a gate that's then eight foot six high completely solid so if we we want to approve this because we're going to call the upper part not really part of the gate then then I would like us to put that into this so that the next one that comes in and is not that, that we're not setting a precedent here. That's my entire issue on that. |
| 05:52:22.87 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:52:22.90 | Tom Hoover | I agree. |
| 05:52:23.12 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. I respectfully understand what you're saying. I am going to look to the attorney. Just do you have any comments to weigh in here? We do have a motion on the floor, and I would love for us to take a roll call, but final chiming in, do you have an opinion here? |
| 05:52:41.20 | Ms. Otto | I do. Well, I don't have an opinion. I can give what your code says. And I do think that either interpretation could be supported by the code. There is no definition of gate or pillars within the code. A fence is a structure designed to act as an enclosure or barrier constructed of wood, posts, or other materials. And then the definition of structure says anything constructed or erected on the ground the use of which requires attachment to the ground or over 120 square feet in area or over six feet in height, or any structure that requires a building permit. including any building, but not including fences or walls six feet or less in height. which is the relevant part there. When you look in the section 1044.020, which is also where we find the code regulations for walls, fences, and railings, it does allow a structure not to exceed one story or 15 feet in height. So it really comes down to what I'm hearing the commission saying that the, or at least majority of the commission has opined that they're seeing this as a structure. I've heard staff say it's a structure. There's nothing contradictory to that in the code. as to the argument on the fence The code does specifically say when located along a parcel line at six feet. So that's, there is that issue. But as far as the gate There's no definition of gate. There is a definition of structure of which the walls and possibly the gates It's a legitimate argument. can be over 15 feet in height and it can be at the property line is what I'm reading. I don't see anything contrary on the code that if the commission is leaning towards this as a structure It's not. It's not unsupported by the code. Likewise, if the commission wanted to say no, The gate is a fence then you know, could go the other way. So I don't have a, |
| 05:54:50.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:54:50.97 | Ms. Otto | Thank you. |
| 05:54:50.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:54:51.74 | Ms. Otto | I did alternative language. If the commission wanted to go one way, we will frequently do that if we've heard an issue so that we're prepared to address the commission's concerns. |
| 05:55:00.90 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 05:55:01.53 | Ms. Otto | Karen Hollweg, He was not a pining that this is a problem staff has done their staff report done their legal analysis. We just simply were prepared in case you wanted to go a different way. |
| 05:55:11.81 | Nastassya Saad | Understood. And then with all due respect to the staff report, then I'm going to disagree with the staff report that it's a fence. I'm going to interpret this as a structure, given the |
| 05:55:21.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:55:24.50 | Nastassya Saad | given that siding, I can't think of the word right now. I go to bed at nine every night. The pillars. So I am going to look at it. I'm going to interpret it holistically that this is a structure. And I disagree with the staff report calling it a fence. And I'm going to stick with my motion. And with all due respect to my other commissioner, I'm not going to accept an amendment to the motion of changing the height. But I understand what you're saying, but I don't want to open that up. So my motion is on the floor if I still have a second. |
| 05:55:55.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I wanna ask one more question to the attorney. So if we approve, if the commission approves this, And by the record, calling it a structure, I guess that's what they have to do. Two questions. One, if somebody comes back with a gate in the future, are we forever basically establishing a precedent that a gate is now a structure and not a fence? |
| 05:56:21.15 | Ms. Otto | No. while it could be used for someone to say, look here, even if let's assume that this wasn't a rational decision. You guys just made a mistake, which I'm not saying you are. We're just going to the worst case scenario. Just because the city makes a mistake in one place doesn't mean they have to continue it continuing making that interpretation mistake That's not, there's no obligation of the city to continue to do that. Case law says you don't even have to do that. So even if this scenario happens and It's interpreted that you guys decide the next one through that this was the wrong decision. You're not beholden to having to do this again. Is it someone's going to use it and say, You did it over here and could it make you feel uncomfortable? possibly, but from a legal perspective, you have the obligation to look at the facts project and apply the code. |
| 05:57:17.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And my second question is on by approving this and they have a fence that's six foot six inches. Are we just accepting that that's okay because that part of the fence, which is a fence that we're going to call it a structure. |
| 05:57:35.40 | Ms. Otto | I did not hear the commission say that they were discussing that part of the fence. We were talking about the front gate and pillars. |
| 05:57:41.66 | David Marlatt | I believe the architect agreed to correct the 6 foot 6 |
| 05:57:45.06 | Nastassya Saad | That's an existing fence, but he did say it's six, and I think it's mis- |
| 05:57:48.27 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 05:57:48.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's mysterious. It's miss the drawing is just label. Yeah. |
| 05:57:50.97 | Nastassya Saad | Christmas. |
| 05:57:51.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:57:52.29 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think, yes, he clarified that the drawing is incorrect. It's at six feet, not six six. Okay, the drawing says six feet. Yes, exactly. No, that's a good call out, but it was clarified that it's six feet. |
| 05:57:53.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the drawing is incorrect. |
| 05:57:57.99 | Unknown | you |
| 05:57:58.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, drawing says six feet. |
| 05:58:04.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We have motion for any more conversation. Why don't we call the roll? |
| 05:58:10.66 | Director Phipps | Mr. Merlot. Yes. Mr. Genius. Yes. Mr. Feller is not here. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxberg. No. Motion passes. Congratulations. Yes. |
| 05:58:16.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:58:16.28 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 05:58:16.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:58:24.15 | Nastassya Saad | adjournment. |
| 05:58:26.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I... Uh, is there a motion to adjourn? Yes, I am so moved. So moved. |
| 05:58:28.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:58:28.84 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 05:58:29.02 | Unknown | I'm so moved. |
| 05:58:34.66 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
Babette McDougall — Neutral: Babette McDougall thanked the commission for holding public comment at the start and asked why meetings do not begin with the Pledge of Allegiance, suggesting its inclusion as a democratic tradition. ▶ 📄