| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:10.07 | Unknown | hearings. |
| 00:00:10.88 | Neal Toft | Thank you. We're doing these study sessions in order to kind of give up a real preliminary efforts to educate and understand what is being proposed and the extent of the documents that are involved from the general plan amendments to the rezonings and map changes that would be required in order for the documents to be ready in a manner that we can hold a voter initiative a vote in june of this year in order to meet deadlines by early next year in order to have our rezonings in place. Because those rezonings are very contingent upon the passage of voter initiatives to allow for the development under the housing element. So with that, I will be handing this off. Let me hand this off to Beth Thompson, our housing element consultant. If you have any general overview questions for me, I'd be happy to field that. But if you have more specific questions, it might be better to go through the presentation and get those to Beth. |
| 00:01:23.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are there any immediate questions before we get to Beth? Yes, Commissioner Fella. |
| 00:01:28.12 | Kristina Feller | Neal, if you could kindly just clarify that the timeframe is based on the certified housing element and certain requirements in that base document regarding timeframes. They're not just arbitrary timeframes. These are state imposed based on that base document. |
| 00:01:46.65 | Neal Toft | That's correct. The... certified housing element has time frames to complete the rezoning uh we are the housing element is just one step to actually fully entitling the property and meeting state law and so it's really the state law has these deadlines and we're we're beginning to as i think the term would be we're running out of runway here, and we need to get this document cinched up in a way that the community can together make, achieve a vote to resolve this. this matter. |
| 00:02:24.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | help them. |
| 00:02:26.35 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 00:02:26.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other questions? Commissioner Jonas. |
| 00:02:29.41 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. Neil, are you the right person to ask questions regarding the mechanics of how the ballot's actually going to work? Or should I be directing that to Brandon or somebody else or consultant? |
| 00:02:40.04 | Neal Toft | Well, I think... probably the better approach right now is to focus on these uh these this document and and review that and certainly we did provide some information on the ballot and i think between brandon myself and city attorney we can try to field those questions that is it's it's a little down the road but we do want to begin getting the Michael Boucher, Commission the decision makers and the public tuned into the reality of this part of our adopted housing element and how further a really comfortable approach for the Community through these amendments. |
| 00:03:23.34 | Andrew Junius | I totally agree in Fairpoint I just you know to your point we're under extreme time pressure And you know the various decisions the voters are going to be presented you know hopefully in June are pretty complex. I think every hearing, we should be talking about them so that anybody that's interested can hear it a number of times as to exactly how it works, what they're going to be voting on, how the questions are split, what groupings, you know, what could happen. And what, you know, right. |
| 00:03:41.99 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:03:43.03 | Neal Toft | Yeah. |
| 00:03:52.20 | Neal Toft | And part of the challenge here is In order to prepare those in order to prepare those ballots, we have to know really what are they voting for? What is the project? What are the sites? And make sure we're very clear about what they are voting for. And we're also going to be really, you know, from this point forward, really studying how to best present those ballots and present that information. So it is digestible to the public and it's accurate. and it's reflective of the, you know, of the facts and Yeah. |
| 00:04:28.29 | Andrew Junius | I agree. Again, I think we're in violent agreement here. I totally agree. I just think I don't I think what what has been set out in the staff report with respect to the housing element stuff. |
| 00:04:28.31 | Neal Toft | I agree. |
| 00:04:28.83 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:04:39.89 | Andrew Junius | is is a framework that's probably not going to change it and i'd as well make sure we're going to let you'll be at some of these two questions and clarify things on that talking about sites again and various issues related to the Marin ship and MLK and whatever, Whatever those buckets are, it looks like a decision. Some decisions have been made at a staff level to proceed in a certain manner. And it looks pretty, you know, I get it, but I want to make sure that the public gets it too. |
| 00:05:05.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions before we have Beth give her presentation? Seeing none, Beth, if you could come up on Zoom, and Neil, if you want to stay there as well, feel free, or sit down if you want to. |
| 00:05:21.31 | Neal Toft | I'm going to go ahead and sit and I'll let Beth do her magic. Okay. |
| 00:05:27.44 | Beth Thompson | Well, good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. It's a pleasure to be before you again with the amended housing element. And I've got a lot of slides and information that's similar to the last study session. I culled a little bit of the information, but for anyone who's new to the project, I wanted to make sure we still provided a thorough overview. So I'll just go through a little bit of background information regarding the housing element, discuss the amended housing element project description, the Department of Housing and community development or HCD comments that have been received so far. And then. regarding the housing element, discuss the amended housing element project description, the Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD comments that have been received so far, and then briefly describe the modified housing element alternative. So the city adopted its updated housing element on January 30th of 2023. And the housing element is one of the required elements of the general plan. Unlike a lot of the other elements, it is on a mandated eight-year cycle. So every eight years, the city reviews and updates this housing element to address a specific housing need allocation, as well as any changes in the requirements to state law. So the housing element addresses how the city will accommodate its regional housing need allocation arena of 724 units that was given to the city for the sixth cycle. And the adopted housing element is available on the city's website. The proposed project is the adoption and implementation of an amended housing element that's provided as attachment one in the staff report. And it includes changes to the following components of the adopted housing element. It will revise housing plan program four, which ensures the inventory of sites accommodates the RHNA throughout the planning period to add two new housing and mixed use zones. And these correspond with slightly lower minimum density, so they reduce the required density to from 20 to 29 units per acre. So we had some sites in the downtown area, the historic area, and then along Bridgeway that were allowed to go up to 49 units per acre. And in specific areas, these have been reduced to 29 units per acre. We've also revised Housing Plan Program 8, Public Property Conversion to Housing, to address making publicly owned sites available for development during the 2023 to 2031 planning period, as well as to remove site 85. And then Housing Plan Program 19, Development Review Procedures, has been revised to clarify the implementation of various housing streamlining provisions. Here that the objective design and development standards or odds component of housing plan program 19 is a separate study session item on your agenda tonight. So the revisions to program for, in addition to applying the new housing 29 and mixed use 29, 85% zoning or general plan and zoning overlays, there were also some sites that were removed, some sites that were added and some modifications to those sites. So site 85, which is a long bridgeway and is a right-of-way, it's not an actual parcel, that was removed at the suggestion of HCD. And then site 209 at 931 and 933 Bridgeway was removed. And this one was removed because when we applied the new overlay zone, it wouldn't yield a net new unit. Sites 401 and 402, which are both along Bridgeway, were added. 2400 Bridgeway was added in a mixed use 2985 overlay. This is the FedEx site in the along Bridgeway and then 402 at 2680 Bridgeway was added. It's added as a housing 49 overlay. And this is limited to the parking area of an existing storage facility. There were a number of minor adjustments to some of the sites based on recalculating. I won't go through all of those. And then we've listed here where some of the sites were reduced to housing 29 to the mixed use 29, 85 overlay. And then one site also reduced from housing 70 to housing 49. So just these minor adjustments to a variety of sites. These changes to the to the housing sites do still accommodate the city's regional housing need allocation. So the total modification, the city would have 958, would be able to accommodate 958 units of realistic capacity. This includes adequate units to accommodate the extremely low and very low income regional housing need allocation with a modest surplus of 39 units, adequate units to accommodate the lower income requirement with a surplus of 44 units, adequate units to accommodate the moderate income requirement. with a surplus of 84 units. at adequate units. for the above moderate with a surplus of 67 units. |
| 00:10:16.93 | Beth Thompson | In addition to amending the housing element, the city will also be implementing a number of the programs for its housing element. Some of this implementation will occur very soon after housing element adoption. And then a lot of the implementation will continue throughout the planning period. Some of the early changes the city will make will be to implement program four. This is the program that addresses that the city has adequate sites identified and zoned appropriately to accommodate the RITA. And so as part of implementing program four, the city would rezone opportunity sites to the housing 29, housing 49, housing 70, the mixed use 29, mixed use 49 and mixed use 70 overlay zones. So the general plan would be amended to apply these overlay designations through the land use map. And then the city's zoning code would be modified with the zoning code text would be modified to implement these new overlay zones. And the map would also be modified to apply these to the select opportunity sites. The city would also initiate efforts to place a ballot measure on for the community to vote on the sites that are affected by Ordinance 1022. the Fair Traffic Initiative, as well as Ordinance 1128, which addresses the publicly owned some of the parking lots and recreation facilities in the city. the city would implement program eight. to ensure that the city is making city-owned property available for housing that has been identified to accommodate housing, and then also working with owners of the, well actually with the school district, for another one of the public sites identified in the housing elements. Program 16 would be implemented. This addresses some of the rezoning under Program 4, but then also making a number of changes to the zoning ordinance to provide for a variety of housing types, ensuring that The city is accommodating streamlined review of projects and then just making a number of changes. And this is detailed in the housing element under program 16. And then there's also the draft zoning text that's provided as attachments two and three. Program 19 would also be implemented, and this addresses the city's development review procedures. So changes would be made to address the streamlining requirements of SB 35 and the objective design standards of SB 330. As I had mentioned, addressing the odds is a separate study session for tonight. And then also revising the zoning code findings for residential and mixed use projects just to ensure that those findings are objective and to ensure that the city is limiting the number of public hearings for those projects. The city did submit the draft housing element changes, the housing element, the amended housing element to HCD for review. And we did get comments, the city did get comments back and the city staff did meet with HCD during the review period. We had preliminary comments the last time we met with you. Subsequently, HCD submitted written comments, which are their formal comments that we must respond to. And those comments related to the suitability of non-vacant sites to accommodate the arena, specifically addressing changes to Site 201. They discussed how the city would use the housing overlays that require a minimum of 85% residential uses on those mixed-use sites, so where there's existing non-residential development, how that would be affected and accommodated. And then they also discussed some of the changes to Program 19. And the revised draft amended housing element that's in attachment one has been revised since our previous study session with the commission to address those HCD comments. And then there's a matrix provided as attachment five to the staff report. And that includes each of HCD's comments as well as a response to the comment. So where the housing element has been amended to address the comment that's described, and then where just additional information is provided to HCD in response to the comment, that's included in that matrix in attachment five. In addition to the amended housing element project, There's also a modified amended housing element. And this is what Neil had mentioned as Alternative 5. It's addressed in the Environmental Impact Report. And this is also going to be for the Commission's consideration. And this was prepared as an alternative to the amended housing element project The changes in the modified amended housing element Focus on implementing the city council's input from its October 1 study session, so some of these changes. included reducing the units on Site 84, the MLK Park site. So ensuring that the city maintains, at least maintains the adopted number of units in the current housing element or identifies measures to reduce those units. They also directed staff to study, looking at Spencer Avenue fire stations and or the city hall site. to offset the reductions in units. And then they considered increases at a number of sites. And so on my next slide, I'll just go through how some of these changes worked into this modified housing element alternative. So, Under the modified housing element, there are basically three different scenarios that could be implemented. So the modified housing element looks at reducing Site 84 from 94 to 80 units under Scenario 1, This would require passage of a ballot measure to authorize that development of the MLK property in light of the restrictions of Ordinance 1128 And then there's a second scenario in which site 84 could be further reduced to 50 units. So the community would be asked via ballot measure if 50 units would be acceptable at the MLK site. So that would also require the ballot measure. If Site 84 is not developed or if the units that are rezoned, cannot accommodate the RHNA, then under scenario three, site 202 would have an increase in the minimum number of units, So there wouldn't be an increase in the maximum number of units, but the minimum required units would be increased. And then sites 14, which is the Spencer Avenue Fire Station, and 52, which is the City Hall parking lot, would then be rezoned to each accommodate up to 20 to 25 units. And this is slightly less than what was looked at in the last round of the housing element. So in, let's see, August through October 2022, when there was a housing element that had been out for public review and submitted to the state for comments. These two sites had been included in the housing element at that time, and they each had. I think the Spencer Avenue fire station had about 26 units in the city hall site had over 30 units. So these have been reduced a bit since that time. And then this table just kind of summarizes that information showing the changes to Site 84, Site 14, and Site 52. I won't go through this table in detail, but it summarizes how each of these three scenarios, reducing MLK to 80 units under scenario one, reducing MLK to 50 units under scenario two, and then removing MLK and adding sites 52. and 14 under scenario three. And under each of These scenarios, you'll see that there's a surplus maintained, so the city would continue to have a surplus to accommodate all of the income levels. |
| 00:17:49.70 | Beth Thompson | So with that, the Revisions to the proposed revisions to the housing element are available on the city's website. I won't read the whole the whole link here, but it's easily accessible if you go to Sausalito.gov and you navigate to the Community Development Department and there's information on the housing element update. And then I do have information on the individual sites. We had gone through that at the previous workshop. I'm not going to present each of those sites, but if there are questions regarding those sites, I can refer to the individual sites and pull up some information for the sites that are specifically modified by either the project or the amended housing element. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. |
| 00:18:32.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Beth. Questions? Mr. |
| 00:18:37.53 | Kristina Feller | I just want to ask a quick question just to start. And that is, you know, in every other presentation, we've asked for an actual map that shows what all these different sites are. I think some of us are very familiar with what those site numbers are, but the majority of our community are not. And I think it would be really helpful, you know, to digest this information and understand sort of the overall Sausalito map. We can go through site by site, but I think, you know, the context of the overall map is really helpful. considering our timeline and all the comments that you know Commissioner Junius said we really need to help our community understand what's happening here and to do that we need a map. |
| 00:19:18.80 | Beth Thompson | OK, and I can pop a map up for the sites if that's helpful. So I can pull that up while the discussion is going on. |
| 00:19:28.30 | Kristina Feller | That would be great, Beth. I just wanted to start with that to kind of help with context and reviewing this. |
| 00:19:35.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Commissioner Merlock, questions? |
| 00:19:38.31 | David Marlatt | Oh yeah, thank you. And if there'll be another presentation by Neil, just let me know. But I had a question about the attachment six zoning map amended sites alternative. Okay. It introduces, unless I missed something, a senior housing overlay and an emergency shelter overlay. And I don't remember any discussion about that. |
| 00:20:02.98 | Beth Thompson | So those aren't actually modifications. This shows in Track Changes the edits to the zoning text that would occur with implementation. of, of the housing element. So it's adding specific overlays and that is existing text in there. So those aren't actually being added. That's just already in the zoning code. And just so it's not in the blue underline and strikethrough. So that's just the text that's already there. I apologize for the confusion with that. |
| 00:20:30.39 | David Marlatt | about Our current zoning code has a senior housing overlay. |
| 00:20:35.52 | Beth Thompson | It's. |
| 00:20:35.82 | David Marlatt | Yes, it does. Okay. All right. And I learned something. Thank you. |
| 00:20:45.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions? Mr. Miller. No, thank you. Commissioner Juniors? |
| 00:20:53.03 | Andrew Junius | Again, I asked the same question I asked. Can we go through the the the you know, the questions that are going to be put on the ballot is that's, is that something we can tie is appropriate for now? Because it's the draft ordinances we've got has got two, things that I just want to make sure these gonna be two different questions past of the voters with respect to the 1028 clearance in the 1128 clearance on the MLK site and the and the marine ship sites. Is this something we should talk about now? I'm just kind of curious as to |
| 00:21:23.36 | Neal Toft | I think that's a good thing. |
| 00:21:23.41 | Andrew Junius | I think packet I've got just want to make sure we're understanding this. |
| 00:21:27.07 | Neal Toft | Yeah. Um, I don't know if Brandon wants to field that, but I would sort of say the The specific questions we're really kind of studying how to best frame that. We're actually working with consultants on that. And Again, it'll be... You know, it's a work in progress. And I think that's kind of the best way to frame it. We've sort of put that out there so you see what the ordinance, the framework of the ordinance would be like, whether we... Do it as a single ballot initiative or do it as two different ballot initiatives? Those are questions we're sort of reviewing right now. but the know and the specific question will will somewhat hinge on you know the direction for alternative five and uh and that whether we do the modified amended housing element that will inform the ballot initiative somewhat there as well so we don't really know that until for sure until we kind of do this exercise and bring it back to the planning commission for a formal public hearing on and that's part of our request tonight is sort of the the direction relative to the current proposed amended you know we have a we have a current certified housing element we have a proposed amended housing element and then we have this proposed modified amended housing elements, slightly modified, just a tweak. Again, in response to comments and things that have come up in the last few months, as we were in the process of preparing the EIR and you know, doing more consideration of the model from past study sessions and recent study sessions. |
| 00:23:24.98 | Andrew Junius | Fair point. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. |
| 00:23:27.62 | Kristina Feller | Can I follow up on that? Because I think you're raising a good point. And I think this is a time, particularly in a study session, again, the community, the voters understand what will be asked of them to vote on. And I'm not sure everyone has the same familiarity of 1128 and 1022. So those are two existing ordinances that based on zoning changes, this would all go to the ballot for voters to vote on. So I do... I don't wanna brush over that. And, you know, we have a lot of detail to get over into, but, but I think it's really important just to level set that this community is will be asked to vote on items in an upcoming ballot this year. And the depends what we're doing here and the recommendations we make to the city council and what they ultimately ratify as to what gets on that ballot. So we just want to make sure that that's clear. |
| 00:24:30.67 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, and I think at this point, what we're hearing from staff is, let's go through the detailed questions, and then we bring it back up here. I've got a lot more to say about that. Yeah. |
| 00:24:35.01 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I know you would. I mean, I have more questions, but I don't want to... |
| 00:24:44.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Fowler, time for your question. |
| 00:24:46.11 | Kristina Feller | but they're crying. It's... This is getting into a lot. So I, you know, thank you. Thank you. I We've been, you know, the Southsley has been at this a long time, and I give a lot of credit to staff for getting up to speed so quickly on what's been happening. Probably my first question, just again to start here, is... This planning commission has a housing element working group, which is comprised of myself and Vice Chair Saad. We are probably only two people that have been involved in this from the very, very beginning, including hiring Beth. In fact, Chair Luxembourg was part of that as well. So I'm curious why the City Council has not engaged our working group the working group that actually kind of put together the solution that was ultimately certified and recommended to the City Council, a much easier lift if we were working together on those things. So have you discussed that with the city council working group, who I assume is responsible for working with you and this consultant to bring this forward to us? |
| 00:25:59.92 | Neal Toft | We haven't discussed that particular point of whether the city council working group wanted to bring the, you know, the planning commission working group in through that I think part of that exercise was holding these study sessions study sessions we had last spring and then we had this fall was sort of re-engaging with both the um you know taking direction from the council taking direction from the planning commission and and then working kind of running with that trying to work uh solutions I mean the what we're really doing is tweaking you know, making changes, but to the existing certified, you know, housing element. |
| 00:26:49.65 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we understand what you're doing. I'm just, you know, it's been very constructive for the working groups to work together because... |
| 00:26:49.69 | Neal Toft | Yeah. |
| 00:26:54.09 | Neal Toft | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:26:58.26 | Kristina Feller | you know, we can vet these things much faster. And certainly when we had you know, when we're going through the original certified, we were able to really move that forward a lot faster and brief, you know, our, you know, our comrades here and the same at the city council level to really know, you know, to bring them up to speed on some of the detail rather than a crash course in a study session. So I'm just going to, |
| 00:27:22.81 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:27:23.03 | Neal Toft | I'm, |
| 00:27:24.41 | Kristina Feller | I'm just going to put that out there as something to think about. Um, I had sent you... |
| 00:27:31.59 | Neal Toft | Thank you. Yeah. would I, would I take it from that as maybe the suggestion is that we try to have a little bit of that before, |
| 00:27:39.82 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, it's a missed opportunity. You have a very, we all have a very |
| 00:27:40.03 | Neal Toft | Yeah. |
| 00:27:44.26 | Kristina Feller | really hard. hard lift here on a very short runway, as as you had referred to it before, which I think is a good analogy. we need all hands on deck to vet this and figure this out. You know, we can go back and forth from study session to study session you know, ping pong between planning commission and, City Council, but I, you know, The experience was much more robust when we were actually working as working groups combined to get through a lot of this stuff. you know, I think it's helpful. I mean, even staff wasn't here when, when we, we put this, uh, last, you know, the certified piece together, the bulk of it, that is. Um, and so, you know, there's, there's some reference points and history that we can help expedite through just because we've, we've, we've got the institutional knowledge of that. So I don't want to belabor that. I just, I really would advocate that. |
| 00:28:35.53 | Unknown | I don't want to. |
| 00:28:39.78 | Kristina Feller | for that because we're all in the same boat here rowing in the same direction. THE FAMILY IS I had sent a number of comments only as a heads up to you, before the hearing today and a lot of it is focused around sort of the land use. And so hopefully you've had a chance just to know what I might be asking. I wasn't expecting a response, but just I wanted to give you a heads up. Um, and I want you to first maybe start with explaining, um, the, um, the, the, the 29, 49, 70 for housing and then mixed use. and the difference in where you're applying those. And thank you, Beth, for putting the map up. I think that will be helpful. But let's start there. I want to make sure that's really clear. |
| 00:29:31.86 | Beth Thompson | Sure, and I'm happy to answer these questions. So the change you're referring to is the change to table 1-1 and the general plan land use element. And this amendment would revise this table to incorporate and include the housing 29 or H29 overlay. So this overlay would be applied to the opportunity sites and the housing element that are designated for housing 29, but allow up to 29 units per acre. So it basically These overlays are intended to apply the Opportunity Site overlays into the to the land use map to make sure that the land use map is consistent with the housing element and the inventory and opportunity site, so the housing 29 would allow up to 29 units per acre as an overlay designation, the housing 49 will allow up to 49 units per acre. And then the housing 70 would allow up to 70 units per acre. For the mixed use component, there would also be a mixed use 29 or MU29 overlay added that allows up to 29 units per acre and also allows up to 15% of the development to be non-residential. A mixed use 49 overlay that allows up to 49 units per acre, also allowing up to 15% of the development to be non-residential. And then the mixed use 70 overlay allowing up to 70 units per acre. And also once again, allowing for a non-residential component In addition to these changes in the land use element, there are also corresponding changes in the zoning code. So these overlay designations would also be established as overlay districts in the zoning code. So they'd be in the housing element, the land use element, and the zoning code. The zoning code will have more detail and more detailed standards as is typical of a zoning code. But that's why they're in the land use element in addition to where you've already seen them in the housing element. |
| 00:31:26.39 | Kristina Feller | Got it. Um, so I'm, I'm looking a little bit, I'm looking at the, uh, attachment to, which are the general plan amendments. And I wanted to. hop to page LU7 which is stands for land use or that element of it. I'm curious, sort of the last piece here about public institutional and FAR and what that'll be based on. You have a comment here. I don't really can you explain what you mean by quasi public or give me an example what you mean by quasi public? |
| 00:31:59.85 | Beth Thompson | Fosi-public can be religious facilities, facilities that are often open and available to the public, but not necessarily operated by a public entity. |
| 00:32:08.29 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right, that's helpful. Thank you for clarifying that. And there's reference in here about MLK and it is stricken out. And so can you explain that? |
| 00:32:20.22 | Beth Thompson | Sure. So the public institutional designation is a designation that's applied to public institutional sites throughout the city. Identifying and calling out MLK in the designation isn't really appropriate. The city has separate policies in the land use element that specifically address the MLK site. So this ended up just being redundant and kind of a weird spot to address a really specific site. Typically, the zone or the land use designations are broader. So this just is kind of to fix that, how it's written and prepared. |
| 00:32:53.04 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and on land use, page 10, there you you change the calculation on the jobs housing balance and and i'm pointing this out because These calculations are these directly correlating to how your, you know, how you are looking at buffers for anything other than market rate. Bye. |
| 00:33:16.80 | Beth Thompson | Correct. So how these these changes correlate is basically where we have the opportunity sites, there will be less capacity on some of the opportunity sites that were designated for non-residential uses to to develop with that full amount of non-residential use, because the overlay requirement will require residential uses. And so these revised numbers for the jobs housing balance, for the square footage and for the residential units are applying those amended housing element numbers and revisions. So it's just recalculating these to reflect what what could happen under the amended housing element. |
| 00:33:55.81 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And I'm assuming that that recalculations, because it's quite different, is not going to be a red flag to HCD. Thank you. |
| 00:34:02.33 | Beth Thompson | No, their HCD is not going to be concerned about the jobs, housing balance and the changes in your land use element, provided that the changes don't remove any of your opportunity sites or restrict those opportunity or inventory sites. |
| 00:34:15.93 | Kristina Feller | Got it. Okay. I appreciate that too. Um, I'm going to skip to page 18, land use 18. And I'm just really curious about the SB9 language in here and whether or not that has to be updated because that we've there's been some new legislation of course we've talked about it here on this commission and i'm sure you have it at the city council about some of those amendments and revisions. So is what we're looking at here kind of falling in line with sort of the current I don't know. legislation from the state for SB9. . |
| 00:34:55.86 | Beth Thompson | We will take a look at that and make sure that we're consistent with the legislation, with the most recent changes. I think this is broad enough, but we'll double check that. |
| 00:35:05.91 | Neal Toft | Yeah. And that kind of was my take as well. The language there is very, very generalistic, very broad. We could look at trying to be a little, provide a little more specificity or clarity that may support the concept of the SB9 as a know as promoting housing a bit more than the way i think the language suggests there but i don't think it's in conflict with the current law okay |
| 00:35:30.36 | Kristina Feller | Okay. As long as it's not in conflict. And of course we have an SB nine ordinance. So it's as long as not in conflict with that. I mean, there are a bunch of little SB nine things. So as long as there's no conflict, that's, that's really all I care about. Um, |
| 00:35:34.72 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 00:35:45.79 | Kristina Feller | So, you know, there's also on page 24 and and I know these are kind of detailed, but these these kind of collectively make a difference to what we're doing here. So sorry about that this since it's a study session, this is the time to ask, I suppose, but we're talking about on on page 24 these housing opportunity sites right and. you know, There's in the first paragraph here, you know, there's discussion about the fact that Salsita is pretty much already built out. And I'm wondering if this is also an opportunity to add some language to the fact that we have verified sea level rise and subsidence. So we're actually losing land mass. And if that's applicable here, because of course, you know, the state is calculating our RHNA numbers based on landmass, and if we're losing landmass, that would obviously impact the calculation. both, you know, maybe not for this cycle, but possibly in the future. So I'm just curious if we can begin to add language like that because that has been also confirmed by the county and by and county's bay wave. So I'm curious about that. |
| 00:37:00.32 | Beth Thompson | We could definitely add language that describes some of those constraints. We could also discuss the wildland urban interface for fire hazards. We could add some more language describing constraints that really limit the city's opportunities. |
| 00:37:13.78 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you. Um, Then I'm on page 29 at the, there's the last sentence on page 29. It's an added piece of language and I apologize. I really don't understand what it means. Can you help me understand what this means? |
| 00:37:31.26 | Beth Thompson | I am scrolling to that as we speak, and I see it also here. So this is limited to the sites and the housing element that are within the Marin ship that have been designated with those various overlays, that those would allow residential development. So this just clarifies that within the Marin ship, where we have the H, and actually these need to be updated to be H29, H49, and H70 plus the MU29, MU49, and MU70. So just where those designations are applied in the marineship, only in those areas are the new housing uses allowed. |
| 00:38:10.39 | Nastassya Saad | May I make a comment there, Commissioner Feller? So would it be okay then? Because there's a It's not that it's vague, but just to solidify it, would it be okay to then further add something along the lines to say it's restricted to these sites only, just to clarify that it is... because it says it's allowed or at its only allowed just for the avoidance of doubt that it would not be allowed anywhere else. |
| 00:38:41.37 | Beth Thompson | We can clarify that and I will just double check the Marin ship land use designations and zoning designations to make sure we don't conflict with that because I know there are some very limited residential uses that exist in the Marin ship. |
| 00:38:52.54 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:38:54.67 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So skipping to policy land use 1.19, it's on page 41. There's a lot of language here about zoning overlays, but I'm not really sure um, what this is specifically. And again, it's kind of on the two pages later on 43 because there is a citywide Citywide Residential Overlay. that exists here in Sausalito. This was part of the general plan approval, not housing element. This was general plan. prior to going through this cycle. And that has not been retired. It is alive and well and Thank you. KICKING. AND SO IS THIS REDUNDANT WITH WHAT THAT RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY IS? THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Although the general plan working group did not agree with that, they went ahead and ratified that. Um, Is that kind of |
| 00:40:01.02 | Beth Thompson | you're This is kind of refining that. So the general plan, this original language said through the housing element process, the city would look at overlay zones as a potential planning tool. And so this really specifies that where necessary to accommodate the RHNA, these specific overlays that have now been developed will be applied. So it's basically refining that broad take on the residential overlays could exist throughout the city. Because I wouldn't say that there's necessarily a citywide residential overlay zone because there's not a citywide density or development. concession that's given, that's more than it was anticipated that that would be applied. So this is really clarifying how the housing element process applied that and how that would be used. |
| 00:40:49.35 | Kristina Feller | Well, this was a specific action taken by the city council, and I remember it well because it was in contravention to what? the working group 3-1 had voted And so I think you need to check that, Beth, because there is. Okay. And look. |
| 00:41:03.26 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:41:05.60 | Kristina Feller | you know, if these overlays supersede that or provide greater clarity, I just want to make sure we're clear on what we're doing and there's no, first of all, conflict and no redundancy where we don't. need it. I'd rather a clean document that people don't interpret in different ways. So that's why I'm flagging it. |
| 00:41:26.49 | Neal Toft | Mr. Feller. Yeah, well, what I'm curious is, because you've had the experience of working on this and then as you said the council you know did not necessarily follow that direction but what i'm reading in this original text is the suggestion of overlays as a tool but it doesn't designate, it doesn't create a citywide overlay per se, in that language. Right. It's suggesting overlays as a tool. So you're saying we already have one. |
| 00:41:55.01 | Unknown | Because you're already having it. |
| 00:42:01.81 | Neal Toft | And I guess that's my question is, what do we have exactly? |
| 00:42:07.13 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. And again, we don't have to solve it here. This is just a study session. But I do want to point that out because we're having overlays over overlays over overlays. And to me, that just gets confusing. But maybe I'm too simple about it. |
| 00:42:21.88 | Kristina Feller | Um... on then policy 2.5. I want to ensure that there's no conflict here. This is on page 44, by the way. with, you know, industrial, residential, and commercial. We know that there's already an automatic conversion from commercial to residential, but there is not industrial to residential. And so I just want to make sure That's clear. And then on the following page, which is sort of a continuation of this in 2.8.2, is I want to make sure that these policies are not applicable to industrial or working waterfront zoned designations because we had already agreed to preserve and protect those those zoned areas. |
| 00:43:21.03 | Kristina Feller | And I don't see anything from HCD that would trigger a need to change that. So I want to make sure that I'm clear here. that we're all clear. |
| 00:43:30.43 | Beth Thompson | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:43:31.27 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:43:31.39 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:43:31.45 | Beth Thompson | We can take a closer look at this language in light of that. This is reflecting more where there are specific locations that are designated industrial that would have that housing overlay zone to accommodate the mixed use or the residential uses. So there are... some industrial and Marin ship areas that would allow those residential uses, but we can take a look at how it's worded and make sure that we're reducing conflicts between residential and industrial uses and then not conflicting with the working waterfront vision. |
| 00:44:04.70 | Neal Toft | Yeah, and it could be that it's worded a little more narrowly towards those locations that allow for commercial residential and or mixed use. |
| 00:44:15.40 | Kristina Feller | I really think that that's necessary because, I mean, just think, I mean, obviously we have to meet our arena numbers, but just think about, I mean, you, You don't want to have residential neck next to industrial where you have obvious loud smelly kind of things happening so that's just a conflict waiting to happen that we we can we can obviously avoid um Then policy 5.1, which is on page 60. I'm not sure that I agree with this, and I just wanted to kind of maybe... shed some light on that or share my perspective and ask everybody else what their thoughts are about this. I would really limit this to non-occupied spaces like the corporation yard. I do not agree. at all. with City Hall law enforcement centers and things of that kind or libraries or what have you. I think those are part of our civic. I don't agree with this. I might be more than happy with this. um, a lone wolf on that but but i don't agree with this and i would ask that this be revised |
| 00:45:29.41 | Beth Thompson | So this is mainly to clarify. So this currently, without the revision, this says that the city will maintain its existing city-owned lands as public open space or recreational parks. And that's not the case. The city has city-owned sites that are city hall, the law enforcement, the police station, corporation yard. So you have various city sites that are not public open space or recreational parks. So this is clarifying that those city-owned sites can serve those purposes or where there are sites designated by the housing element to accommodate the city's share of regional housing needs. This isn't saying that the law enforcement sites would be designated by the housing element, but rather that they're not intended to be public open space or recreational parks, even though they're city owned. |
| 00:46:17.66 | Kristina Feller | So how do we consider Robin Sweeney Park, obviously it has its own name, but it is, I think of it, and again, this is my interpretation, is integral with City Hall. It's part of the City Hall Parcel. So, you know, we might call it something else, but it's actually part of the parcel. So how does that |
| 00:46:40.03 | Beth Thompson | I'm sorry. |
| 00:46:40.28 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:46:40.30 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. So this would The revised policy would continue to maintain the city hall you know, as not public open space or recreational parks, but where you have existing open space or parks, this doesn't change that. And so it's not intended to change parks and open space, but just to clarify that some city-owned lands are not parks or open space. So it wouldn't really affect Robin Sweeney Park. And where Robin Sweeney Park is suggested to be included under Alternative 5, or not Robin Sweeney Park, I'm sorry, where the city hall site is suggested to be included under Alternative 5, it specifies that it's only the parking lot area. So that also would not affect the Robin Sweeney Park. |
| 00:47:08.62 | Unknown | Totally. |
| 00:47:15.57 | Kristina Feller | I'm not. |
| 00:47:28.23 | Kristina Feller | Just maybe real quick on that, and I have some questions about numbers, and I know I'm sucking a lot of air up here, but we've got to get into the detail here in this session. Um, but, I mean, Do you recall, Beth, the the 3D modeling that that was executed on the City Hall parking area, which, you know, I'm pointing sort of, you know, yes of us here. It was also done on the Spencer Firehouse. It was done on MLK and a couple other sites around the city. Yes. OK, so why are these back on here? I don't support that at all. I don't think that this is a backup plan by any stretch of the imagination. And again, you know, there are other options that we had uncovered before. in our last go around that would be better options than this. recognizing of course that city property we have a little bit more control with But I can't in good conscience even consider those as a backup plan or some kind of alternative for a revised housing element. |
| 00:48:44.67 | Beth Thompson | And I would say that the reason they've been included is just what you mentioned, that the city does have control over those sites. So if the MLK site were not to go through and the city needed to identify additional sites to accommodate the arena, it's putting those in as backup sites under alternative five or the modified alternative because the city controls those, those don't need to go to a ballot measure. And there are as, you know, limited sites in the city. So those, I believe that, City Council suggested those because of the control over those sites and the 3D modeling would be modified because some of the assumptions used to develop that 3D modeling have, I think, changed with the changes to the odds. They didn't necessarily look at smaller units that could occur. And then the city hall model was for, I want to say, 10 to 12 more units than are proposed, I would have to look at the actual modeling. |
| 00:49:42.43 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, well, I mean, we can I don't want to get into the odds now because there are issues on that as well. But the but the point is, is that. you know, we've pretty much, you know, you're, this is, we need to move this beyond a paper exercise. We have to talk about reality here. And the reality is that the Spencer firehouse is not, really a buildable site. And it certainly is restricted by the D-Day. We've talked about that for several years now, but it really isn't. And we can get into that further. But with City Hall, You're not it's not a very successful site, the parking area, at least because you've got solar panels on this building and you cannot block the solar path. So I don't I don't. Again, I think it's really not. a very viable backup plan. So I'm going to leave it at that. And we can get into more detail because I don't want to take up all the time here. Finally, I think that the Sorry, I preempted you. I think we need to put up the What is it? Table one, the arena site strategies, because these numbers and the way you're calculating them and the surplus and, you know, this revision and how it. is addressing more affordable, low income and very low income. I, again, I'm a little perplexed by it, but perhaps we just need to have a conversation about it. So maybe we can walk through that and then I'll yield back, Chair, for now. |
| 00:51:20.14 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:51:20.16 | Kristina Feller | There, let me pop that back up just a minute. |
| 00:51:23.90 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:51:23.92 | Mr. Giovara | Thank you. |
| 00:51:34.25 | Beth Thompson | And I've put the table one back up on the screen. |
| 00:51:39.14 | Unknown | in oil in Georgia, 57. |
| 00:51:41.10 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, so, you know... Yeah, you've got this one and then you have sort of the, what I'll call the red-lined one. which maybe we can start with if you don't mind, Beth. |
| 00:51:52.66 | Beth Thompson | But yeah, let me stop sharing. And maybe I think Neil's got that pulled up if he wants to. And I can also pull that up. |
| 00:51:58.68 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, it kind of, it's got the strike out of where you're revising the numbers and then the new numbers, just so we can follow along with it. |
| 00:52:03.71 | Beth Thompson | just so we can |
| 00:52:04.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:06.24 | Kristina Feller | to understand what you're doing and if there's any way you can make it larger. That would be awesome too. Thanks, Beth. |
| 00:52:15.76 | Neal Toft | Can you go a little larger? Thank you. |
| 00:52:18.93 | Director Phipps | This is the best that I can do from my computer. |
| 00:52:27.30 | Kristina Feller | So Beth, can you kind of walk us. through this because where you have the red with the strikeout are the original numbers in the certified housing element. And then you have revised numbers in blue. And maybe you can just kind of walk us through this He's here. |
| 00:52:50.95 | Beth Thompson | Sure. So you see that the modifications are to add the housing 29. So that's where some of those sites have been modified from the 49 maximum units per acre down to the 29. And so there's 28 units associated with the housing 29. There's new sites that have the Let's see if the site 401, I think 401 and 402 have been added in, and those have the 49 up to 49 units per acre. So we see an increase in units accommodated through the 49 unit per acre. Um, that 70 units per acre. We just have some minor changes to, we've recalculated a little bit there. I think we reduced one of those sites down to 49. So you see a reduction in the housing 50 to 70. The mixed use 2985 is where we've modified some of those sites that were the 29 units per acre or 49 units per acre down to 29. So you'll see that that that mixed use 29 is now being applied mainly through the downtown and along bridgeway so that has 52 units. And then the biggest reduction that we're seeing is in the mixed use 49. A lot of those were modified down to 29. And so we're seeing a reduction there and then no changes to the mixed use 70. So the net changes are there's a small increase in the lower income capacity, a small increase in the low income capacity, a modest increase in the moderate income capacity, and then also more of an increase in the above moderate income capacity. So we're seeing more capacity across the board and an overall increase in the capacity of the opportunity sites with these changes. |
| 00:54:35.22 | Kristina Feller | So one of the questions is, why are you decreasing sort of the margin, or why is it a lower margin for the very low or extremely low, low, moderate, you know, et cetera, where sometimes those are the more difficult to pencil out and actually execute? And why is there a higher margin on sort of the above moderate? Should we not be looking at the buffer in a different way? That is one question. The other question is, why do we have such a We had a large buffer, like a very, very generous buffer in the certified housing element. Why do you have a larger one here? Is it the concern about the voter and the ballot issue? |
| 00:55:26.38 | Beth Thompson | The larger buffer provides more flexibility, so some of it could address. It's not enough that you have so many sites associated with the voter and ballot issue that the buffer is not enough to accommodate All of those units were... both the 10-22 and 11-28 measures to not pass. So you indeed a lot more sites. But this provides flexibility. So there's a law, the no net loss law. So as you have projects come forward that can be developed, if they propose fewer units than we're assuming in the housing element or they you modify zoning or you change land uses to reduce the units that could be accommodated, the city is going to have to go and recalculate its ability to accommodate the arena. So having more of a buffer allows that. The shift in the moderate buffers, there's a few reasons for that. One of the sites that was added, the FedEx site, it's anticipated that that site would develop mainly with market rate and a smaller portion of lower income units, just based on the interest of the property owner. So that site has more above moderate than we would otherwise probably apportion to it. And then some of the sites, when they changed from |
| 00:56:37.81 | Beth Thompson | the 49 to 29, they also have fewer units, and some of those sites would no longer accommodate a lower income component because they don't meet that 16 unit threshold. So I think a couple of those may have been shifted to moderate. And I think this is also more realistic. It's not as likely that you will get as many lower income proposals. And the city does have the opportunity also to go and look at some of those above moderate income sites. As you're looking at no net loss, some of those sites you could reconfigure and look at them for some more lower income units during the period. |
| 00:57:00.91 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:57:01.03 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:57:01.32 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:57:13.76 | Kristina Feller | during the period. You are down zoning some sites that we had. you there are a couple that appear to be added that previously the owners expressed that they were not interested in being on an opportunity site. I assume that they have now expressed that they are. So they're viable, legitimate sites. Is that correct? |
| 00:57:37.52 | Beth Thompson | Which specific site did the owner express not being interested in? |
| 00:57:41.18 | Kristina Feller | FedEx is one of them. |
| 00:57:42.38 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so yeah, they have now expressed interest to the city, that they're interested in residential development. So that would be one of the reasons that was added because it's a more likely site. The downzoning as I'd mentioned was So in the downtown area, you have a historic district. And when we looked at that more closely, when we got comments on during the EIR process, you know, one of the concerns there is that future projects in the downtown may have a harder time because of the historic preservation requirements. And so this is intended to kind of reflect the existing scale and densities that are occurring in the downtown and to not not cause such a potential for conflict and to make things more straightforward. So that was part of the reasoning there. |
| 00:58:29.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And just again for clarification of what we're looking at, can we assume that none of these numbers include any consideration for density bonus? They're conservative in that regard. Is that... Is that right? |
| 00:58:42.84 | Beth Thompson | They are. Yes, they are conservative. HCD does not want you to count density bonus toward the arena unless you have a past history of doing that. |
| 00:58:52.20 | Kristina Feller | Fair enough. Thank you. |
| 00:58:54.75 | Nastassya Saad | Can I just follow up question on to this for the topic? Just in general, because to Commissioner Feller's point, we already did include a significant buffer. Also after, you know, going back to HCD and stating that we were going to have trouble with our arena, which is 10 times more than the previous cycle. And now we've come up with an even greater buffer. Do you, in your opinion, you know, opinion on these cycles and in your work with HCD, does that compromise us for future cycles that that they're going to look at what we were able to come up with for this cycle with the buffer so great. It's a massive buffer at this stage. And I have concerns that HCD is going to kind of keep pushing us because these cycles are ongoing. |
| 00:59:46.05 | Beth Thompson | So HCD didn't allocate the specific number of units to Sausalito. That happens to the Association of Bay Area governments, right? And so I think that I just wanted to make sure that was clear. But ABAG, of course, approves those allocations. But I think part of |
| 00:59:51.39 | Nastassya Saad | Association of Bay Area |
| 00:59:52.65 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:59:53.82 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:59:53.83 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:59:53.85 | Kristina Feller | I don't know. |
| 00:59:54.03 | Unknown | Remus, yes. |
| 01:00:04.43 | Beth Thompson | The way that the numbers were developed in the last round, your buffer wouldn't make a difference. That methodology didn't really look at the buffers as much. It really looked at populations and applying some growth rates. |
| 01:00:22.69 | Beth Thompson | Your future cycle will probably look at what you currently have capacity for. So it could look at this number. I wouldn't say that having a buffer means you'll get a larger number next time. And I think you're with with what happened during the cycle and the arena you received. I think the city is going to be much more aggressive in addressing the methodology early on in the ABAC process so that you hopefully can make sure that the city's constraints are more recognized. But that's a problem for a lot of jurisdictions. But I wouldn't say that the buffer is going to be harmful to you just based on the past cycle. |
| 01:01:00.69 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:01:00.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:00.74 | Andrew Junius | which you have. |
| 01:01:01.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:01.11 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I ask a follow up along these lines to real quick one. Thank you, Beth. So of this total number, can you give us a close enough approximation of the number of units that are counted here that are subject and must be approved on the ballot under 1128 and 1022? |
| 01:01:19.54 | Beth Thompson | Yes, let me just actually discuss that earlier with your staff. And so let me just pull up my email to them because that has my estimate. So it looks like we have about 379 units associated with 1022. And then the MLK site is the only 1122. only side associated with 1128 and MLK under the The amended housing element that's proposed has 94 units. The alternative version would reduce that to 80 to 50 units. |
| 01:01:52.87 | Andrew Junius | And what was the number again for the 10202 sites? |
| 01:01:55.50 | Beth Thompson | about 379 units. |
| 01:01:58.88 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:02:00.66 | Kristina Feller | I think that's the best question asked tonight. And I would ask that. Well done. I would ask that staff actually in moving forward and in discussions with the city council also differentiate those numbers or sort of express those in that regard. I think that's excellent. |
| 01:02:06.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:02:06.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:02:07.03 | Director Phipps | . |
| 01:02:23.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, Beth, I have some detailed questions as well. So if you can leave this, I have some detailed questions as well, if you could leave this chart up. So we had 908 and we went to 958. So we're keeping the increase above for, I, as I mentioned at the last study session, I think that including the city hall, and this is a very bad idea. It reduces flexibility for the city in the future for other projects and other issues and when we get the discussion I'll go into more detail on that but given that if you just took City Hall out for example you would have 934 or whatever on the total which is still more than we had before and so is there any reason we could not eliminate City Hall from the alternative |
| 01:03:19.35 | Beth Thompson | So City Hall would only be added in if the MLK site did not pass. So it's only expected to go in if you don't have units, either the 80 or the 50 scenario on MLK. So under the City Hall scenario, when MLK doesn't pass, you would actually have a different different capacity and a different buffer. And under that scenario with City Hall, and the fire station included, you would accommodate about 911 to 921 units. And without those, it would be, you know, 40 to 50 less. So it would be, 871 to 800 and, oh, let's see. Let me do my math really quickly. 871 to 881 units that would be accommodated, I think. |
| 01:04:04.17 | Unknown | Let me do my bath. |
| 01:04:10.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | we would still be over the rena amount we would still have a surplus and uh i have same sort of concern about future rena's as well of putting in a project site that we're just throwing in there because we want to have more buffer or whatever but extremely bad planning principle that includes city hall and so uh i mean if we were to take it out again when we get to the discussion we can get to that but if we were to take it out we're still over we still have surplus and we still have uh um we're still over the arena number correct |
| 01:04:47.53 | Beth Thompson | You would still have some surplus if we take out City Hall and there, but there would be very, the surplus would be very You know, it would come down significantly for the very low and low, but there would still be some surplus. |
| 01:05:01.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but it wouldn't be that much different than it was in the approved housing element that we already have. |
| 01:05:09.36 | Beth Thompson | So we would have It would be similar to the approved housing element. One of the changes we made, so I'd have to recalculate it when we looked at removing MLK, we also looked at increasing the lower income units that would occur on a couple of sites. And so I show a higher surplus with that adjustment as well. So I would have to go and just do the math, but I can do that before our next meeting and let you know, have some specific information for what would happen if City Hall was left out. |
| 01:05:28.85 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 01:05:39.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, let me go on to a couple other questions. When I originally, as I went into great detail at the last study session for these overlay zones, I wanted to make sure that the underlying zoning could be used in the case of the Marin ship, if there was a industrial use in while, and somebody tried to do the housing and they couldn't make the numbers pan out they would continue to use this could you continue to use the underlying zoning if they could add an addition in the in the near future or whatever I understand now from the language that's in the various documents that the underlying zoning although it used for dimensional purposes is not uh if if you've zoned something housing 70 uh for an overlay that there's a minimum and a maximum number of units on an industrial site that they have to provide um even though that was not uh even though it's an overlay so in in other words, it's really, I'm surprised we just didn't rename this Housing 70, like you have R2, you'd have R70, because we're really rezoning this. So my question is, when you contacted the various owners during this process, were they aware that by offering to do housing, that they were committing to both the minimum and maximum housing amount and they were committing to not being able to use their underlying zoning? Were they made aware of that? |
| 01:07:19.80 | Beth Thompson | So, We did not have one-on-one conversations with every affected owner. They were provided information on the housing element several times through the process. So I'm not sure the extent of everyone's understanding of the effects of the overlay zone. That being said, yes, the housing element and the overlay requirements do require a minimum amount of residential uses for future development projects and do have some limitations on additional non-residential uses. We have revised the recommended zoning language to ensure that there if the existing residential uses exceeds that 15 percentage that would be allowed, the 15% that would be allowed of non-residential, that that could continue to occur and potentially be reconfigured as part of a future project so that they wouldn't be constrained in maintaining their existing uses. And then there's also potential for projects to come in for some minor modifications to the city's nonconforming use standards. So there are there are already existing concessions or standards in the city's code to provide for substitution, replacement, expansion, extension of existing uses. And so they could potentially address changes that way as well. |
| 01:08:34.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I mean, some of the sites that you have are actually industrial sites that you put housing on, no mixed use. So what you're really saying is those sites cannot, the existing use, what I'm a little worried about is if somebody can't make the numbers work out with the minimum and maximum, and again, these are off-zoning, this is a benefit to most people. But if for some reason somebody can't do that then until they can make the numbers work if they don't and if they can't expand What's there they might just board up the buildings and we'll have empty storefronts That's what I'm a little bit worried about so I guess I guess what I would I'm going to suggest when we get to the discussion part is that for our next hearing we send notices to all the people that are all the 49 sites just for you know letting them know that the housing element has a rezoning for them and that there are minimum and maximums just so they're aware of it I mean I realize they're probably aware of that because we've been doing this for three years but just in case Is there any problem with setting they have to get notices anyways for zoning eventually but for the housing element We're not going to do the zoning on the 1022 ones until later So we I don't think we want to find out the problem then is there any reason we can't send notices out? Maybe this is a Neil question. Is there any reason we can't send notices out? Maybe this is a Neil question. Is there any reason we can't send notices before next hearing just to get they're aware of there's a minimum of a maximum? |
| 01:10:08.08 | Neal Toft | Well, yeah, for the for the formal public hearings on the matter, we certainly do have to notice in advance and we can certainly make the point of notifying you know, the particular properties. And I think we'd have to talk with legal about making sure we're noticing correctly, but I think that's, we can, Certainly recognize your direction and on that and make sure we're you know, being fair in our noticing for those property owners. |
| 01:10:41.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I think that would be helpful because what Beth is saying, you haven't had one-on-ones with all of these folks, and you've just had interest. So I think we don't want to find out later in the year after the ballot question passes that somebody, oh, I didn't realize what was going on. I'd rather have that happen when we have our public hearing in February. Let me see what other questions I had. Oh. So again to the MLK situation, I just want to be clear. At our last meeting we suggested 80, I think the city council suggested 80 for MLK, but this proposed amendment increases it to 94 and then has an alternative to lower it to 80. Why aren't we just using 80? |
| 01:11:28.58 | Beth Thompson | Because the proposed project that's evaluated in the EIR is the 94, the modified housing element that was sent or the amended housing element that was sent to HCD for review. And so we still have that 94 because that's the project as proposed. And then we have the alternative that goes back to 80 because that would be an alternative to the proposed project. |
| 01:11:42.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:11:42.58 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:11:48.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But when we adopt the housing element, or the city council adopts the housing element in a couple months, they could just put in 80 and get rid of an alternative, correct? |
| 01:11:58.93 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, they could. There's definitely some flexibility in how they take pieces from the various alternatives. |
| 01:12:05.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I'm suggesting that we eliminate... The alternatives and just put in what what we're, you know, after we have public comment and all these things of what people think is the most appropriate. Why do we have to have all alternatives? Why do we just do it? |
| 01:12:17.36 | Neal Toft | Why do we I think the term alternative is A little misleading here because it's really as a result of the EIR, as Ms. Thompson was stating, You know, the EIR was done in under a guise of a given amended housing element. And in this at this round, we're identifying having that EIR done. We now are doing an amended or a recirculated EIR. That is... and analyzing this as an alternative. Now, what ultimately we have to do is be able to fashion an amended housing element if the council decides to approve an amended housing element. The EIR also analyzes the certified housing element as an alternative. But if we can certainly it's a matter of how we finalize the housing element language. |
| 01:13:21.59 | Director Phipps | Yeah, and Chair, if I may, I think, you know, the comments that you're providing right now are exactly the kind of content that staff is looking for related to comment and feedback from you folks on these documents. But Beth is correct. The initial densities as integrated into the housing element for the MLK site were initially 80. This amended version has that at 94. We're very open to the Commission providing a specific recommendation as to how many units on that site they would prefer, and we'll make sure to carry that recommendation forward. |
| 01:13:21.91 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 01:13:55.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Director Phipps. Let's see, my last question. |
| 01:14:03.27 | Kristina Feller | Can I just ask a clarifying question? I'm sorry, chair on MLK, because you know, at our last study session, |
| 01:14:03.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you. |
| 01:14:10.48 | Kristina Feller | We actually did talk about this and and we had a certain number that was in the certified housing element. I believe city council had wanted something less, but what we got back to us in the study session was more and we were questioning it then so there's a lot of playing around with these numbers and. And I don't know if there's a method to the madness or if it's just sort of reverse engineering numbers to try to make something work. But I think we need to be a little clearer and more deliberate about what we're doing in terms of recommending MLK, particularly you know, removing City Hall, remove the Spencer Firehouse. Like, I think those are really no goes. We have to be we have to really think about MLK hard. Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:15:02.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. And I'm going to go back to Commissioner Junius' question about the ballot questions. I think it really, in order for this all to work on the timeline we have, whether there's two ballot questions or maybe you take 1022 and make multiple ballot questions, it's important because if they don't pass, then we're back to these alternatives and all that kind of other stuff. So the structure of that. That I think is very important, so I'm not sure when that gets talked about or where that gets talked about, but I think that we want to make sure that the ballot question is put in such a way for the greatest success rate on that. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, Commissioner Marley. |
| 01:15:46.04 | David Marlatt | Just very quickly, a few follow-up questions based on the commissioner's questions. And one, just to help me understand, in the housing element amendment, there's scenario one and scenario two. but we're not going to put, I would think we're not putting that before the voters to select scenario one or scenario two. Does the city council then select scenario two, for example, which would be 80 units for the MLK and that's what appears on the ballot? Or just help me understand |
| 01:16:14.57 | Unknown | The scenario. R50. |
| 01:16:15.96 | David Marlatt | Or 50. |
| 01:16:17.41 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 01:16:20.04 | David Marlatt | How is, what is the vision here about what? |
| 01:16:23.77 | Neal Toft | I'm sorry, I can just clarify. |
| 01:16:25.86 | David Marlatt | Clarify the question. Valid measure may be asking the voters to approve up to 94 units on the MLK site. And so be yes, no? Or how did the scenarios, scenario one, scenario two, Thank you. fit in with the ballot measure. |
| 01:16:41.32 | Neal Toft | Well, the scenarios that provided in the alternative, as we'll call the modified amended housing element, which is just taking the initial amended housing element and modifying it slightly, to bring back down, either bring back down the MLK site to a maximum of 80 units, or under another scenario, potentially 50 units, given some of the changes, because other things have occurred under the amended housing element. Other sites have been eliminated, and some have been added. as Beth has described. And so, um, if it goes, What it's taking into account is potentially reducing that to 50 units. Um, or The further scenario is that if the, If a ballot measure does not pass, it's not proposing to have City Hall as a site per se. it would be a scenario driven. by the ballot measure not passing. So it's an, if a ballot measure not passing to allow any development. on the MLK site. Thank you. the ballot measure that any a ballot measure or the ballot measure that is specific. to allowing development on the MLK site, modifying the ordinance or changing the ordinance to allow some level of development on the MLK site. If that does not... |
| 01:18:16.83 | David Marlatt | If that does not Thank you. |
| 01:18:18.05 | Neal Toft | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:18:18.59 | David Marlatt | you |
| 01:18:18.62 | Neal Toft | I understand. |
| 01:18:18.84 | David Marlatt | I'm just not understanding. In June, in theory, there'll be a special election, and we'll be asking the voters to consider the MLK site, rezoning the MLK site, for a capacity up to the Up to 94, 80, 50? Up to 94, 80, or 50. I see. So it's going to be multiple choice. |
| 01:18:34.38 | Neal Toft | Thank you. ED STEINFELDT- Up to 94. |
| 01:18:42.80 | David Marlatt | No, they'll decide whether... That's what I assumed, that the city council... That's what I think. |
| 01:18:43.04 | Unknown | They'll decide whether... That's what I think we should definitely have as a discussion point with guidance. But that is what the intention is. They should pick. And they have it, so we can guide them. |
| 01:18:48.22 | David Marlatt | That's what I was trying to understand. |
| 01:18:53.67 | David Marlatt | guide them. you |
| 01:18:54.97 | Unknown | things. |
| 01:18:55.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:18:55.06 | Unknown | but, |
| 01:18:55.22 | David Marlatt | Well, we can make a recommendation. No, of course. But as Chair Luxembourg says, that's effectively been picking. It's removing those alternates. If they pick 80, that's their choice. |
| 01:18:55.39 | Unknown | as Chair Lux But as you know, |
| 01:19:06.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to clarify. The ballot question is going to say a project of 80 units, or it's going to say 94, it's going to say 50, whatever it is. The ballot question is going to be clear. It's not going to say. that we'll decide later. It's not gonna say develop the MLK site without putting a number of units or range of units. |
| 01:19:20.28 | Neal Toft | and we'll decide later. or something. A ballot measure would not be a multiple choice. |
| 01:19:28.91 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:19:28.96 | Neal Toft | I'm sorry. |
| 01:19:28.97 | Director Phipps | Yeah, we don't intend doing that in CDD. |
| 01:19:29.26 | Neal Toft | Thank you. And so we're actually, that is part of this exercise is narrowing what those choices are for that ballot measure in June as an effort to get this question resolved and recognizing that may or may not pass. |
| 01:19:49.83 | Director Phipps | Yeah, if I may, Neil, and share. What we've provided you tonight is the most up-to-date versions of certain documents that are in progress. And the specific ballot language is one of those items. That language is in progress. We are working internally and with our consultants to develop that language. And we will keep you apprised and provide you with the latest and greatest Based on the progress that we make so we're trying to do it within this tight timeline. We're trying to deliver as much content to you as we can prior to our next meeting prior to the next council study session even and and Yeah, we're going to try to make significant progress in the next couple of weeks. So you'll see a different version of this ballot language the next time this comes before you. And again, we hope to make significant progress. That being said as well, we look forward to your suggestions, recommendations, feedback as to how that language may be crafted. Thank you. |
| 01:20:57.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Other questions? I'll invite you to share some. |
| 01:21:01.94 | Nastassya Saad | I just have one. Thanks, Beth. I know there's a lot of specifics coming your way. I'm just looking at one of the many maps. I'm on page 19. But I just I keep seeing reoccurring site 53 with the overlay of Let me see here. yellow housing 49 I don't see site 53 listed in the list I just keep seeing it on the maps can you just clarify it looks to be |
| 01:21:40.06 | Nastassya Saad | behind Litho. And if I'm thinking correctly, that was another parcel that was, that's privately owned. That was, we tried to seek out the property owner who, I believe did not get in contact with us. So I'm just not sure if I'm seeing correctly. But is site 53 an opportunity site? |
| 01:22:06.40 | Beth Thompson | Let me check. I believe it is. And I believe the reason you don't see it on your list is because there are no changes to it. So the sites that are called out on the list before you are the sites that have modifications. So yes, Appendix D of the Adopted housing element does include site 53. Let me zoom in because this appendix has a lot of information and is So that's on Bonita Street and that has capacity and it's not identified, so it is site 53. It is an opportunity site that would be designated housing 49 and would have capacity for Looks like |
| 01:22:52.99 | Nastassya Saad | I think I see the 49 statement. |
| 01:22:53.72 | Beth Thompson | 14. Yeah. |
| 01:22:56.40 | Nastassya Saad | That's within 500 feet of my house. So I'm not advocating one way or another. I just very specifically remember this conversation from even the HIAC meetings. And this one, I think it was originally thought to even be city-owned property, and it is not. It's like the sliver of land that's privately owned. So this is this in lieu of the FedEx conversation that apparently the. you know, the owner has expressed interest now, even though they previously haven't. So I'm just, it's unclear because it doesn't seem to be on record anywhere. So do we know if this property owner has expressed interest or I just, I worry if we put in a site that is not a viable option. |
| 01:23:38.34 | Beth Thompson | So it is a vacant site. A lot of the sites, the property owners didn't express interest or didn't provide any input. And so if you limited your sites to those where you've had property owner interest, you would have much, much less capacity. So where we, where property owners said they did not want to be included, those were removed during the HEOC process. Where property owners were silent, those stayed in. So that's probably one of those sites where we didn't get any feedback from the property owner. |
| 01:24:09.59 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. But does that compromise this exercise in some way to rely on potential units that are |
| 01:24:17.55 | Beth Thompson | No, there's... |
| 01:24:18.60 | Nastassya Saad | of consent And because, you know, |
| 01:24:20.00 | Beth Thompson | I mean, it doesn't, you know. |
| 01:24:22.18 | Nastassya Saad | How does that work? |
| 01:24:23.44 | Beth Thompson | So this is very typical for housing elements to include a number of sites where you up zone it and then that encourages the development of that site. So while the property owner may not have any interest at the time, they may also decide at some point in the future to sell the site because now there's some economic gain that comes from that rezoning. So there's, Things can change. And so you don't want to just limit yourself, especially when you don't have enough sites to only the sites where you have a property owner that's strongly in favor because you won't you won't get enough sites. So you use tools like this to incentivize the development of housing. |
| 01:24:58.00 | Nastassya Saad | I see. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. |
| 01:25:01.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:25:03.34 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. Neil or Director Phipps, could you report on the progress we've made on our RHNA numbers for this cycle? I believe we could start counting units towards this in the summer of 22, if I recall, which was six months before the deadline of Thank you. |
| 01:25:24.85 | Director Phipps | Yeah, thank you, Commissioner, for the question. I'll just state I don't have that data in front of me. But I think a fine question, and we'd be happy to do that research and bring it to you at the next meeting. Alternatively, I'm pleased to send a one-way communication to the commissioners with that information. |
| 01:25:24.88 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:25:33.78 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:25:42.01 | Kristina Feller | Appreciate it. Thank you. |
| 01:25:43.01 | Neal Toft | And if I can just answer in the general, because I think we fielded a question of that I'll get one of the study sessions. process of preparing the annual progress report every year the city city all agencies are required to report progress to HCD. on a whole variety of parameters and categories of development. But the key The key is permits issued for units. And in the prior three years, 21, 22, 24, Largely second units. I think there was only maybe one or two actual uh dwelling units uh single family style dwelling units built but largely um ADUs ranging from um, mid teens to high twenties. So we're probably somewhere below around 45. |
| 01:26:42.12 | Kristina Feller | right now. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:26:44.64 | Neal Toft | It's, it's, we're actually about on progress for our projections under the housing element for ADUs. We're kind of on target for that. |
| 01:26:53.41 | Unknown | kind of. |
| 01:26:55.86 | Neal Toft | We are not on target for SB9 units yet. But the new state laws may help. |
| 01:27:02.93 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:27:03.48 | Neal Toft | Get those moving. |
| 01:27:04.38 | Kristina Feller | We have so few SB9 lots here in Sausalito, but, you know, thank you for the sort of the ballpark, maybe at our next, |
| 01:27:07.94 | Neal Toft | Yeah. |
| 01:27:12.70 | Kristina Feller | meeting. |
| 01:27:13.14 | Neal Toft | And we can certainly get... |
| 01:27:14.18 | Kristina Feller | It would be great to report. I think we should be. |
| 01:27:16.02 | Neal Toft | We will be bringing to you, we should be bringing to you the annual progress report. which you'll have a big spreadsheet. on just planning applications submitted, approved, denied building permits issued. |
| 01:27:32.17 | Kristina Feller | Thanks. |
| 01:27:32.54 | Neal Toft | So... |
| 01:27:32.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Dale. |
| 01:27:33.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | questions from staff. We're obviously going to bring this back up here and give a recommendation after we get public comment. Any other questions? No. Just one one last question. Yes, the commissioner. |
| 01:27:43.01 | David Marlatt | Just one last question. Yes, the commission. Neil, if both ballot initiatives fail, the nuclear option, you've talked about the alternative if the MLK initiative fails, but about 40% of the units depend on the voters. Is there any thought or plan, I hesitate to say, what happens if? Both initiatives fail in June. |
| 01:28:07.98 | Neal Toft | Well, I think if both initiatives fail, that's a real challenge. Um, yeah, yes. Yeah. And that part of the reality is so many sites up and down bridgeway are subject to the traffic initiative. Um, that's part of the reality. So we're very hopeful that the city, that the populace will see wise to recognize that those sites are, are critical to meeting both our goals and the state housing laws, because there's very few alternatives that are not going to. |
| 01:28:15.03 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 01:28:43.69 | Neal Toft | really likely trigger sites within those initiatives, particularly trying to meet HCD requirements for equity throughout the city. So you're not just simply... concentrating development in one location. That'll be it. would be an interesting discussion, but it's pretty critical to, uh, at least, uh, approve amendments to well i hope we don't have an instant 20. i'm going to ask the question thank you |
| 01:29:16.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | At this point we're gonna open it up for public comment If you want if you're in the audience You need to get us their speaker cards out there believe there are a fill out a speaker card And if you're on zoom raise your hand and then director Phipps will call on people |
| 01:29:35.41 | Director Phipps | So I'll note I haven't received any speaker cards here to for. However, I see the vice mayor writing one right now. And with that in mind, once complete, I'll invite the vice mayor to the dais. |
| 01:30:01.97 | Vice Mayor Woodside | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg and members of the Commission. I'm here because I think this is one of what will be several meetings. I think there's even a joint meeting contemplated on the schedule. We're anxious to get through this very difficult, challenging process. I'll just want to say one thing, and that is the elephant in the room is builder's remedy. And I think we all know that if we don't get this right one way or the other, |
| 01:30:02.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:30:30.90 | Vice Mayor Woodside | We have the potential of having all the work you've done over the last several years just get thrown out the window, potentially. when a builder decides I'm gonna build what I want because I have the right to do it under the state law because you don't have an effective valid approved housing element. So thankfully, the work that was done by the working groups and the council asked to get approval is huge. And while many of us may not like the particulars that are in the housing element or would like to see it changed. The key is, I think, from the point of view of most people is we want to make sure we get through the process and retain the validity here. while we continue to work on appropriate housing in appropriate places. It's tough when you're thrown a number like 700 all at once. It's way out of proportion. anything that's been done before it's put huge pressure on staff and huge pressure on you So, you know... All I know is that I know the council members want to hear what your recommendations and thoughts are collectively, what the staff is recommending. And this is indeed a work in progress, but it's very important work. So thank you for what you're doing. |
| 01:31:52.15 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Woodside, for your comments. Next speaker is Fred Moore. Fred, come on down. Welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:32:00.42 | Fred Moore | Hopefully it won't take three minutes. I appreciate all the work you do. Going through the mountains and mountains paperwork is an unbelievable task. So I really appreciate what you're doing and taking the time to go through it, try to understand it and make sense of it. One thing I've asked and mentioned years ago, and I appreciate Commissioner Felner asking about it, should be a real easy way to get a map of Sausalito without all the damn colors of all the different zonings and just identify the opportunity sites, period. That's it. Get rid of all the other colors so people can look at it and know right away where's 29, where's 49, etc., etc. It should be. two minute tasks for the consultant. I think that would be a great help to the public. Also, I would like you to consider adding 2015 Bridgeway as an opportunity site. It's been vacant for four years or more. I go by there probably every day. Never seen a light on, never seen a car in the parking lot. Looks like a very good opportunity for a number of units that could be added there. And then I'd like you to consider taking off the opportunity sites, 605, 613 Bridgeway, and not include it as an opportunity site. Appreciate all the time you do, and thank you very much. |
| 01:33:16.19 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Moore. Looking to the chamber for additional interested speakers. I see no speaker cards in progress being filled out. With that, I will turn to the Zoom application. I see one raised hand. That is the hand of Sandra Bushmaker. Sandra, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:33:39.37 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, Commissioners. I have a lot to say in three minutes, so I'm gonna start real fast. I think one of the errors, strategic errors that was made was maxing out the numbers with density bonuses and all the other entitlements for the MLK property. People went nuts during the campaign. And I think it promulgated a lot of resistance to any facilities and any residences on the MLK property. So I think some work needs to be done to repair that. But maxing out those numbers They were talking during the campaign at $191 for that. And so that was... something that we need to work on to fix. Number two, I find it ironic that this is an affordable housing actually movement to try to get affordable housing. And yet we've only added five. with this revision of extremely low and very low. And we've added 43 to moderate and above moderate. So I find that Ironic, I have difficulty with that concept when we're trying to improve uh, affordable housing. Also, I have a question. Can we remove that land from Sausalito's purview that exists on the west side of 101 at Rodeo Drive? We cannot develop that, and yet it's included in our area. I do believe the overlays are a mistake in town, and I supported the working groups that tried to prevent that from happening. But unfortunately, the council overrode that and approved overlays throughout town. I'll... Lastly, I am very shocked. to see The Firehouse at 300 Spencer and 420 Litho. And the Carlo Berg property, which is listed in the EIR, There was huge public outcry against those sites. And to see them there is really disheartening. And, you know, I am not just attending these meetings for the first time. As you know, I attended all the housing element meetings, HEAC meetings, the council meetings that related to the housing element. I'm just appalled. to see these sites added. And to be perfectly honest, it sounds like some backroom dealing is going on to get those put back on the list. And I don't like the smell of that. I would also like to bring to Natasya's up. point of view that item 53 is on attachment six, which is the Bonita Street property. is on attachment six in your packet. All right, that's all I have. I think that's enough. But I think if we're going to get these ballots passed, we've got to sell it to the people. Because I think the hangover from this Over including all that density bonus stuff, had a bad effect. Thank you so much. |
| 01:36:41.35 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Ms. Bushmaker, for your comments. looking for additional raised hands on the Zoom application. seeing none back to you chair |
| 01:36:50.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back up to the dais. I'll sort of start here with some thoughts and then others can chime in and see if we're on the page of what we want to send to the city council. First of all, as I mentioned, I think we should remove City Hall. I think City Hall should not be developed. It's a flexibility for the future of this building. It doesn't be renovated at some point. And again again letting go of a project like this to get 25 units compared to 900 units is just uh either take it out of the buffer or whatever but uh every time we keep getting creeping back in it could come back in the future let's just acknowledge this is the center of our city and it's a bad idea on the, as I suggested to Mr. Tauf, I think we should send notices to all of the housing opportunity sites for our February meeting, just so they're aware there's a minimum and a maximum, because if they have a question, let's deal with it now, rather than when the ballot question comes out, because I think the more information we get out there, the better success we will have. On MLK, we suggested 80 last time. I suggest we suggest 80 again. So that's where I would suggest on that. Well, I'll wait for others to chime in on that. On the ballot questions, I think we, minimum, should have two, one for MLK and one for the others. I actually think we should probably break up 10-22 because I heard from Beth this evening that that's worth 300 units. So if it's up or down, forget all these alternative scenarios. We don't have an alternative scenario. So maybe there's some logical way to divide that into two. So at least hopefully both will pass. but if not, we don't have an alternative scenario so maybe there's some logical way to divide that into two so at least hopefully both will pass but if not we don't have a problem where we have no options so I think we should look at that a little bit With that, I'll turn it over to other commissioners. Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:38:57.79 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. Before I start, I just wanted to acknowledge we had six, at last count at least, as of about 5 o'clock tonight, we had six public comments that were written in, and I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge that Thank you. Um, that those six I certainly received and read. If anything came after five, I might not have gotten it because we were heading over here. But thank you for taking the time to write in. Um, I just wanted to maybe pick up on some of these sites that the community was incredibly engaged through the housing element cycle to to help us achieve a certified housing element, which was great. I mean, there was really I can't even count how many meetings we had, you know, between Housing Element Advisory Committee planning commission, city council, and so on. But one thing was very clear and very consistent, and that is... not including the Spencer firehouse. And there's some very, very serious and clear reasons for that. not including City Hall. There's some very legitimate and real reasons why we don't include that. And it's probably less viable than them okay. And then we had over 1,300 signatures on a petition to not include particular site. in the MarinShip area. that has now somehow crept back on. Um, I think it's really important to Um, you know, not push away the public input to this and the public sentiment. I think that there are some logistical and logical reasons why those weren't included, you know, and of course people have emotional feelings about it as well, but but from From this commission standpoint, we did not include those for a reason. And they were based on evidence, not necessarily emotion. So I would not be willing to entertain those in any kind of a revised housing element. I think, you know, I already made some comments and provided some directions. action on the land use I think what did I call it attachment to yeah attachment to the draft general plan amendment so i i would hope that those are um reflected unless there's more discussion amongst us up here on that um i i still think that the the impacts of 1022 and 1128 need to be clearer because that's what's going to be on the ballot. So ultimately there's a lot of work to do here, but this goes back to our community and we don't want to alienate the community that's been very clear in communicating with us what they will and will not tolerate as it relates to certain sites. So I'm not willing to, I'm not willing to discard what they're doing in my in my opinion. I think as we continue to develop these presentations and Beth, I know you're still there listening and to staff as well. I do think the graphics actually matter, and we need to evolve those with where we are in this process. And I would also encourage you to continue to keep that running list of permitted projects that count towards our RENA number because Karen Hollweg, we're really not starting with the same number, we did when we got handed the 724 we actually have made progress on that, and I think that that's notable and I think the staff for expediting permits in that regard. I also want to be absolutely clear from my standpoint, in terms of my position to my colleagues here, that the industrial sites and the working waterfront sites should not be entertained for this. There's a whole slew of reasons why not, environmental being one of them. And that should be enough to just stop in your tracks, but the automatic conversion from commercial to residential, totally fair game. And I'm delighted to hear that we actually have more sites from owners that have really good viable sites. And so I'm really, really pleased. That's very encouraging. So that certainly would compensate for that Caltrans site coming off at the very northern part of the city and which was a pretty small site so I think we're probably going to get more on some of these other sites which is terrific terrific news and that's a flat area much easier to navigate than hills and certainly much more affordable to build in those areas as well. So, you know, I really kind of want to. focus on those areas and make sure that there's some clarity behind industrial being, you know, sort of out of the consideration at this moment. Um, And then as it relates to the overlays, again, I think that this is getting more confusing perhaps than it needs to. And part of that is really rooted behind overlays over overlays. So I think we really should take a hard look at that. and make sure that whatever we're putting forth Does not you know there's no conflict between those overlays or it's clear what supersedes what or what have you or. you know, to check about the underlying zoning. Those things are actually really important. And I think that there's some work to be done there because the devil's in the detail there. I'm not sure. And lastly, we really have not spoken about water based housing this evening. Obviously, that is something that we left open and crafted language in the general plan specifically for water based housing. And in our certified housing element, we did have a couple sites that would qualify under that. And so I would I don't know where those stand. I we don't need to get into that conversation, but I I would encourage our staff and elected officials to really work hard with our partners at the county and BCDC and state I'm sure this commission would help in any way we can to open up those lines of communication And not just wait. for somebody to come up with an idea. I think we really need to be a little bit more proactive in that regard. to really make sure that those are viable and that those can actually come to fruition where they are viable. Um, And then You know, lastly, I'm just going to throw this out here. Bear with me. But we've all just watched Ellie Byrne. You know, and... You know, I'm not a fire expert. I don't not hear some climate guru or anything like that, but density certainly played into a lot of that. And so again, I would ask staff to really push. our city council and electeds to really think and prioritize hard with our state and county officials how we scale and provide primary infrastructure before we have this density that we have to build. because it's inevitable that we have to build it. We all know that we've all accepted that. regardless of our opinions about that, But we also can't wait to build it and then figure out what to do with primary infrastructure. So I don't want to recreate the same problem that we just watched, you know, in horror on the television. Obviously, we're not L.A., but we are in a large, a high fire. It could have been us. It could easily be us, it just depends on the wind and depends on the season and depends how wet the winter was. So I don't wanna turn a blind eye to that, And enough said on that. Thank you. |
| 01:47:08.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fallow. To one of the comments about the map and the public comment, if you could get a map of all the opportunity sites without anything else on it, I think that would be for our February 17th meeting, that would be helpful. Commissioner Junius. |
| 01:47:24.80 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Jeremy. uh... let me first start out by saying you know honestly that this isn't work actually do for a living in its it's way too complicated and it's way too much of a burden i'm a very pro-housing guy but uh... This is, it's just an extraordinarily overwhelming process for everybody. So I do want to compliment the staff and the city consultants for doing the best they can here. very messy very complicated process Um, but we got to get through it. The urgency, of course, is the fact that we have to rezone according to state law by the end of the year and the clock is ticking. um, And I do want to try to emphasize to everybody that's listening and following this process that one of the big problems we're having is not the complex process and not the, you know, the very messiness of selecting where housing should go and the meetings and all the different requirements. It's the fact that. in 1985, the voters of this city tied the hands of the city council By passing this thing that we call 1022 ordinance 1022 that set the zoning for a significant part of this city in stone as if today was still 1980. It's really a problem. Thank you. I mean, it's really a problem. And that's why, you know, 379 some units are going to be hanging by a thread when we go to the ballot, hopefully in June. And the citizens and residents of Sausalito hopefully do the right thing. But they shouldn't have to do that. I mean, I just want to I just think this is a It's a problem that other cities have. I think a lot of cities have done a lot of ballot box zoning in the past, and it really doesn't serve well because it, in some respects, maybe in the short term, it satisfies some concerns and solves a few problems here. But it really just creates situations like we're facing right now, which is extraordinarily difficult to deal with. I mean, I think 1022 is an enormous problem. The other one, 1128, I mean, that was a little more recently. That's 1997 in an effort to protect parks, which I totally understand. Not so sure about protecting parking lots, but we do know that that's a revenue source for the city. So there is some justification for that. But the other one, the 1022 is serious was strictly a no growth. You know, we did we want the city to stay the way it is in 1980. So I just think that needs to be a greater discussion at the city council and beyond. |
| 01:50:06.02 | Andrew Junius | So, so again, I think, you know, to Chair Feller or Chair Luxembourg's point, we're going to at least have probably two questions on the ballot. One's going to be an 1128 question about MLK and one's going to be maybe a big grouping of these sites. I think it's I mean, it makes sense to me having the two buckets. But I agree that, you know, you look at the numbers, you know, and it's just site number, this site number that. I mean, I don't know how we're going to be able to explain to the voters what every one of these sites mean. I don't think it's going to be viable to have, you know, 30 different questions on the ballot. Two, maybe too many. 30 is going to be too few, too many. I don't know. It's going to be really complicated. But this is what we're faced with. But I also do want to clarify what's what's actually happening here is is not just the clearance for both of these ballot measure, both of these, you know, voting requirements. But we're also actually going to rezone the sites at that time, too. So this this hopefully we'll get through this and it'll be a little bit of a white knuckler. But we'll get this done. If it doesn't happen in June, I suppose we do have one more election in November. I suppose the city will be scrambling if this if the if the voters don't approve these things. So we'll see what happens there. And then finally, with some of the specific site, one more election in November. I suppose the city will be scrambling if the voters don't approve these things. So we'll see what happens there. And then finally, with some of the specific side questions, that we had a public comment about about 2015 Bridgeway. This is an interesting point. First off, I do think there's an actually an application before the city on 2015 Bridgeway. So that is probably, you know, it was not on the opportunity site list. And I don't need to be honest that we need to go there. One thing I think everybody needs to understand is whether or not it's on the list. There's still lots of other places in the city that housing can get built, we put it on an opportunity list or not and if stuff gets built there it will be counted toward our goal so it's not it's not like there's a you know that we're just looking the opportunity starts are important because we're actually trying to open up new areas but it's not as if other housing area other housing projects are not on the list won't be counted so i think we there. And then finally, you know, kind of like the last time we had this meeting, this session, we have differing differing opinions up here about the marineship. I think, you know, I've been clear about this over the years. I think the marineship has a lot of opportunity for housing, not just north of Harbor Drive, but south of Harbor Drive. And I know we're under a very tight timeline, but Marina Plaza, and I think it's identified as site 67, had some significant housing there. I think it's a it's a site that was studied both under the objective standard scenarios, but it was also included in one of the alternatives in the AR. So I do think that site 67, if we're worried about making this ballot work or splitting things up and having, you know, and getting over the line with with some of these things passing. I really think it's important for the city council to consider putting 67 back on the list and having that site possibly cleared under 1022 by the voters. And with that, I will yield back. Thank you. |
| 01:53:11.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Junius. Commissioner Marlon. |
| 01:53:14.56 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Well, first of all, like Commissioner Junius, I also recognize how incredibly difficult and messy and maybe sometimes unfair this whole process is. But our backs are really against the wall now to meet some deadlines. I concur with the Chair and I think others of you that including City Hall in any scenario is ill-advised for a number of reasons. I think it's leveraged in case we do need something in the future and future growth for the city. And the Spencer Fire Station, I also think, is just kind of fantasy. So we could put it in there for the numbers, but it ain't going to happen. And so we'll just have to come and revisit that in the future when we don't meet our numbers for that site. Another point which I kind of just kind of picks up on Commissioner Junius' comment that We're looking at these numbers as just the 40 some odd, 45 or so housing opportunity sites as if no other sites will ever be built. And there are something like a thousand, more than a thousand parcels in Sausalito that are in the residential R2, R3, CR, and so forth. And if, as Mr. Tofton told us, if something like 45 or so permits have been issued in the last 18 months or something, then that's actually 45 that are not in any housing opportunity sites because there are no housing opportunity sites. So I find this reliance on a 25% buffer, which I had assumed initially was a state mandate, but I'm wrong. So it's just a number. Our buffer is in fact the 950 other parcels that are not housing opportunity sites, each of which could take an ADU, could take two new units sometimes. And as the economics of housing change, that will happen with or without our regulations. So I do think that we don't have to be quite so nervous about maintaining or increasing the buffer. If the MLK doesn't happen or if it has to happen at 50, we're actually still okay. Because I don't believe that all other development will stop. And there's no reason to think that. Even in the R1 districts with limited SB9, but there is SB9 potential, and there will be duplexes in those single family districts as well. And we need to find other ways to encourage all of that. So with that, my recommendations, I concur with the recommendation of 80 units maximum. I concur as a recommendation, and I concur that under no circumstances should we consider the City Hall or the Spencer Avenue for different reasons to be part of an alternative. The last thing I'll mention is on the marineship and industrial zoning, I really don't have a problem with that. There's some discussion. there's areas of marinship that are truly marinship. My office is there for the last 11 years, I know the area very well. I know that there's chemicals, that's a financial problem, mitigating that. So maybe it becomes uneconomical for the mitigation purposes. But I walk by those sites every day, They just look like housing. They're down in the flats. They're less likely to burn. One of the, where LA's really burned tragically is up in the hills and the canyons. So if we want to make our development fire safe and hardening, a lot of it has to do with buildings themselves, of course. But building in areas that are not subject to wildfire is a key. And I think that's an opportunity. |
| 01:56:07.21 | Unknown | with the Bye. |
| 01:56:50.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Malala and Vice Chair Sade. |
| 01:56:54.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. I won't belabor the point. I think we have a long night ahead of us. I think we all concur. I will not comment on City Hall because I am in conflict, but I definitely agree with the Spencer. The firehouse definitely has to come off. So just to reiterate that, I think I would just urge our city council to listen to what we've been saying. And I think we keep saying the same thing. So happy to entertain study sessions, but we've been here many, many times. I don't think we've been here many, many times. I don't think we've said anything groundbreaking tonight outside of some of what Commissioner Beller said about going back to the state for in light of what's happening in LA. I think that's a very interesting idea and timely, but outside of that, Commissioner Junior, best question of the night, absolutely. We didn't put it into context what's on the table and how I'm going to... idea and timely, but outside of that, Commissioner Junior, best question of the night, absolutely. We didn't put it into context what's on the table and how many of these units have to go for a vote. And that's some scary stuff because they might not pass. And I think for the ballot measure, I think if there are multiple opportunities, if I understand that correctly, we need to go one at a time. If we're approaching MLK, We need to say MLK at 80, which is what we've been saying. give it a shot. And then in November, if we can have another election, that's when we go for 50. I think if you lead with 50, why would anyone take 80? And I think to, I believe, Ms. Bushmaker's point, education is critical. I think we're educated here only in the sense that we have been forced to do this so many times. And we have many members of the public that are reoccurring. Former members of the Housing Element Advisory Committee are here, and that's great to see, but I think this is going to go before every single voter, and I still think they're not going to be aware and understanding about what we're talking about and what they're asked to vote on. And... And it is scary. We did lead with a very aggressive number on MLK. And I think hopefully we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot and we do get something across the board at that, at that special ballot, but, Outside of that, I continue to disagree on the core areas of the Marin ship. Industrial, I agree with Commissioner Feller. I think changing from commercial is a huge win. I think the industrial needs to stay out of it. And I think specifically site 67, if I remember correctly, they're the office buildings adjacent to the tennis courts. My concern there as well is in front of that, you've got boats being crushed. If I'm thinking of the correct site. |
| 01:59:31.38 | Kristina Feller | Well, it's actually zoned industrial. |
| 01:59:33.43 | Nastassya Saad | And it's zoned industrial. So from a personal standpoint, I disagree anyway. But just from a general health and safety, I have extra concern with that site based on its location to what's happening back there. And I believe there are issues with the soil for a significant level of time. So who knows? But anyway, regardless, thank you. Thank you, Chair. That's where I stand. And I would hope and I would look to you, Chair, to just clarify with staff that they've understood a lot of our direction, even though it's a similar direction to last time. |
| 02:00:08.42 | Kristina Feller | Can I add something to your comment? Sure. |
| 02:00:08.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Sure. |
| 02:00:11.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. You know, we did these 3D studies, which included MLK. And you know, I think, you know, sometimes all this documentation can be mind-numbingly boring and very technical sometimes. So I don't think it's realistic to expect that it's an easy thing to digest for the community, maybe we should resurrect some of those images or update them or do something. Because originally, The number we settled on for MLK in the certified document is lower. than what was originally proposed because of public comment. And so we do take public comment, at least we take public comment very, very seriously and and and really think about it. And so there were some adjustments made. But I think maybe some of these diagrams and 3D images to sort of give people a sense of scale Be very helpful in understanding what actually is proposed and it's not some Manhattan skyscraper it's actually something completely different and then finally I again would urge staff and members of the city council I know the vice mayor here, please engage. the Planning Commission's working group on this housing element. We've been at this from the very beginning. We can be helpful. And I think it certainly moves the discussions a lot further and a lot faster. So let's be smarter on how we actually go about getting this for our community. |
| 02:01:49.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just... I want to clarify with Director Phillips for a second. So the comments that we're making, I'm assuming you'll collect them and whatever. We don't have to take a vote because it's a study session. You don't want us to formalize this in any way other than what we're doing. Is that correct? |
| 02:02:05.18 | Director Phipps | Correct, staff are taking rigorous notes, both those in person and joining us through the Zoom application, and we'll be summarizing those and providing that to council at their next study session for their review. Yep, we will be asking you to provide more consensus at the Special Planning Commission meeting, which is tentatively and currently scheduled for February 19th. |
| 02:02:17.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:31.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thanks. And just for commissioners, that's a special meeting. We have, not a regular meeting, Commissioner Junior. |
| 02:02:37.65 | Andrew Junius | Great. Thank you, Chair. Interesting discussion. And I think worth continuing for just another minute. You know, I tend to agree. I think that for better or for worse, the City Hall site is a civic site and should be reserved for civic uses. And maybe there'll be an expansion of the civic facilities that are in the future. And while housing on the parking lot wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen, you know, probably the greater interest in the city might be preserved by them not doing anything there at the moment. I'm not sure I agree on the firehouse site. You know, it's an interesting site. It's a large site. But I kind of go back to this, we're in a situation where if, you know, the staff has prepared these scenarios, it's like best case, not so good, and then worst case scenario. And if we're not going to be talking about putting the firehouse site or the city hall site on the list there's got we got to put it somewhere else and i think it's the marineship i mean i really think it's the marineship that i i i and the issues surrounding what's left of the working waterfront there's one strip of land down there that has some significant activity going on and there is some some occasional boat crushing that's hopefully coming to a close as they clean up Richardson Bay but it's a pretty quiet area it's you know there's some nice offices down there there's the tennis courts now the pickleball courts there's the field that's back in shape and there's just you know as Commissioner Marlott pointed out that site 67 is just a big square empty lot next to an office building right off the bridgeway and down the streets Molly Stone I mean it just seems to me you know and we and it was studied in the AR and and we did some of those massing studies you know and there there's a hundred units there 120 units there so You know, I it just seems like a no brainer to me. So I really hope that when we get to that February 19th meeting, we can talk more about getting site 67 on the list. |
| 02:04:31.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:31.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Junius. Any other comments? Any final comments? With that, we're going to move on to item 6B. So 6B is... I know it's here. um, 6B is a study session regarding more comprehensive objective design and development standards, odds, and form-based code. We've had study sessions on this item previously. Obviously, we do have odds now, which are objective design and development standards. These are additional ones. And Bob Brown, our odds consultant, will lead the presentation describing more comprehensive objective design and development standards and form-based code. As we did with the previous item, commissioners will then ask questions of staff. We'll then take public comment, then bring it back to the commission to provide direction to staff as needed. Again, no formal votes will be taken. and then the intent is to bring this back to the Planning Commission and the City Council, this input back to the Planning commission on February 19th, which is a special meeting for a public hearing with that, Bob, welcome this evening. |
| 02:05:44.47 | Bob Brown | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg, members of the Commission. Thank you. If we can hit the PowerPoint, please. |
| 02:05:52.62 | Kristina Feller | Bob, is that microphone on? |
| 02:05:54.63 | Bob Brown | Yes, I think so. Maybe I'll just speak closer to it. |
| 02:06:01.50 | Bob Brown | That's the one? Yes. |
| 02:06:05.82 | Bob Brown | So next slide. Okay. Can we go full screen on that? Is that possible? So the agenda tonight, you will hear some things you've heard before. But for those in the public who have not been with us for three and a half years, provide some context. But most of the discussion will be about what has transpired since your October 24th study session with some new information. And then really, as stated, the purpose of tonight is really to get your hopefully final questions and comments so that we can turn around and bring you back a final version for adoption next month. Next please. |
| 02:06:52.14 | Bob Brown | So why are we going through this effort? Just like the housing element is not a lot of fun. And that's because of the state laws that basically state that if you do a multifamily, if you do a development with two or more new housing units, then the cities are constrained in terms of their flexibility and discretion in reviewing those projects. So in those cases, projects can be used to work cannot be denied and they cannot have the density reduced if they comply with the adopted objective design and development standards. And then there are further state laws, SB 35, AB 2011, that also have requirements that if a project meets certain additional conditions, there are no hearings. There's no CEQA. It's a ministerial approval process. So next, please. The projects that the odds apply to, this is important. The proposal will only apply to projects that involve the creation of two or more multifamily units or multifamily units in mixed use projects where no more than 15 percent is non-residential. It's being applied in the zoning districts you currently have that allow multifamily or mixed use development. And it'll also apply to the housing opportunity sites that we've been discussing. Thank you. It does not apply to single family homes. It does not apply to SB 9 projects. It does not apply to modifications to existing multifamily where you're not adding two or more units. It does not apply to commercial development that exists or is proposed that doesn't entail new housing units. Next. |
| 02:08:51.63 | Bob Brown | How would the process change? What's proposed in the odds is it prevents, it provides an alternative pathway to approval. So instead of the typical design review process, which is discretionary, the process would be if the project complies with the odds and all of the city's other objective standards, then it would be approved by staff through a housing compliance review process. So very different process. And I've said this, this raises red flag in each of these sessions. The state density bonus law will trump even the best laid plans for odds. And you've read about, you know, a seven story proposal in Fairfax. You've read about a 10 and 16 story proposal in San Rafael. Those are all two or three times what the current zoning in those communities allows because they qualify for the state density bonus law, which allows developers to weigh virtually any standard. So that's the caveat to what we're doing here. Thanks. So preparing the odds, this has, as I said, been a three and a half year process coming up on four. We had the planning commission subcommittee of Commissioner Junius and Feller, who met with us 16 times for an extended period and gave us a great deal of direction and set us on a path. And then the city council, when we had a draft early last year appointed a peer review group of local architects and historians and they took another look and met during the summer and had a number of revisions proposed that I'll cover in a minute and as the chair mentioned there have been four planning commission study sessions and six city council study sessions along the way next please |
| 02:10:45.08 | Bob Brown | So the peer review group proposed numerous changes. And most importantly, I think they reduced the size of the document by half. So it was pretty ponderous. It's much less so now. A big part of that was this originally was set up as sort of a parallel code to your current zoning code for the sites that would be applicable, which would add two or more new housing units. They proposed to eliminate that. So we're now just referring back to the existing zoning districts for the basic regulations of setbacks and FAR, site coverage and all of that. So the odds, they are now just additive to what's currently in the zoning ordinance. The odds had a lot of building types to give certainty to the city as to what could be developed. And the peer review group recommended that those be reduced from 11 down to four, which they felt were more typical of Sausalito development. Also, the odds requires that the buildings have certain frontage improvements, so they relate to the street and the sidewalk in a friendly way, and those were reduced from nine possibilities to six that developers can choose from. There were privacy requirements in the old draft that when you had a new building next to current residences, there were privacy requirements for window placement and such. And those were modified to also include some outdoor recreational spaces as well. And there were, most importantly, the revisions included regulations that would apply to the historic district, which didn't exist before, and a very unique proposal to do objective view preservation standards. And so a lot more discussion coming about that tonight. Next, please. So we held study sessions last with the city council in October on October 1st, and then with the planning commission on the 24th. So the city council gave staff some direction. One was to reinstate a recommendation from the peer review group that there be some adjustments to standards when projects would not meet the allowable floor air ratio or densities that are allowed because of the restrictions of the development standards we're creating and so those have been added back it's a two-tier system and i'll discuss that in more detail in a few minutes next The city council also asked that the proposed view preservation software be pursued. And that is underway. And a member of the peer review group will present the status after my presentation in a moment. Next. The council also directed staff to begin work on updating the city's historic building survey, which is really important to implement the historic preservation standards that are new in the odds. And so that's a pretty extensive process. It's going to involve cost. It's going to involve public consultants. And so staff will undertake that after they take a bow on the housing element and the adoption of the zoning code revision. So that will come later in the year. Next, please. The council asked that we update the defining characteristics list. So those are the features in the historic buildings from the old inventory forms that need to be retained in modifying historic structures. And so we've done that. We've worked with the peer review group back and forth, just made some recent changes last week. But we think we have a format now which is entirely objective. And I think we all agree also that, again, it really needs to be updated as soon as possible with the update to the historic building inventory. Next, please. And finally, the council said to staff, please share this information, particularly regarding the view preservation standards with HCD and get their reaction. I guess I would summarize the reaction from HCD as a prove to us response. And so they're going to be looking for some pretty extensive testing of the proposed software when it's available, particularly on the various housing opportunity sites to make sure that these standards don't decrease the development potential. So that process will take a while, I believe. and next. So now going to the Planning Commission feedback from October 23rd study session last year, there was a question about the number of parcels that would qualify for the state density bonus the chair asked that and that information was not prepared during the housing element process it was only looked at for the housing opportunity sites not all of the properties in town that allow multi-family and what we pointed out in the staff report is that to qualify for the state density bonus law you have to have at least five units. And so in the staff report, we indicated the size of the various lots in the various zoning districts that would have to occur before you qualify to create five units. So that information is there. That information could be developed using MarinMap. It would take some effort. again we haven't had the opportunity to do that given the other uh priorities um so again i don't know if that's still an issue but there are a lot of properties obviously that qualify for the state density bonus law Next. |
| 02:16:45.04 | Bob Brown | There was a question again by the chair who asked if the housing opportunity sites that are non-residential in their underlying zoning could be developed for non-residential uses or expanded. And I think you discussed that during the last study session, so I won't go into that. And if you have more questions, we can address those later. Next, please. |
| 02:17:11.56 | Bob Brown | Then there was the question about redevelopment of the proposed and redevelopment of the proposed historic district regulations. And the request was for sort of a demonstration of how those might affect a property, a case study. And so that's going to be presented after my presentation as well. Thank you. Next, please. And the question from the chair, again, about the historic standards and whether those would conflict with the federal secretary of the interior standards for historic structures. And previously, the old draft had a requirement that any defining characteristics that were identified for an historic property, if the property was being added onto or redeveloped, that those characteristics, some of them would have to be incorporated in the new design. And we thought about the question and decided to eliminate that provision, and we've added new provisions in the draft regulations for historic structures that for a vertical addition would require the new construction be stepped back further to differentiate it, and then for horizontal additions would require the change of the materials or design features or a different setback or a break between the building facades. So all those are incorporated now. So we would improve. design features or a different setback or a break between the building facades. So all those are incorporated now. So we would improve the differentiation between old and new construction. Next, please. |
| 02:18:45.31 | Bob Brown | And then there was a question about the accuracy of the view preservation software. And what came up in the discussion was the proposal for the software, at least at that time, was that it would take an existing building facade that would potentially be looking onto new construction and divide up that building facade into increments, six feet by six feet increments. And from each one of those, it would use as a vantage point and then do the analysis of the views from that vantage point. And then it would aggregate all of those and create sort of an average scoring. The problem with that is that some of that wall area is not window area, and so it really doesn't constitute a view. So again, a member of the peer review group will discuss this further. There may be some opportunities in running the software. If it does trigger, possibly then at that point, an operator could go back and refine the analysis to actually identify where the window locations are and then rerun the if there is, again, if we come up with a situation where there's an impact. Next. So a lot of changes, mostly the changes that have occurred since October have been with the historic district regulations. And in fact, we had more changes just last week and you received a separate communication explaining those. But in general, the things that have changed is... And I'll only do some of the major ones here, I've mentioned previously the changes regarding the replication of or the differentiation between new and old. We now require that the roof form of new additions match the existing, um, and that we've made some changes to the requirements for new entries in the building so that they don't dominate or differentiate it from the existing building entries. And then in the next page, the most recent revisions, and these were based on the actual case study that was requested. That suggested then instead of regulating the floor to ceiling heights, we wanted to make sure that the new construction replicated the context buildings in the area in terms of the heights of the floors. And so instead of the floor to ceiling height limitations that were in the previous, now they've been changed to window to window heights between the ground floor and the second and then upper floors as well. So that's a refinement that's occurred. Next, please. |
| 02:21:35.04 | Bob Brown | And then, as I mentioned, we have reinstated standards that are called adjustments. So projects that can't achieve the allowable F-rearm or density are then allowed to go through one of two tiers or could be two tiers of adjustments. So the first tier are adjustments that are more readily acceptable. And if you go to the next page. Again, all these specific regulations are listed, and the extent of adjustment, percentage changes is identified for each of those. If those adjustments still do not achieve the allowable FAR, then the second tier of adjustments would come into play and could be utilized, which if you go up to the next slide, these are some of the tougher ones that we would like to avoid, and those include some give on the view preservation standards. I will say that these adjustments do not necessarily get you 100% to the allowable FAR in all cases, so it's not a fail-safe guarantee that you'll get the FAR, at least in the way it's currently drafted. And next slide. So as we mentioned, this is a short runway. So the intent is to have a council study session, just as we are tonight on the odds, to come back to you in mid-February for the hearing for adoption and your recommendations to the council on these changes and also the zoning changes that would occur to Title X. And then in late February, the council would hopefully hear and certify the final EIR and adopt the amended housing element. And then in early March, the council would hold its hearing and first readings of the odds and the changes to the zoning code and the zoning map. Thank you. And then also adopt the ballot measure language. And then in March, in mid-March, the council would then hold a second reading on the code changes. So with that whirlwind, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. |
| 02:23:46.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much for that thorough report. I'm just going to start with one quick question, and then I'll turn it over to the other commissioners. These Tier 1 and Tier 2 adjustments, this is supposed to be an objective design standards. So if the property owner says, I need Tier 1 adjustments, but CDD staff says, you don't need this. You can build this if you design it as whatever. I mean, I guess I'm confused of how this, who makes the decision on whether those adjustments are necessary. |
| 02:24:24.11 | Bob Brown | Well, the applicant would have to demonstrate to staff that they can't meet the FAR. And in that case, then the applicant would be, again, if that case is well made, then the applicant would be able to choose the adjustments that they would propose and then indicate how that would get them back to the allowable FAR, or if not, then make the case that they would then be able to go on to tier two adjustments after all of the tier one adjustments were considered. |
| 02:24:52.43 | Unknown | I see. Okay. Commissioner Marley. |
| 02:24:57.81 | David Marlatt | All right. |
| 02:24:57.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:57.91 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:24:57.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:58.18 | David Marlatt | Thank you, Bob. That's another great presentation. My first question is just to understand what we're up against in terms of deadlines. So I know that this housing element, of course, the approval has its deadlines and the odds, the goal being to get this adopted by the city council in March, I think I saw. Is there any constraint from HCD or any other constraint for modifying or adopting the odds if we need a version 1.5 in December or something? Other than the fact that it is subject to HCD approval, so we don't want to be doing that. But can you just walk us through what's at stake here, so to speak? |
| 02:25:43.19 | Bob Brown | Well, they should. they should occur in concert with the zoning code and the zoning map changes because they really are integrated in that way. Um, they provide the regulations then for the HOS sites that go along. Um, I don't recall in that housing element, if there is a specific dates that are, uh, required for adoption of the odds. I don't know if, uh, If Director Phipps or Bethlehem. Thank you, Bob. |
| 02:26:12.09 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Bob. So I can confirm the answer to that question is yes. We have written into the housing element a deadline by which the city will implement Program 19. Program 19 in the housing element is the adoption of more robust objective development and design standards. I am going to find that date for you shortly. Thank you. |
| 02:26:33.10 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:26:34.12 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. Then another question, just looking at the latest, and I know we're going to have the view sync and the historic presentation very soon, but just one quick question of a concern I have regarding potentially reducing the development area. We have, I forget how many, but four or seven, a certain number of facade elements, facade types. There's the front garage, the front garden, the engaged porch, and so forth. Nine. Nine, thanks. And I should remember that. But our current zoning, generally speaking, allows a zero-foot front yard setback. And all of the facade, as they're currently proposed, require a setback from six feet at a minimum to 12 feet. So is there no option? In an earlier draft of the odds, of course, you had the front stoop, I think it was called, which could be right at the property line. And my concern is that if someone has a property that could otherwise have a 0-foot front setback, we're denying them that volume of 32 feet by 6 feet or 12 feet, and that might be objectionable in terms of reducing the development potential of that site. Have you considered that? |
| 02:26:59.55 | Bob Brown | No, I'm not. |
| 02:27:44.92 | Bob Brown | I can go back and look at the specifics. I did think that the front garage... that was added by the peer review group. I thought that had a zero foot setback, but I could be wrong. But I'll go back and look at all of them to make sure that they're consistent with the allowed setback. |
| 02:28:01.34 | David Marlatt | Because I think what I'd, well, it'll be in the discussion, but what I'd suggested is maybe the engaged porch could also be a zero foot as a suggestion, just as a concern that that might be. |
| 02:28:11.38 | Bob Brown | Yeah. |
| 02:28:11.40 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Something that someone could object to. |
| 02:28:11.75 | Bob Brown | It's good. It's a good point. I'll double check. |
| 02:28:15.74 | David Marlatt | And then my other question, and I certainly yield to others, is, and this was raised also, I think, in the October study session, the concern that bays are not well defined. Bays are very important, this rhythm of bays. But the illustrations really show a rhythm of windows. and I'm just wondering maybe between now and the final draft if that can be beefed up partly for the sake of staff because it just seems to me to be I'm just wondering, maybe between now and the final draft, if that can be beefed up, partly for the sake of staff, because it just seems to me to be subjective, right? |
| 02:28:46.10 | Bob Brown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:28:47.12 | David Marlatt | you know. |
| 02:28:47.19 | Bob Brown | Bye. We did have the discussion with Opticos, and they've had that issue dealing with other cities as well, and they feel that it's well-defined, at least in their understanding. But I'll go back and look again. I know, again, we had that discussion in San Anselmo as well. So let me go see if we did any refinements in San Rafael that aren't, I mean, in San Anselmo that aren't reflected here. |
| 02:29:10.77 | David Marlatt | OK, yeah, I think I shared with you, you've seen the San Francisco odds. And they do a great job of defining Bayes. OK, I'll go back. Maybe too good of a job. |
| 02:29:17.13 | Bob Brown | Maybe bigger. |
| 02:29:18.68 | David Marlatt | Thank you. but they do a great job. |
| 02:29:20.84 | Director Phipps | And if I may, Commissioner Merlot, going back to your previous question as related to the timeline for adoption of more robust odds, in our certified element, we had listed May 2025 as the time before which we would have those adopted. We are kind of, you know, based on due to the timeline that we're on, as well as the ballot timeline, we are trying to address these in a timely manner and prior to any June ballot measure. So there is a similar urgency here. |
| 02:29:54.74 | David Marlatt | Good. No, certainly. It was more for the revisions down the road than the initial adoption. |
| 02:29:56.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:56.30 | Director Phipps | There's more for the word. And I'll state, that's a fine comment. The city may always engage in review adoption of additional objective design standards. However, we want to make sure that the odds before us that we've said that we would adopt by May 2025 are adopted by then. We can do any other follow on work that we like following that. |
| 02:30:20.38 | David Marlatt | following on board yeah. And then my last question, Bob, is there's a section about a certain number of elements that have to be provided at the time of application. And one is acceptable evidence or neighbor outreach, evidence of neighbor outreach. And again, it's more of a concern of process for the sake of the staff and the applicant. Will that be beefed up or developed? Or, you know, what is, what does that mean? And it's mostly in the spirit of not avoiding, again, subjectivity, cross accusations, |
| 02:30:54.04 | Bob Brown | Yeah, in discussing those administrative provisions with the city attorney's office, they felt that they were ill-placed in the odds. So that's why we did not include more... some of the language that were recommended by the peer review group for, you know, again, involvement of the community and all that, particularly when you have a ministerial process. |
| 02:31:17.36 | David Marlatt | Okay. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. |
| 02:31:21.85 | Unknown | Thank you, Commissioner Marlott, Commissioner Genius. Any questions? Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:31:27.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair and thank you Bob for your presentation. Uh, The summary of some of our comments, I think there's actually quite a bit missing from from the input that we had. And, um, I also after the the hearing and there was some suggestion of follow up. I also provided quite a bit of information to director Phipps. I did so through director Phipps to avoid any Brown Act violation issues because there is still an existing ODDS Working Group here at the Planning Commission, myself and Commissioner Junius. that is still in existence. So I wanted to be mindful and careful, and you were part of one of those communications in that regard. But one of the comments that, I had made in the last hearing was that, you know, I viewed them as actually quite anemic. They weren't as robust. And it's not necessarily a comparison fully with the odds that this planning commission approved for recommendation 5-0 unanimously. But it was also in consideration of not just what we see today, but trying to project in the future, including like redevelopment areas, not just development areas, but redevelopment areas. and sort of, you know, more of a natural Organic growth and patina that happens within cities all over, all over the world. And so I don't see that comment really anywhere here. So, you know, my my feeling and again I'm just one Commissioner, but but I was I felt pretty strongly that that it that the odds that we saw in the previous version really would leave this city vulnerable, actually, and there wasn't actually enough in them so. I don't see that anywhere in your presentation or your comments. So I just wanted to make sure Like if if that was not heard or misinterpreted, I do want to make sure that that's there. I also listened back through the... the city council hearings where they were providing their their direction. And I want to make sure that it's actually really, really clear. that the the odds that this the commission recommended not include historic preservation at all. We actually met with historic preservation three times that I can confirm maybe more, but I'll, let's just say three, Um, And it was their direction that was reflected previously. Now, if that has changed and city councils obviously asked them to really look at that, I defer to them and trust their judgment. And I don't have any issues with what they have offered. And I think that's a good question. The attachment five in the packet that we have is, I think it's the draft inventory. But it's it's kind I don't know if that's really what it's meant to be just in the historic district. Is that your understanding of what that is? |
| 02:35:00.96 | Bob Brown | Is attachment five the defining characteristics list, Director Phipps? |
| 02:35:06.32 | Kristina Feller | And I know it's very draft, but it's like super draft. |
| 02:35:08.65 | Bob Brown | right? Okay, well, if it's the document with all the photographs and the bullet points after each property, that's the defining characteristics list. And so that was created, and it's intended to be adopted by council resolution. |
| 02:35:23.67 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF |
| 02:35:23.98 | Bob Brown | And then it's referred to in the historic standards. And those are the features for each of those individual properties. originally taken from the 1980s inventory forms and updated. So those are the features. |
| 02:35:35.84 | Kristina Feller | I'm going to say, |
| 02:35:37.91 | Bob Brown | that for each of those properties, they would have to be retained through a modification to those facades. |
| 02:35:43.74 | Kristina Feller | So is that citywide because there's some that's- |
| 02:35:46.05 | Bob Brown | That's just the historic district. |
| 02:35:47.63 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, because there's some that almost appear outside of the historic. |
| 02:35:50.89 | Bob Brown | Should just be in the historic district. |
| 02:35:52.83 | Kristina Feller | All right. I just want to make sure that I was clear. I know it's a work in progress, but I appreciate the clarification to that. The other thing that I just want to note is... You know, in our time working with you, you know, Commissioner Junius and I obviously struggled mightily with with you, with Tony, with Opticos, with everybody to figure out the the view preservation. And I know that that that will be a subsequent piece of this discussion. but, Again, I want to stress that we did not recommend it to be left out and not included. So there's a bit of a misnomer here. We actually came up with initially three ways to try to back into that view preservation And I'm not sure that I see those fully reflected, but that was sort of, you know, the shadow study shadow ordinances about a percentage of shade shadow. on a neighboring property. obviously it was the, you know, solar pathways and not blocking the solar. Yeah. And then it was also the public views. And we had put together a very long lengthy inventory of what those like sites or areas would be. And I want to make sure that that that we haven't lost that somewhere either. |
| 02:37:16.14 | Bob Brown | Yeah, I would say that the public vantage points aren't included in this. So really it is just the view of preservation of surrounding private properties. And you're absolutely right. We originally, the Planning Commission odds subcommittee, we actually did come up with an ordinance. The city attorney was concerned about legality, primarily because it would have required establishing the vantage points from private properties in those homes. So it would have Required some cooperation from residents that lived around it for the private property |
| 02:37:55.17 | Kristina Feller | I'm not talking about private. I'm talking about how we're backing into this. And those are the three that I've identified and somewhere that's gotten lost in translation. So I just want to make sure that that it isn't lost somewhere by mistake or inadvertently because there was a lot of thought and a lot of information put there that can be helpful. |
| 02:38:10.85 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:38:20.17 | Kristina Feller | Obviously, we all have to determine if ultimately it is, but I don't want to lose it out of the conversation. because I think that there's some validity to what you know, what those stop gaps are and sort of those redundancies of, of protecting views. I think that's pretty important. It shouldn't just be a, one dimensional thing. In my opinion. So I wanna make sure that we don't lose that. And then the other thing that was mentioned is, We've never received any actual comments on what this planning commission approved unanimously for recommendation to the city council. So, you know, it makes it much more difficult to figure out. you know, where there were issues. And so I think that the the tails wagging the dog a little bit on, on this, um, because it seems completely redundant with what we did. And it's good to kind of be, build on something rather than, you know, tear something down and start and start from scratch. So I want to be careful about that as well. Um, And then The only other thing that I wanted to ask about right now, at least, There was a city council member who was really focused on colors and materials. And, you know, part of me feels like that's a little subjective. What I say is blue, you might say is blue. emerald blue or What I think is orange, someone else might think is red or whatever it might be. So I don't know if that was ever part of the remit because I'm not really seeing that either. So, and I don't know if that threw some discussions that none of us are privy to, was discarded ultimately or where that stands. But I'm just trying to, I'm trying to connect the dots and it makes it a little difficult when there's not a lot of communication. |
| 02:40:23.64 | Bob Brown | On colors and materials, we did have those discussions. And in fact, Opticos had done a version in Santa Barbara that was very specific in terms of allowable colors and even included color charts, et cetera, and materials. And in our last discussions with the peer review group, they really did not want to go there in terms of a lot of the design standards that were very prescriptive. And so that's why these odds don't really regulate really the building design. Other than placement and overall configuration, it really does not get into the facades and the window types and all of that. So that was not part of the final draft. |
| 02:41:11.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I'm not complaining that it's not there. I'm just trying to again, connect the dots and make sure that that if if there is, you know, a good reason to rescind what we've already approved for recommendation for which I'm still searching for one. that we are, that we have, that we're actually responding to what those those comments were from the city council, because that's all we have to go on. So I appreciate you clarifying that. Thank you. |
| 02:41:41.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:41:41.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Vice Chair Sagan. |
| 02:41:45.89 | Nastassya Saad | I don't have any questions right now. Thank you. |
| 02:41:48.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. There's another part of the presentation. |
| 02:41:52.03 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:41:52.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:41:52.56 | Unknown | Thank you. No. Thank you. A new time reported. |
| 02:42:00.67 | Mr. Giovara | Thank you. |
| 02:42:03.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:04.67 | Neal Toft | So I do want to just let you know, yeah, we're gonna turn it over to some members of the peer review group. We're gonna have a presentation. uh initially on the update to the view sync software which informs chapter three and view protection as prepared under the draft and then subsequent after that we're going to have a presentation on the case study for chapter six, historic district preservation standards. There was a case study just finished earlier this week. And that's gonna be presented along with some very recent suggested edits that kind of, I understand came from, sort of resulted from that exercise. So let me hand it off to the person. |
| 02:42:56.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Will that be posted? That was not posted as of the case study you said was forthcoming. |
| 02:43:06.13 | Neal Toft | No, the case study is on the agenda. That was posted... Oh, early, I think yesterday. |
| 02:43:12.20 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:43:12.36 | Neal Toft | Thank you. along with the Uh, But just today we posted this presentation. We got this presentation in. So we got the presentation, but we do have the case study and the edits, just the specific edits to that chapter. We can certainly edit those into the chapter. We just didn't want to present a whole new full odds with edits in it. We wanted just to be able to demonstrate these are the most, because these were some very recent edits suggested by the peer review group. Thank you. |
| 02:43:45.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:43:45.09 | Neal Toft | Uh, |
| 02:43:45.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I saw the edits. I just didn't see the case study. |
| 02:43:45.25 | Neal Toft | I'm sorry. Yeah, the case study is attached to it. |
| 02:43:47.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:43:50.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:43:58.22 | Unknown | you |
| 02:43:58.54 | Sophia | Hello, my friends, esteemed commissioner and chairman. I think you're going to like what one of the things that's kind of been discussed quite a bit here is the topic of mapping and the ability to visualize and see things. So view sync is fundamentally about that. And there's two modes of operation. So next slide, please. or role-placing. So the first part of ViewSync is the ViewSync interactive, and that's really a design tool It's a way of modeling the housing element and looking at it And it's built on Esri City Engine. And even though we didn't end up working with Esri on the compliance tool, We were able to work with them on this and with a consultant that they have. And so this will support the HCD compliance because that's a critical part of this, proving that this works. So the other part is the ViewSync compliance app. That's a web app. That's a standalone application for validating projects. And that leverages a GPU system. And it's a scalable cloud architecture. So that's has to run quite, that's a lot of data in there and has to run on a cloud, it can't really run in a city engine environment. So we have designed this is designed for both public and professional use. and that the view Sync Interactive is really designed for the staff to use and to benefit you in making presentations that are probably going to be a lot more informative. Next slide, please. So this design tool is available now. It is already completed. It is available for handover to the city right now for immediate use. It enables modeling and visualization of view impact and housing scenarios for the ACD compliance and then also for planning. I think this is going to be a powerful planning tool for our city. It has a dynamic dashboard, inputs, abilities to input parcel by parcel development data. and it can display results with all the details we want to know, like lot coverage and FAR parking spaces, And it will also provide citywide summaries I really think this is what in working with this whole process over the last year, I really came to feel this was the tool that was needed to really visualize and understand what we're doing. And even though I came to this from a view sync point of view, I felt that this is a great way to plan as well. So let's go to the next slide, please. Okay, so it's a sit so basically what we've done is we've taken all the opportunity sites and we've added them to the city model. Next slide please. So here is an example up we talked about up on Northern Bridgeway MLK. existing conditions example. So that's basically what's up there now. Okay, let's look at a deployment scenario. Next slide, please. So here might be a particular deployment scenario, and you can see under this scenario, There is a 500,000 of square feet are involved in it. And then you can see there's a dashboard. And next slide, please. So the way this works is you can change the scenario per parcel with an input panel. So this is a parametric model system where all of the inputs that you can see, and you can see that, for example, there are details like allowed lot coverage, front setbacks, left setback, number of stories, zoning preset for housing 29, building form. Let's go to the next slide, please. So there's different types of forms, and these forms can be the little handles. They can intuitive system, you can enter values in there. And then you can also move the handles up and down. Next slide, please. And then the dashboard, the dashboard tells the whole story. So it tells us how many What is the results? So what is the lot coverage and area? What are their dwelling units, parking use, all kinds of details. So this really gives us a summary of what the plan is. Let's go to the next slide, please. it has all of the view shed calculations tool that I showed in the demo before. So all of the, All of the elements are available to let's say we had some kind of, we use a little tools and we, put some, let's say MLK, We put out, okay, here's a little design at MLK. Here is a scenario. Here's what the view elements would be. Thank you. Try another scenario, pull up, pull up the handles. pull it back. board, put it in a waterfall. bring it up in a different design, and then we can study the view element. Okay. Next slide, please. So here is, okay, we could explore, for example, a hypothetical scenario A. And you can see all the different types of shapes of the buildings. So this tool has the ability to make all kinds of different shapes quite easily. So go to the next flight, please. And so, okay, here would be scenario B. So we went from one scenario to another, And then the, dashboard reflects the changes that are made. So to me, this is a tool that will help you Every day. that you envision. Hopefully we're done with the housing element, but the new housing element will be coming. And in terms of the vote, I think this kind of visualization to truly understand what this means, this is going to be very, very helpful. Okay, so that space, that's ViewSync interactive, and that's done and ready to go. And that My wife and I took it upon ourselves to sponsor this, and this is our gift to the city. Okay, let's go to the next slide, please. Then we have the compliance app. And the compliance app is this. It's not finished yet. It is. The core features and interface are complete. It needs to some further integration. but it is well on the way, you know, within weeks of being completed. It is an intuitive web-based app for compliance. And one of the things When we were originally talking about this and using ESRI as the basis, the problem with it I always felt was that it wasn't going to be accessible to the public easily. We wanted something that someone could just go right online, don't even have to do an account they can just upload something and take a look. So one of the challenges with this project was developing the data So we found a 15 centimeter digital surface model a Sausalito from a company called Nirmann. and we integrated a high resolution analysis with that. We also have taken the water views and the building footprints that we got from Marin Map and we have aligned them with the DSM. The footprints of structures have been, we've excluded the residential uh, rather than non-residential structures. And then there's a lot of like little structures, like little sheds and things like that, that are footprints. They're not entitled to view protection. So those would be, They're part of the physical environment, but they would not be considered for potentially impacted properties. So the back end, as I mentioned, is a GPU-based system. Like everybody knows, machine learning, NVIDIA, GPUs, this is to handle massive amounts of data. And a DSM, even of a small city like this, is a massive data structure. So that is, I guess my time's up. So that is what's needed for it. |
| 02:52:03.75 | Director Phipps | Sorry to interrupt. That was just somebody entering the waiting room. |
| 02:52:08.02 | Sophia | I don't. |
| 02:52:08.56 | Director Phipps | Oh, good. Very good. Thank you, Sophia. I just wanted to make sure. |
| 02:52:08.63 | Sophia | Oh, good. Very good. Thank you. We're always hearing that going all the time. So, okay. Reminder to be brief. Okay. Next slide, please. So we all know the automated steps of view sync. I'm not going to go over that. That's in the packet. Let's go to the next slide. Next slide, please. Okay, so here's what the app looks like. So be a big map, you upload the model with guest access and run a test. You can search for addresses. You can sign up and store a model. And then you can log in as a user or an admin. So pretty simple interface. Just kind of click on that upload area and upload. Let's go to the next slide, please. Okay, this would be the upload model screen. It will upload, it will show the placement of the model. and then the person, the user, will be able to click a button to send it to be analyzed. Thank you. Next slide, please. They will receive some feedback, visual feedback, and then they will also, to show the impacted properties, that could be showed pretty quickly. And then they will be advised, and we have to see exactly how long it's going to take get the report done, but let's say around 15 minutes, the report will be emailed to them. So that's our current thought process on this. They will also though be able to download a GeoJSON, a listing of the properties that are impacted. So that's the basic screen. And that is what it's going to look like, but a lot's going on in the back end. to, uh, Yeah. ingest the model, incorporated into the DSM do view sheds from it, the reverse view sheds. then finding the impacted properties and then analyzing the view impact. So there's quite a bit that's going on behind the scenes, but the model, Web app itself in the version 1.0, is simple. And then later on, we might add other elements if it made sense to do so. Okay, changes in odd, check this next slide, please. Okay, changes in the odds here. Some of the things as we've been working on this that we realized that we needed to remove the VISTA view as a protected class because we just do not have the data at this point to get the VISTA view aspect here. So maybe in a version 2.0, we could do that. But we would have to do a lot of aerial image analysis. And that's a complex thing to do on this timeline. We also added the concept of a view bearing line, which which defines what's in front of the project. This is where a view could not be obstructed. So that's an important element in this system. We revised the proxy window placement scheme from the six by six array about which we had so much discussion to a eight by nine array with a selective placement. And it uses the bearing line to narrow the analysis to the true view potential. We also recommend adopting the Marin County assessor definition of living space rather than saying residential space. And that this allows us to easily eliminate those buildings that have living living units of less than one. greater than zero. So basically we can... get rid of all the sheds and things like that very easily through that method. So let's go to the observer point placement, please. Next slide. So |
| 02:56:12.02 | Sophia | Basically the point on the observer point placement, I was mentioning that the important elements are the, Thank you. Exactly. My note right here. So, Okay, this is a proxy of the... windows. We do not know where the windows are and that we, a lot of ideas have been put on that. And I'm going to comment on one thing after this, but, um, We wanted to have it be simple. And also one of the challenges also with the six by six grid is we're doing a tremendous amount of computation that's not necessary. So we thought, how can we pare this down? So we have the okay placing on the exterior walls that are oriented toward the applicable view. The bearing line will bisect the building at the centroid for each applicable view. And those views might be, okay, Golden Gate Bridge or whatever the views are that are people's views. The points are only placed on wall sections in front of the bearing line. We would have it at eight foot intervals, starting four feet from the point of bisection with a minimum point of one per wall. we would have a, the first, then we would come down from the roof line, five feet below the roof line, and then have additional rows divide. It's kind of similar to our concept on the the window to window placement in the historic district, we would come down from there and divide the roof line by nine and exclude a remainder. So let's go to show how it would work. Next slide, please. Okay, so here's the view bearing line. this line is not a line at that point. It is a line that would move move in a parallel manner based upon where the properties are. So it's actually, it's north, it's 321 degrees from north. And then the golden gate view is 90 degrees from north. Okay, next slide, please. Karen Hollweg, So here you can see how those bearing lines might apply to a footprint and how the scheme, the eight by eight scheme would would apply to a house. |
| 02:58:29.08 | Sophia | Okay, next slide. Okay, then the next steps are to The first thing, I think the very next step here to me is, okay, the ViewSync interactive design tool is fully operational and ready to go. So we need to train city personnel and effective usage of it. for planning and HCD compliance. And then I recommend that we retain a consultant to use the tool for the ACD compliance, because I know there's a lot of work involved in doing it. So I think if we retained a consultant to do it, the same consultant that we hired to build it, They know how to do this. They're an expert in it and to the engine. And that they could, or we could perform that in-house. But I think we'll learn how to use it in-house by having a consultant use it the first time. And it'll become a tool that will be a fun gee whiz tool or how can we, what if tool. But for this HCD compliance project, I think that using the consultant is the way to go. On the web app, complete the MVP. And then work with this is very important, work with counsel to define the testing. that I think there's two types of testing. One is HC-Deep compliance testing, That's taken care of with the interactive data tool. because we need to, we don't have any particular projects that we're evaluating at MLK or whatever. We're evaluating prospective projects. So we need to model those. However, For the web app, we need to have a separate type of testing to feel that, okay, this is something we've got in our drawer that is, hey, this is well-tested. This is something that works. So work with counsel to define that testing and then retain a consultant to perform the testing. So those are the two steps that we need to do there. then conduct real-world testing. validate the functionality with the provider, and then prepare for rollout. |
| 03:00:28.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank your questions on this presentation, Commissioner Junius. |
| 03:00:35.40 | Andrew Junius | Thank you and welcome back. |
| 03:00:37.66 | Sophia | I'd. |
| 03:00:38.67 | Andrew Junius | fascinating process you've gone through here. We do appreciate all the work you're doing on this. I'm a little confused though. is the web app compliance tool ultimately intended to be given available to the public so that a developer would come in and put their project in, understand the view issues. Right. That's the ultimate. But so I get that one. I'm not I'm not sure I understand where what you mean by HCD compliance. |
| 03:00:54.28 | Sophia | I mean, it's... |
| 03:00:54.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:00:56.61 | Sophia | Right, exactly. |
| 03:00:57.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:00:57.76 | Sophia | That's- |
| 03:01:04.48 | Sophia | Okay, this not necessarily compliance, but the point is HCD did write us a letter and saying, hey, prove it. You know, you folks are saying you're going to be doing this view deal. You know, what's it all about? You know, show us how it works with the housing element. So one of the things that's a very important project to do. So it's not necessarily compliance per se, It's a request, and we want to demonstrate how this is going to work. So that is going to really solve that problem in particular, as well as help us with all our housing element planning too, for our own purposes. But I think having a tool that shows people numerically, Okay, this is how many units, this is what's the fluoride ratio, here's the uses. Like we're talking about, okay, how we can handle this 85%. you know, a 1585 deal, like this tool has the uses. So you can put on the ground floor, use is this, use is that, you know, here, here's parking, you know, so it's a very handy tool in that, in that regard. |
| 03:02:08.97 | Andrew Junius | i agree with a great planning tool no question about it i just actually think HCD is going to be very interested in the compliance tool as well because HCD you'll be putting forward that component as the objective view standard process that's supposed to comply with |
| 03:02:25.93 | Sophia | No, no, no, exactly. And that's where I feel like going with the figuring out with, um, You know, Sergio, whomever would work on it. OK, what is our testing regime that shows what it is? And so I think that's quite important. |
| 03:02:38.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Other questions? Commissioner Marlott. Commissioner, fellow. |
| 03:02:46.10 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. Hi, Sophia. Good to see you again. Regarding the testing, again, as I understand it, the HCD skepticism is rooted more in a concern that the net effect of this view reduction will reduce development potential. And we know that's the net concern. So that's what they're looking for. And that needs to be tested. Is the strategy to just do a number of 100 examples? Is there a strategy about how to approach that to convince them that this project is going to be |
| 03:03:16.57 | Sophia | Basically, let's just go back to, let's just go say to slide 11. |
| 03:03:29.92 | Sophia | or right there, any of these. So basically this, so it's just saying, okay, we can come, this is what the consultant would do. They would just go through, take the parametric tool, put on it. take whatever, like, okay, this is at Harbor Drive, one Harbor Drive or whatever. It's supposed to be in the parking lot. okay, boom, here, sit in the parking lot. You know, it's supposed to be over here on this one or that one. Here's MLK. You know, here's how many floors it is, you know, so on. And then we have a complete picture. This is obviously not what the, It's not a developer proposing to build that, but it shows here's a very nice viable project that meets the criteria we need. |
| 03:04:10.52 | David Marlatt | Well, it shows that at a macro scale, but at an individual scale, an individual parcel, don't we need to demonstrate for HCD that That will not. |
| 03:04:18.50 | Sophia | Right. Thank you. Right. No, exactly. Well, this basically go to... Let's go to slide eight, and then after we go to slide eight, We'll go to slide 10. you We each of these can be put on a parcel. So these are like little models that can be put on a parcel. And these are not just these models, but, but, hundreds of iterations of these models and then go to slide 10 please So then once the model's on there, boom. So this is the process that we were doing before, but this is all integrated into one toolkit. |
| 03:05:04.47 | David Marlatt | So this sort of dovetails into my next question, which is probably a question more for staff and implementation, because ViewSync may be able to demonstrate, given enough iterations and creativity, that a solution is available that meets the ViewSync requirements and the FAR and the development requirements. But staff will need to enforce that, I guess. I mean, I'm just trying to think, you know, if I'm an architect, which I am, I might come with a project that, you know, for three units and a certain height and so forth, meeting all the other odds, objective standards, but not meeting the view sync. And I present it to staff and I say, I've done this model and there is no solution that meets view sync. |
| 03:05:31.91 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 03:05:52.58 | David Marlatt | And staff suspects that I'm kind of blowing smoke. What happens? because we can't be asking staff to redesign other people's projects. |
| 03:06:02.57 | Sophia | No, this, right, this, the interactive. It's a process question. Yeah, the interactive version, obviously people, it would be possible, for example, to sit down with an architect and go through an interactive experience with them. That would just be a courtesy at the city if they wish to do that. |
| 03:06:03.60 | David Marlatt | Right. It's a process question. |
| 03:06:19.85 | Sophia | the the person who is the applicant has to go through the compliance app. |
| 03:06:25.81 | David Marlatt | Right. So ultimately, if the applicant says, I've gone through the compliance app, there is no architectural solution possible that complies with ViewSync. It's up to the staff to say, no, I'm sorry, go back and try again or keep trying. It's more like |
| 03:06:41.67 | Sophia | Again, those are different questions. I'm not sure how it would be administered, but I think that certainly if there is a solution, hopefully an architect would find it. |
| 03:06:46.90 | David Marlatt | Yeah, it's not a question about the technology. |
| 03:06:49.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:55.81 | Sophia | But again, that's beyond the scope of my Okay. |
| 03:06:59.78 | Jerome Christensen | Okay. |
| 03:07:00.37 | Director Phipps | And if I may briefly jump in, I'll also state, you know, Mr. Brown mentioned close to the noisy heater over there, of course, which has a lot of opinions this evening. Bob Brown was discussing tier one and tier two concessions. And I believe it's the case that the tier two concessions can apply to FUSINC. Yes, a percentage. So for qualifying projects, there is a fail safe if you are not able to accommodate the objective standards under, you know, kind of the view sync objective standards as they are initially presented. And then I did have one question was, you know, is this hypothetical project a density bonus project? |
| 03:07:24.13 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:07:24.18 | Fred Moore | So, |
| 03:07:24.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:07:24.32 | Fred Moore | Okay. |
| 03:07:24.40 | Unknown | it. |
| 03:07:47.10 | David Marlatt | Well, just putting that aside because that was a very good. Just putting that aside for the moment. It's more about how staff will actually in a real world implement |
| 03:07:49.07 | Director Phipps | Very good. |
| 03:07:54.86 | David Marlatt | If you think the technology, I know, is amazing and it has all kinds of potential. But as a permit processing tool, how staff has thought through how they're going to implement this. So those are my only questions for now. Thank you. |
| 03:08:12.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Myallock, Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:08:15.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Sophia. Thank you for working hard and coming back on this. Just while we're on the slide, Can you tell me what the red is versus the green? Sure. |
| 03:08:29.03 | Sophia | basically what the red is |
| 03:08:30.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:08:30.92 | Sophia | The red is what cannot be seen from that location. So it's not what's blocked by the property. It's what's just, you can't see anything. You can't |
| 03:08:40.96 | Kristina Feller | anyone again. Okay. And how, as you were sort of, you know, working on this and putting this together, You know, in our existing code, there is a list of Um, landmarks, let's say, that we do afford. Right. View preservation. Nobody is entitled to an unobstructed view preservation. for any reason necessarily. So... So with ViewSync, is ViewSync sort of more prescriptive in some ways? For instance, if from a property you can see everywhere from Angel Island to the bridge, and everything, the Angel Island is one of those preserved views, the city front, the bridge. how are you deciding or differentiating what is partially blocked and what isn't and what constitutes view preservation objectively? Okay. |
| 03:09:45.78 | Sophia | Okay. It's basically like, let's just take the case of just the water. So the first thing that happens is the we characterize the person's view without any obstructions, new buildings. So it's got whatever is in the foreground, maybe there's partial blockage. A lot of times you don't see the shore, you see the water in the distance because you're blocked, you know, your near field is blocked. So that's your view. So that has a size, that has a very specific size. And so we can calculate that exact size. So that is how it works. You calculate the size of the view. |
| 03:10:18.75 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:10:27.75 | Sophia | And it's basically grids. It's a grid. So it's a grid points. And so how many grid points do you see? And- And so... |
| 03:10:35.26 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:10:36.02 | Sophia | So then when you bring in the other prop, the new one, maybe it's coming up into there. |
| 03:10:38.51 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:10:38.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:10:38.70 | Unknown | to the next one. |
| 03:10:41.85 | Sophia | But maybe it's, okay, maybe it's partially obstructing your view to the water. Thank you. like other properties did, but it's not more than a 10%. So it's the size is what the difference is. |
| 03:10:54.02 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. So... So you assess whatever that view is, whatever the size of that view is. But but even in our ordinance now, it's it's from a your primary view, like your primary room, your view, whatever that might be. Usually it's like the living room or whatever. Um, And so are you saying that the view or the preserved view is from anywhere in the building, like whether it's a third floor, second floor, first floor, the street view, whatever it might be. Is it all of that collectively? |
| 03:11:29.78 | Sophia | Amazing. that one of the things and we've done is it and I, as the chair does, I, uh, and, uh, the new chair may know, I am not hesitant to write letters to the, uh, commission with further explanatory information. So one of the things that, um, is true, is that the view from any, like if you were thinking about, okay, this is my primary view, That actually, if you could see through your wall, you'd be seeing the same thing. So it's not necessarily that once you've performed a view composite, it's very representative of what your view would have been. Okay, if you just say, well, your primary view is sitting here on your couch and there it is. So it's, I'm just, I'm gonna state that, you know, I can prove that, you know, but, You don't have to take it on faith. But basically that the concept that we've come up with now with the which I'm showing on slide 19, is really bringing into the scene what you're talking about. Thank you. One more please. more. I'm sorry. Right. Okay, here we go right there. So basically with the bearing line, those red areas in the front Those are the areas that are really looking at the view. The others aren't. And then by, so We have a I think that this really does, a lot of times when you have a home that like those bearing lines and those corners are kind of pointed to San Francisco. The in this particular happens to be these happen to be. the houses on Bonita Street behind here And that these are by having these points on these the way we've arrayed these points. And this, I think we really are zeroing in on the concept of the primary view. Thank you. |
| 03:13:31.33 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:13:31.58 | Sophia | So that's what I believe. And, you know, that's what we attempted to do. to obviously it helps us from a data processing point of view, fewer points to calculate. But I don't feel I never thought that using just one point or something like that would be able to truly do justice to a person's view. Yeah. So... |
| 03:13:49.98 | Kristina Feller | So look, I love all this stuff. I mean, we, you know, these are incredible. planning tools, particularly in new cities and emerging markets and all that kind of stuff. What I'm struggling with, which I need your help, with is how this is an objective standard. So that is the mission. of how this is actually objective and how, you know, because what we have now, which I'm not advocating, it's nowhere near objective, but it talks, it's clear about how to define the primary view. And it, I'm struggling with your, your, are you looking at like a full facade? Right. Basically, |
| 03:14:37.02 | Sophia | that these points, I can, again, I will write to the chair. And I will provide more information on how the proxy view works, some analysis that we've done in terms of, okay, let's say you did this a number of points. How well does it represent the view? You know, if we knew where the windows are and so on. So I can give more on that. But the reason it's objective, if we look behind you at this lovely picture of... |
| 03:15:02.56 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 03:15:04.21 | Sophia | The view there, that blue, that has a size. That's what it is. That's the size. So we can calculate that size exactly. And that's why it's subjective, because it is a numeric figure that is created through a repeatable process. And that's what makes it objective. And then at the objective, stimulation of the view. is it's okay, let's say on that, okay, let's say we painted some more little things in there and, you know, then that takes away a certain amount of that blue. And that's a particular percentage, and that's why it's subjective. |
| 03:15:42.74 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and I appreciate that. And I'm trying to kind of war game this with you to make sure that it's bulletproof in terms of being objective. But if we use this as the example, that can be that view is from one location. It's not necessarily from one building. It could be from one location in a building, theoretically, like hypothetically, right? |
| 03:16:04.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:16:04.64 | Unknown | You are. |
| 03:16:04.98 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:16:06.21 | Kristina Feller | And so I go back to, I'm trying to figure out how one would decide or define what that primary, whatever that primary view is. And so, and how that transcends time and generations. For example, you know, if you go and renovate one of these older houses, we see it all around here, actually, there are quite a few, you know, what used to be like the bathroom is now the living room or something. And so it solves that problem. |
| 03:16:36.91 | Sophia | Dope. |
| 03:16:37.60 | Kristina Feller | I need you to help me. |
| 03:16:39.03 | Sophia | get there in terms of how... I mean, this really does solve that. I mean, this would does solve that particular issue. And the The key, I think there's two things. Is it objective? That's one question. I think that's incontrovertibly it is objective. Is it representative? That's really what your question is. Is it is it truly representative of their view? Well, but that relies on an objective standard. But it's that it's I think that the point is, if you define. the idea if you define and you say your view We in Sausalito We define your view. as being These... Eight points. That's how we define your view. And that we then say that Those, Thank you. view lines that emanate from those points and the size that it is, that is your view. So that is how we define it. So that's basically what it is. So then the question is, okay, well, then someone say, well, okay, I don't think it's representative. |
| 03:17:35.34 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:17:40.98 | Sophia | It's like, okay, well, we'll listen to it. You know, what ideas you have, you know, but I do believe it's representative. |
| 03:17:47.02 | Kristina Feller | And I feel like- So do you have to go through that with like property owner by property owner to get them to agree? Like, I'm just trying to figure out how this goes out. |
| 03:17:47.26 | Sophia | So do you have this? |
| 03:17:53.99 | Sophia | How is that back you're allowed your your setback is 15 feet the end I mean that's what zoning is. |
| 03:18:02.44 | Kristina Feller | Okay, but we've got so many different conditions. I really am trying to get there, but I'm trying to make sure that this really is objective, but we have so many different conditions and, you know, we've got ranch style homes. We've got, you know, apartments and condos. We've got townhouses. You know, sites were, I mean, I'm amazed at- |
| 03:18:21.72 | Sophia | She said, |
| 03:18:22.73 | Kristina Feller | You know, there's like one room per floor consisted. |
| 03:18:22.75 | Sophia | You know, there's like one room because it's so vertical. Oh, look, they have a roof line. |
| 03:18:25.14 | Kristina Feller | Don't let them hop on. |
| 03:18:27.15 | Sophia | And every one of them has a roof line. Okay. And every one of them has five feet from their roof line, even a one-story building. |
| 03:18:28.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:18:34.32 | Kristina Feller | So that's how you're measuring. Right. So we basically. |
| 03:18:35.86 | Sophia | Right. So we basically were saying, okay, there's your roof line. We're coming down five feet. Boom. That's the first few. That's the first ones. Then we're coming down nine feet. And then if you've got another nine feet, we're going to come down another nine feet. But if you don't, we're not coming down anymore. That's it. So what happens when you add a story on your house? |
| 03:18:53.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:18:54.03 | Sophia | Well, you would be, basically, you would have the opportunity to have view protection if that is now part of Sausalito. that will be, you will have view protection from whatever structure, you know, let's say we actually do get some multifamily properties built here, you know, they will benefit from it, you know. Sure, but like what about the person behind it? |
| 03:19:12.10 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:19:15.93 | Kristina Feller | And what about the person behind me or the person? I mean, I'm just, I, I'm, Trying to figure out how this can... how this is fully objective. And I'm not, this is not meant to be an argument. I need your help to help me understand that. because I'm still struggling with it because I mean, I love this stuff and and And, you know, even when we started out on odds, I think you and I even had a disagreement about should we be preserving views at all. So I'm very passionate about preserving views, but the objective... The objective piece is a very high bar. It's very difficult to, you know, look at it. And that's why I'm asking about. about this and is there room for interpretation |
| 03:20:05.02 | Sophia | And, |
| 03:20:05.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:20:05.78 | Sophia | There's no room for interpretation. I mean, it's just like, there's two questions. Is it objective? Yes, it is. Is it representative? That's a different question. |
| 03:20:05.80 | Kristina Feller | There's no... |
| 03:20:13.51 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:20:14.29 | Sophia | All right. But the thing I also wanted to tell you, which is I think that Bob slightly misspoke in that he mentioned that we didn't have public views. I think there's 34 public views points that were identified in the odds process that are part of the odds. And that I think that if, Madam Commissioner, you had another list of public views that you had come up with, you know, I think it would be helpful possibly to bring those back into the process. Because, you know, we did go through a process of identifying public views. |
| 03:20:39.84 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:20:49.10 | Sophia | to them, but certainly any work that was prior done would be very helpful to |
| 03:20:55.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I appreciate you mentioning that. Yeah, I very much appreciate that. |
| 03:20:55.63 | Sophia | Appreciate you. Yeah, I very much appreciate it. I'd love to see that. And the public view concept is a very important part of this whole. |
| 03:20:59.11 | Kristina Feller | that list. |
| 03:21:03.06 | Sophia | Um, system and obviously calculating public views is is is easier. Yeah, because it's you could say, OK, it's a height and at a point. but obviously, that's where they're more You know, where you're. that where your home is, your treasure is, you know? |
| 03:21:18.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. No, I really, really appreciate you mentioning that. And I would really like to see that list. I'm not sure why some of this hasn't been passed on to evolve, but let's make sure we... Take care of that now. You mentioned something about retaining a consultant. What would that consultant do? Would that consultant be the person that inputs all the information and maintains a database? No. |
| 03:21:45.02 | Sophia | We have two missions for the consultant in terms of rolling this out. One mission is that we want to do the HCD response in a very, very effective and fulsome way. So that's one task. using the system that we designed That'll make it very easy to do. So that's one task. The other task for the consultant that's a near term task |
| 03:22:06.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:22:09.76 | Sophia | is performing an external testing So, you know, we have developed this, but I think it'd be handy for the city to have in the file an external testing of it that was thoughtfully designed by the attorney. So I think, again, just something in our file that this is not some, you know, you know, voodoo system. It's a, you know, it's a legitimate system and it it is equivalent to, you know, standards like the Esri use shed tool or whatever. |
| 03:22:30.07 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 03:22:42.43 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think we do need to perform like, you know, beta test. Right. So that's the second, that's the second task for the consultant. Yeah. |
| 03:22:46.92 | Sophia | Right. That's right. |
| 03:22:51.55 | Kristina Feller | So there hasn't been any beta testing of this so far? |
| 03:22:53.50 | Sophia | No, we've been testing it all along, but like, You know, retesting is one thing, having external priority testing it and having that in the file, that's the second thing. No, got you on that. |
| 03:22:57.11 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:23:03.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, and just, I think you might've mentioned this, but, um, This is all open source software. There are no licenses. It's not proprietary. That I think that the. Thank you. |
| 03:23:19.04 | Sophia | I think the city will... need to, that What is, does, what the, Software that underlies it is open source software. So there's no licenses like that's a great virtue of not working with Esri on this. Right. So there's, it's all like the, like God bless the open source community. That is one of the greatest gifts to the world. Okay. But, um, in terms of the city, um, you know, they have to, I, I know that Sergio had made some, had some thoughts on the topic. So again, that's more, that's more of a policy discussion. |
| 03:23:27.73 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:23:27.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:23:51.08 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you, Sophia. Thank you. |
| 03:23:58.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Other questions? No? No. Okay, we're going to move on to the historic presentation, case study. And then we'll open it up for public comment. |
| 03:24:13.63 | Michael Rex | Welcome to the World of War. Michael Rex, local architect. And I was glad to hear the commentary from the dais here. Just big picture on the changes that are proposed by the peer review group. No finger pointing ever intended. It's really how... When your recommendation went to the city council, however we got there, there was a sense that odds needed to be tailored more specifically to Sausalito. A lot of what we saw in the odds was for flat lots and it didn't really address half the properties in town that are downhill lots. That was where this whole garage thing came up. We definitely felt that the privacy protection needed to be more effective. And I think we all understand the importance of views. I'm a little confused. Are you doing a historic sample? Well, I'm, This is a study session about the odds, and I don't, this is our second study session, so I'm not going to repeat things. So you're not doing the case study? Thank you. No, I'm introducing it, okay? So I'll go there. Okay, thank you. |
| 03:25:42.96 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:25:42.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 03:25:43.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:25:43.84 | Michael Rex | I do want to point out though, before I do, that The staff report says that this has been a three and a half year project and lumped in the first sentence of page two that the peer review group was part of that. The peer review group had a four month duration, not three and a half years. Okay, just for sake of clarity. Um, You were smart to ask that we produce a model a tangible model downtown to take a building downtown and apply the proposed standard and test it. And, um, And it was a smart thing to do because we learned a lot from it. We picked a specific building downtown in 668 Bridgeway, which is a little building. It was where the gallery Alexa was. It recently sold. It's a little building on the... a water side of Bridgeway just before Princess, but we're right between where Don Olson's office was and the Napa hamburgers, okay? You see it right here. We picked that building because it's little and the buildings around it are higher and we... Part of the standard is to show averaging of building mass. We also needed a building that we had the permission from the property owner, because we didn't want to be presenting publicly development of property without the knowledge of the owner. And the new owner actually is thinking of putting housing up above. So they were kind of pleased that we picked the building. And we looked to see who would do the model, and we wanted somebody completely objective, not somebody who proposed the standards. so they can apply it, um, from a fresh point of view. And we're very fortunate. to find at Mary Griffin's suggestion, Jerome Christensen. He's an architect. He works, he's one of the principals at MnDesign in San Francisco. He happens to live, right here in town. And so he took this building and he applied our objectives. And two things happen. Um, massing and what would happen when you follow the objectives and put housing up above. But in doing so, and that's the second part of this presentation, we realized that the written document needed some wordsmithing. And I'm not going to go into great detail about that. It's been summarized by Barbara Brown in a short letter that's dated the 13th that I'm hoping you have. But the main gist of the wordsmithing was to add clarity and consistency. and make it a little more user friendly. and also to avoid With the ceilings, we thought, wait a minute, how's somebody going to know ceiling heights? They'd have to go into everybody's building. So we adjusted it to window height. So that was the result of the test that we needed to tweak the language a little bit and improve it for those reasons. So I'm going to hand it over to Jerome Christensen, and he's going to present the case study. to what happens when you apply the standard. |
| 03:29:20.14 | Jerome Christensen | Thank you. All right, thank you, Michael, and thank you for having me here. This was a lot of fun, a very quick exercise just to test the standards here. So in the first slide, what we have is the building, as Michael suggested, and below it, we have the defining characteristics listed, which primarily are the arched window, the entryway the sort of woodwork around the recessed entryway the brick facade with the brick hornus next slide please So the first thing First thing we did was to look at the neighborhood context. So in the, I looked through the objective design centers, the draft that was proposed, and the idea is you choose three lots, on either side of the property plus six on the other side of the street so i've identified here the lots we've chosen um So we've got the three on the north side, three on the south side, and the six across, including one on the opposite side of the street. So there are some ways... that they talk about how to address things when you're at a street corner. Next slide, please. Here is kind of an elevation view of those properties. So as you can see, the three to the north, one of them has two buildings on one property. So that's worth noting. Another one, we have our site and then to the south, one of the lots doesn't have any buildings on it. Uh, David Price- So in total we we still have six buildings there, but we had five lots of really considering on the opposite side of the street, we have six building six buildings, there one is on the opposite side. And you see the heights there. questionable. I took them from Google Earth, so I don't know how many super accurate they are. And that's something obviously someone would have to have a laser or a surveyor to be incredibly accurate, do every one of the tops of the buildings. It also picks the highest point of the building, which is the way the zoning codes written. So for example, the one at the corner, it says 43 feet, that's really to the very top. And you're not really seeing it in that picture. So in what I did was I just added all those heights together and divided it by the number of buildings that gave me a number of 29 foot 11, which is the neighborhood context height average, which is the dimension, as I understand, that the front facade of the building can go to and be within the objective design standards. Next slide, please. This is the existing floor plan from a realtor's brochure. There's sort of a very I say the entryway is like seven, six. It's a very low entry condition. And then there's a slightly higher space with low conditions around. But it's essentially one floor with a loft and a shallow loft space. Next slide. So what we were proposing for housing was to maintain that kind of recess entry and add a door. that would go to a staircase through the side of that sort of condition. So that doesn't really affect the look of the outside. The door and the glazing around it would be reconstructed to match the existing storefront condition that wraps into that entry point. That allows access to a staircase that goes to a second and a third level. And by putting a light well in there, which actually... partially addresses some windows on a neighboring building it also provides an opportunity to have bedrooms with windows and egress in a very deep lot that's surrounded by other buildings so this is the proposed number of units we have three units over the retail space next slide please |
| 03:33:15.95 | Jerome Christensen | This is kind of a massing model to show what that might look like. So you can see our 29 foot 11 height limit is at the front. We're proposing 24 feet And then stepping back 15 feet to go up to the allowed 32 feet. We're slightly under that. So that's following that step back requirement. the becomes a kind of a deck patio for people to occupy. And that added, uh, couple of feet on the facades just for a railing that is made out of a material to distinguish itself from the existing facade. Next slide, please. And then this is kind of an elevation showing all the dimensions on it. So you can see you've got the existing building. Above it, you have a kind of like painted metal rail that might match the color of the mullions of the building. window below. And then the upper part is actually step back, which is what the previous massing model showed. And you have again windows up there that with millions that would match the color of the lower level. You can see the heights on the other side. I did go ahead and show the ceiling heights because we talked about meeting the standards at that time. This apparently changed since then, but this kind of shows the proposed ceiling heights and the building heights. And that is the last slide. |
| 03:34:46.24 | Unknown | very important. |
| 03:34:50.25 | Unknown | Great. |
| 03:34:55.45 | Andrew Junius | Oh, really cool. That's really awesome. Really interesting building. Is there a core... Is the parapet on the existing building, is there any parapet at all? |
| 03:35:05.95 | Jerome Christensen | Yeah, the existing building is a parapet and it goes, I wouldn't know how far down it would be. |
| 03:35:10.47 | Andrew Junius | Three feet, four feet, it's not two feet or- |
| 03:35:12.55 | Jerome Christensen | It's a pitched roof like this, but it's uneven because the building gets wide as it goes back. So it does this weird... So it might be like as much as three feet to four feet in the ends at the front, and it lessens as you go further down. |
| 03:35:14.11 | Andrew Junius | Okay, all right. Yeah. |
| 03:35:25.44 | Andrew Junius | uh... cool i think it's interesting that when you'd many shoot the heights of the buildings you know oftentimes were talking about actual building heights that's the you know the roof membrane that is the parapet in front |
| 03:35:33.91 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 03:35:34.28 | Unknown | to do. |
| 03:35:35.68 | Andrew Junius | And here, clearly, it's like what you see, right? So it's got to include the parapets. But I appreciate that. I think that's the right measurement. Very interesting. Thank you for the presentation. |
| 03:35:44.42 | Jerome Christensen | I will say that that was a question I had because there was some language about matching the roof shape. I'm like, well, all the buildings have parapets. What's the roof shape? What are you trying to, what is the goal of that, of that objective? There are buildings that have pitch roof, but there's a lot. So it could be. Right, so there might need to be some clarifying language around that. |
| 03:36:07.25 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you, and thank you for sharing this design. Just a quick question. Did you look at whether the front deck, 15-foot deck, how that affected the potential FAR, if that imposed a reduction in FAR that got you below or would otherwise be? |
| 03:36:24.23 | Jerome Christensen | Well, Okay, full disclosure, this was done in like two days. So I didn't have a lot of time to do it. And I realized after the fact, they didn't look closely at the municipal code for the FIR. So this has more floor area than it's probably allowed. |
| 03:36:26.58 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 03:36:37.97 | Jerome Christensen | And in the other thing I want to say about that is the FAR for this lot makes it kind of undevelopable because there's just not enough. It's too low in an area like this to add a unit on top. The cost of it will be prohibitive. You'd only be able to get one unit in here. |
| 03:36:38.81 | Neal Toft | And the other thing I will say about that is |
| 03:36:54.74 | Jerome Christensen | So I had my own question about in downtown area, if the FAR really is that low, that seemed kind of surprising to me. Okay. But maybe this lot's unique because it is such a wedge. |
| 03:37:01.10 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 03:37:04.31 | Jerome Christensen | It's a hard one to develop. |
| 03:37:06.28 | David Marlatt | It's a tough lot. Okay. |
| 03:37:07.23 | Jerome Christensen | So we're over. This is over the FAO. Thank you. |
| 03:37:09.79 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:37:11.75 | Jerome Christensen | Thank you. But to your point, the 15 foot would not have been a factor in that. |
| 03:37:15.72 | David Marlatt | Right, it was over. |
| 03:37:16.48 | Jerome Christensen | Thank you. |
| 03:37:16.49 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:37:16.59 | Jerome Christensen | You add that there's almost no way to add much to it. You can add a thousand square feet to the building. |
| 03:37:16.93 | David Marlatt | Well... |
| 03:37:23.82 | Jerome Christensen | copy. |
| 03:37:24.90 | David Marlatt | Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:37:26.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other questions? Okay. At this point, I think we're going to open it up for public comment. |
| 03:37:33.89 | Michael Rex | I like that one thing, just to clarify it. We also recommended that when the city pursues updating the historic standard or not standards, the |
| 03:37:36.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 03:37:50.53 | Michael Rex | Updating this Stark program for downtown. Pardon me? |
| 03:37:56.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Historic inventory. |
| 03:37:57.87 | Michael Rex | The inventory, right. That actually the consultant that's hired to do that provide the heights of the buildings in the historic district and their widths. So it would be in a very accessible, ready database that the city could provide. So that removes any objectivity of how people measured these things. And that came up in this study. We weren't quite sure how to measure all those heights. But it could be done by a consultant and become permanent database. And then the last thing, because this is a study session on odds, we're very distressed that the noticing to the public has been removed from our recommendation. There's nothing in the state law that prohibits noticing of neighbors, and it gives neighbors a chance to talk to each other. And this is a small town. We shouldn't discourage that. We should promote it. Thank you. |
| 03:39:06.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, at this point we're gonna do public comment. If you wanna comment on the odds, that includes the view sync, the odds of view sync and this presentation on the historic district. There are speaker cards on the table or raise your hand in Zoom. what are your director, do you have any speaker cards? |
| 03:39:30.73 | Director Phipps | Sure, I do not. However, I would invite interested speakers to present themselves at this time. Mr. Giovara. Welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 03:39:43.90 | Mr. Giovara | I've been looking at... the things that you've been putting up there uh One thing I found interesting on this view thing, for example, if you had if somebody built the house and then there's a lot in front of them, and no one built on that, and eventually they're going to build on that. Uh, you wouldn't be able to because you're obstructing this person's view. So that bothers me. The other thing they were talking about, this last slide that they showed, if you look at the two buildings that are next to uh, that I think it was a theater at one time. They're brand new. And they're in a, I mean, they've been, uh, uh, They... scratch the old buildings and put new buildings in. By the way, I do own 599 Bridgeway. which is a historic building that's the Lincoln garage, and I'm trying to do some things with that because I'm having trouble renting the office upstairs. But uh, You know, more government. I like to get rid of governments. I mean, for example, in San Francisco, you're up on a hill and downtown... they change the zoning and they allow high buildings. And now you're telling me that you can't build those buildings because I had this one view. It just seems wrong to me. Uh, Um, I mean, you don't own that. that view. And it's a real tricky situation. I mean, subject. really is. and how to define it. What's the, you know, the view from where, and is it San Francisco? Is it the water? What's your primary view? And it's just, It's a can of worms. or |
| 03:42:01.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:42:01.39 | Mr. Giovara | The other thing I'd comment is that woman that speaks. |
| 03:42:01.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:42:05.27 | Mr. Giovara | If she could get a better microphone. We can understand what the hell she's saying. that the woman that was before that was talking about the Oz. I just have trouble understanding what she's telling me. |
| 03:42:21.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to give public comment on this item? |
| 03:42:27.90 | Director Phipps | Mr. Chodar, come on down. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 03:42:32.97 | Daniel Shador | Yeah, thank you. Daniel, Shador, Gable's in. Just in general, I am a developer and I understand both sides of the equation. I just say that in Sausalito, everybody paid for a view. And when you look at the multifamily sites that are in town, each and every, those sites, maybe the Altamira parking lot, the ability of a developer like myself to come in and basically propose a mass without any concern for the neighbors and knock out in any case maybe 10 million dollars worth of a paid for view from the neighbors that there's got to be a way to at least create using something like Sophia's bringing up a way to just create a that where a developer basically can't just say, screw you, I'm doing it because I want to. And where he has a viable alternative to protect views, that at least that can be examined and be, and using Savaya's model is a great example of where you say, you know what, you don't need to take these 10 houses views away. You have every ability to minimize or maybe to obstruct some views, but not just because you want to. That's all. |
| 03:43:45.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Anybody else in the audience would like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, I'll bring it back up to the dais. |
| 03:43:53.97 | Director Phipps | I'm going to just quickly look at the Zoom application chair. Yeah. Perusing for raised hands, seeing none. |
| 03:43:54.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. Yeah. |
| 03:44:00.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I had looked on that. Very good. Thank you for it. |
| 03:44:02.84 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. taking that. |
| 03:44:04.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | yes bringing up back to the dais any comments on our recommendation to the city council Actually, recommendations to the staff so that when they come back on February, the February special meeting, whatever information we want to include. Commissioner Junius. |
| 03:44:25.03 | Andrew Junius | thank you chair uh... first i think we should weren't uh... that public's entitled a few comments on what we just saw on the objective standards and i'd like to continue the conversation just a little bit then uh... commissioner fellers talking about No question that the view issue is really a can of worms. We just saw two speakers with the two ends of the spectrum. That's the problem right there. I mean, that's it. You know, and I've been dealing with this for a long time. it's very, very complicated and I'm not going to lecture like I've lectured in the past. So but I do want to I do want to point out, you know, the the line of questioning that Commissioner Feller was on. I would completely agree with Sophia that I think you've done a great job. And the advancement of the tool is now to the point where I would say it's objective. There's no question that it's a it's an objective model. with a bunch of numbers in it and a bunch of formulas that if it you know to the extent you can understand that and the way it works in the geometry and at that seems to be it but I still think that there's going to ultimately be a problem because the definition of under the state law about what an objective standard is, is that it needs to involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. I think we're fine there. And it's a uniformly, and here's where it gets a little tricky. It's gotta be a verifiable standard by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criteria. We probably have that. available and knowable by both the developer applicant and proponent and the public official before submittal so i think that's where this is going to possibly run into some trouble with the h h h cd at the at the state level to your questions commissioner marlotte This ultimately, I think, ends up with one of these iterations where you go back and forth, the macro try to figure out if you can do it. And that's I don't think that's meets the standards. So I'm just going to leave it there. With respect to a couple other comments, with respect to the great historic preservation, that awesome model we just saw, I think the question about, can't be built because the FAR goes over the FAR. I mean, there's a problem right there. Let's fix that. I mean, that's an awesome little building. If you could make it that big, why can't we have rules that allow building to be built? And it just seems kind of silly to me that we we're trying to create these very rigid objective standards to protect something. But at the same at the same time, you just kill the project, you know, so I mean, I would just think that that should be thought through again. And then finally. Mr. X, again, I also appreciate all the work you do for the city. I really think the amount of volunteer hours you've been putting in is is incredible. And thank you for the work on this latest and hopefully final iteration of objective standards. But, you know, your question about the notice, another one of these things that's kind of a you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. I do think the reason why the city attorney is probably advising the city not to do that is because, notices are usually I hate to say it, but usually in the world of land use that we've been living in forever, there are notices of like what's happening and what you can do about it. And the problem here is that you really, you know, if you fit within the objective standards, there's really not much you can do about it. And so I think it's we're in a tough spot as a city because you don't want to give notices to people and get them excited about some change that they think they make or some appeal that they can have when they can't. So I get you. It's a tough spot. But I think that's part of the justification and rationale that the city is probably saying, like, notices aren't a really good idea here. With that, I'll leave it at that. It's really late. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. |
| 03:48:08.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other comments? Commissioner Marillott. |
| 03:48:10.48 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you, and thank you for all those comments. I'll just start with the notification just to clarify. It actually is in the odds under 10A01-050, number three, number C, documentation of outreach to neighbors adjacent and across the street. My question earlier to Bob was if that shouldn't be fleshed out a bit more, like how many neighbors, how soon, so forth, to avoid ambiguity with the staff. So it's, but in fact, kind of weakly, it is there. And I think it's probably, I think we're past the time of making these little edits. We gotta go. To the point of whether this is objective for the view, preservation, and so forth, I'll just repeat what was sort of my own paradigm shift, because I come from also this school that nobody owns a view. Nobody has an absolute right to a view. But a city, any community, has the right to sculpt, for lack of a better word, and they use it through FAR, they use it for lot coverage. And these are all arbitrary numbers. Setbacks are all arbitrary. So what the ViewSync group has developed, and it's not called view preservation or view protections, view synchronization, is a kind of a statistical model, which more often than not, will actually protect someone's view. But it's cynical to say that's a byproduct. But they've created a simulation that, as a community level, will preserve, hopefully, at the long term, this sort of shape of Sausalito that we all value. And we put a lot of value when we buy into it. But we also value it when we just enjoy it. And so I'm not so concerned that, yeah, we're going to miss a window, or we're going to give a bathroom window too much prominence. That's true. Case by case, we're going to protect the view of a wall. But statistically speaking, at the high level where the Planning Commission should be most concerned, we're going to preserve this sort of bowl effect. Um, the last thing I'd say, my only concern is not with the document itself, because, you know, like I say, I know our backs are to the wall, we got to go. But, uh, I am a little concerned about process and staff thinking through, okay, how do we implement this stuff? Uh, an architect comes to you, you know, totally confident, this is the only solution possible and it cannot be done without, um, without blocking 25% of the water view or something. What do you do? You're supposed to do it before the application. How is the process? Maybe it's a pre-app meeting. It's no big deal. You could say you've got to pay for a pre-app meeting. But I think there's several process steps that I encourage staff. It's not going to be written in the odds there's a lot of process here to be thinking about. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:50:54.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Marlon, Commissioner Fella. |
| 03:50:58.59 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentations. I think a lot of this comes down to... the historic preservation, the view preservation, Um, you know, I still stand by my vote for the previous odds. that we should maybe take a look at and include a couple things. But it is much more representative of a more robust study and look. It's not a four-month or a couple-month exercise. It's actually much more comprehensive than that. we completely abandoned, by the way, the county toolbox. We kind of threw it away and said, this has no application whatsoever to Sausalito. So, you know, that's sort of where we started. So I still think there's a burden of proof there that I haven't really heard yet in terms of the odds that were before us tonight. Just looking at my notes, I really, staff, we really need to get back to a lot of that information that was already generated on these, on how we catalog, let's say, the public views. and how we were using GPS coordinates and this, that, and the other. I mean, there are, So many public spots part of the public realm all over the city way up into the hills across 101 all the way down to the waterfront. And I think that will help start to whittle away part of the concerns of the view preservation. And it will just take away a lot of the potential of ambiguity. Again, I would love to see this demo and sort of war game it a little bit. to really know whether or not this can be fully objective. Obviously, certain data points can be very scientific, very objective, but... I still think there's some gray area in there that I just want to be absolutely confident that should we put something in front of HCD, then it's correct. I think that we should be very clear in offering or developing, you know, a parallel option, which would include those public views or, you know, how to catalog those, you know, anything regarding inventorying solar pathways, including that on this building. and really considering you know, how to include a shadow ordinance of sorts to preserve certain amount of shading or shadow on a neighbor with with a development and take a look at that. Maybe that doesn't work. Maybe we get rid of that. But I think we have to also back into this and have some kind of redundancy or options of ideas regarding historic preservation. If you know I have no issues with what HPC is put put forward and would be happy to adopt those in. the odds that we've recommended to the city council already. |
| 03:54:11.07 | Kristina Feller | And I think we already dispelled the issue of colors and materials. I'm happy not to include that. So thank you for the support on that. And then just one other final comment. And this was this just to kind of close the loop. Altamira is one of our sites. It just hasn't changed or anything. So that is an opportunity site and will be up zoned. We're looking everywhere we can for for density. So thank you, chair. |
| 03:54:41.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller, Vice Chair Saad. |
| 03:54:44.72 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. Thank you to my colleagues. Thank you for all the presentations. Very interesting to see and also see the progress. I I am struggling a little bit with the tool from an objective standard. I do think it's incredibly interesting. I do think it has wide applications. I just don't know if it's the appropriate place at this time, given our deadlines as well, and put in anything that could potentially restrict getting these across the line with HCD. So from that perspective, even though I see great value as a planning tool, and I hope staff, I hope we can make use of it in some way, because I think there's been a lot of work and effort, and I think the entire city appreciates the sponsorship, which is a huge gain for us. And I would love to get it in here. I just am not seeing a fit, unfortunately. And I think to be in the place that we are, already having an approved housing element that's now back on the table. And now, you know, these odds have been ongoing for so long. I think anything that gets us to where we need to go as quickly as possible is the steps that we need to take. And I also have concerns that from a timeframe standpoint, that the testing might, take too long the staff report calls out extensive time and and budget and I don't and I don't see making that investment given our constraints so I want to say that in this context I think if we had more time we would check it out maybe in greater detail but that's that's a personal thought so I'm gonna have to just put that forth as a recommendation that we um don't, uh, move forward with Oh my gosh, my notes and all this paper with the system that's been presented. I'm going to leave it more vague in the interest of not fumbling with my papers, but I do really want to say that I do appreciate that work, and I think it's incredible just not for right now. In terms of the revisions for the... um historic district i just want to go on the record i agree with staff staff has made a comment here that we should not have uh differ differing heights um between i think it's 10 a point zero six point zero five dot two a um calling out 32 feet as measured from the midpoint uh against our municipal code of 10.40 so So I just want to say that I saw that flag as well and very clearly called out in the staff report. So I think we just need to align how we're measuring height. And those are my high-level comments. Thank you. |
| 03:57:37.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Thank you, Vice Chair Saad. I also want to thank all the presenters on this item. This has been a long time in coming and a lot of work, and I think all these tools are helpful. I think on the view sink, that last piece needs to get there, and I think the historic example was helpful. I think at this point Director Phipps you have comments from us and I think the historic example was helpful. I think at this point, Director Phipps, you have comments from us, same thing, and we don't need to take a motion or anything, you've recorded them all, right? |
| 03:58:13.66 | Director Phipps | Let's save the motions for February 19th. Again, staff have been taking rigorous notes. Appreciate it. And we'll touch base on any clarification items, but yes. |
| 03:58:18.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I appreciate it. |
| 03:58:24.67 | Kristina Feller | I just wanted to ask a question to Vice Chair Saad. based on your comments on the... the software which I appreciate and obviously have concerns and reservations as well, but would you, would you, could you comment on sort of the idea or the option to to develop more of those public. view preservation and view corridors, you know to sort of memorialize those as sort of a stopgap for now and and offer that maybe we should be. continuing to work on the views to develop something more robust, even if that is separated from the odds that we have to get adopted. Absolutely. And those public views for now, because we know that we have. Yes. |
| 03:59:10.94 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Yes, and you know what? And I forgot that we had them. So whomever brought that up and that list will be very helpful. Absolutely, I completely agree with that. Yeah, thank you for raising that. Yeah, the public views would be a great build off. |
| 03:59:29.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, any other comments from commissioners? That ends item 6B. Commissioners, we're at 1040, and we've got three more items. So what is your pleasure? Keep going, what do you want to, all right. with it. Yeah. Formula retail's next, yeah. |
| 03:59:56.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, All right. Um, Well, the other option would be to move up the bridgeway just to we could have them look and revise the agenda. Let's keep going. All right. Item seven is public hearing, 7A, formula retail. We're holding a public hearing this evening to provide a recommendation on ordinance amending Title 10, Chapters 10.44.240, Table 10.24-1, and Chapter 10.24.040 of the Sausalito Municipal Code formula retail and special requirements. And Mr. Mandich, welcome back. Welcome this evening for your presentation. |
| 04:00:54.11 | Matthew Mandich | Hello, good evening or good night, commissioners. So, yeah, enough about housing. Let's talk about retail. So, the... ordinance amendment before you today, as the chair just read out, does concern our formula retail ordinance in the city. Next slide, please. So the request is to conduct a public hearing and perform proposed ordinance amending title 10. Chapter 1044 on formula retail the accompanying land use table and commercial districts, as well as the special requirements section of the land use and development table of the commercial districts and adopt a resolution with a recommendation to the city council next slide please. So just to give a little background and reminder on the previous hearing, this item was heard once before in September of last year. The conversation focused largely around the issue of the discretionary approval process, which was the CUP, which is still currently in place for formula retail establishments. And the idea of, you know, the Planning Commission kind of relinquishing this aspect of discretionary approval in favor of an administrative approval. um there was also discussion around clarification uh needed for how the zoning clearances would be issued in approval in favor of an administrative approval. There was also discussion around clarification needed for how the zoning clearances would be issued and tracked, as well as Chair Luxembourg's comment about consolidating the CN district from CM1 to CN2. And then some other key changes, including that were not mentioned in the previous ordinance in the previous staff report, this addition to the Table 1024- which is the development standards commercial districts that needs to be updated amended as part of this ordinance as well as the section on specific commercial districts. 1024 oh four we added something in there now that kind of addresses the fast food issue with a ban on fast food drive throughs in the city that would be added as well next slide please. you So just a little bit of background again on the current ordinance adopted in 03, amended in 07. That's the last time it's been touched. Requires a conditional use permit currently to establish a formula retail use in the city. Also requires a conditional use permit for the expansion of a formula retail establishment if 500 square feet, if that expansion is 500 square feet or more. Limits the current ordinance formula retail to the CC, CS, and CN zoning districts districts and the current definition of formula retail does not really clearly define how many location or standardized elements constitute a formula retail business so it's still very vague in the current code so these are things we're trying to fix uh next slide please so yes these are some issues that we've identified and the city attorney also has identified as problems with the current ordinance that includes uh the requirement of a cp um cub must run with the land and cannot be establishment specific as a permit must be able to transfer to subsequent subsequent procedures e.g restaurant use uh mcdonald's use so really focusing on the use rather than the user and that's kind of the issue that we have with the cup in its current state is that it focuses on the user rather than the land use. So that's something that we want to remedy with this. There's also this Malibu measure R, which was challenged in court and lost about trying to keep their CUP discretionary approval for formula retail. So there's that to think about as well, just a risk factor for the city. So formula retail is also not clearly defined, as we just discussed in the current code. Current definition is so vague that it really could apply to all businesses in the city with any kind of logo sign or trademark. So we want to fix that. Current ordinance as it exists right now does, you know, have some risk for the city. Violence, that recent court ruling in Malibu, which you just talked about, it's a little bit too vague to enforce, too kind of hard to pin what even is formula retail and could be understood if read in certain ways to discriminate against interstate commerce, which is the commerce clause. Next slide, please. So proposed changes. The first one will be the removal of the CEP requirement, which we discussed last time. Instead, we would have the adoption of what we're calling a formula retail zoning clearance, similar to like an OUP, but would be at a higher level of discretion than that. It would be approved administratively by the planning department rather than by the planning commission. And we'll talk a little bit more about the mechanisms of how that would go in a second. We also want to. clearly defined formula retail. So our new definition would include businesses with six or more locations worldwide, as well as two or more standardized elements as they're defined in the ordinance. Existing formula retail will again receive zoning clearances. So last time there was a little bit of ambiguity around these grandfather businesses. What's formula retail? Like, do they count against the total? How do we track that? So the decision here was just to give them zoning clearances, the pre-existing places. So for example, like Crazy Shirt would get a zoning clearance and that would count against the total for that zoning district rather than trying to just note we know what's there and what's not. So they would receive zoning clearances and makes it a little clearer. Certain uses would be exempt from formula retail. These include grocery store, pharmacy, banks, medical, real estate, service stations, movie theaters, and couriers. We're including the commercial waterfront, CW zoning district, as a commercial district where formula retail would be allowed now. Previously, that was not the case. Formula retail clearances will be allocated by zoning districts, so there'll be a different number of clearances given for each district, depending kind of on the size of the district and the commercial activity that's there. And, yeah, amend the table as well, land use and commercial districts to show that it would be a permitted use with a zoning clearance rather than requiring a CP as it is in the table currently, and add this prohibition of fast food drive-thrus in the special requirements section of 1024. Next slide, please. So here are the formula retail by zone. So trying to break it down here, we've got the Central Commercial District. Proposed limit, we would set it at six. There's four existing, so we have a future capacity of two formula retail uses in that zone. The CN now combined from CM1 to CN2 just to be the CN. Proposed limit of a total of five. There's two existing, so three future capacity. CW, the new one, new commercials at district zoning district being added. We would propose to there. There's zero there so far as it was previously not allowed. So future capacity would be two and the CS we would allow one, although this is a really small district. It pretty much encompasses Molly stones in the parking lot, which is an exempt from formula retail. So it would have a future capacity of one if Molly stones were ever to vacate next slide, please. Again, this is just the breakdown of those of kind of what they each are, the Foren, the CC, or the Lapperts, Benetton, Crazy Shirt, Amor Ver, and there's also an England Volkers exempt real estate. In the CN, the two existing are 7-Eleven and are recently added MJ Sushi, which the Planning Commission actually approved a Formula Retail CUP and signed permit for several months back, as well as the exempt service station, Shell Gas, and exempt courier UPS. CW currently zero as discussed, and same with CS. Additional formula retail in the city includes the FedEx and the Industrial and Marinship District, but it's exempt courier and Sausalito Equator, which is in the CR zone, which is still actually outside of what would be allowed for formula retail. We did specifically leave the CR zone out, but they're also exempt because of the fact that they changed their name from Equator to Sausalito Equator. And that's the whole story behind that. But they don't count as a formula retail business in the city. Next slide, please. This is just a zoning map showing those zones that already exist as Formula Retail. Those are the ones circled in red. And the yellow zone is the CW where Formula Retail would be in added use. And you can see the CN zone at the south of the city there, Central Commercial, CW, CN2, CS, and CN2. Next slide, please. So here is this table itself. Land use is allowed in the commercial district. There is a note up there, and this was talked about last time too, so I wanted to leave this slide in that there's a footnote that formula retail should be permitted MUP CUP based on the applicable land use. So even if it's a formula retail, it's just not automatically permitted. If it requires a CUP, if that land use requires a CUP, then it's going to still require a CUP, which requires discretionary approval. And then it would receive zoning clearance on top of that and take up one of those spaces. So it doesn't get around any discretionary permits that would be required for that land use. I would just say, like, I don't know, maybe an example of this, like, drinking establishments require a CUP. I'm just using an example. Margaritaville or something like that would also require a CEP even if they're formula retail, but would count against the clearance total discretionary use permits will still be required. Yes. Okay, moving on. Next slide, please. So that pretty much concludes the presentation. Stack recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the proposed ordinance to the City Council. Happy to take any questions the commissioners have or any other suggestions or additions we might want to add to get this to the council for their first reading. Thank you. |
| 04:10:11.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Manage. Again, as always, an excellent presentation. Questions of Mr. Manage? Commissioner |
| 04:10:20.03 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 04:10:20.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:10:20.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:20.35 | David Marlatt | Thank you, Matthew. One question. In the minutes from the previous presentation last year, one of the items was to craft language to codify the process when the status of an establishment either falls below or the threshold goes above, so there's no ambiguity. Has that been addressed? |
| 04:10:39.49 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. So as far as how many zoning clearances have been given and, |
| 04:10:44.33 | David Marlatt | But if the status changes, so, you know, stores closing center fails, so a formula retail is no formula. Oh, that is a good, as far as |
| 04:10:51.89 | Matthew Mandich | Oh, that is as far as falling under the threshold of six or not, or going over becoming formula retail. No, that actually was not addressed in this new ordinance. |
| 04:10:56.19 | David Marlatt | or not, or going over becoming formulaic. |
| 04:11:02.33 | David Marlatt | Ordnance |
| 04:11:03.52 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. Ambiguous. It is ambiguous, that point, yeah. Yeah, we did not really talk about that aspect of if a business becomes a formula retail business. So like you were saying, so if a store has six and then they all of a sudden have seven, now they qualify. |
| 04:11:19.33 | David Marlatt | Does that change the quota? |
| 04:11:20.85 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, my inclination would be to leave it as is because it's already been a permitted use. It's already there. So Director Phipps, I think, is going to chime in on that. |
| 04:11:28.44 | Director Phipps | I was going to chime in on that. |
| 04:11:29.45 | David Marlatt | asking whether you |
| 04:11:29.49 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 04:11:29.50 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 04:11:29.52 | Director Phipps | asking, Yeah, I'd concur and just add at time of application. That would be what's assessed, whether or not it qualifies to. |
| 04:11:30.15 | David Marlatt | Yeah, I agree. Thank you. |
| 04:11:33.03 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 04:11:33.13 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 04:11:33.22 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 04:11:37.28 | David Marlatt | application. |
| 04:11:38.36 | Matthew Mandich | And that's something that I think is thank you for bringing that up, because that's something that did slip past. We could certainly include that in the first reading of for the council. |
| 04:11:47.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:11:47.41 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. No other questions. Thank you. |
| 04:11:50.04 | Unknown | Other questions? No. Mmm. Bishop. |
| 04:11:54.31 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. |
| 04:11:54.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:11:54.68 | Matthew Mandich | uh yeah sorry chair before you go ahead i just wanted to add just because um commissioner marlotte jogged my memory on this as well we did create um a better way of tracking these two that was some there was some question i think from commissioner feller last time about where is this going to be kept who's going to know how are we going to know and i just want to say that we will be keeping this online on the web page we'll have a running list of what is considered formula to how many clearances are available similar to the list i showed you there that. And we'll be tracking that publicly and then also on our central square program, also known as track it. So we'll have little kind of flags that pop up for that. So we're going to make sure that we it's not just in some on some piece of paper jotted down behind the CDD counter. It would be very publicly available and visible. So sorry, excuse me, Chair, for butting in on that. |
| 04:12:39.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not a problem, Mr. Manning. Commissioner Junius. |
| 04:12:42.93 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. One question, Matthew. So just to be clear, what we're really doing is we're making these permitted uses, administratively administered, I'm sorry, a little late here. |
| 04:12:57.58 | Unknown | here. |
| 04:12:59.30 | Andrew Junius | And the only real control is the count, right? Yes. It's basically you're going to get it if you're below the number, and the minute you have a max of the number, that's it. That's it. That's basically a formula retailer. If it is a formula retailer under the new definitions, which I completely agree need to be fixed and it'll look great, that's it. That's the control. Correct. Great. Thank you. |
| 04:13:08.63 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 04:13:18.09 | Unknown | Thank you. It's objective. |
| 04:13:21.01 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 04:13:21.03 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:13:21.10 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:13:21.13 | Matthew Mandich | it. |
| 04:13:21.18 | Andrew Junius | And |
| 04:13:21.98 | Matthew Mandich | But it's objective. |
| 04:13:23.07 | Unknown | objective. |
| 04:13:24.12 | Nastassya Saad | I'm trying to make a joke. |
| 04:13:24.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:13:24.35 | Matthew Mandich | So, |
| 04:13:24.39 | Unknown | joke. |
| 04:13:24.83 | Matthew Mandich | man well |
| 04:13:24.88 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 04:13:24.96 | Nastassya Saad | We'll be right back. |
| 04:13:25.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 04:13:26.06 | Matthew Mandich | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:13:26.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Well, I would presume to Commissioner Marlott's question that if we were at the limit and somebody wanted another one, they might research the ones that are there. And if they find out that they no longer have seven whatever, they might make the argument to CDD that they should be able to do that. I mean, it might be a self-generating solution to that. |
| 04:13:54.56 | Matthew Mandich | Potentially. |
| 04:13:55.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. With that, we will open it up for public comment. Mr. X. |
| 04:14:07.24 | Director Phipps | Three minutes to speak, Mr. Rex. |
| 04:14:08.72 | Michael Rex | and Just Michael Rex architect, just for clarity, I never heard the terminology zoning clearance. We apply for a zoning permit to be sure that our uses conform to zoning. What's the zoning clearance? Is that a new category? |
| 04:14:32.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Again, this is public comment. So we have the answer to that, but this is, you can speak and we can discuss when we get back here. But this is not a study session. It's a public hearing. |
| 04:14:42.01 | Michael Rex | I would request. |
| 04:14:46.52 | Michael Rex | Okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other public comment? With that, there's a raised hand. |
| 04:15:01.12 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I'll give one final chance for interested speakers in the chamber, going once, going twice. |
| 04:15:08.63 | Director Phipps | Very good. Welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 04:15:12.07 | Mr. Giovara | I don't understand why you're limiting retail. Uh, walk down the street and you got a lot of vacant places. I've got to be welcoming. businesses here. I mean, they're paying the taxes. I just don't understand more regulations you know, Somebody wants to come in and I mean, South Salido doesn't have very many high-end Stores. And. You guys are, I mean, walk down the street and see all the damn vacant places that exist. just make it too difficult for people to do business. What? I mean, why limit? uh, How many retail people? I'd welcome everybody to come in. Good night. |
| 04:16:06.37 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Giovara, for your comments. Thank you. |
| 04:16:09.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:16:09.34 | Director Phipps | Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. I see the hand of Mr. Peter Van Meter. Peter, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 04:16:09.39 | Mr. Giovara | Thank you. |
| 04:16:09.43 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:16:09.48 | Mr. Giovara | I'm thinking too. |
| 04:16:09.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:16:10.05 | Mr. Giovara | to be here. |
| 04:16:21.29 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. I guess the real question is how real is the risk of some lawsuit relative to this matter? It seems to me like it's kind of an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't really exist. You know, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I think that maybe I'm the last to know about this. But I think the general public will totally freak out when they think that Sausalito is going to have the potential to be filled with formula retail businesses. Now, I realize you're trying to limit the count. You got that. And I would still, if you're going to stick with those kind of counts, I would cut back your CN district by one cut back your CW by one, because apparently you have more already formula retail, which I guess some of us didn't realize they were already formula. So they're within filling your allocation there. but, uh, I'm kind of wondering why we need to do this at all if we've never been challenged. Has anybody, Formula Retail, come in and challenged our ordinance? and said, why aren't you letting me in? You know, maybe that's happened, but I'm among those who are not aware that that's ever happened. So I would just assess the real risks of some legal issues that are going to cost the city money versus opening the floodgates. to kind of businesses that would change the character of Sausalito. So that's my comment. Thank you. |
| 04:17:47.89 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Van Meter, for your comments. Looking to the Zoom application for additional raised hands. Seeing none, back to you, Chair. |
| 04:17:58.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So at this point, what's the pleasure of the commission? I'd love to start off. |
| 04:18:04.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:18:04.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:18:04.13 | Unknown | Please. Mr. Daniel. |
| 04:18:05.75 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I promise not to relitigate this whole thing because I was the guy I think that blew it up the first time. But it really was, you know, to the comment we just had from Mr. Van Meter, that really is the issue. I'm not going to, again, I won't repeat all the comments I had before. What we're doing is taking away a discretionary process and giving it to the staff. I think that's the advice of the city attorney. I think it's pretty conservative advice. I do believe that if the staff would comment on this, maybe if they want to, I think we have actually been challenged so that there has been some issues. I was a little shocked by that, having had decades of experience of this exact issue with a very similar ordinance that we have right now in San Francisco, and having never heard of a litigation challenge there about that control. So I don't know. It's it is really interesting. I get I we're fixing it in the correct way. Clearly, the definition needs to be fixed. The limitation is actually, you know, notwithstanding people who think we should be letting anything go, which that's one way of looking at things that the caps are pretty Straightforward. That's a pretty rare, but I think certainly legal zoning control. I think there are districts in, you know, for example, there are parts of large cities that limit the number of bars and restaurants and things like that. So there's not an overconcentration. So that all really works. you know the question really is you know what happens when, you know, A national retailer that would shock the conscience of you know, Sausalito just comes in and is entitled to a restaurant permit And they're a fast-food restaurant and they're not a drive-through and all of a sudden we've got golden arches downtown I mean, that's that's the absolute issue that I was worried about the last time That's what the CUP process is for to at least notify the neighborhood and get input and whatever And if when if what we're not gonna do that you know we're not gonna do that but so those are my comments frankly I would I would go ahead and just make a motion to approve as as proposed so get this to the City Council thanks |
| 04:20:04.16 | Kristina Feller | I'll second that. I think. Thank you. |
| 04:20:07.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or discussion, Commissioner Feller. |
| 04:20:09.56 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, I think that this revision, and thank you staff for making those revisions. It's really trying to We've been a little stringent in the past, and I think part of the issue is that we're turning away viable businesses and we can't really afford to do that this is really trying to strike a little bit of a balance between that. And so I'm in support of this. And thank you, staff, for bringing this back to us and reflecting the comments that we had before. |
| 04:20:46.45 | Unknown | Oh, they're coming. |
| 04:20:47.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 04:20:47.39 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:20:47.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh, |
| 04:20:47.97 | Unknown | Sure, man. |
| 04:20:48.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:20:48.64 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Very quickly, I'm also in support of it and I think it may be solving a problem that doesn't exist or doesn't exist yet But it does seem to me that there's a consensus to that. This is an improvement I have a comment. It's really more of a question, but since I can't ask questions of staff wondering whether this is open or to a variance is a variance a possible a Uh, |
| 04:21:13.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can ask questions of staff. I can, okay. Yes. |
| 04:21:16.11 | David Marlatt | Okay. So yeah, feel free. Yes. And this piece, if there's a formula retail that's there. So you're not allowed to use it. |
| 04:21:17.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 04:21:18.37 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 04:21:18.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:21:19.00 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 04:21:23.39 | Matthew Mandich | So you're not allowed to use a variance to change a land use in the zoning table. So if it's not allowed in the zoning table in a zoning district, you can't get a variance to it. |
| 04:21:32.14 | David Marlatt | If it's just that you're above the quota, so you can't get your clearance. No. OK, all right. Thank you. Thanks. That was the clarification. |
| 04:21:42.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:21:42.67 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:21:42.76 | Unknown | first year son. |
| 04:21:44.28 | Matthew Mandich | Uh, I, I also, I also just will reiterate, I'm sorry to cut you off again, chair that this is, this is direct from attorney and there is, you know, risk involved with the current ordinance. And this is why I've been directed to do this is not something that was something we're just trying to find stuff to do. So we've got a lot on our plate already. So this came down from an attorney management, just to make that clear. Thank you. |
| 04:22:06.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Manage. I concur with Commissioner Junius that it would be ideal to have a CUP, but I understand the reason that we can't do that. I do think this is a good balance to the comment about we have vacancies. This allows numbers in each of the zones, so it's not like somebody, if they wanted to come in now, can't come in so so i think this is a good balance and it reflects the need to keep sausalito somewhat unique but on the same side there's a lot of consolidation in the world these days and so there are a lot of formula retail and that's a lot of where retail is going and a lot of retail is just going online so uh, so I think this is a good balance and I would support it. There's a motion on the floor and a director vips. If you call it roll. |
| 04:22:59.10 | Director Phipps | Happy to, Chair. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 04:23:04.01 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yes. |
| 04:23:09.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, next item is item 7B. I'm gonna turn it over to Vice Chair Saad because this is within 500 feet of my house. I'll be in the next room for the item after. |
| 04:23:17.26 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:23:25.16 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. We'll give you a minute to depart. All right. |
| 04:23:31.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:23:31.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:23:31.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:23:31.52 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Right. I'll take that. |
| 04:23:35.03 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, good. |
| 04:23:37.39 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 04:23:38.71 | Nastassya Saad | I'll turn it over to you. Adam. |
| 04:23:42.27 | Unknown | All right, thank you, Vice Chair. Good evening, Commissioners, and members of the audience who are still with us at this hour. I'm Adam Blair. Assistant planner with the Community Development Department. The item before you this evening is an application requesting approval of a design review permit with heightened review findings, a variance application to facilitate the construction of a 92 square foot rear addition to five square foot front additions and to facilitate an exterior and interior remodel at 303 Bridgeway Boulevard. Next slide. So 303 Bridgeway Boulevard is located along Bridgeway Boulevard. Right when it starts to take a turn, it turns into Richardson Street as you can go north and towards leaving town. Notable sites around that segment of Bridgeway are the Castle by the Sea House, which is just at that bottom corner there. Then Golden Gate Market is just up Richardson Street. The parcel is identified by assessor parcel number 065-241-32 and is located in the R-3 Multiple Family High Density Residential Zoning District per Sausalito's zoning ordinance and general plan. I just want to note that the property's location to the waterfront puts it within BCDC or the Bay Conservation Development Commission's 100-foot wide shoreline band. And so that puts this proposed project within BCDC's jurisdiction as well. The applicant has indicated to me that they've been working with BCDC to obtain any additional permits they need to facilitate their proposed project. And just to cover bases in the draft resolution we've included a condition of approval that would require that the applicant obtain any permits as required by bc dc to facilitate their project next slide. All right, so applicant Austin Carrier with Homeboy Interiors on behalf of property owner Brenda Wood is requesting approval of a design review permit with heightened review and a variance to, again, facilitate the construction of a 92-square-foot rear addition, two five-square-foot front additions, and to facilitate an interior and exterior remodel. Digging into the remodel work, some of the remodel work proposed is new foundation work removal and replacement of exterior siding removal and replacement of existing doors and windows creating new door and window openings removal of an existing rear deck patio for a new gravel patio on grade replacement of the existing rear flat roof of the property with a new flat with a new flat roof that will extend to the proposed rear addition, and the installation of a new retaining wall along the southerly portion of the property. You can kind of see it in the diagram at the bottom. It's still a little hard to see. to accommodate a new walkway on grade. Heightened review findings are applicable because the proposed project is within 80% of the maximum allowed floor area ratio in building coverage limits. Moving to the variance, the variance is requesting relief from required setbacks pursuant to Municipal Code 10.40.080, subsection A, and Municipal Code 10.40.070, subsections D1, which we'll dive into a little bit later in the presentation. And the features of the project that are falling under the variance are the 92 square foot rear addition, the two front additions, as well as the rear portions of the property. The height is going to be increasing a bit on the roof in the rear portion. And we'll talk about that later. The walls of the main residence are existing nonconforming walls because they exist right in the side yard setbacks. They basically go right up to the property lines on both sides. And we'll dig into that a bit later. Next slide. Apologize for the small size of the data table, but we'll jump right in for zoning data. So the property sits on a 3,410 square foot rectangular parcel. This is smaller than the minimum parcel size of 5,000 square feet dictated in Sausalito zoning ordinance. So it is a legal substandard lot because it's smaller than the 5,000 square foot threshold. There is one dwelling unit on site. This will not change with the proposed project. And so this is compliant in terms of a single family residence is permitted within the R-3 zoning district. Moving to minimum setbacks, Sausalito Zoning Ordinance does not have a front setback requirement. It's zero feet. The property sits zero feet, 11 and three-quarter seven inch away from the property line, so it's right up there on the line. This will not change as part of the proposed project. Moving to the rear, there's a required setback. back at 15 feet. The property as it exists now currently sits at 56 feet, six and three quarters of an inch. And I just wanna clarify that the data table in the staff report, the figure in that proposed, or in the existing section was not correct and has been amended in this presentation. So it's 56 feet, six and three quarters of an inch. The proposed project with the rear addition will reduce that setback a bit to 51 feet and a quarter inch, which is more than 15 feet, it's compliant. It gets a little interesting in the side. So the right side setback, it's five feet. The property as it exists is right up against the line. There's basically zero setback. So it's not compliant with the exception of the proposed rear addition, which the applicants have proposed five feet. from the side yard setback. even though that would be compliant with our base setback requirements, we'll get into why it's actually not, still not compliant. We have increased setback requirements here. And then going to the left side, there's a five foot required side yard setback. The property as it exists now is zero feet, three and three quarters of an inch, which is basically a zero foot setback from the left line. And that will not change as part of this project. Moving to building height, the maximum building height will not change. It's 21 feet, seven and a half inches measured. And it will not change. It'll remain 21 feet, seven and a half inches, which is less than the 32 foot maximum height limit. And I just want to clarify that this is measuring just the building height, not the building, including the chimney that goes above. The chimney would add about six feet. to that height figure and the chimney's actually going to be decreasing as part of this project. So the building height will stay the same, but the overall height, including the appurtenances, is going to go down. by about two and a half feet. Moving to building coverage, our zoning ordinance permits 47% based on a single family dwelling being in a multifamily residential zoning district. As it exists, it's actually over the maximum allowed from what we measured at 49%. However, the proposed design actually will bring it back into compliance at 46%, mainly through the removal of that rear elevated deck area. Took up a lot of space in the rear yard, new gravel patio on grade. gets rid of that elevated deck, thus bringing it into compliance. For floor area, 62% is permitted through the zoning ordinance. Property sat at 50%, and it really doesn't change. It goes down a little bit, but it's still 50%, so it's compliant. Impervious surface will go up a little bit from 66% to 67%, which is still less than the 73% permitted. in the zoning district. So it's compliant. And then for parking, it's two spaces required per dwelling unit. There's one unit and there's two existing off street spaces, thanks to the two car garage. So the project is compliant. Next slide. |
| 04:31:10.03 | Unknown | So digging into the design review permit portion, the design review permit with heightened review was triggered due to two main design review permit triggers. The first was a proposed retaining wall slash slope retention project, which will retain more than six feet of aggregate slope within a 10-foot horizontal interval. The retaining wall is located along the southerly side. You could see it a bit better in that bottom diagram. Basically, that wall is going to retain just over six feet of slope to accommodate a new kind of on-grade walking path and stairway for the property owner to access their rear yard. And then the second were potential view impacts associated with the proposed project. We'll get into both of those. The first one was the proposed chimney, which is actually going to be decreasing in height by about 2.5 feet. This is to help minimize the vertical view impact of the chimney sticking up. However, the chimney is going to increase in width by about four feet. So even though the vertical view impact is kind of going down, there's still a horizontal view impact. If you're looking north to south, there's south to north. North? So very minor, but still present. The second one is the proposed raising of roof height at the rear of the property for the existing non-conforming northerly and southerly sidewalls. You can kind of see it in this diagram. The bottom one, the existing, you could see like where the chimney is, the roof, and then that lower wall just below it. You can see that's going to increase a bit by about two feet, three inches. Thank you. So to be a little bit closer going up in height, And so while the height increase doesn't impact the overall height of existing residents, it does pose a view impact to an existing deck area at the neighboring 305, 307 Bridgeway Boulevard property, which is just north of 303 Bridgeway. I believe the owners are here this evening. And I just want to note that through talks with the applicant, the applicant has indicated that they are open to modifying the proposed roof height along that rear portion to minimize view impact. for the neighbor on the northerly side. But I will defer to the applicant to elaborate on that when it is their time to speak. Next slide. |
| 04:33:25.20 | Unknown | So staff recommends approval of the design review permit with heightened review portion of this application because the proposed architecture and site design, you can see it on the bottom right, complements the diverse architectural styles of the surrounding neighborhood. I think this photo in the top right kind of shows it well. You can see 303 Bridgeway, the gray house, second from the left. You can see to the left of it, there's a Spanish colonial architecture, architectural style home. On the other side, the home's changed a little bit since then, but it's, we would be considered like a brown shingle architectural design. And then just outside the frame to the left is Castle by the Sea, which is, would be categorized as like a Queen Anne Victorian architectural style. So the home does contribute to that diverse mix of architectural styles present in the neighborhood. The proposed project has been designed to not crowd or overwhelm structures on neighboring properties. The applicant proposed the rear addition five feet away from the property line to not only try to comply with setbacks, but to also reduce crowding in bulk for the property on the north, 305-307 Bridgeway. And finally, the proposed project is designed to minimize obstruction of views from surrounding properties. We talked about the raising and the roof heights, so that part is not... at this point, minimizing the view impact. But the chimney height decrease of approximately 2.5 feet was intended to help reduce view impact. And the design is maintaining the overall building height. And again, I just want to emphasize that the applicant has expressed that they're open to potentially lowering that rear portion of the roof to, you know, minimize the view impact to the neighbors. But again, we can discuss that later. Next slide. Digging into the variance portion of this application, the variance is requested for relief from required setbacks for the following project features, the 92 square foot rear addition, the two five square foot front addition, and again, that rear portion of the property where it's going to increase in height by about two foot three inches. Digging into each, I guess, aspect, the additions we can bundle together under the increased setback requirement. So per these two sections, 10.40.080 subsection A and 10.40.070 subsections D1, Um, First, we'll start with 40.080A. It grants lots that are narrow or have a lot width that's less than the minimum lot width, basically a decreased setback because of the narrow nature of the lot. It grants narrow lots like 10% of their lot width, not to be less than three feet. This lot, the lot width for this parcel was measured at 31 feet. So that granted them a reduced side yard setback of 3.1 feet. However, 10.40.070 imposes an increased setback at one foot for each five feet that the length of the existing building exceeds 40 feet. And so the building length was measured at 57 feet. So that increased that 3.1 foot side yard setback to 6.1 feet. And with talking with the applicant, they were not able to propose to move that addition any further than the five feet that they had already put it at when they were attempting to comply. Hence why a variance is requested. Moving to the back walls where the height is going to be increasing by two feet three inches. A variance is required for or requested for those walls because the increase in height of those non-conforming walls is exacerbating the existing setback non-conformity. You're basically building more wall in the setback. So staff determined that The proposed height increase of those walls did not qualify for a nonconformity permit because the language in the nonconformity permit. section of code. Basically, the purpose and intent is to kind of move properties or projects closer into conformity as opposed to creating more nonconformities. And in this case, it was exacerbating a nonconformity instead of not exacerbating it. So a variance was required for the raising of the roof as well. Next slide. So staff recommends approval of the variance for side yard setbacks due to the lot size. It's less than the minimum parcel size in the R-3 zoning district. It's actually 68% of the minimum size. The proposed design is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property in the vicinity. Again, the rear addition was proposed outside of the five-foot side yard setback, not only in an attempt to comply with our setback requirements, but also to reduce, you know, bulking or mass nearby adjacent properties. And finally, the proposed design is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Sausalito's ordinance, which is to... Proposed projects and improvements that maintain the city's residential character through minimal impacts to stepped forms, mass, bulk, and density. relative to surrounding homes, again, for the reasons mentioned above. Next slide. And so with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2023-00086 for 303 Bridgeway Boulevard and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit and variance application. That finds the proposed project is in conformance with the criteria listed in 10.54.050 subsection D, which are the design review findings. 10.54.050E, which is the heightened review findings. And finally, 10.68.050 subsections A through F, which pertains to the variance findings. That does it for my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. |
| 04:39:14.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Adam. That was an excellent report as always. Thank you for articulating everything for us. Questions? Any questions for staff? |
| 04:39:24.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:39:25.78 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Fowler? |
| 04:39:27.20 | Kristina Feller | Adam, thank you. Thank you for the detail and the explanation. It's incredible. I just wanted to ask you if you shared with the applicant all the different findings we need to make for the designer view, the heightened designer view and the variances. |
| 04:39:47.75 | Unknown | We discussed them and they did provide findings letters for each of the required findings. So they're familiar with them in terms of working through each and one of them. |
| 04:39:56.41 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you for that. Um, and is there any kind of like material board or materials available or just a photo, like the rendering basically? |
| 04:40:07.94 | Unknown | It's basically the rendering. Staff wasn't provided with a material board for reference. |
| 04:40:11.65 | Kristina Feller | That's okay. I'm just asking. Okay, and then I know the applicant will speak about this, but what were your discussions specifically about the lowering of of of the roof height to avoid blocking the neighbor view. |
| 04:40:27.80 | Unknown | Yeah, so I guess the backstory to kind of quickly sum it up, and again, I think the applicant and the neighbors can speak on this. But basically, it was towards the latter part of the review process for the application. A neighbor at 305-307 came forward and brought up the fact that this raising of the roof in the rear presented a potential view impact. I will admit it was not something that staff was aware of at the beginning of the review process. This kind of came up in the back half. Sure. And so... The applicant, we advise the applicant to reach out to their neighbors to try to work with them. The applicant indicated that they did so and they originally talked about lowering it. i forget the exact number of inches the applicant can clarify if they propose lowering it a bit to try to reduce the view impact They had more talks. The applicant proposed another solution. And so that's kind of where it came from. Yeah. |
| 04:41:14.39 | Kristina Feller | came from. I'll let the applicant expand on it, but thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:41:19.87 | Nastassya Saad | Just one more note on the chimney. Is it a design element? And I can ask the applicant as well. But is it a design element for that original height? Or is it for? a use is it a required |
| 04:41:36.97 | Unknown | To my understanding, it wasn't proposed to be modified for any sort of code compliance related issue. I think it was purely for design, lowering the height a little bit. But the base of the chimney was basically, when they increased the width of it by about four feet, my understanding is that that was basically to make the chimney consistent with what the width was already at the base. It kind of came up like this, so to speak. |
| 04:42:00.07 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you. If no other questions from the commission, we will turn it over to the applicant. I'm sorry, I'm so tired. I don't mean to speak so slowly, but it will bring the, thank you. We'll bring the applicant up here and if you can please state your name and the address for the record, and you'll have 15 minutes that we will get on the clock. And you may use your 15 minutes, but if you'd like to reserve any time for rebuttal at the end, you may save some as well. |
| 04:42:11.12 | Unknown | He just speaks so sweet. |
| 04:42:32.98 | Austin Carrier | Thank you, Vice Chair, and thank you, Commissioners. And I'll try to keep this brief because I think it's past all our bedtimes. My name is Austin Carrier. I am both the designer and the builder for the project at 303 Bridgeway, representing Brenda Wood, who is the owner. We wanted to thank you for taking the time to hear about this project and allowing us to talk about a few aspects of the project and our overall goals during the design process, as well as reach out to the neighbors and our goal of reaching positive outcomes for the project in the surrounding area When tasked to design the remodel of 303 Bridgeway, we took into great consideration the surrounding environment, and we really wanted to reduce the visual impact of the home's exterior. We kept with the original footprint for the most part and updated the home's material facade while essentially keeping the design the same. In the rear of the home, we did decide to clean up years of add-ons and awkward architecture to benefit our client as well as the views into her backyard from the neighboring properties as they kind of loom over hers. We decided to remove about 35 square feet of the existing structure, and then we added 92 square feet within a reconfiguration of the rear bedroom. So we netted about an additional 57 square feet to the existing residence. The property is a substandard lot, as Adam has expressed. So in order to maximize the benefit and the right of our client to improve the property, we were applying for both the variance in the front and rear. In the front of the home, we decided to add two column additions, which you can kind of see here, that kind of flank both sides of the garage. This was done from both an aesthetic point of view as well as a structural one. Currently, the front of the building actually overhangs roughly two feet over the front of the house, and it actually has a pretty significant sag. And it was both our suggestion as well as our engineers to build an underpinning column to help support and update the structural members and integrity of the building. These additions, by the way, are non habitable. They're just they're just add ons in the rear. We complied with the extended five foot setback from the initial three foot setback requirement after some initial review and feedback from the planning department for the rear addition on the north side. And after we submittal, the setback was altered by another foot. Given the length of the building, we are hopeful with the offset from 305 and 307 Bridgeway to give breath to that property that the one foot variance setback that we are requesting for the primary bathroom would be considered feasible. We have also already taken steps, as Adam has expressed, to work with the BCDC on the application needed for this project to get ahead of any necessary documents and submittals to move into building. During our design review, we did cite the house from various angles to try and minimize the impact of the roof height increase to the various neighbors around and behind 303 Bridgeway. We presumed that raising the back portion of the structure to the height of the front would have a negligible impact. After we erected the story poles, we did reach out to the neighbors to discuss any issues and concerns that they may have had. We met in person with Richard Toretto at 305 307 Bridgeway, the neighbor to the right. Bernadette Christel at 210 Richardson Street, which is the neighbor directly behind 303 Bridgeway and the neighbor at 308 310 2nd Street, which is directly behind 305 307 Bridgeway that also looks onto that property. Bernadette Christel at 210 Richardson Street, as well as the neighbor at 308-310-2nd Street, expressed excitement in regards to the project and didn't have any objections. We have been in discussions as well with the neighbor at 301 Bridgeway, which is the neighbor to the left of 303 Bridgeway, via emails and texts to address... concerns that they had. They have brought up three issues. I think that they wrote a letter to you guys as well. Those issues were essentially to request that crews would not work on the weekend, to make sure that the construction would not impact their view of essentially pulling out of their garage, and then also to minimize noise during the construction. We agreed with them that we would prohibit crews from working on the weekend. We want the neighbors to enjoy their weekend. So that seemed very reasonable. And then we also expressed that we would definitely make sure that the safety of pedestrian cyclists, as well as them leaving their property, would be maintained during the construction. As far as noise, we did express to them that there's always going to be an issue with noise during construction. It's inevitable. you know, in regards to saws or jackhammer and compaction, various tools being used. But we did express a willingness to reduce the sound impact of the construction, and we are meeting with them Friday to see how we can make that happen. A conflicting concern expressed to us was by one of the neighbors for the project was by Richard Trotto at 305 and 307 Bridgeway. After the story polls went up, he reached out to, we reached out to the neighbor about how the raising of the building height in the rear by two foot three above the current roof line was blocking a view from a lower deck of one of his rentals within that property. And that is what, these are photos that he had provided, the one being on the left before the story polls, the one on the right after. We reached out to him via phone, text and email. We met with him on site January 8th to access the property so that we could see his concerns. Once we did get access to the deck in question, we recognized and agreed that the increase to the proposed height did block their views from the lower deck from a sitting position and we addressed Richard's concerns by agreeing to drop the building's roof height to match up with the neighboring roof which you can kind of see just past 303. to essentially line up, to minimize the impact of the view to the city. Can you go to the next slide? |
| 04:48:23.42 | Austin Carrier | These were photos that we had taken on site when we met that day, the one being on the left from a standing position and the one from the right being from a sitting position on the deck, obviously showing that it did negatively impact. We suggested that by matching up to the neighboring building that we would drop the existing proposed height by 16 inches. And that would then only be an 11 inch increase to the existing structure. After meeting and reworking the drawings and confirming with our engineer, our roofer, and our client that this would be a feasible solution, we achieved this by reducing the interior height of the rooms below, and by reworking the drainage plan on the roof. Once completed, we sent these changes back. to the neighbor on January 10th and scheduled him to come for us to come back on January 13th and restring a line so that we could then review that if you could go to the next slide. As you can see from these photos taken from his deck the new string line does line up perfectly with the neighboring roof Which was what we had discussed, but upon reviewing with the neighbors They were not satisfied with the solution So we kind of decided to go back to the drawing board I just wanted to provide both photos one taken by the neighbor one taken by us just for context and while the new string line did reduce the water views and there's like a little sliver of water. It did maintain the views of the city. So again, we went back. To the drawing board, we kind of conferred with our engineer about how we could possibly drop the roof line more if we developed a more costly and labor intensive working situation within the property. But our client was amenable to that. Um, But we did come back and we decided that we could actually lower the roof by an additional five inches. So now we are proposing lowering at 21 inches out of the 27 inches that we proposed. And that would only be increasing the building height by six inches. You could go to the next slide. So within this diagram, I'm kind of just showing each relative solution. The yellow line is our last solution that we came to that we were kind of configuring that would be a feasible solution for everybody. We did send this over to the neighbor and reached out about readdressing it on site. It doesn't seem that we were able to accommodate another site visit before today. This additional five inch drop will provide a larger view of the waterfront and as well as the city of San Francisco from a sitting position. So we agreed to remove the can you go to the next slide sorry. This is just kind of a drawing showing the decreasing in heights from what we were proposing versus what is existing. And then if you could go to the next slide. And then this is also, we suggested to them that we would actually remove this existing flu, which has a pretty big impact to their view, which by removing it, you know, creates a better view of the city overall. So we thought that this was, you know, a really good solution to come to. We believe this more than satisfies the concerns in regards to the view and our client's right to develop and improve our home. So we hope we demonstrated both to you as well as to the neighbors that our client is willing to essentially care about what's happening within the area and her neighbors, as well as being able to want to essentially you know, change and update her home. So at this point, we'll just defer to the discretion. of the commission and we thank you guys for your time. |
| 04:51:51.40 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I think it's backwards, but it was at 541. Can we put, just hold 541 on the clock? You'll have remaining for rebuttal at a later. Can you just wait for a second? We're going to go ahead and ask you some questions. Questions? Commissioner Feller, any questions? |
| 04:52:13.31 | Kristina Feller | I don't think so. I just, maybe just to reconfirm that it's the yellow line. that |
| 04:52:19.81 | Austin Carrier | that we are now proposing. Say. |
| 04:52:21.42 | Kristina Feller | You're now proposing and that is six inches above |
| 04:52:24.44 | Austin Carrier | The current roof height. So we conceded, we were proposing a 27 inch increase and we conceded 21 inches. |
| 04:52:30.72 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:52:31.19 | Austin Carrier | Yeah. |
| 04:52:31.65 | Kristina Feller | All right. Thank you for that. |
| 04:52:33.49 | Austin Carrier | Yeah. |
| 04:52:34.03 | Kristina Feller | I just wanted to ask you a little bit about the inspiration for the design and the material. Sure. Because it is pretty foreign to any other... |
| 04:52:39.77 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 04:52:39.83 | Austin Carrier | Sure. |
| 04:52:40.19 | Director Phipps | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:52:43.40 | Kristina Feller | vernacular in that area. |
| 04:52:45.12 | Austin Carrier | Thank you. The inspiration really came from our client really loves being by the ocean. She used to live in MRA. We met her when she moved up to Sonoma. We did her house up there. Now she lives in Sausalito. I think the idea was really to kind of capitalize on a building that both was natural in its environment. So we're using all natural materials, a wood siding and a stone veneer siding. And also it's kind of reminiscent of what a home on the water or home near the ocean could be. You know, and in looking at Sausalito, we did a lot of studying and we took documentation of so many different buildings and Sausalito does have a really diverse range of architecture and styles. So there really wasn't a key direction. And, you know, after our discussions with the planning department, you know, we work primarily up in Sonoma County for the most part and all over. But I mean, there's there's a very direct design and situation up there, you know, they dictate colors and materials and all sorts. So there really wasn't any sort of outline within the city. So we really wanted to kind of capitalize on creating something that was unique, but also kind of fit and with the space while modernizing the building. |
| 04:53:59.55 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. |
| 04:54:00.72 | Austin Carrier | Thank you. |
| 04:54:00.87 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:54:02.35 | Unknown | Commissioner Marla, any questions? Thank you. |
| 04:54:04.41 | David Marlatt | I'm not sure. |
| 04:54:04.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:54:04.73 | David Marlatt | Thank you. No, well, just to clarify, in the design that's been provided, I just want to be clear, the roof is raised about... one foot three and then there's a parapet about twelve inches and then that |
| 04:54:18.99 | Austin Carrier | That's correct. Okay. |
| 04:54:19.97 | David Marlatt | Yeah. and lowering the roof. |
| 04:54:22.67 | Austin Carrier | Correct. So essentially, there's almost not going to be a parapet anymore because we don't have any space guard. The idea of creating the parapet was to kind of hide some of the mechanical equipment that'll be on the roof from the neighbors, because both from the rear and from the left neighbor, or the right neighbor, if you're looking at her, those houses are really kind of overpowering over hers. So they look onto it. So, you know, our goal was to make both the property, both in its material and the way that it was situated, better you know for their viewpoint and obviously the we wanted to address this issue with with the height um but yeah that that's essentially you know where we got to and a lot of it got dictated too by um you know the interior of her building right now the back end is seven foot six tall ceilings very very short um so she you know we feel that she has a right to be able to get to a higher ceiling while also maintaining the fact that we have to now pull the building up to current building standards too um you know with her current roof is two by six rafts You couldn't get away with that anymore. So we're kind of stuck in a, you know, between a rock and a hard place and we're trying to get to a solution for everybody. |
| 04:55:28.67 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 04:55:28.96 | Austin Carrier | Thank you. |
| 04:55:28.97 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:55:28.99 | Austin Carrier | Thank you. |
| 04:55:29.11 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:55:29.19 | Austin Carrier | Yeah. |
| 04:55:29.36 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 04:55:30.88 | Austin Carrier | Thank you. |
| 04:55:31.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We will now open it up for public comment. Thank you. So Director Phipps, may I turn to you for public comment? This will be the time. for anyone in the chambers or on Zoom to comment on this item. |
| 04:55:50.40 | Director Phipps | Happy to drive, Commissioner. And I have not received a speaker card by the gentleman in the black jacket. Please step forward. Thank you. You'll have three minutes. |
| 04:55:59.92 | Richard Toretto | Could you please? And I want to thank all of you for the complex problems you're dealing with, and the hours you put in. It's amazing. Um, I'm Richard Toretto. I own 307305 Bridgeway. And I've been part of this community for 50 years. And so I appreciate all that you do. Believe me. Um, With the recent report that I just heard from Austin, pleased because we were never against our neighbor. building out in the back. The variances weren't a problem to us as long as we we're able to have our view. And from what he've just said, which is news to me because I wasn't available until today. I'm not sure. I think we can work things out. There's still one major issue though, is that the house is on the property line And we have and access to 307 It's a very narrow access. And they're going to have to be on that, or they want our cooperations to be on that to build. the wall that they're going to be building my neighbors. So I'm a little concerned about, The timing. making sure if there's any accidents or any problems that we're not held responsible. Uh, to give us some security in that regard, and to do it in a method that's the quickest so that we have some comfort that it's not going to be there during all the time. a very long. year built. So if we could get that, then I don't think we have any opposition to what they want to do. |
| 04:57:36.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. You have one minute and 55 seconds if you have any further comment. |
| 04:57:40.78 | Richard Toretto | You know, but my son may... THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:57:43.13 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Because, |
| 04:57:43.16 | Richard Toretto | Absolutely. |
| 04:57:49.19 | Nastassya Saad | We can pull some, yes, do you wanna approach the, Front and do you have any comment to make and we can we can work on getting some of the diagrams up But would you like to make any public? |
| 04:57:57.71 | Philip Toretto | I'm Philip Toretto. I live at 307B. Bridgeway for 25 years. We have page 307 a bridgeway for 10 years. And, uh, I didn't bring any of my notes. What I have heard today is very reasonable. I think it's good that We have that. Can I get my notes? Of course. |
| 04:58:23.48 | Director Phipps | We'll briefly pause the clock for you to gather your notes. |
| 04:58:26.55 | Nastassya Saad | We've got nothing but time at this stage. Good luck. Yeah. |
| 04:58:35.56 | Daniel Shador | want to go back. |
| 04:58:37.87 | Philip Toretto | I just want to go back to that walkway. That 305 is a separate property. So... As I was explaining that, 307B307A, my father lives at 307. It's Brian and Evan that live at 305. And that's why we are concerned that primary view on their deck and then that was be that would be taken away um so i was sort of fighting for their um what you say their view rights and it would this be a good a beta test for view sync i don't know but um that that yellow line to me is is just fine it protects their view brian and evan's view um So I'm very happy that that happened. When it comes to the scaffolding though, on our property My dad is correct that we do need to have some assurance that if anything happens to it, any liability that happens, someone falls, I slip and fall. The garbage accumulation, the recycling needs to be available for it. the waste management And there was one other thing. the length of time. How long will that scaffolding be up? I'm not sure. And I think that's it. I really do. I'm, Very happy with it. what happened tonight. I want to take a picture of it if I could. |
| 04:59:58.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Director Phipps, do we have anyone on Zoom? |
| 05:00:05.03 | Director Phipps | Looking at the Zoom application for raised hands. Sing them. to you. |
| 05:00:10.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. The applicant still has five minutes and 41 seconds. If you'd like to take any time to come back up to the podium, you can respond to anything you heard or continue |
| 05:00:24.51 | Austin Carrier | Yeah, I'm pleased to hear that. Yeah, essentially, we would always come to an agreement. You know, there is an issue with the property being on the property line and us needing to replace siding that would create, you know, some sort of easement onto theirs during construction. You know, if that wasn't granted to us, there were ways around that we were going to work it. But hearing that it's amicable is a positive note for us. yeah we would essentially come to an agreement with them you know both from a liability perspective we were going to work it. But hearing that that it's amicable is a positive note for us. Yeah, we would essentially come to an agreement with them, you know, both from a liability perspective, timeframe, giving them plenty of heads up. We've been building houses, you know, me and my partner for 15 years and, you know, been general contractors, we run really clean jobs, and it's just how we like to operate. So we would definitely, you know, work with the neighbor in order to make that feasible. Yeah. |
| 05:01:12.72 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I'm sorry, Sury. I'm going to leave you to have the conversation at a later time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for all the conversation. We're going to close public comment and bring it back up to the dais. Commissioner Junius start us off |
| 05:01:31.09 | Andrew Junius | Just an initial comment. I don't think the commission nor the city is in any position to comment on or provide conditions related to construction activities, property line agreements, you know, agreements to have scaffolding. That's none of our business. I desperately don't want to get involved in that tonight. And then I'll have some other things to say after I hear some comments from others on the height issue. |
| 05:01:57.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Junius, Commissioner Feller. |
| 05:02:00.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Saad. I guess I want to start out the conversation by commending the applicant. We really always strongly encourage here at the Planning Commission that applicants work constructively with neighbors and enter into dialogue and seek to find solutions where you can. and so on and so forth. So I really want to thank and commend the applicant and Mr. Carrier for all your work on this and for the neighbors, for coming to the table. and considering all the options and compromises that the applicant has offered. So that is something we encourage. And so thank you for setting a great example. um, you know, I, um, You know, I think that where where I'm still a little unsure is I'm looking at all the different findings we have to make. And I want to say there are what, 13? Regular and then we've got heightened. There are a whole bunch of them. Let's just put it that way. There are about 20 that we have to make. And for the most part, I, um, I don't have issue here, but this has triggered heightened design review. and i assume it's still heightened design review even if they lower the height of the yeah okay uh so we're in heightened design review no matter what um But honestly, it's finding number two in the proposed architecture. And it's really the. the materials I think that are a little bit foreign to the to most parts of Sausalito, but particularly that area. And so I'm not really comfortable with finding number two, which is about the proposed architecture and, you know, complementing the neighborhood and the district. That is one area. The other area was, we've already resolved, so I'm not even gonna bring it up. Um, so I'll take that off the list. Um, and then, you know, I think because this is a sort of legal non-conforming, um, a lot. There's not much we can do where, with where the existing, uh, structure is, particularly the pieces that will, from the footprint will basically not move. So there's not much we can do there. So there's, um, you know, I'm not sure I can make all the findings here. There's also number 13 that I'm still struggling with. So that's sort of where I am now. I'd love to hear what everybody else thinks up here. |
| 05:04:47.28 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Commissioner Marlon. Thank you, Commissioner Peller. |
| 05:04:50.93 | David Marlatt | Yes, well, I also want to echo Commissioner Fellers and commend the applicant, I think, of going, in my mind, kind of above and beyond, you know, dealing with the view sensitivity and the neighbors. And so I think all of us really appreciate that. Architecturally, I recognize that Sausalito, one of the core values, I think, of Sausalito is its diversity. And I don't personally have any problem with finding number two. I know that it's not. Spanish style or this style, there's a lot of stucco out there, but you know, it's it's clean. The wood siding product is a very high quality product that I'm familiar with. I think it's a clean contemporary look, but stays warm. matter of taste. I appreciate that. But, you know, eclecticism is just part of Sausalito, and I think it's And certainly an improvement over what's there. So I really don't have any issue with that finding. |
| 05:05:52.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. I was going to say the same thing in terms of how you operate as a business. I think it's wonderful to see, and I'm so happy to hear that your neighbors are pleased. I do think it's above and beyond, but you guys were also all forced and subjected to hearing everything we went through tonight, and you know how precious views are, and they have quite a stunning view of the city. That's an incredible view, so for you to be very sensitive to that and to have that open dialogue is wonderful. So interesting that there, Business is mostly in Sonoma. I saw this home. I'm like, perfect for Sonoma. Perfect. That was my only thought, wine country, Sonoma. |
| 05:06:38.25 | Unknown | I wanted one. |
| 05:06:39.23 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. So I'm going to start, I'm going to go on a little hard here, but I'm going to start by saying I'm not going to be able to make Binding 2. I'm having significant trouble with this design. |
| 05:06:39.26 | Unknown | No. |
| 05:06:52.78 | Nastassya Saad | for the location that is on primary waterfront right it's on on an exit and entrance into our town our seaside town and this is where we we get into subjective matter and we are going to have very little subjectivity left in our remit and i'm going to take it when i have it and we're just going to have to um. I think it's an interesting design, and I just don't think it's appropriate for Sausalito's primary waterfront, and I don't feel it fits in. There is an eclectic mix of architecture down there, but this one is just kind of on its own field. And with that, I do think I can make the rest of the findings. I think the variance makes sense. I think it's an interesting lot. And I'm only one vote, so that's just my opinion. But I'm not going to be able to make that finding. So however we want to move on from there, I'm not going to put a motion on the table just yet, but with all respect to the designer, I just simply for fit and not only for where it is, excuse me, not only for the |
| 05:07:22.52 | Unknown | And, |
| 05:07:22.63 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 05:08:11.01 | Nastassya Saad | . it's really coming down to the primary location, but I would have a hard time finding this architecture, feeling that it fits into Sausalito, no matter where it is, but I think it's a little more on the egregious front just because it's right across from that water. But I do think your materials are interesting, but I just don't see it. I'm not going to make it make that finding But I'd be very curious to see if we where we get with this. So if anyone wants to make a motion or further discussion |
| 05:08:42.55 | Andrew Junius | Well, I've got I've got some more comments. I'm fine with the design. I think I agree with Commissioner Marlott. It's eclectic means eclectic means different stuff. But but aside from that, I do want to take a moment to just. get back my soapbox and, you know, It's sometimes it's hard for me to sit here and look at this. I mean, this process is so broken. This, for this to be this complicated, it just it boggles the mind i mean it really is the mo it's just boggles the mind what the staff is it had to do to get this project to us we're talking about twenty four inches of view blockage i mean at you it's uh... it seems to me well there's no question the the applicant has you know turn them bent themselves into a pretzel to try to make this work i guess that's what they have to do the you know because the neighbors they've got uh... you know they've they've got their view and they want to protect it and they're going to use this system to try to protect it the applicants spending the money who's got all the skin in the game just gets you know beaten down to a pulp you know to the fact that they're there the the ceiling height in the rear building is seven foot six inches. They're going to spend they're going to actually I mean, it's just it's just stunning. It's absolutely stunning that property owners are put through this system. I mean, I guess I'll support it. I would I would have supported the original design two feet higher. I just is just amazing. But anyway, I hope we can get these poor folks through this tonight. You know, Commissioner Marlott on the architecture. I don't know who you got to convince here, but it seems it seems like a great project to me. Seems like the applicant is, you know, been blood dry here. It'd be really nice to get them a project tonight. |
| 05:10:38.54 | David Marlatt | Well, I do feel like it's a clean look. I mean, obviously, it does maybe recall Sonoma. I think I'm working on a house in Sonoma with literally the same siding. I know the product. It's a very high-quality product. Yeah, I mean, it doesn't match or mimic its neighbors. I think that's net-net a good thing. It's their version of, you know, it's what they want to do. And it's not beyond the pale of what should be acceptable. You know, if it was something really wacky and out there, then maybe that's worth some discussion. But I think it's very clean and contemporary. And I sort of like tie goes to the runner, you know, it's what they want to do with their property. That's that's sort of where I come down on it |
| 05:11:20.50 | Unknown | I sort of like, |
| 05:11:31.15 | Nastassya Saad | No, of course, come on. |
| 05:11:33.36 | David Marlatt | Please. |
| 05:11:35.47 | Kristina Feller | Come to the mic though. |
| 05:11:35.49 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 05:11:41.50 | Unknown | Just a comment based on the design I've seen. While it obviously doesn't mimic any of the designs around it, I guess one thing I could note is looking at 305, 307 Bridgeway. Obviously different design, but in terms of the usage of stone, they also do utilize quite a bit of stone. I believe it's over their garage. I don't know what you call that feature, but there's a little bit of transition from the stone veneer siding from 303 that's proposed to 305, but they do have a mix of wood and stone and they've got a fair amount of it kind of over the garage area. So just something to put out there. |
| 05:12:16.31 | David Marlatt | Well, the entire bridgeways all rock right across the street. There's far more stone. Yeah, I think it's pretty contextual. |
| 05:12:24.93 | Nastassya Saad | Um, |
| 05:12:25.44 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 05:12:26.92 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I'm going to look for a motion if we don't have more discussion. And of course, we, you know, let's see what happens. We only have four. We don't have five to break. |
| 05:12:36.36 | Andrew Junius | Well I'm going to hope that Commissioner Feller is going to soften up here. |
| 05:12:40.51 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:12:40.54 | Kristina Feller | No, I mean, look, honestly, the design is stunning. You know, I'm not looking for anybody. to mimic anything actually. I think mimicking is kind of Mickey Mouse-ish. It's sort of a nod to or using a vernacular is what I would... be more comfortable with. I mean, the scale of the building is beautiful. I mean, look, it's a beautiful building. I just think it's beautiful, wrong site. But again, that is very subjective. Although. We have certain findings. took our oath to. at the same time. You know, I do not believe with everything that I've seen that it's completely worth holding up a project. Um, But I would hope that Um, there would be sort of continued softening of the facade and maybe we condition it with a little bit of landscape to soften, soften that because it's it's it's a bit Again, it's beautiful. I just think it's the wrong site. And I think, you know, Vice Chair Saad makes a good point. with the fact that it's in a pretty prime spot right on our waterfront. And so I would I would like to see a little bit of let's just try to blend it a little and soften it. And landscape is always a great way to do that. I think in the rendering, there were a couple... Shrubs or something, but I think those were likely thrown in for just, you know, contextual, which is fine too, but I would like to maybe condition it to to soften the the the facade just a little bit with some landscape and and and I could be convinced. |
| 05:14:25.54 | Andrew Junius | Is there room for landscape? I'm not sure there's enough of a setback. |
| 05:14:29.03 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 05:14:29.30 | Kristina Feller | Do we not like massive landscape? But if you had some vines or something more. |
| 05:14:30.63 | Andrew Junius | All right. |
| 05:14:34.30 | David Marlatt | got 11 inches you could probably start some vines up the rock walls or |
| 05:14:38.58 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yeah. We're good. We're good. Yes. You're not on mic, so no one at home can. Yes. |
| 05:14:41.64 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 05:14:46.46 | Kristina Feller | Um. |
| 05:14:46.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:14:48.05 | Kristina Feller | So take it away. |
| 05:14:48.98 | Andrew Junius | So I'll make a motion to approve as presented. IT'S NOT A LITTLE BIT. is it with the changes? I mean, I actually, I hate the changes in terms of light, but if that's where we got to get to, um, is that is that before us is is that there's not okay you I would actually approve what's before us not with would not with not reducing the height and with the change with the land get in front |
| 05:15:15.30 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Do we need a second first? I would propose. Well, we see. |
| 05:15:20.37 | Kristina Feller | I have an alternate motion. |
| 05:15:22.74 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 05:15:23.22 | Unknown | Let's see. |
| 05:15:24.03 | Nastassya Saad | We have a... |
| 05:15:24.50 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 05:15:24.52 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 05:15:24.60 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 05:15:24.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thanks. |
| 05:15:24.72 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Okay, I'll second. But I'd like to propose a condition that the height in the rear is limited to 12 inches. |
| 05:15:33.65 | Director Phipps | I want to just make sure that you're... That would be considered an alternate motion? |
| 05:15:37.93 | Andrew Junius | I'm gonna withdraw my motion, let's start over. |
| 05:15:38.25 | Director Phipps | I'm gonna withdraw my money. |
| 05:15:38.96 | David Marlatt | So, I'm going to go. |
| 05:15:38.98 | Director Phipps | That's a good question. |
| 05:15:40.09 | Kristina Feller | I can make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve with the conditions that the new information that we received this evening, specific to the yellow line, as we can call it in the slide, which I believe is a six-inch raise, be approved. And I believe the applicant offered to take the flu down or reduce that with it. So that's the second condition. And then the third condition as to soften the facade to make it maybe softer, blend a little bit with some type of landscape or vegetation, let's say, to soften that a little bit. |
| 05:16:25.57 | David Marlatt | I'll just clarify that reducing the flu is already in the drawings. reducing the folate. |
| 05:16:31.04 | Kristina Feller | Well, they mentioned that they were, that they, that was a further discussion with the height as well. So I'm just putting... |
| 05:16:38.28 | David Marlatt | to lower the flue beyond what they've already offered to lower, because in the current design, they're lowering it by about three feet. |
| 05:16:44.40 | Kristina Feller | I'm just mimicking what they mentioned that there was new information. So yeah, so that's my motion. |
| 05:16:46.36 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 05:16:52.60 | Nastassya Saad | Can we have a second? |
| 05:16:52.76 | Kristina Feller | a second offer to second it or amend it but there you go |
| 05:16:55.81 | David Marlatt | second that |
| 05:16:57.97 | Nastassya Saad | Are there any alternate motions on the floor? Director Phipps? Can I actually, I'm just going to stop out of the abundance of caution because I believe, I don't want to go too far back to Commissioner Junius, but just to be clear that you are making a motion based on the new height that we saw with the yellow line. |
| 05:17:21.19 | Kristina Feller | Presented tonight by the applicant, which I'm referring to as the yellow line. |
| 05:17:21.61 | Nastassya Saad | presented tonight. By the applicant, which I'm referring to OK, just want to be. |
| 05:17:25.97 | Kristina Feller | And if we can reference that on the slides that we saw. Abundantly clear. |
| 05:17:28.99 | Nastassya Saad | Abundantly clear. OK, thank you for the clarification. OK, Director Phipps, can you please take roll? |
| 05:17:34.51 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Assad. |
| 05:17:38.93 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. respectfully, no. |
| 05:17:42.76 | Director Phipps | and Chair Luxenberg has recused. |
| 05:17:45.52 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 05:17:45.59 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 05:17:46.45 | Nastassya Saad | Motion passes, thank you very much. We can bring, oh, there he is. Thank you. |
| 05:17:52.22 | Unknown | Right. |
| 05:17:59.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All righty. We're on to new business. 8A, election of the chair and vice chair. So the next item is election of chair and vice chair. I want to say that it's been an honor and a privilege to serve as chair the past two years. The way we'll do this, we'll take nominations for chair, have any comments from the commission, we'll then take public comment, and then bring it back to the dais for discussion and then take a vote, and then we will repeat the process for vice chair. So at this point, I would like to nominate Nastasja Saad as chair. Are there any other... |
| 05:18:40.57 | Director Phipps | No. Thank you. |
| 05:18:41.45 | Andrew Junius | or, |
| 05:18:41.67 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:18:41.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:18:41.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:18:41.85 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:18:42.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Well, there aren't seconds and thirds. There's just nominations, I think. Any other nominations? |
| 05:18:49.33 | Kristina Feller | No, but can I make a comment? |
| 05:18:50.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 05:18:51.93 | Kristina Feller | I think you deserve thanks for being our chair. Do we serve that? Exactly. |
| 05:18:55.52 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 05:18:57.53 | Kristina Feller | for the last two years. And so thank you for all your hard work, all the efforts I know you make with CDD and setting agendas and so on and so forth. And so thank you for representing us as chair. |
| 05:19:11.99 | Unknown | Thank you very much. |
| 05:19:12.70 | Nastassya Saad | It was a pleasure to serve as your vice chair, and I appreciate it and enjoyed all of our Monday meetings. And thank you for being our advocate in the last two years of your chairmanship. |
| 05:19:26.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you all. So if we'll take a vote, Director Phipps, I guess we, that's a motion, I guess. Usually we just say who we're voting for. |
| 05:19:36.46 | Director Phipps | Well, we could do it by roll call, if you like, since there's only one option. Sure. Yeah. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. Welcome to the chair seat, Commissioner Saad. |
| 05:19:39.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 05:19:44.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:19:44.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:19:48.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, my colleagues. Thank you, commissioners. |
| 05:19:49.17 | Director Phipps | Thank you. And I know the hour is late. It's not great. |
| 05:19:53.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Now the next one is the nominations for vice chair. I would like to nominate Andrew Junius for vice chair. Second. So, |
| 05:20:02.08 | Nastassya Saad | May I put something out there to the commission? Sure. It's going to be a little unorthodox, but please hear me out. I would love to nominate Commissioner Feller for as long as her remaining time on the commission, which goes until April 30th of this year, to be followed by Andrew Junius, because I'd love to work with him as well. And the intent of this really is to continue and finalize our work together. um things work with him as well and the intent of this really is to continue and finalize our work together through the housing element working group through the just the time that we've spent together on the on the HEAC and really to push the housing element to its final stage since we started that work, I would love to end that in that manner. And I'd just like to put that on the table if that's a possibility. |
| 05:20:04.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 05:20:04.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:20:55.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think in essence you're putting on there and just a nomination we would have to hold another election at the end of the term I don't think we can Do something in the old turn. |
| 05:21:04.80 | Andrew Junius | I guess my Mike I mean with all due respect I I I'm totally understand that the the basic issue with respect the housing element I don't understand why Commissioner Feller can't do that as continuing member of that working group as she has mentioned in multiple meetings I just don't understand. This seems just confusing. I'm not trying to do anything but it just seems very odd. |
| 05:21:30.03 | Nastassya Saad | It is different. I just thought that in the intent and spirit of how I've learned to work with chair Luxembourg and in the last year and that very close working relationship between chair and vice chair and those meetings with CDD. That's really the perspective that I'm coming to coming from because her term is going through right by the time the deadlines that were up against go through. And that was my intention. So I agree it's a little little different, but that's that was my perspective with this proposal. So. |
| 05:22:07.81 | Andrew Junius | I don't know. We've got one, I mean, again, I'm sorry, but we've got one meeting left, a special meeting on the 19th where we're going to make a recommendation to the city council and then they're going to do what they want. So, I mean, it just, it just seems unnecessary. I think Commissioner Feller can participate as she has participated and work with you, continue. I mean, I just don't get it. But I'll, you know. |
| 05:22:32.75 | Nastassya Saad | It's just a thought, just a nomination. If it works, great. If it doesn't. |
| 05:22:37.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, we have two nominations, so Director Phipps, why don't you just take a role where people will say who they're voting for and then see who we're in. |
| 05:22:49.73 | Director Phipps | Yeah, very good. As a reminder to commissioners, you must name the preferred vice chair. Commissioner Merlant. Thank you. |
| 05:22:56.75 | David Marlatt | uh, |
| 05:22:57.05 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:22:57.09 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 05:22:57.12 | Director Phipps | Vishnu Junius. Commissioner Junius. Mr. Junius. Commissioner Feller. Vice Chair Assad. |
| 05:23:06.33 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to go with Commissioner Junius at this point. Which I still hope to. |
| 05:23:08.92 | Director Phipps | I feel like. |
| 05:23:09.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Judeus. |
| 05:23:10.00 | Nastassya Saad | other. |
| 05:23:11.78 | Director Phipps | or should I say Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 05:23:14.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh, |
| 05:23:14.28 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:23:14.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Junius, yes. I appreciate that. Uh, so congratulations to both of you. |
| 05:23:18.77 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. you uh and jeffrey nice job well done jeffrey really well done |
| 05:23:23.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We need to take public cover. Sure, midnight. We need to take public cover. |
| 05:23:27.24 | Andrew Junius | recommend |
| 05:23:29.74 | Director Phipps | For those interested in stepping to the dais in the chamber, looking for raised hands, seeing none. |
| 05:23:39.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Congratulations to both. Thank you. |
| 05:23:40.12 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:23:40.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:23:44.12 | Director Phipps | And shall we move on to... Adjourn. New chair would like to adjourn. |
| 05:23:46.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, adjourn. New chair would like to adjourn. Thank you. Yes. THE END OF THE END OF THE It's tomorrow now. We'll take note that it's no longer Wednesday. It's now Thursday. |
| 05:23:56.52 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:23:57.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So close. |
| 05:23:58.75 | Unknown | Too much. |
| 05:23:58.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Too much. It's over. |
| 05:23:59.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
Fred Moore — Neutral: Suggested creating a simplified map showing only opportunity sites, proposed adding 2015 Bridgeway as an opportunity site, and suggested removing 605 and 613 Bridgeway from the opportunity sites list. ▶ 📄
Sandra Bushmaker — Against: Criticized the maxing out of MLK units during the campaign, noted the minimal increase in extremely low and very low income units compared to moderate and above-moderate, questioned the inclusion of west-of-101 land, opposed overlays, expressed shock at the return of the firehouse and city hall sites, and called for selling the ballot measure to the public effectively. ▶ 📄