| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:51.67 | Nastassya Saad | Hello and welcome. I'd like to call this special planning commission meeting for April 2nd, 2025. Time is 631 this evening to get started. Just as a point of privilege, before we do move on to the other agenda items, I just would like to set a few notes for decorum, just friendly reminders, really. We'd just like to remind the public that we have received a lot of your comments and we are grateful that you're all here and on Zoom. Everyone will have a chance for a public comment this evening. Just going to ask during the speakers that are at the podium and during the rest of the hearing, if we can please refrain from any side conversations. The acoustics in this room can be fra at times, and it's a little distracting. So if you do need to have any type of conversation, I'm going to ask that you kindly just step to the hallway I'm also going to ask if we can please refrain from any emotional reactions while anyone is speaking, just in the interest of efficiency and respect to our speakers, both for the appeal and for any other parts during public comment. Please refrain from clapping and any other forms of emotional reaction, just so we can be efficient this evening and respectful for the entire process. And otherwise, I'm gonna look to you, Director Phipps, to get us started and call order. |
| 00:02:16.92 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair, for that intro, and good evening to you, Vice Chair Junius, Planning Commissioner, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street, as well as at Calle San Geronimo 1 in Granada, Spain, and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. Before I call roll, I note that Commissioner Merlot is attending this meeting virtually. Commissioner Merlot, could you please confirm for the record that you are attending this meeting in accordance with the traditional Brown Act requirements for remote meeting attendance? |
| 00:02:54.82 | David Marlatt | Yes, I am. And I have posted the agenda as required under the Brown Act. |
| 00:03:00.59 | Director Phipps | Excellent. Thank you for making that confirmation for the record. And with that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:03:07.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | here. |
| 00:03:07.99 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Here. Commissioner Feller. Here. Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Saad. Here. We have quorum. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:03:09.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. Thank you. |
| 00:03:11.24 | Nastassya Saad | Here. |
| 00:03:14.80 | Nastassya Saad | Here? Thank you. Item number two is the approval of the agenda. So moved. |
| 00:03:23.16 | Director Phipps | Second. |
| 00:03:24.84 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 00:03:24.86 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:03:24.91 | Nastassya Saad | Dr. Phipps, please. |
| 00:03:26.36 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Thank you. |
| 00:03:27.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 00:03:28.03 | Director Phipps | Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Sott. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:03:31.42 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Yes. Item number three on the agenda are public comments on items not on this agenda. Director Phipps, can you give some direction, please? |
| 00:03:44.00 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the Planning Commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct that the agenda or excuse me, the subject be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to two minutes per speaker. I believe this evening, Chair, if you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak. And to raise your hand if you're joining us from a phone this evening, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. Thank you, Chair. I will first look to speaker cards in connection with this item. |
| 00:04:44.34 | Director Phipps | and I'm not sure I have received any. Please... Speak if I'm speaking in error. Okay, looking to the Zoom application for any raised hands on this. Seeing none, and back to you, Chair. |
| 00:05:01.86 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. Item four is communications. Director Phipps, I'll start with you. Anything from staff? |
| 00:05:09.55 | Director Phipps | No communication items this evening, Chair, thank you. |
| 00:05:12.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Does anyone have any communications |
| 00:05:16.30 | Andrew Junius | No. |
| 00:05:17.20 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I'm going to close communications and open communications up for public comment. Seeing none, I'm going to close communication public comment. And we will now move on to item five, which is our public hearing for this evening. And we will have principal planner, Kristen Teichy, to start us off. |
| 00:05:40.96 | Director Phipps | And just before we jump into this item, Chair, I'd like to make a quick clarification as to why we're here this evening. This is based on a number of received public comments, which seem to indicate that the Planning Commission will be rendering a final decision on the project this evening. Based on those comments, I'd like to clarify that the Commission will not be rendering a final decision on the project this evening. Rather, the Commission will consider an appeal of certain written determinations provided by staff regarding the consistency of the proposed housing development at 605 Bridgeway with the city's development standards, as well as staff's determination that the proposed development is not eligible for an exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act. Thank you, Chair, and I will... Pass the mic to Principal Planner Tyche. |
| 00:06:31.72 | Nastassya Saad | And I'm going to just hold you for a second. I forgot ex parte communication, so let me just look to the commissioners, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:06:39.71 | Kristina Feller | I can do the clear. |
| 00:06:40.75 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:06:41.64 | David Marlatt | I know it works partay communication. |
| 00:06:43.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Marlott. |
| 00:06:43.16 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Nothing to declare. |
| 00:06:45.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 00:06:47.06 | David Marlatt | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:06:47.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, and I also have nothing to declare. Back to you. |
| 00:06:50.79 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. Good evening, everybody. Um, Thank you. So next slide. So this application or this hearing tonight is related to appeals of administrative determinations from two letters sent by staff. to the applicants and their representation. The project site itself is located in the historic downtown. You can see the location there near Okay. Princess and Bridgeway, so it runs in between street to street and parts. It is also in two zoning districts, the CC zoning district near Bridgeway, and then the back half is in the R3 zoning district. Next slide. This is a map from our general plan that just outlines the extent of the CC zoning district. And then the dotted line over it is the extent of the H overlay. Just to demonstrate that, yes, the project is within the H overlay in the CC zoning district, sort of somewhat centrally located. Next slide. So on August 15th, 2023, the applicant filed a preliminary application, SB 330 preliminary application is what it's often referred to. for a mixed use development, including 45 residences. On January 31st, 2024, they followed up with their formal application, Mixed use again with 47 residences, which was later amended to 50 residences with application of density bonuses. This includes 10 lower income and four moderate income units, although more recent correspondence did reduce those numbers. And it's unclear if that's what the formal application will become. Next slide. The application was deemed complete October 17th and in compliance with government code 65589.5 J2. We produced a letter within 30 days of the date of completeness. that identified any applicable plan program policy ordinance standard requirement or other similar provision that the housing development project was done in compliance with. The city provided this documentation November 14th and the applicant objected to the letter on November 27th. Next slide. December 17th, the city responded and offered the applicant the appeal rights to appeal administrative determinations. And on December 27th, the applicant did file a formal appeal. THE FAMILY. Later on March 18th, the applicant also submitted a letter regarding applicability of new state laws that went into effect January 1st, 2025. Next slide. |
| 00:09:26.42 | Kristin Teiche | So in addition to this information that I've just given you in this process on January 29th, the applicant filed a letter called challenged conduct notice. It alleges the city had undertaken a course of conduct that would effectively disprove the project. As required, the city will respond to this letter by the end of this month, but the commission's discussion and your decision tonight is not relevant to that course of conduct letter and is not on the table for our discussion. Next slide. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the applicant's appeal of administrative determinations from two letters, November 14 and December 17, 2024. The planning commission, again, is not deciding whether to approve or deny the project. Public hearings. Consider the merits of the design based on objective standards would be scheduled for a future date after we get through some of these issues. Next slide. So there's two major issues did staff Were the letters of November 14th and December 17th accurately describing the project's inconsistencies with the city standards? And did staff accurately conclude that the project is subject to CEQA and is not eligible for an exemption? So there are four levels of commentary within the staff's letters. They address project density, consistency with development standards, applicability of ordinance 1022, and the affordability requirements for the affordable unit component of this project. So the appeal contention, the project's entitled to a density bonus in addition to the housing element density, thus allowing the 50 units proposed. The density of the housing element permits 49 dwelling units per acre with a realistic capacity of 20 units. Based on that, the maximum unit density is 25 units. the land use element and zoning. permits a density of 29 units per acre. And based on this, they are eligible for 16 units and with the application of density bonus, could achieve 32 units. The land use element and zoning were not yet amended to allow the density permitted in the housing element. Next slide. So the. In reviewing this project with HCD, HCD brought the codes to our attention that a density bonus as defined... is a, um, increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density and the and skipping the base density is defined as the greatest number of units allowed in the zoning ordinance specific plan or land use element of the general plan, it does not reference the housing element. Based on this, when we met with HCD, we concluded that the applicant had a potential density, including bonuses of 32 units. And the applicant was duly noticed that we had come to this conclusion with HCD. They can use the housing element density, but it is not eligible for a density bonus. So that would give them 25 units under that scenario. |
| 00:12:43.96 | Kristin Teiche | So effectively, January 1st, 2025, or effective January 1st, 2025, the Housing Accountability Act has been amended. to related to sites designated in the housing element where the zoning and the land use element have not yet been changed. Government code applies to a housing development in a site identified as suitable for very low, low, or moderate income households in the housing element. That is consistent with the density specified in the adopted housing element. Staffs determine the density of 50 units is equivalent to 98 dwelling units per acre, rather than the 49 permitted by the housing element. And so it's not consistent with the density of the adopted housing element, and these provisions do not apply. |
| 00:13:33.51 | Kristin Teiche | So to summarize our conclusions on density, The maximum density allowed is 25 or 32 units based on the zoning and the land use element. The city's been advised by HCD that the housing element element density cannot be used as base density to apply then a density bonus from. The proposed density of 98 units per acre is not consistent with the 49 units per acre allowed in the housing element. And the project does not meet the requirements of government code 65589.5 F8 because it's not consistent with the density in the housing element. |
| 00:14:11.17 | Kristin Teiche | inconsistencies listed in table one. So there was a table attached to your staff report. Their appeal contends that the applicant Uh, the appellant, they apply for concessions from all development standards and therefore must be found consistent with the local standards. Because a concession may include a request for a modification of development standards in the plural of the text. A request for one concession includes modifications of many different development standards. This is their approach. The amendment to HAA effective 1-1-25 allows the applicant to designate standards from other zoning districts in order to facilitate the density proposed in the project. So those are the three basic issues. The project, as we determined, is not, it is eligible for concessions and waivers under state density bonus law, but the number of concessions is limited. And there is an unlimited number of waivers that they can request. The applicant applied for concessions but no waivers. The city agrees that per state law, if waivers and concessions are approved under the density bonus law, the project will be considered consistent with the development standards. The applicant claims the project is entitled to four concessions, but has requested up to 10. but, This is not consistent with the numerical limit on the concessions and their interpretation that one concession applies to multiple standards is not supported, um, in the state law. Even if the applicant did not exceed the number of concessions allowed, the project would not be considered consistent until the concessions are approved. |
| 00:15:52.62 | Kristin Teiche | So the applicant asserts that new mandatory provisions apply to the project. These were the ones adopted as of January 1st of this year. This would allow the applicant to select objective density and general plan standards from the various codes of the city, And, put them together and say this allows us to meet our 50 unit density in terms of all the basic zoning regulations, height limits, floor area, et cetera. As previously discussed, the project does not meet the requirements of Government Code 65589 0.5 f8 and because that it's not consistent with the density in the housing element oh because it is not i'm sorry Therefore, the developer may not specify alternative development standards as being applicable to the site. On November, the November 14 letter as modified by December 17 letter accurately describes the inconsistencies. These are our conclusions. The developer may apply for concessions and waivers, but the project is inconsistent until they are approved. The developer has requested more concessions than they're entitled to. and the project is not consistent with density in the city's housing element, So the developer may not specify alternative development standards as being applicable to the site. |
| 00:17:11.35 | Kristin Teiche | So. Thank you. With regard to ordinance 1022, the appeal contention is that ordinance 1022 did not enact new standards for the CC district and therefore there is no. need to request any waivers. or concessions from ordinance 1022. The city's position is that ordinance 1022 was adopted by voters and can only be amended by a new voter adopted initiative. Any later adopted resolutions reinterpreting the intent do not override or supersede an adopted ordinance by voters. So the Ordinance 1022 clearly adopts standards for the CC District. They're built into the ordinance and visible when you read the ordinance. The developer can request a density bonus, waivers, or concessions from those standards because they're just part of the CC district regulation. So it would be part and parcel with asking for those. The bigger issue with Ordinance 1022 is for the city because we can't amend. zoning regulations unless we get a voter initiative approved. to allow us to do so. |
| 00:18:16.75 | Kristin Teiche | The bill refutes the affordability standards in the letter. The affordability levels that we have called out, the city agrees that the proposed lower income units may replace the city's requirement for moderate income units. And we recommend this part of the appeal be upheld. The appeal further asserts that the city cannot afford require affordable units provided for a density bonus to be comparable to market mate units and that the location and placement of the units does not violate health and safety code section 17 nine to nine a tube. Excuse me. |
| 00:18:58.86 | Kristin Teiche | So staff's letter identified the number of areas where the units were not consistent with the market rate units, and this included the number of bedrooms, uh, The units were much smaller in size. Most were located at the rear of a couple floors. They lacked egress windows. And they, that that would even support the bedroom count they were trying to assign them. Providing only very small units as affordable units will have a disparate impact on families with children in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. |
| 00:19:37.81 | Kristin Teiche | In addition, the proposed layout appears to violate Health and Safety Code 1792982, which provides that. A mixed income multifamily structure shall not isolate the affordable housing units within the structure to a specific floor. or an area on a specific floor. So we recommend the commission deny this part of the appeal. |
| 00:20:02.81 | Kristin Teiche | With regard to environmental review, the appeal contends that the existing buildings at the site are not on the California Register of Historic Resources. the city must demonstrate Instead that the project will materially impair the Sausalito historic district such that the district would no longer be eligible for the California register. The project qualifies for a class 32 infill exemption. or a statutory exemption under guidelines section 15183. And the staff does not have the authority to make a sequel determination for the project and determine in the review process that it is or is not eligible for a CEQA exemption. So. So the buildings at 605, 613 Bridgeways are contributors to the Sausalito Historic District since 1981. They're listed individually in the adopting regulations. The district is on the California Register and was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register prior to that. The adopted state regulations provide that contributing buildings are placed on the California register. And to our knowledge, in all of research we've done, and based on the findings of our historic evaluators, The buildings are on the register. They are listed in the bird list and on the Chris list. These are two official documents distributed by the state of California. |
| 00:21:28.78 | Kristin Teiche | So, The sequel guidelines do not require the city demonstrate that have a significant impact on the historic district. Itself and only that. Under CEQA, the environmental review is required if the project results in a substantial adverse change to a historic resource. And in this case, that would be the buildings located... on the site. In making the determination, the test is generally whether projects would violate Secretary of the Interior standards. And we have two reports commissioned by the city that determined that it would. And it's worth noting that the Verplank historic analysis, which was prepared for the city, also concludes that the building, as proposed, would have an adverse effect on the district itself. |
| 00:22:19.23 | Kristin Teiche | So we determined that the site is not eligible for infill exemption because it may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. And there's no substantial evidence submitted to demonstrate the project would not result in a significant effect related would not result in a significant effect related to traffic noise and air quality or water quality. And because of this, it's not eligible for a section for a standard infill exemption, and it's not eligible for guidelines under 15183. because it exceeds the density of the general plan EIR, which has evaluated the site for 29 units an acre. So additional required analysis would be required to support that exemption. |
| 00:23:07.41 | Kristin Teiche | So, In the city process of project review staff is responsible and has long been assigned the, the responsibility for determining appropriate level. Sequel Review. The Sausalito Municipal Code does not require a public review. of all documents after a project's been deemed complete to determine if environmental review is required. That is not how it's done. And it's not what's required. Delaying CEQA determinations and requiring a public hearing after the project's determined complete would also delay the processing of the project. Staff's determination that the project was ineligible for a categorical exemption came right at first in February of 2024 with the first notice of incomplete. And had we moved forward with that determination, we would largely be done with our CEQA evaluation at this point, I would think. or well into it. |
| 00:24:01.31 | Kristin Teiche | So our conclusions are that the existing building are on the California Register of Historic Places. The city has received substantial evidence that the project may cause a substantial impact on the significance of the existing buildings and the Sausalito Historic Downtown. The project is ineligible for a categorical exemption or a statutory exemption under the guidelines of 15183 And the Sausalito municipal code does author staff authorized staff to determine the appropriate level of environmental review as we review the project. |
| 00:24:34.92 | Kristin Teiche | So our recommendation tonight is that you adopt resolution number 25, 20, 25 07 upholding. Staff's determinations, denying the appeal in part, um, as discussed. And I put a little reminder in here. The one section that we are recommending denial of is that, um, The lower income units may replace the. a city requirement for a certain percentage of moderate. And I think I might have a partner in this whole presentation. Her name is Barbara Katz. She is our city attorney advising staff, and I believe she wants to make a statement as well. |
| 00:25:14.41 | Barbara Katz | Thank you. Barbara Kautz, I'm advising staff, whereas the city attorney is advising the city attorney planning commission. I don't really have anything to add to Kristen's excellent presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. |
| 00:25:37.06 | Kristin Teiche | I do have one last thing to discuss. We did make some tiny edits to the resolution that we had proposed for you. So the changes, I'm just going to walk through them really quickly on page three. under finding to be It says that the letter of November 14, 2024, and we added as modified by the letter of December 17, 2024. That's the only change, is that little as modified by the second letter. |
| 00:26:09.86 | Kristin Teiche | And then going to page five. 3A. about the second sentence from the bottom. where it was discussing that it's not consistent with parking requirements. We modified that to say applicable parking design and improvement requirements. The issue was not... We conceded in the December letter that the issue is not the number of parking spaces. It's the design and layout. and under B, Second line, the city has adopted and it said a housing element and we put a sixth cycle housing element for request of one of the commissioners. And those are the only changes. |
| 00:26:57.95 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the presentation. It's a lot of information to get through. I'm going to open it up to the commissioners for questions of staff and legal. Commissioner Fowler, would you like to start us off? |
| 00:27:12.86 | Kristina Feller | Sure, I can kick us off. Thank you very much for the presentation and to everyone who helped and contributed to putting it together. This is certainly a complex issue, but we have a very, very narrow review of this this evening. And I appreciate in the introduction Director Phipps and yourself explaining what that was, but I want to go back because we have a significant amount of public interest in this project overall, and I want you to kind of explain why this has been brought to the Planning Commission because it is an SB 330 submission, and we are not a body that would approve or deny this project with a permit of any kind. So I'd like you to maybe explain why this is being brought as an appeal to the Planning Commission. |
| 00:28:09.88 | Kristin Teiche | Well, in our municipal code, Determinations made by staff and the planning director are appealed to the Planning Commission. The appellant has determined that they did not believe that some of our conclusions in our letters are correct. And so we were they were given the opportunity to appeal. |
| 00:28:29.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I see an attorney pop up. Sergio, did you want to add anything to that? |
| 00:28:35.75 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I did want to comment that typically an SB 35 project would not be subject to review by the planning commission or approval by the planning commission, other than limited design review for the purposes of determining compliance with objective standards. Um, A project on this site has been proposed via two avenues. One is under the traditional discretionary approval processes under Chapter 1054 of the Municipal Code, including design review. The other one is under an SB 35 permit application. So... Potentially this project could come to the planning commission for further review. I think also, to supplement the answer you guys have received. Typically the first step after an application is complete when a city reviews a project, the first thing that the city is supposed to do under the Housing Accountability Act is within 30 days... determine all of the objective standards that apply to the particular project. Um, And if The project does not comply with the objective standards in the general plan. Um, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and all other city regulations. the city is required to notify the applicant that it's that staff believe that, the project is inconsistent with those standards. And if you fail to do that within 30 days, you are stopped essentially under the Housing Accountability Act from raising those standards as a basis for denial of the project. So, The issue that is being appealed to the Planning Commission is that particular compilation of city standards in the general plan and zoning ordinance and other regulations in the municipal codes. relating to this project. So... Ultimately, I think that there are before you a number of arguments about whether or not the project is consistent with those standards. There are also separate arguments under new provisions of the Housing Accountability Act as to whether or not the city should apply those standards or should apply different standards. which I anticipate may be raised Ultimately, the very narrow issue that is before you on appeal is did staff identify the standards that are applicable to this project under the city's Municipal codes? and the general plan. And if those aren't the standards, Obviously, the Planning Commission should overturn the staff determination and uphold the appeal. |
| 00:31:20.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you for that. Um, Moving on, just in terms of this is really an administrative question. With the resolution that's before us, we only have one resolution here, but there are two different things we are weighing in on this evening. So before we get into any deliberations, before we hear public comment or anything, I want to understand if those can be bifurcated. |
| 00:31:48.76 | Kristin Teiche | I would prefer to defer to the attorneys on whether that should be the case. Okay. Is Sergio or Barb? |
| 00:31:56.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:31:57.23 | Kristin Teiche | there. |
| 00:31:57.82 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:31:57.86 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 00:31:58.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:31:58.45 | Kristin Teiche | Perhaps. |
| 00:32:00.41 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:32:00.47 | Sergio Rudin | And bifurcated in what manner? |
| 00:32:00.52 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 00:32:03.92 | Sergio Rudin | I guess, can I get a little bit more insight into your question? |
| 00:32:08.13 | Kristina Feller | Sure. I mean, Thank you. Karen Hollweg, If if we have different votes for different parts of this, should we be separating it out because you're really looking at one resolution for an entire approval or denial in the in the. Karen Hollweg, In the the way it's put to us this evening so i'm just curious, and this might not happen i'm not i'm not projecting here i'm just trying to. We usually ask these questions when there's more than one thing we need to determine. And so I want to take care of that now before we start any discussions. |
| 00:32:42.74 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, I think that there are two issues in the appeal before you. One is... staff's CEQA determination, which obviously can be a standalone issue. And then the other issue is all of the appropriate standards that apply to the project. And if the Planning Commission wants |
| 00:32:57.53 | Chris Palomo | and it's, |
| 00:33:00.99 | Sergio Rudin | separate out that discussion. I don't see an issue with that. Procedurally, you do have to adopt a written resolution. |
| 00:33:08.51 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:33:09.20 | Sergio Rudin | dispose of this appeal. So ultimately, once the Planning Commission has its discussion, you may need to direct staff appropriately to modify that resolution. to reflect your discussion. |
| 00:33:22.82 | Kristina Feller | Got it. Thank you very much. And then I wanted just to clarify in terms of any objective standards that you've applied in your review. of this application, those would only be the objective standards that were reaffirmed in the existing Salcelita Municipal Code in July of 2021 by the City Council. Is that correct? |
| 00:33:49.23 | Kristin Teiche | Um, you know, I don't have that in front of me, but I can assure you that the only things we applied were the objective standards. Okay. Floor area, lot coverage, setbacks, height limits. |
| 00:33:59.91 | Kristina Feller | limits. Perfect. Perfect. Okay. And then could you just refresh everybody's memory in terms of the time frame or deadline that the city has to modify its zoning ordinances and zoning throughout the city to abide by the certified housing elements? |
| 00:34:26.14 | Sergio Rudin | January 30 of next year. |
| 00:34:29.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:34:30.71 | Sergio Rudin | That is the statute headlined. |
| 00:34:32.75 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay. You touched on concessions and waivers, and I wanted... I wanted to understand a little bit more about that, particularly in terms of how those waivers or concessions are determined And I want to reaffirm with you that the maximum is seven. And then finally, as part of that, maybe the third part is, has this applicant requested waivers and or concessions? And what are they? |
| 00:35:05.17 | Kristin Teiche | They have requested. concessions but not waivers. And largely, they have essentially asked for concessions from the R3 zoning district and the CC regulations to waive them. Generally, I don't have my, I'm sorry, my letter in front of me that goes through it all in detail. And I know Barbara would probably like to respond to this as well. |
| 00:35:30.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:35:32.69 | Barbara Katz | Um, They have requested one concession for all our three standards, and that involves six separate standards, And they've requested another concession Janet Callahan, For all CC district standards and that involves for different standards, you know the legislature there's some disagreement about whether they're entitled to three or four concessions. Regardless of that, they've clearly asked for many more The applicant argues that because a concession is defined as a modification of development standards that they can all be combined. But every case that's looked at concessions, it's been one standard, i.e. height is one concession, say setbacks are another concession. And if you took the applicant's argument to its logical extreme, you could simply request one concession for all zoning standards, and that would you know, that would nobody would need any concessions. So we don't think that's an accurate. statement of the law. On the other hand, the applicant can get as many waivers as possible as they want. The number of waivers that can be requested is unlimited for any development standard. So there's plenty of room for the applicants to request waivers of development standards that the project can't comply with. |
| 00:37:15.36 | Kristina Feller | And can you just clarify what is the vehicle for that determination? Is that the staff? |
| 00:37:22.68 | Barbara Katz | The vehicle for which determination, whether it's approved or not? |
| 00:37:26.80 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, the waivers, like if you're going to accept waivers or accept the commission. So it was a point. |
| 00:37:31.17 | Barbara Katz | I'm not sure. Generally, the waivers and concessions are incorporated into the staff report that you will get. on the actual project. |
| 00:37:39.24 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 00:37:39.58 | Barbara Katz | Waivers, the grounds to deny a waiver or concession are very limited. for a waiver that it can be denied if they create what's called a specific adverse impact on public health or safety. or if they violate state or federal law, Or if it has a. on negative impact on a, on a, on a resource that's on the historic California Register. . in in a reduction of costs. So you can see that if that we have to do with concessions or six concessions. where each concession needs to be evaluated to see if it violates state or federal law, creates an impact, reduces costs, It becomes almost impossible for the to review them. |
| 00:38:38.20 | Kristina Feller | Oh, Thank you for that. |
| 00:38:42.30 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask a follow-up question just for the benefit of the Commission and for the public? Could you define the difference between the concessions and the waivers just to level up that conversation? |
| 00:38:49.74 | Barbara Katz | I love it. A concession is a modification of any development standard can be, I think a development standard is defined as a construction or site condition. So for instance, you know, typical ones are setbacks, height, amount of open space, that coverage. Floor area ratio. Any of those things are typical. waivers. A concession is generally defined as something that results in uh, Let's say I believe the line is identifiable and actual cost reductions that help provide the affordable housing. |
| 00:39:36.15 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:39:36.99 | Barbara Katz | Thank you. |
| 00:39:37.33 | Kristina Feller | I wanted to thank you for that. I wanted to move on to 1022 really quickly and touch on that just to get a little bit more clarification. Um, Because in one of the attachments, I think it was the last attachment in public comment It is a submission by Patterson and O'Neill and in their There is an email from Grace Wu with HCD talking about Ordinance 1022 and that 1022 does not apply. So can you, Can you clarify that? |
| 00:40:19.60 | Barbara Katz | I wasn't involved with that, so I'm not quite sure how that representation was made |
| 00:40:29.12 | Kristina Feller | Okay, well, maybe as we go on to questions, you can go back and look at that. It's the last attachment in |
| 00:40:35.28 | Barbara Katz | No, I saw the attachment. You know, perhaps the city attorney should advise the Commission on this, but in looking at ordinance number 2010 22, it clearly includes the CC district And it clearly establishes standards for it. There apparently were resolutions and so forth passed later. that said it didn't apply to the CCC district, but that's incorrect. the text of the of the initiative is very clear that includes the CC district. On the other hand, as the staff said, as Kristen said, The standards are the same as those in the CC district. So, the applicant can request. So simply by requesting waivers or concessions for the standards in the CC district, effectively the standards in ordinance number 1022 can be waived. |
| 00:41:41.04 | Kristina Feller | OK. Sergio, did you want to add something to that? |
| 00:41:43.98 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I think the confusion stems from resolution 3407, which the city council passed after the passage of ordinance 1022 to try and clarify. ambiguities and provide the city council's interpretation of the initiative. There is, in the first section, it basically says that it applies to CN, CM, CS, I, CW, and W, but does not affect the CC zoning district. And I think the real crux of this issue is that language does not affect I did go back and compare the legislative history before ordinance 1022 and after ordinance 1022 and basically There wasn't a substantive modification of the land use standards, but Ordinance 1022 does have In table number two, It lists the CC district. in the direct text of the ordinance and in table number two, it's set standards for the CC district. which were also in effect prior to Ordinance 1022, But again, those standards are in ordinance 1022. They require a parcel area per dwelling unit of 1500 square feet. They create a rear setback and side setback when adjacent to any R or H district of 15 rear 10 side 32 foot height limit, 100% building coverage requirement, and one 0.3 max far. So again, those are in ordinance 1022. |
| 00:43:21.90 | Kristina Feller | And just while you're there, I mean, any any consideration for automatic conversion doesn't apply here because this is a new build and not converting an existing commercial use to residential, is that correct? |
| 00:43:37.36 | Sergio Rudin | I'm not sure I understand your question in part because... I'm not aware of any sort of waiver of, standards that would. be allowed just because of a conversion of use. necessarily. |
| 00:43:52.75 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, my point is that I think it has to be an existing building, the usage of the building, rather than a zoning for an open site that that was the question |
| 00:44:09.07 | Kristin Teiche | Do you mean ordinance 1022 only applies to a vacant site? |
| 00:44:13.27 | Kristina Feller | No, I'm not. I'm just commenting on conversion allowances that the state has allowed. I think I'm clear on that. I just wanted... for the avoidance of doubt that on the record. But I will move on. You know, you've referenced a... Um... an entire report that was paid for and prepared by the main opposition group to this project. |
| 00:44:43.22 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:44:43.51 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:44:45.28 | Kristina Feller | And so I'm curious why you felt the need to include that as an attachment and reference directly in the staff report. From what I can tell from reading it, there's nothing necessarily additive to it. And it seems to me the most appropriate place for that would be just this public comment. Can you maybe comment on why that is there? Are you seeing something other than what I see? |
| 00:45:09.26 | Kristin Teiche | That was referenced in our historic discussion, and we applied, we attached everybody's submittals with regard to the historic evaluation of the site, the applicants, the cities, and outside entities who provided some very interesting and well done work. So the city, and it's making its CEQA evaluation, takes a lot of information into account. Another document that we didn't really discuss much is a, a archeological report prepared by the applicant that we also looked at in terms of whether or not other issues regarding the site beyond just the historic structures. So it's a broad range look. and it helps us make a CEQA determination to then to see if an initial study should be done. to ensure that if we don't do any more, that at least we've done our due diligence. |
| 00:46:01.22 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I appreciate that. And then just my last question for the moment, and thank you chair and Commission for indulging me but. you know, when we When we adopted our general plan, which obviously did not include the housing elements specifically, because those are off cycle with one another, we had a citywide EIR that was circulated, commented on, revised, and finally ratified. just wanted to give you a chance to comment like if there was anything in that EIR which is the only current EIR certified for the city that has been recently Just wanted to give you a chance to comment, like if there was anything in that EIR, which is the only current EIR certified for the city that has been recent, Anything specific to this site that we're talking about that needs to be commented on? |
| 00:46:50.34 | Kristin Teiche | It's my understanding that it was evaluated at a density of... 29 units per acre. |
| 00:46:56.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:46:58.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Feller. Commissioner Luxembourg, questions of staff? |
| 00:47:03.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair. Some of my questions have been answered. Tristan, I want to thank you for a thorough presentation, by the way, and a thorough staff report. And I want to thank you for making those minor corrections in the findings section of the proposed resolution, the draft resolution. I do have a question regarding density as it relates to the housing element, which is allowed on this as you presented. So I just want to understand this. In the planning commission had recommended the city council at a joint meeting in January of 2023 And it identified the realistic capacity, as you said, in the presentation of 20 units with eight very low, two low, and two moderate income units. And the density suggested there was 49 units to the acre. And that would be slightly larger than the 20 units, would be the 25 that you indicated in the presentation. And these numbers were part of the 900 odd units that were included in our January 2023 approved housing element, which was done to meet our 724 RHNA number. And my question is this, looking at some of the letters from the applicant, from the appellant, if this site is built with 25 units, and at least eight of those are very low, and two are low, and two are moderate, that from the perspective of HCD, that there is no net loss. There's some stuff in the appellant's letters about there would be net loss, but that at 25 would be more than the than the What we're counting towards arena because we're only counting 20 towards arena So I want to know if that's correct that there would be no net loss from HCD's perspective and actually this would be a City Attorney Rudin a question so City Attorney Rudin if you could come on board for |
| 00:49:09.78 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so no net loss requirements are only going to be triggered if there's a likelihood that due to the approval of a project that and a project would normally need to be proposed at less than the realistic capacity, you know, you would need to consider whether or not the approval of a project at less than the number of units anticipated in the housing element could result in arena shortfall. And so that's not an issue here is what I believe. |
| 00:49:35.53 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:49:35.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so that's not... |
| 00:49:40.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you with that. The other questions I have, I think I'll wait and ask the appellant. |
| 00:49:47.26 | Director Phipps | And Commissioner Luxenberg, if I may just dovetail off of Attorney Rudin's response, our current amended housing element builds in a buffer of units, and that buffer is now in excess of 200. So that's part of the reason why Attorney Rudin doesn't envision a concern associated with no net loss requirements in this case. |
| 00:50:10.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Chair, I'm going to set it this time. |
| 00:50:14.50 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Marlott, any questions for staff? |
| 00:50:20.34 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you. I just had a couple quick clarifying questions. One is for Attorney Coutts, I think, regarding this issue of, for lack of a better word, bundling of waivers and concessions, so asking for a broad waiver of the entire R3 zoning. Is there yet any precedent or guidance from the state about I guess I want to say the level of granularity in what can be considered bundled and unbundled. I'll just give you a quick example that may sound absurd. |
| 00:50:45.72 | Chris Palomo | What? |
| 00:50:50.54 | David Marlatt | If someone needs setback concessions, is that three concessions for the rear, the side, and the front Or, I know we're kind of wading into this, but is there Any guidance on that? These are relatively new. New laws. |
| 00:51:08.53 | Barbara Katz | Um, I haven't seen any guidance on that generally because waivers are unlimited people simply request waivers. And so you don't get into an issue. about whether you're bundling concessions or not. I have not. I have not experienced any other city where someone has claimed, say, one concession for all our three standards. HCD has written hundreds of letters, so there may be one that talks about this, but I'm not aware of it. As I said, what I've observed mostly is that because the waivers are Our unlimited people simply request waivers for those kinds of changes that they may need. |
| 00:52:03.81 | David Marlatt | Thank you. And another question I think for city attorney Rudin, just picking up on the section ordinance 1022 issue. And whether it applies or how it applies to the CC district, understanding that prior to the ordinance 1022 and the CC district requirements are about the same and the applicant can demand, can request waivers to anything in the CC district. Is this issue of whether resolution, sorry, resolution 3407 applies or does not apply? Does that materially change anything, the project? Because they could ask for waivers anyway. I'm just trying to determine whether this is an area we should be really focusing on as a commission. |
| 00:52:50.17 | Sergio Rudin | I think that you have a valid question and that in my assessment, it is unlikely to change anything. You know, Ordinance 1022 created local land use standards, and those local land use standards are subject to modification under density bonus law. So, the issue of the applicability Because I think there is not really a dispute that those same standards are in our municipal codes with respect to the CC zoning district. I don't think that there is really a material difference here. I don't think that it would really modify your decision on the project at the end of the day. when this comes back to you for a hearing and determination. |
| 00:53:35.11 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, those are my questions. |
| 00:53:38.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. of questions. I only had one question. You mentioned that the applicant's historic analysis might have some other details in there that you just mentioned that in passing that might have some conflict. Could you expand on that? |
| 00:53:57.03 | Kristin Teiche | Well, they filed an archaeological investigation report and it created, well, it's conclusions where there's a high probability that could be some kind of archaeological midden or artifacts on the site. The site has been altered quite a bit. But the problem is you don't know until you investigate. |
| 00:54:20.60 | Nastassya Saad | OK, thank you for that. If no other questions from the commission, we'll turn it over. Thank you very much for the presentation. We appreciate all the information. Going to open it up for. the appellant's presentation at this time. I'll ask you to please approach the microphone and state your name. For the record, you will have 15 minutes for your presentation. We'll put the time up on the clock. If we do stop you in the meantime, it will not count against your time. And you are welcome, thank you very much, to reserve some of your time for rebuttal after public comment. That's at your discretion, and you may have as many speakers as you like on your team. And once we're settled, I will turn it over to you. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 00:55:13.30 | Ryan Patterson | Great thank you very much. Commissioners good evening. My name is Ryan Patterson. I'm land use attorney for the applicant appellant. Um, I appreciate your time tonight, and I also appreciate all the time that staff has put into this. It is a great deal of effort reviewing these things and corresponding with state regulators, corresponding with our team, with your own attorneys. And I do want to say hello and thank you to Learning Council, appearing by Zoom, with whom we've handled many projects over the years. This is an important project for the city it's one that there are strong feelings about on both sides. And it's it's a good project, this is fundamentally an important project because it's a density bonus project and it provides a significant amount of housing which the city very much needs. It's 50 units, including 11 below market rate units for families who are not high earners These are the types of folks who are otherwise unable to find housing in Sausalito. Um, as hard as it is for anyone to find housing in Sausalito. This project is mere feet from a major transit stop. It's supported by important environmental groups, including the Sierra Club Marine Group, Uh, the Marin environmental housing collaborative. Yimby Law, the California Housing Defense Fund, the Bay Area Council, And most importantly, many neighbors and merchants. This is a project that is also important because it poses an opportunity for revitalization, which I think many of us here tonight can see the value of. The appeal tonight, as you know, is dealing with staff's determination that the project application is inconsistent with applicable standards. We believe that the state law has changed, and that renders this project compatible, compliant, consistent with those standards, and we'll explain how. Um, there are many issues that were identified and raised in staff's letter, um, They boil down to two major ones that I think warrant the Commission's most attention. And those are first, is the proposed density allowed? And second, will there be an adverse impact on a qualified historic resource? Among the many other ancillary issues, I will pause for a moment to deal with ordinance 1022 since that was raised in some particularity. This is an ordinance that the concurrent resolution at the time it was implemented explicitly stated that the ordinance does not affect the CC district, as did the initiative petition and the proponents own arguments in support of the ballot initiative. City staff also recently confirmed directly to HCD, the state housing and community development department that ordinance 1022 does not apply to this project. and you have a copy of that email from HCD in your packet which we've submitted. to answer the Commissioners question. This is information coming from HCD, uh, telling us what was related to it by city staff. Staff is now telling us that ordinance 1022 does not prevent the project from going forward at the proposed scale. Most importantly, because it is preempted by state law. Again, this is a density bonus project, which will serve to by operation of concessions, incentives, or waivers, we're not bound by those 1022 standards. Perhaps more importantly, under the brand new AB 1893, This project is consistent with the housing element density And therefore... To quote the law, it is consistent for all purposes. meaning that it is deemed consistent with all of the standards, even if Ordinance 1022 did apply. I'm going to trade off with my colleague, Brian O'Neill, so that you don't have to listen to me talk for too long at any one stretch. And I will step back up in a moment. |
| 00:59:28.22 | Brian O'Neill | Good evening, Commissioners. Next slide, please. Before we get into the weeds, I wanna talk about how the commission must approach its review of this project. Housing projects are reviewed differently than other types of projects. They're reviewed under a reasonable person standard. So it's not. whether the staff's position is reasonable. It's not even whether staff's, in your opinion, staff's approach is the best one. The question before the commission is whether the applicant's position is reasonable. And if it is, then it's deemed consistent by law. And this is not about personal opinion. It's about objective standards that are knowable in advance. And we've talked a lot already about ambiguities and under the HAA, Any ambiguity is supposed to be interpreted in a way that favors housing. Staff has bent over backwards to interpret things in a way to prevent this project from moving forward and that's not the appropriate way to review ambiguities next slide. So the staff report claims that this is a 98 unit per acre project. That is not correct. This is a 49 unit per acre project that requests a 100% density bonus. under state law. A density bonus is not a valid reason to find a project inconsistent with density. So this is a 49 unit per acre project with a density bonus. And at the beginning of this process, staff agreed that this project could proceed under 49 unit per acre standard and calculate the density bonus with a 49 unit per acre standard. Under the reasonable person standard, that assertion and that admission alone is enough to find this project consistent with the allowed density. Next slide. The question here is really what is and how do you calculate the maximum residential density? And this seems like a complicated question but. It's really not. How many. units can the applicant build. and the staff concedes The applicant can build 49 units per acre. But staff's position is that for calculating the density bonus, It's not the maximum residential density that you can build in the real world. It's... the density, the lower density, listed in the zoning ordinance. So the maximum residential density is not the maximum residential density, It's the density listed in the zoning ordinance. That does not make sense. The greatest number unit of number, the greatest number of units allowed is the greatest number of units allowed. HCD is relying, or staff is relying on HCD's opinion informal opinion and there's two reasons why that's incorrect. First, HCD's opinion, from the staff person, directly contradicts formal guidance given by HCD, that cities should look at all of their different competing regulatory documents, find the greatest number of units allowed, and calculate residential maximum residential density based on the greatest number of units that you're allowed to build. So there's formal guidance out there from HCD adopting the applicant's position, and that position has also been adopted recently by a court of appeal. And second, this informal opinion came before AB 1893 came into effect. So prior to January 1, it was a little unclear whether an applicant can move forward with the housing element density. But come January 1st, and staff will admit The applicant can build a base project of 49 units per acre. And under state law, the greatest number of units allowed is 49 units per acre. And I want to be clear what staff is recommending that you do. They are recommending that you deny the applicant's request for a density bonus. They keep saying it's a 98 unit per acre project. That's not what it is. It's a 49 unit per acre project with a 100% density bonus. The only way you get to 98 units per acre is to deny the request for a density bonus. And under state law, Denial of a density bonus is judicially reviewable. It's a violation of state law. and the burden is on the city. to convince under a standard that is supposed to be producing the maximum amount of units that your interpretation is correct. Next slide, please. I want to speak really quickly about the other consistency issues. We think that a lot of this is really dependent on the allowed density. So long as you find it consistent with the density, a lot of these other consistency issues are sort of resolved in itself because under state law, it is deemed consistent with those other standards. And as a backup, it is also eligible for waivers, incentives, concessions. Under state law, we don't believe that an applicant needs to request waivers. It is a limitation on the city's ability to impose standards that would physically preclude the development of the project. And I think I'll... be there. Ryan to speak on this equation. |
| 01:05:21.90 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you. Next slide, please. So dealing with historic resource impacts, there are two major categories at issue here. If we can go to slide seven. The first is the density bonus law. The density bonus law only contemplates impacts on listed historic resources. The Sausalito Historic District is included in the California Register, but the project site does not contain structures that are listed in the California Register. The staff report argues that the district's inclusion in the register means that all contributing structures are automatically listed under 14 CCR 4852A5. Staff does not mention, however, that that section addresses historic districts that are nominated and approved by the state historic resources commission through the state nomination process. |
| 01:06:15.02 | Nastassya Saad | I don't want to interrupt you. I just want you to note that you've got four minutes left. Just a time check. |
| 01:06:18.58 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you. I'll plan on reserving two minutes. |
| 01:06:20.83 | Nastassya Saad | Perfect. |
| 01:06:21.53 | Ryan Patterson | Uh, This historic district did not go through the type of nomination process that would render the contributing structures individually listed, the very important distinction. It was instead added for tax purposes under a completely different procedure. I. Under... So the second category here is CEQA. The project qualifies for a class 32 exemption and also an exemption under guidelines section 15183. Class 32, because the project qualifies as an infill project. And while staff argues that reliance on a CEQA exemption at this point does not appear appropriate, the law defines substantial adverse change in the significance of an environmental resource. It's a quoted term. to mean something very specific and very severe. Um, That standard is not met here. The project actually retains the existing two buildings. something I hope the commission takes away from this. The project is keeping the existing buildings. It is not demolishing them. It is not substantially touching them. Uh, and it also includes significant setbacks and step backs, uh, through each level as it gets taller. The city's housing element acknowledges that retaining architectural features of historic structures while allowing additional height and mass to accommodate housing, is a proper method to achieve the city's housing goals while preserving historic resources. The project meets the Secretary of the Interior's standards and therefore does not have the type of impact that would be a problem for CEQA purposes. And I'll leave it to you to view the photos in the presentation at your convenience, which show much larger projects that have been deemed consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards. In particular, if you'd like to turn to slide number nine, you'll see Uh, The types of projects that are consistent can be quite large. This one is much less impactful. |
| 01:08:28.10 | Nastassya Saad | You're at 145. |
| 01:08:28.67 | Ryan Patterson | do. And all reserved. |
| 01:08:30.29 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. I, We need to be. |
| 01:08:33.33 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you. We could stop the clock and I'll reserve you later. It's respectful and quiet in the chamber. |
| 01:08:34.39 | Nastassya Saad | quiet in the chambers. Can we put a minute 50 back on the clock, please? Thank you very much. |
| 01:08:42.46 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Can you, yes. |
| 01:08:43.79 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, please stay here. We're going to have questions of you and your team. Commissioner Luxembourg, I believe you had some questions |
| 01:08:55.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do. Yes. Would you please? We have gotten 1,500 pages of material on this project. So we had a lot to review. So I'm going to get into some of the details because I think details are important. I'm going to start with your questions about affordable units. So unit number 27 is shown on sheet A-102, that's called Project Data, at 642 square feet, and it is three bedrooms. On sheet A-205, unit number 27 is shown as two bedrooms. 642 square feet is typically the size of a small one-bed So is this intended to be a one bedroom or a two bedroom or a three bedroom since you have it labeled both ways? And have you tried to lay this out? Because I looked online at layouts with, you know, different configurations with or without windows. It is very difficult to fit a three-bedroom or a two-bedroom in the 642 Have you laid this out because you don't have any more details in your plans with regard to those of that particular unit? |
| 01:08:57.92 | Chris Sullivan | Bye. |
| 01:10:12.57 | Brian O'Neill | Well, I'm not the architect, but I believe all of the affordable units were proposed as two bedrooms. So perhaps that's a mistake. But I believe all of the affordable units were proposed as two bedrooms. But there's also an issue here of, you know, this is initial submittal. And so as it goes through the process, you know, those floor plans can change, but the fundamentals of the project, which is really, I think, the critical issue here is if we can't get the density allowed THEN, YOU KNOW, THE this project is essentially dead. So there's no reason to, you know, go through great length |
| 01:10:55.28 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to ask that this is the last time I'm going to ask as well. Please, we're having a conversation. It's very difficult to follow. There's a lot of detail here. Please do not clap. Please do not speak. Please step out if you want to have a conversation so we can be efficient and respectful. Thank you. |
| 01:11:12.86 | Brian O'Neill | And so some of those egress things and whether it meets minimum standards for bedrooms and things like that, that's really kind of almost a building permit compliance. issue. So it is envision that the project that the affordable units would all be two bedroom. So, you know, if this project isn't allowed to move forward, then, you know, the more detailed floor plans and things like that would whatever, you know, requirements, building code requirements, egress requirements, etc. to make to ensure that would happen that kind of gets dealt with later in the process. |
| 01:11:51.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're saying that unit 27, there's an error on the project data sheet. If you're not saying they all should be two veterans. |
| 01:12:00.54 | Brian O'Neill | I understood that all of the affordable units were proposed as two bedrooms. |
| 01:12:04.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, because you have a similar problem with unit 15 on sheet AO2. It's at 500, and it's indicated to be three bedrooms on that data sheet, and then it's shown as two bedrooms. So you're saying that would be two bedrooms. A 500, using your reasonable person standard, 500 square feet for a two-bedroom apartment is not reasonable. So are you saying that you would take some of the other units and change them to add square footage? You'd have to double them, put them together, or reconfigure the plans. So you obviously have a bunch of affordable units that make from the reasonable standard no sense. So how would you do this? Would you reduce the number of units? Would you change the configurations? How would you do this? |
| 01:12:58.64 | Brian O'Neill | Well, again, I'm not the project architect, but generally it would have to go through a building code compliance. So if you are able to provide two bedrooms and meet the minimum bedroom requirements under the building code, then it would be a two-bedroom. you now. |
| 01:13:16.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And if you, it doesn't make, obviously a reasonable person doesn't make any sense. So what would you do if you would change them? If you're saying they're all going to be two bedrooms and the square footage is too small, how are you going to reconfigure them to meet the standard? Because that's one of the requirements here, that we have these affordable units. And it's part and parcel of this whole project is the affordable units. If you can't physically design it, then you're going to take away from other units. You're going to make all of the other units smaller. You're going to make all the units smaller. How would you do it? The affordable part of this is a critical aspect of this project. So without the affordable, we're not here. So what are you going to do? Again, reasonable person standard, 500 square feet for a two bedroom makes no sense. So how do you do that? |
| 01:14:10.52 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you for the question. This will go through a full building code and planning standard compliance review process for the plans themselves. Most likely, the north wall of that unit would slide to the north a bit if you're looking at sheet A204. I think there are certainly ways of correcting any errors or artifacts from previous versions of the plans, but we would, of course, ensure that all the units meet required standards. |
| 01:14:36.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You think that you slide the wall? You're saying making the floor floor plan bigger the building bigger the the coverage bigger or you would just slide that wall into one of the other units? |
| 01:14:49.19 | Ryan Patterson | Right, adjusting the wall between two units. So the northern wall of unit 15 would probably shift over a little bit. |
| 01:14:55.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and then one next to it would be smaller then? |
| 01:14:58.62 | Ryan Patterson | It's a much larger unit next door to it. I think. |
| 01:15:00.61 | Kristina Feller | So I think, here at Luxembourg, are you trying to determine, like, if the number of units can actually fit within the envelope that they're talking with this density bonus? Is that what we're trying to get to? |
| 01:15:10.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm trying to figure out a part and parcel of this. They need, they have the 20% affordable units. If the affordable units don't meet standards by a reasonable person, then that's gotta change, which is part of the reason that the standards were denied because they didn't meet the requirements for our affordable units at our code. So that's the question I have there. Let me move on to a couple other questions. |
| 01:15:36.91 | Linda Fodge | I can answer that one question. There are two affordable units right next door to each other. And the 15, unit 15 that you mentioned is written as 500 square feet, but the one next to it, unit 16, is 955 square feet. And they're both affordable units. So that's what he was saying, that that wall would be shifted over. |
| 01:15:37.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:15:37.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:55.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're going to make two 700 square feet two-bedroom units. 700, again, is still a little small for a two-bedroom unit. It's a typical one-bedroom. It's about 600, 700 maybe. |
| 01:16:10.17 | Linda Fodge | According to the housing element when they were putting the square footage for the odds. But there is square footage there that can accommodate all the units. |
| 01:16:16.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. |
| 01:16:23.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, there's no layout, so it would have been helpful in this to have layouts so that we could see how it could work. Let me move on to some other questions. So in your March 18, 2025 letter to the city, it has indicated that you suggested that the facilitating standard for FAR is the PI district. And so are you intending, that's the public institution. Are you intending when this project's done, you're gonna give this to the city to run? You want this to be a public and institutional project? Is that the idea? |
| 01:16:59.78 | Brian O'Neill | So, ABAD 93, that went into effect January 1st. It says that if you are on a housing element site, and you propose a project that is consistent with the housing element, but the local government does not have any standards that would facilitate that number of units. you can essentially search through the whole planning code and pick and choose different standards that would facilitate the density that is proposed. So Right now, the city does not have any standards that are consistent with a 49-unit-per-acre standard. I believe the highest is maybe 29. So as a result of that state law, because there are no standards in place that would facilitate the density allowed under the housing element, you are allowed to pick and choose different standards. So it's not that... the zoning, Not that it would be rezoned public institutional. You are allowed to say, I'm going to take the height standard from the CC district. I'm going to take the setbacks from the R3 district. And I'm going to take the FAR standard from the PI district. put them all together. if they facilitate the density allowed under the housing element. So that was the effort to go through the city's planning code and identify development standards in different districts that would facilitate the density allowed under the housing element. |
| 01:18:45.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But wouldn't a reasonable person, again, that's the way you're billing all of this, determine that public and institutional is not an appropriate zone, but a mixed residential commercial zone, which is what this is, is the reasonable way to proceed. I'm just at a loss of, you know, this makes no logical sense, I guess, is what I'm saying. You're're trying to it was sort of like I heard earlier about concessions that if you added all the concessions together you wouldn't need a limit in them because you just say every it was just not going to have any rules and so it seems like you're saying we don't want to have any rules here we don't want to build to standards. We want to build whatever we want to build rather than when we approved this originally, we thought 20 units, maybe 25 units on this site. That's what was approved in the housing element. That was the concept. But somehow all of a sudden we're going to pick things. I mean, a reasonable person can't say that this is public and institutional and actually there is no, it isn't that there's no standard there, it says it's not applicable. It doesn't say there's no standard. It just says not applicable. |
| 01:19:59.70 | Brian O'Neill | Well, the other option is that there are no standards. There are. |
| 01:20:03.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There are 300s around our code. |
| 01:20:05.98 | Brian O'Neill | So, so it's the new state law. So it is brand new, but that is the process under state law when a local jurisdiction does not have existing zoning that facilitates the density allowed under the housing element and the housing element. by law, you are not allowed to look at density bonus. The 20 units that you're looking at, that is the 20, that is the realistic capacity under the housing element, but then you layer the density bonus on top of that. So that 20 unit number, doesn't take into consideration the density bonus that an applicant is entitled to to provide |
| 01:20:52.74 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:20:56.62 | Brian O'Neill | when they provide additional affordable units. |
| 01:20:59.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If this was rezoned, and it hasn't been yet, and it got rezoned eventually based on the housing element, then you could try to make that argument. But right now the zoning is 29 units to acre, as was explained. You have 16 units is what's allowed. And with a density bonus, in that case you could get a density bonus, you could have 32 units, which might work on this site. And it might work with all the codes and whatever. I mean, aren't you trying to cram something in here that just doesn't work? Well, you are allowed right now. We're talking about a reasonable person standard. That's what you've explained endlessly. when you made your presentation, what is a reasonable person? What's a reasonable person think works for this site? I mean, I don't think a reasonable person thinks what's in this nine thing here, that that's an appropriate thing for the city of Sausalito. A reasonable person in Sausalito will not determine that this was a good thing. thing. |
| 01:21:59.21 | Brian O'Neill | but it's not what a reasonable person in Sausalito would think is a good thing. The standard is a reasonable person. So that project was approved. So there are obviously reasonable people- Excuse me, sir. |
| 01:22:11.99 | Kristina Feller | Excuse me, sir. Sir, just a moment. Audience, the chair has asked several times to keep quiet. I think out of respect for the process that we're trying to get through this evening. I know everyone has strong opinions, but can we please keep that to ourselves while there's a presentation happening? Thank you. |
| 01:22:30.43 | Nastassya Saad | And I don't mean to interrupt you, but may I just, when legal pops up, may I just ask Sergio, did you want to make a comment? |
| 01:22:39.39 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, no, I did want to sort of interject in this reasonable person discussion, You know, the question The reasonable person standard is for the purpose of determining compliance with an objective standard, right? So it, It's not related to what are the objective standards that apply to the project. the reasonable person standard is what is used to say, well, if we have a 32-foot height limit, would a reasonable person find that the project is under the height limit if it's 35 feet? Right? that That is sort of the reasonable person standard as it applies to this particular discussion. Ultimately, The Planning Commission... the planning commission right now is being tasked with, Did staff apply or find the appropriate standards that apply to this project based on the housing element, the general plan, the zoning. And if not, then the appeal should be overturned. I understand also that the applicants are now arguing based on changes in state law that they get to pick different standards. which of course, when staff made their determination back in November and December of last year, those arguments were not in effect and were not evaluated by staff. |
| 01:23:57.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I have one last question. Basically, I'm the reasonable person. So if you were to build it, as shown in the plans, and we can fix all the problems with the affordable units and all that other kind of thing, and you're built into 50 units, and somebody, a reasonable person, would calculate What is the density on the project? Wouldn't it be 98 units to the acre? That's the actual density. All the semantics and other stuff you were trying to whatever, if you built it as is and somebody said, what is the density on that particular property? Isn't it 98 units to the acre? Am I missing something? |
| 01:24:39.56 | Brian O'Neill | I mean, I understand intuitively what you're trying to say. These are the requirements of state law. So I'm not trying to argue semantics. I'm trying to explain how the state law works. And so under state law, when you calculate the density, You do not calculate. the density bonus units. So that, I mean, I understand why it's not intuitive, And maybe you think that Thank you. The state legislature are unreasonable people, but that is the way that the law works. |
| 01:25:13.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But when the sheet says it's 98 units to the acre, it is 98 units to the acre. You would agree that forgetting all the legal, all that kind of stuff, a reasonable person looks at and calculates the math, and that's just simple math. It's 98 units to the acre. That would be the density of the site when it's finally built. After it's built and it's opened and somebody said, what's the density on that site? It would be, you would agree that it would be 98 units to the acre. |
| 01:25:40.97 | Brian O'Neill | Sure, actual density versus legal density. |
| 01:25:43.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I'm back to the chair. Thanks. |
| 01:25:47.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg. Commissioner Marlott, any questions for the appellant? Uh, |
| 01:25:54.03 | David Marlatt | A couple of questions. Yes, thank you. Chair, coming back to the affordable units, what is the total area of the 20% affordable units as a percentage of the total project? So in other words, is not, is our 20% of the total floor area of the building dedicated to the 20% affordable units? |
| 01:26:17.60 | Brian O'Neill | I do not know that offhand. I mean, there's also commercial- |
| 01:26:21.01 | David Marlatt | Just roughly, just approximately, because one thing we noticed is that these so called affordable units, they might be affordable, are listed as two bedrooms, but some of them are maybe four times, maybe five times smaller. I haven't done the exact math than the market rate units. Is that correct? Is that fair? |
| 01:26:37.31 | Brian O'Neill | Thank you. |
| 01:26:37.35 | Chris Palomo | B. |
| 01:26:41.99 | Brian O'Neill | I believe there is at least one four bedroom market rate unit that is significantly larger than some of the other units. But again, I think, you know, If this project were approved, you can approve it with a condition that there are, that all of the affordable units are two bedroom units. And if the applicant is not able to achieve that, then they would not be able to move forward with the project. If it required some sort of amendment, then it would have to come. |
| 01:27:15.38 | David Marlatt | I think. Right. |
| 01:27:19.38 | Brian O'Neill | But we're not here. |
| 01:27:19.45 | David Marlatt | But we're not here to approve or disapprove the project. We're here to evaluate whether staff's letters of inconsistency are supported by what they had in hand, whether that was a reasonable thing, but with the reasonable person could read their letters and say, yeah, the project as presented |
| 01:27:22.55 | Chris Palomo | Thank you. evaluate whether staff's letters are |
| 01:27:38.62 | David Marlatt | It had these issues, these open issues. A second question related to also the affordability, and this is coming from your letter of November 27 and related to the location, the relative location of the units within the building. Thank you. the spirit of the state law, the Fair Housing Act, with that respect is that there should not be a ghetto, for lack of a better word, of the affordable units. But the affordable units in your proposal generally speaking, are towards the rear of the property, facing without major views, maybe you think there's one exception. intention then that you are in compliance with the health and safety code section because you're relying on the word A to a specific floor or on a specific floor because you've distributed this on two or maybe three floors. In other words, if you had a 30 story building, |
| 01:28:32.18 | Chris Palomo | I'm going to say, |
| 01:28:34.34 | David Marlatt | and all of the affordable units were in the basement and the first floor. Would you consider that to be compliant with the health and safety code section that was referenced? |
| 01:28:39.40 | Chris Palomo | Thank you. |
| 01:28:39.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:28:39.50 | Chris Palomo | that you're doing. |
| 01:28:45.06 | Brian O'Neill | So under the health and safety code, I mean, it's called the poor door law. The poor door law. So it was specifically in reference to when you isolate all of the units in one specific location that does not have access to the same amenities as the rest of the building. And so you have all of the affordable units would be closed off and separated completely. And the residents of those units would have to go through a different door to access those units. And that's not what's proposed here. As you noted, they are spread out over several different floors, and they have the same access to all of the same amenities and entrance points as the rest of the market rate units. So, yes, we do believe that it complies with the Health and Safety Code. |
| 01:29:44.94 | David Marlatt | So, okay, so just switching gears a little bit, coming to this 49 units per acre issue and whether it's been adopted, obviously our zoning codes have not been fully adopted. So what constitutes a regulating document? You'd mentioned that David Myers, The your designers could rely on staff opinion because a reasonable person would use this 49 acres as a regulating document is anything a regulating document because clearly the 49 units an acre are not adopted in our current zoning ordinance. |
| 01:30:18.44 | Brian O'Neill | Right. So the operative... way to think about it, I think, is does this standard actually apply? Can you use it? |
| 01:30:31.82 | David Marlatt | But I'm asking another question. Why is it a standard? I understand it's a project. I understand the housing element. We're going through the sixth cycle. Current EIR supports 29 units an acre, I believe. what And the case law that you cited didn't specifically say anything about housing elements, it just said, you know, regulating docs should be the most generous, I guess, for lack of another word. Thank you. |
| 01:30:56.46 | Andrew Junius | Right. |
| 01:30:56.61 | David Marlatt | David Myers D' What, where does this cross the line to become a so called regulating document that should take precedence over the actual implemented regulations and codes by the city. |
| 01:31:10.92 | Brian O'Neill | I appreciate the question. . Thank you. So, When it crosses that line, is when an applicant can actually So they rely on it. And if you ask staff, Can the applicant build a 49 unit per acre project right now, They will tell you yes. And so that crosses the line. |
| 01:31:31.68 | Chris Palomo | Thank you. |
| 01:31:31.73 | Chris Sullivan | Okay. Yeah. |
| 01:31:34.14 | Brian O'Neill | to become a regulatory document when an applicant can rely on that standard. |
| 01:31:40.74 | David Marlatt | I may have some questions for city attorney as to the legal foundation of saying when staff makes, I mean, maybe not, maybe it's in discussion, sorry, but you know, |
| 01:31:44.86 | Brian O'Neill | foundation |
| 01:31:51.52 | David Marlatt | I understand somebody on staff a year ago or so may have said what they said. I don't position the question that. But I don't know that that necessarily constitutes a regulatory document if a staff member says, perhaps in all good faith, but incorrectly, that a certain standard applies. |
| 01:32:11.60 | Brian O'Neill | I THINK I'M GOING TO BE So if you read the staff report carefully, The staff report says, that you can build a 49 unit per acre project. but you can't calculate the density bonus on the 49 unit per acre standard. So in my, I don't understand it either. But, The staff's position is the base project can be a 49-unit-per-acre project. but, You calculate the base density. off of a 29 unit per acre standard. So, I mean, I would welcome, you know, Sergio's opinion on whether the applicant could move forward with a 49 unit per acre standard. Absent the density bonus, can you build a 49 unit per acre project? |
| 01:33:08.54 | Sergio Rudin | So I'll answer Commissioner Marlatt's question first, which is, if staff state something incorrectly, and it substantively modifies a development standard, I don't think the Planning Commission or the city is bound by that. It's unfortunate. It is costly for applicants. It is bad public service, but it doesn't prohibit the city from changing its mind. |
| 01:33:31.48 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 01:33:31.91 | Sergio Rudin | Um, And so... In answer to the comment about can the project be Can the applicant propose a 49 dwelling unit. per acre project under the existing housing element designation. And, I think the answer to that is under the Housing Accountability Act, there are specific provisions that talk about if you are proposing a project for very low, low or moderate income households as defined in the Housing Accountability Act. So if you meet the criteria in the Housing Accountability Act, a city cannot deny a project that is proposed at a density that is consistent with the housing element. There is questions very clearly about And the applicant's position appears to be that they're entitled to take that designation in the housing element and then seek a density bonus on top of that. and that the city can't deny it without making the findings that are required by density bonus law. Now, I'm not aware that the city has evaluated whether or not the applicant's entitled to a grant of a density bonus at this stage, and I'm not even aware that the city's obligated to make that determination. So. |
| 01:34:49.18 | Sergio Rudin | And this is something that I'd be curious about, both in terms of the applicant's position and also the staff team's interpretation of this. But under subdivision J, you know, the, J2 specifically. You know, if a local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, not in conformity with an applicable plan, policy ordinance standard or requirement. or similar provision specified in the subdivision. It has to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions and an explanation of reasons Within 30 days of the application being deemed complete, for a project of 150 or fewer units. There's also a provision that states that for the purposes of the section, the receipt of a density bonus incentive, concession, or waiver reduction in development standards pursuant to 65915, which is density bonus law, shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent non-compliance or non-conformity. |
| 01:35:48.89 | Chris Palomo | Thank you. |
| 01:35:49.97 | Sergio Rudin | Um, Now I'm not aware of any public agency processing or considering the grant of a density bonus outside of the process of approval. Typically it's the decision maker that gets to decide whether or not a density bonus is granted. rather than staff, so I am curious Does the applicant think that they are entitled to a determination on the density bonus issue now as part this appeal. |
| 01:36:19.25 | Brian O'Neill | Correct. The notice of inconsistency says you are not allowed a density bonus. on a 49-unit acre per standard. It's kind of hard to read that other than a denial of the requested density bonus. |
| 01:36:36.34 | David Marlatt | Okay. Those are my questions for now, Chair. Thank you very much. |
| 01:36:40.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Marlott. And I just want to remind the Commission, we don't have a project before us. We're not approving a project or denying one. So I want to avoid any form of design review, even though one of the things before us is about affordability and location and size. just to avoid that conversation. Commissioner Feller, |
| 01:37:06.63 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation. I want to just make a quick note to the public that this handout that we received is actually just a copy of what's already attached to the agenda, which is called applicants' presentation. So there's no additional information here that is not attached to the agenda. So you're aware of that. I think actually Commissioner Marlott really uncovered one of the most important or basic questions here about the density bonus. And, you know, I've looked through, you know, attachment four and five and three, you know, this back and forth with the letters of inconsistency. And so I think that's really a critical part of this. The other thing I still want to get to the bottom of is 1022, because there seems to be conflicting information. And I want some clarification. if this particular application. is dynamic in nature. in that any subsequent clarifications out of the state or any new or revised amendments to assembly bills or Senate bills or whatever it might be, can actually be applied in a dynamic process for this project. And I'd like your answer, but I'd also like our city attorney response to that. |
| 01:38:33.20 | Brian O'Neill | As in if a new state law came into effect, would it impact this project? |
| 01:38:38.14 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, for instance, one of the previous discussions, I think, in fact, Commissioner Luxembourg might have spawned this particular line of questioning, which was a good one, is that subsequent to your submissions and these letters of inconsistency back and forth, you're now seeing that new state laws or subsequent information coming from Sacramento if applied to this project now or your application your clients application now would assist this project moving forward. I believe that that is what you stated. And I want to understand your response. If you, believe that. you can apply subsequent determinations from the state to an application that was made in essence last year. |
| 01:39:27.84 | Brian O'Neill | Appreciate the question. So our position was that the 49 unit per acre standard, we could have tapped into that prior to January 1st. The January 1st AB 1893 made it abundantly clear that you can proceed under the housing element density. Thank you. |
| 01:39:46.07 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 01:39:46.59 | Brian O'Neill | And we believe one of the intent was to clarify that issue. And and under state law unless there is a specific provision that says it would not apply. to pending projects or approved projects. You know, there has been a suggestion that a preliminary application locks in the state standards in effect. That's not the way it's written, only The preliminary application only locks in local policies that are the policies of the local agency. So nothing would prevent the applicant from from being entitled to new protections under the state law, or if the state law changed the other way. And |
| 01:40:32.32 | Kristina Feller | Right. So you're not you, in essence, are saying forget the underlying zoning that's in place right now. You're using a certified housing element that the state certified that Sausalito submitted. as your base zoning. Is that correct? |
| 01:40:48.60 | Brian O'Neill | Correct. |
| 01:40:49.35 | Kristina Feller | Okay. If City Attorney Rudin can just maybe pop up on the screen again. |
| 01:40:57.87 | Unknown | Hi. Hi. |
| 01:40:59.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So I just I want to I want to understand if if if that's your position as well. |
| 01:41:07.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:41:07.64 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I mean, I... And again, I think that there has been no clear court decision on this one way or another, but the general approach that is taken by most land use attorneys. And the assumption is that when the state does pass new legislation that applicants who are you know, potentially benefited by that application can go ahead and leverage. Uh, you know, and, As a practical matter, nothing has changed. for the city between you know, December 31st and January 1st, the housing element designation Remains the same. The applicable ANU standards remain the same. I see no reason why this particular applicant could not try to leverage changes in state law that went into effect this January for this particular project. |
| 01:42:04.48 | Kristina Feller | So based on that, would that change any of your analyses in this staff report? |
| 01:42:13.01 | Unknown | I did not draft the staff report. |
| 01:42:15.43 | Kristina Feller | Oh, okay. Yeah. |
| 01:42:16.79 | Unknown | Um, |
| 01:42:24.54 | Kristina Feller | Are you looking something up or should I go on with questions? |
| 01:42:28.34 | Sergio Rudin | I think you should go on with questions. I'm going to continue looking at something. |
| 01:42:33.31 | Kristina Feller | So let me move on with another question. Because in your PowerPoint presentation, and this is specific to the structures on the applicant's property being on the California Register. Can you speak a little bit more to that? Because there's also a conflict between some of the research and findings and obviously some of these registers that anyone can see online. So can you just speak to that? |
| 01:43:11.13 | Brian O'Neill | Sure. So there's the Chris and the bird So those are essentially online databases that the, Under state law, the state historic preservation officer is required to provide a database of all historic resources that have been evaluated. |
| 01:43:32.77 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:43:33.57 | Brian O'Neill | That is not the same thing as the California Register. There is no, like, you go to the library and look it up and there is a register. So there's the state database, which is created in a completely separate state law provision, and then there is the register. So as confusing as it is, the online database that says, you know, this is the registry of historic resources is not the California Register. And so under state law, there are essentially three categories of mandatory you are on the register if you meet these qualifications. And then there is the fourth one that has to go through the State Historic Resources Preservation Commission. And they get to determine when something is nominated, whether it's on the register or not. |
| 01:44:03.38 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:44:03.73 | Chris Palomo | Thank you. |
| 01:44:14.56 | Andrew Junius | Mm. |
| 01:44:23.24 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:44:33.09 | Brian O'Neill | And so the Sausalito Historic District never went through that nomination process. So the regulations that staff is looking at is looking at what happens. to a historic district when the historic district is approved by the State Historic Resources Commission. All of the contributors are on the register. but that's not what happened here. The historic district in Sausalito is on the register by virtue of being determined eligible for the national register. |
| 01:45:09.78 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 01:45:10.07 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 01:45:10.81 | Brian O'Neill | And under federal regulations, when a local historic district is determined eligible for the federal register, They are not making determinations on individual structures within that district. They are only nominating the district. |
| 01:45:26.52 | Chris Palomo | Thank you. |
| 01:45:29.25 | Brian O'Neill | Mm-hmm. And so these buildings were not determined eligible for the National Register. |
| 01:45:35.56 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:45:35.90 | Brian O'Neill | which is one of the ways you get mandatory listed on the register. |
| 01:45:38.97 | Andrew Junius | Sure. |
| 01:45:41.28 | Brian O'Neill | We have not seen any evidence that the Sausalito District or these properties went through the state process. It's only on the California Register through the federal process. But, you know. |
| 01:45:55.26 | Kristina Feller | But you recognize that this site and these buildings are within a designated historic district. |
| 01:46:04.47 | Brian O'Neill | Yes, correct. And they are listed as contributors. Yes. This is, it's mostly critical for the density bonus law, which we tried to talk about a little bit. The incentives, concessions, and waivers, |
| 01:46:08.76 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:46:09.06 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:46:23.27 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:46:24.05 | Brian O'Neill | one of the valid reasons to deny a incentive concession and waiver is for adverse impact to a property that is listed on the historic register. |
| 01:46:35.18 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 01:46:35.42 | Brian O'Neill | Thank you. |
| 01:46:35.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:46:35.45 | Brian O'Neill | Thank you. And so, We believe that it's an important distinction between individually listed and a contributor within a district, and the district has been listed. And I will note that the city has previously adopted EIRs and historic resource evaluations saying that contributors are not listed on the California budget. |
| 01:46:48.70 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:47:03.15 | Kristina Feller | Right, but your client, the applicant, has gone out of their way to maintain those buildings that we're talking about and those facades. So clearly That's an important aspect to this development. I assume that's for the historic context. Is that correct? |
| 01:47:25.07 | Brian O'Neill | Yes. And I mean, despite some assertions by, you know, folks, This project was designed to fit in with the community, and that's an important aspect of it. The applicant, you know, lives in the community, and it's an important part, and wants to retain that character. And why stepping back is also important. because when you're walking down the sidewalk, next to the building. all you will really see, you'll get the feel of the original buildings and the original facade. |
| 01:48:05.09 | Kristina Feller | That's great. |
| 01:48:06.01 | Brian O'Neill | you know, it's an important aspect of the practice. |
| 01:48:08.35 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:48:11.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Feller, Vice Chair. |
| 01:48:14.10 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. I'm going to just follow right along on Commissioner Feller's excellent questions about the CEQA issues the listing issue. So I appreciate the very end of that discussion. So it's critical, the critical question as to whether it's registered or not, is really about the density bonus. But even if you don't win that argument, or if the decision is made that you're not on the list, on that appropriate list, to the statement you just made, you're preserving significant parts of the building. You could still make the argument that you're not demolishing it. And so that's still part of the, argument going forward. |
| 01:48:51.82 | Brian O'Neill | Yeah. In addition, we believe that it meets the secretary's standards. And so even if it is listed, we believe that by definition, a project that meets the secretary's standards is. does not cause an adverse impact on the district. for the buildings. |
| 01:49:11.99 | Andrew Junius | I would agree with that. But one of the other things, I'm also curious, so at this point, you're clearly moving ahead with a request for a class 32 exemption, an infill exemption, so you've left behind the SB 35 process, there's no ministerial issue here, you're gonna be in the sequel world. |
| 01:49:21.59 | Chris Palomo | in. |
| 01:49:31.49 | Brian O'Neill | Unless there is a change to state law that would provide for an exemption. There is an exempt. I mean, right now there is a potential exemption for any urban infill close to transit. So this would potentially, you know, if that does eventually pass, then yes, we would seek that specific exemption. |
| 01:49:57.84 | Andrew Junius | Got it. Thank you. But now that we're, and I'm gonna actually get back to some of the density questions, which are very interesting, probably not solvable tonight, but very interesting. Just to finish up the so once we enter the sequel world on this half of the project It's pretty clear that we're in into the subjective world that we've been dealing with in land use law for the last 40 years with sequel Right No, we're not talking about objective. standards anymore. We're looking at the the Secretary of Interior Standards that's got 10 of the most subjective criteria you could ever come up with. Right. |
| 01:50:31.99 | Brian O'Neill | I think it's a little bit more nuanced than that. |
| 01:50:35.06 | Andrew Junius | But they're all subjective. |
| 01:50:35.16 | Brian O'Neill | there, but I mean, they are subjective and it's, you know, you can review it under those subjective standards or evaluate it under those subjective standards. But when it comes to making a decision, I believe that if you are doing a, say, mitigation measure, or taking a final action on the project itself, then it would be limited to the objective and specific criteria. So you can evaluate subjective. criteria, but when it comes to decision making, The decision has to be based on objective criteria. |
| 01:51:17.05 | Andrew Junius | me. I'm not sure I agree with that, but okay. I mean, honestly, from a CEQA standpoint, when you look at, I think the main difficulty you're going to have here is standard number nine, which basically speaks to the differentiated part, no problem, but it'll be compatible with the feature size and scale and proportion and massing. to the protect to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. I mean, that's obviously what you're staring down. I mean, you've done it, your consultant's done a nice job arguing in favor of the project. I appreciate those arguments. Different opinion on the other side of the fence for the city. So just I think that's where we are. Back to the density question though, this is kind of a lawyer's dream, right? It just never seems to end, we can go in circles. |
| 01:52:08.95 | Chris Palomo | Thank you. |
| 01:52:09.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:09.06 | Chris Palomo | So, |
| 01:52:10.19 | Andrew Junius | Um, I guess I'm still curious though where you come down specifically. page four of the staff report where You know right after the set this sentence that says the issue is whether a density bonus may be added to the density shown in the housing element. That's clearly the issue. 100 percent i know exactly what you're looking for here and the city's position the staff's position at this point focuses on government code section 6591506 which in relevant part says the maximum allowable density is defined as the greatest number of units allowed under the zoning ordinance comma Here we go. which in relevant part says the maximum allowable density is defined as the greatest number of units allowed under the zoning ordinance, comma, specific plan, comma, or land use element of the general plan. Et cetera. Now, admittedly, it seemed, you know, I guess the issue is how do you argue against that? Because the term housing element is not included in that section of the density bonus statute. |
| 01:53:10.68 | Brian O'Neill | Right, so it is the greatest number of units allowed So it depends on which one you focus on. And greatest number of units allowed under zoning ordinance, land use specific plan, land use element applicable to the project, right? So it's the greatest number of units allowed applicable to the project under the current zoning and land use element. And again, and I think this goes to, Thank you. the HCD letter and the recent case law that says... what was the legislature trying to get at here? Because it's been amended, that one sentence has been amended like four or five times. And so what is the intent of that provision? And, under HCDE guidance, says, look at all your regulatory plans. What is the applicable... standard, right? So greatest number of units allowed under land use elements. zoning. applicable to the project. It's a matter of what you focus on. And again, when you're looking at the density bonus law, What are you supposed to be doing? You're supposed to be interpreting it liberally in a way that maximizes the number of units. HCD has done that. And the courts have done that, and they've looked at other documents. specifically redevelopment plans. coastal plans, there's all sorts of other plans out there that are not each one individually listed. But. The intent of the provision is What's the greatest number of units you can get? |
| 01:55:07.59 | Andrew Junius | Okay, I appreciate that. And then my final question is, I'm still really curious, because I didn't really, you know, there's a lot of materials here. I didn't look, nor am I going to look at your original application or any of the, you know, those documents. I'm just really curious, why aren't you seeking any waivers? for the project initially. |
| 01:55:27.23 | Brian O'Neill | So... Again, I think I see it a little bit differently that we do not specifically need to request waivers. It's a limitation on what standards the city can apply. But we and again, it sort of depends on how this shakes out, how many waivers, incentives, concessions. concessions, but I mean, it's possible that we could qualify for additional waivers. But without getting past this density issue, First. Like if we can't get the density, there's no project. So, there's a lot of kind of back and forth about all of these, you know, setbacks and things like that. But the fundamental... really boil it down to if we can't get the density, then why are we fighting all of these other side issues. And again, I think AB 1893 sort of also changes the calculus now. |
| 01:56:31.04 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, understood. That is a very fair point, and the density issue really is the center of this whole discussion tonight for the most part. I mean, I'm just still kind of curious. you didn't really know you had a density problem when you submitted the application, right? I mean, in general, I guess I |
| 01:56:55.54 | Brian O'Neill | that, that, That goes back again to the conversations between the applicant and staff at the time. |
| 01:57:00.60 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 01:57:00.91 | Brian O'Neill | So staff said, Yeah, you can do a 49 unit per acre project. So design a 49 unit per acre project with a density budget. |
| 01:57:07.76 | Andrew Junius | Right. Okay. But again, so that kind of goes to my point, though. At that moment in time, I would have thought you'd have been like, great. Here's the project and here are the waivers we need. need. Because I mean, some of this, frankly, it just seems to me to be silly to be arguing about, you know, 1022 when you could just get every every standard there waived under density bonus, full stop and just move on. I'm just kind of confused as to why. But you didn't do that. |
| 01:57:29.41 | Brian O'Neill | Thank you. because when we submitted the application. the first incompleteness. letter flagged this issue and said, essentially, you can't do this project unless you get a rezoning and general plan amendment. And so you need to submit a general plan and rezoning application. So from the very first submittal, staff made this determination that they would no longer be able to do a 49 unit per acre project with a density bonus. So it was after several iterations when we finally got a complete application, this issue was already already raised. Thank you. |
| 01:58:10.01 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you. |
| 01:58:10.13 | Andrew Junius | interested. |
| 01:58:10.35 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you. May I add one comment to that? The project is entitled to the consent. that are requested, but arguing in the alternative, if it were not, it would be eligible for waivers of the standards that staff says are not met. But the way that the law is written is, It is not up to the applicant to identify the waivers required and request them. It is phrased the opposite way as a restriction on the city's ability to apply certain standards. The city is required to waive those standards. So cities often do request that an applicant list waivers that are requested, but that's not actually required. It's just we're entitled to concessions. And if we weren't, the city cannot apply those standards anyway, it must waive them. |
| 01:58:56.77 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. That's all my questions. |
| 01:58:59.51 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you. |
| 01:59:00.23 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. I just had one follow on, because you've made the comment a few times, but it hadn't expanded. If you don't get the density, the project essentially dies. Could you just expand on that for the record on why that is the case? |
| 01:59:17.33 | Brian O'Neill | because in order to retain construction costs are, uh, large and in order to But particularly this is a difficult property because it's split zoned. So half of it is R3 and half of it is CC. You need to tap into the density bonus to make the project work financially. And so in order to construct a viable project, you then have to tap into the density bonus law, which means you have to provide affordable units, which are... are costly. So the only way to offset the cost, which is the whole purpose of the density bonus slot to begin with, to offset the cost of providing those affordable units, you need additional market rate units. So that's sort of the successive reasons why the density is critical to the project because of the split zoning and the current zoning standards. That's basically why. |
| 02:00:19.83 | Nastassya Saad | Could any of that be achieved with the 49 dwelling units per acre if you were at 49 with your affordable units? Is that not a viable project in your client's opinion? |
| 02:00:35.46 | Brian O'Neill | to do that. |
| 02:00:35.80 | Nastassya Saad | and just, |
| 02:00:36.03 | Brian O'Neill | just a, uh, |
| 02:00:37.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:00:37.03 | Brian O'Neill | space. |
| 02:00:37.97 | Nastassya Saad | THE END OF |
| 02:00:38.04 | Brian O'Neill | That's the base. No, because again, I think, so the city zoning code is fairly restrictive, right? So there are, the height limit is small. We want to retain the existing commercial. And there's setback requirements, et cetera. We need to be able to tap in to the incentives, concessions, and waivers that are allowed. So in order to do that, you need to provide affordable units. So then you're taking that that 49 unit per acre standard which is what it's 16 units maybe. And then providing affordable within those 16. And there's not enough market rate units to offset the cost of providing the affordable units for the rest of it. And I, I mean, |
| 02:01:17.73 | Sophia Collier | Maybe. |
| 02:01:35.97 | Brian O'Neill | The applicant also wants to provide a significant amount of housing and thinks that housing is an important issue for the city. And without providing without maximizing and the housing element. to actually meet your arena. Not all of those projects are going to be built in the next eight years. So we think that this project is critical to you actually meeting your RHNA goals and meeting the requirements of state law. |
| 02:02:12.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:02:12.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Can I ask a follow-on question to that? Are you saying that Curtin Zone allows you to build 16 units, it allows you a density bonus to 32 units if you provide the 20% affordable. Are you saying that beyond philosophical arena, other projects are not really this project's concern. You can have that concern. But are you saying that you can't make a pro formal work at all under any circumstances for 32 units with with concessions and whatever i mean are you you're making a flat that the project can't be built period at 32 units |
| 02:02:14.75 | Nastassya Saad | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:02:14.94 | Brian O'Neill | Thank you. |
| 02:02:15.04 | Nastassya Saad | to the |
| 02:02:34.66 | Chris Palomo | Yeah. |
| 02:02:54.31 | Brian O'Neill | I believe it would be very difficult, yes. |
| 02:02:56.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | difficult is different than you said, it's dead. Is it literally dead? Or if we uphold this appeal, then later you come back with, oh, well, now we'll do it. Are you saying it's dead? I just want to know if it's dead. |
| 02:03:13.26 | Linda Fodge | It would be dead. You can't afford to do it. I'm sorry, Linda Fodge. I'm the owner of the project. Yeah, it would not be viable. |
| 02:03:14.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:03:21.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | not be able to do it. I said... Um, And that's related to the current economy, and if the economy changes and construction costs come down, it might be affordable. |
| 02:03:34.53 | Linda Fodge | that's what we're doing. |
| 02:03:34.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:03:34.75 | Linda Fodge | I don't think construction costs have ever come down, have they? It's a very expensive project. It would not pencil. It would not be viable. |
| 02:03:36.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:03:36.12 | Andrew Junius | have never come down, have they? |
| 02:03:38.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:03:44.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But you ran numbers for. |
| 02:03:46.94 | Linda Fodge | I've run numbers since it was 4% interest rates. Yes, I've run numbers multiple, multiple times. |
| 02:03:52.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | For how many units? Have you different options? Because obviously, if you're only building 32 units, the construction cost is a lot less because there's a lot less to build. |
| 02:03:54.06 | Linda Fodge | Um, |
| 02:03:58.23 | Linda Fodge | within the Senate. I mean, it's a very expensive project to build. It's very expensive. The base, the steel and cement base for parking, it's just very expensive. You would not pencil. |
| 02:04:16.60 | Nastassya Saad | I think. the question's been answered thank you thank you commissioner um can i just make a comment uh yes absolutely commissioner feller |
| 02:04:21.75 | Kristina Feller | Can I just make a comment? Thank you, Chair. I just want to be clear that this commission does not weigh financial implications in its decisions. So even though it's kind of interesting to know these things, it is not part of our determination that we make on this dais. |
| 02:04:41.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Thank you very much. I know it's been a lot of your time. We will now open this up for public comment. Just a reminder, you will have a minute and 50 of time reserved after public comment for rebuttal. I am going to turn now to director vips and we're going to have two minutes of public comment, just because we have a lot to get through. I do want to note as of. 20 minutes before this meeting, I counted about 118 public comments on the record. I would like to thank the public for everything that they've written in it's all filed it's on the public record everyone on the dais here has has read it so we appreciate it everyone on zoom and in the chambers will have a chance to speak. For two minutes each when you approach the podium if you could please state your name and address for the record that would be great director Phipps. |
| 02:05:37.01 | Director Phipps | Thank you for that, Chair, and I will call the first public commenter, and that is John Pitlack. |
| 02:05:47.51 | Director Phipps | John going once. Okay. On to the next one. Sophia Collier. Ms. Collier, welcome. You will have two minutes to speak. |
| 02:06:01.60 | Sophia Collier | Hi, it's Sophia Collier from Bulkeley Avenue and from Save our Sassolito. And I urge you to deny the appeal. The city properly found the proposed project to be inconsistent with our code and objective and development standards. That finding was based on thorough analysis and is fully supported by state law and guidance from HCD. The project violates multiple objective standards, density, height, setback, floor area, and claims waivers to which is concessions to which is not entitled. The documented impacts on two historic buildings listed are severe. Multiple preservation experts have found the project fails. to comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation and will damage or even destroy the historic district. For the applicant to now assert it was unaware of the building's historic statics is simply not credible. especially given the applicant has previously appeared before the Historic Preservation Commission on multiple occasions regarding this project. This project is not exempt from CEQA. The staff did their job. They followed the law, and I respectfully ask for you to uphold the determinations and deny the appeal. Thank you. |
| 02:07:17.66 | Director Phipps | Ms. Collier, thank you for your comments. Thank you for being here this evening. Next speaker is Richard Drury. Richard. Welcome. Please step forward. You'll have two minutes to speak. |
| 02:07:30.36 | Richard Drury | Thank you my name is Richard Drury from the law firm Lozo Drury representing save our sauce Alito. First off I'd like to urge the Commission to adopt the proposed staff resolution. We think they've done an excellent job here and on the issues we agree the project simply does not comply with the land use element of the general plan or the zoning. It's inconsistent. The zoning allows 29 units per acre, which would be about 16 units on the site. Also, sequel review is required under sequel section 21084 subsection E exemption is not allowed for any project that may have any significant adverse impact on a historical resource. This clearly does. There are four expert reports that provide ample substantial evidence that this project will adversely affect the historic buildings on site and also the entire historic district risks losing its historic status. That's an essential element of the city of Sausalito. People come from all over the world to see this historic district. This project could literally destroy its historic status. That requires CEQA review. on the density bonus law for the same reasons this project should be entitled to no concessions or waivers at all because under the density bonus law it says that no concessions should be granted if the project quote would have a specific adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources. That's 65915 sub D and E. So nor neither concessions nor waivers may be allowed for this project, which means it's a maximum of 16 units and a maximum of 32 feet Period. That project can be built, and it should be built, but the project that's before you today would be an atrocity. It would destroy the heart of Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 02:09:29.16 | Director Phipps | Mr. Drury, thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Jan Johnson. |
| 02:09:36.45 | Director Phipps | Jan, come on down. Welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 02:09:42.43 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. If the historic Takchi Marin Fruit Company building isn't historic, then I don't know what is. Takchi fed Sausalito through the Depression and even has the park named after him. However, please don't allow anything higher than 32 feet to be built on this site. A higher building will destroy the historic character of the area. It will destroy the charm of the area and the tourist draw and its taxoledos tax revenues. It will harm the unique flora and fauna of the hill. It will deprive bridgeway of sunlight and make the area colder, both in temperature, character, and charm. Miami Beach height is historic district killing. I call this thing the beached Queen Mary. It's, no offense to the planners, absolutely hideous, and it will destroy the historic district and its tourist draw. Thank you. |
| 02:10:39.72 | Director Phipps | Ms. Johnson, thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Matthew. Hi, NERC. Apologies for butchering the name. Welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 02:10:51.01 | Matthew Heimark | Hello, commissioners. My name is Matthew Heimark. I live on Berkeley Avenue as well. And I too am in opposition of this project moving forward. I'm afraid that if we go forward with this project, we will lose the historic nature of our neighborhood. I also have strong concern considerations about the impacts of an environmental impact. And having spent the majority of one of our last weekend's days discussing the middle lane, I'm a little concerned about the increased traffic and what that would mean for this particular part of the neighborhood, as well as the safety as our residents. And I thank you for your time. |
| 02:11:27.19 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment. Next speaker is Holger Michal. |
| 02:11:34.95 | Director Phipps | Please step forward. Okay, thank you very much. I heard that Hogar has us left. Next speaker is Chris Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan, please step forward. Welcome, you'll have two minutes. |
| 02:11:48.64 | Chris Sullivan | No commissioners again. Thank you. You asked me for my address, which is 215 Susolito Boulevard. It's just a vacant lot at the moment due to some problems with getting approvals from the planning commission for access to the lot and for a compliant SB 35 application, but I'm not here today to talk about that we need housing folks. We need housing, the people that make our coffee, print our documents, maybe clean our a home. They need to live somewhere. Did anyone see the Traffic jam on the 101 North It's a nightmare because housing is not being approved here. We don't want big housing in the hills, it's so beautiful. It's so nice up there. We don't want it in the Marinship. We don't want it in half of the MLK park. We don't want it in the commercial residential district. because some people already have houses. How about the people that don't have homes? Approve this project, approve the appeal, and folks will move up into these larger spaces. And that will free up space. It's a supply and demand subject all the way through. We've made a promise to the people of California that we will contribute our fair share of housing. We'll take up our burden, but And There's discussion about whether these numbers are totally correct. They've just been made public for the first time in years, but it seems clear that we've contributed to ADUs in the first two years of the housing cycle to existing residents and a CUP for an office conversion. That's it. But if you approve this appeal, this gets us out the gate. We get 50 new homes in Sausalito, which we really need. |
| 02:13:51.33 | Director Phipps | Mr. Sullivan, thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Bonnie McGregor. Bonnie, please step forward. Welcome. And you will have two minutes to speak. |
| 02:14:09.52 | Bonnie McGregor | Bonnie McGregor, my address, my residence is 90A Princess Street, which any view I have from that facility will be totally obliterated as long as everybody else is on Princess and Bulkley going south and perhaps the streets above it. This project, the appeal was submitted over 30 days behind, after the scheduled deadline anyway, and it should be denied. The size of this blocks all of yous, as I mentioned, and it affects the property values on those people's residences, which is that fair? We talk about paying your fair share. You know, that gets into socialism, which is all another issue. I've been to the high-rise towns around the country, several of them, starting with Ocean City, Maryland. And we could go to L.A., Chicago, Honolulu, New York. Yeah, I've been to most of those places. People in Sausalito don't want to live in a concrete jungle. And this project will start the idea, oh, well, that big project went in. Let's put in another one here and another one here. And who's to say that our town isn't full anyway? I went to the fourth grade here in 1946. And I can tell you right now, 85% of the houses that exist now did not exist then at all. Aren't we about full? Think of those number of units. Almost everybody has two cars, every residence. Add that many cars to this business, I don't care how many units you put in there. Traffic jams, as this one gentleman said, are already horrendous. Okay, that's mainly it. |
| 02:15:46.91 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Evan Jane Criss. |
| 02:15:53.37 | Director Phipps | Miss Jane Criss, welcome. You'll have two minutes to speak. |
| 02:15:58.96 | Evan Jane Criss | Thank you. I would just like to say that I first off agree with a lot of the points that were previously made by the folks from Save Our Sausalito. Ah. So, The project, I believe, is oversized, out of scale with the surrounding structures in both size and character, and would put Sausalito's historic designation and unique charm at risk. City of Sausalito found the project inconsistent with both zoning and general plan standards the, uh, Planning experts said the project was so large and out of place that it could destroy the historic district, risking its decertification. Violates CEQA as it would impact historic resources, and it requires environmental review. And... I overall, I will never forget the immediate and visceral reaction of revulsion and shock. So many had when they first saw the architectural rendering of this project. It literally looks like a cruise ship plunked down behind the beautiful historic buildings on Bridgeway. That speaks volumes. Just because we can do something Should we? I have no problem with them building something there. But I do think, that the character of the surrounding area, height restrictions, the views that we all pay dearly for, should be addressed. I have no problem with affordable housing. This is not the place for it. We have other sites we're in, we're working on that. And it was my understanding that this project was removed from consideration for the mandate for that California has imposed on us. So again, I appreciate Ms. Fotch's instincts to want to provide housing that I have no issue with. I just feel this is the wrong project in the wrong place. Thank you. |
| 02:18:01.08 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Kirsten Thomas. Kirsten, welcome. and you will have two minutes to speak. But we won't start the timer until you get to the dais. |
| 02:18:17.30 | Kirsten Thomas | Good evening, Kirsten Thomas, 416 Napa Street. You know, what I've noticed is that when multifamily housing is proposed in the marinship, a group emerges to oppose it, saying that supposedly the area needs to remain industrial. Then when multifamily housing is proposed in a residential neighborhood, such as adjacent to MLK Park, A group emerges to oppose it, saying, We already have multifamily housing here. Why doesn't downtown need multifamily housing too? And when multifamily housing is proposed downtown, a group emerges to say it's out of character for that area. So where, may I ask, should these 700 plus housing units that we are required to build go? We all know that building ADUs is not going to cut it. You, the Planning Commission, is responsible for helping keeping the city in compliance with state laws. And as already noted, you are not approving the project tonight, and these issues are really tricky, and there's often no precedent for the things that you're determining. Please do what you need to do with the resolutions tonight so that this project may just at least proceed to the next step. Thank you. |
| 02:19:29.15 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. Next speaker is Matt Smith. Smith, welcome. You will have two minutes to speak. |
| 02:19:39.65 | Matt Smith | Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Matt Smith of 416 Napa Street. |
| 02:19:49.34 | Matt Smith | Sausalito cannot keep doing this. We cannot keep flip-flopping, ignoring state law, and using subjective criteria to block multi-unit housing projects. We've seen this pattern before, shifting standards, procedural delays, and inconsistent interpretations of CEQA and zoning. It's not just legally risky. It's deeply unfair to applicants who are following the rules, investing their time and resources, and trying to build exactly the kind of housing this community claims that it needs. What's happening with Linda Fosch's project is a perfect example. The city's position has changed midstream. And staff are now raising arguments that don't hold up under California housing law. That's not planning, that's obstruction. It is exactly this kind of shady behavior that lets to Sausalito's affected city designation under the state's housing element law. The city is under the microscope. People are watching. Please uphold the appeal and allow this project to move forward. Thank you. |
| 02:20:49.60 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Niels Carlson. Mr. Carlson, welcome. You will have two minutes to speak. |
| 02:20:59.15 | Niels Carlson | Thank you. |
| 02:21:04.30 | Niels Carlson | My name is Niels Carlson. I live on 308 Short Street. In Old Town. And I came here. 65 years ago. And I came because I love the unique, Historial little town. And I still do. And I am impressed that we still have it today. Let's remember. 130 years ago, right off, Yeah. William Randolph Hearst tried to build a castle here in Sausalito. And it was abandoned due to local opposition. If the old Sausalito resident could do it at that time, We can do it together. And I am totally against it. And also we talked about based, based, So, well... Paystreet? No, not Paystreet. Pay! Pay! Bay Street here Saturday. and That is a traffic problem. This project will definitely make it even more difficult So, I'm totally against it. Thank you for your time. |
| 02:22:37.51 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Alice Merrill. Alice, welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 02:22:51.33 | Alice Merrill | Hello, I live at 117 Caledonia. I'm really sorry that the applicant has proposed something so out of character, so huge. Her kids grew up here. She lives here, or at least she used to. She has a huge house up on South Slater Boulevard. Very lovely. Why... Why do this? Is it for money? Is it really to help people? Because really these places are not going to be for low income people. They aren't. If it's less units, just build the thing with less units and let it be all low income. Why not? I'll bet you this applicant might possibly have enough money to do that. Um, or even get some help. if it were really thoughtful. um, I agree with the fellow that just spoke. This town has managed to keep itself itself because it has had people over the years who have not been willing to lose everything, to just throw stuff away. And it is kind of an odd little town for that. And I hope that it can stay. I'm not against building. I'm not against housing. I just think that the design the design makes such a huge difference. And if you design something that is lovely, that works, then people will say, yay, hooray, thank you. But that's not what this is. It's pretty terrible. And the fact that it looks like a cruise ship is pretty true. So I'm just sorry. I'm sorry that the applicant is doing this to this town. |
| 02:24:50.54 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:24:50.56 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 02:24:50.59 | Director Phipps | I really am. Thank you, Alice, for your comments. Next speaker is back, Nicole. Cool. Welcome. You will have two minutes. |
| 02:25:06.25 | Nicole Beck | Can I give my minutes to somebody else who would like to speak again? |
| 02:25:10.74 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:25:10.77 | Nicole Beck | No, you may not. That is not allowed because it's being allowed under other council hearings. That's right. |
| 02:25:10.79 | Director Phipps | No, you're not. |
| 02:25:11.09 | Nastassya Saad | Amen. |
| 02:25:11.12 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:25:11.24 | Nastassya Saad | . |
| 02:25:16.24 | Nastassya Saad | That's not going to be allowed for this evening, but you're welcome to speak if you'd like to. |
| 02:25:18.77 | Nicole Beck | to speak if you'd like to speak. My name is Nicole Beck, and I'm a fifth generation Sausalitan. My great grandfather arrived here in 1869. We own property around town, and I am very angry that Mrs. Fudge has decided to actually disface and destroy this town with her proposed project. |
| 02:25:40.25 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry to interrupt you. Could you speak into the microphone so everyone can hear? |
| 02:25:43.04 | Nicole Beck | I am distraught and angry that Mrs. Fotch, who has been here a mere 35 years, has decided to destroy our town. And it's not going to only destroy our historical area. It's also going to destroy the city. Who wants to come to Sausalito to see this monstrosity when she would have the opportunity to build an absolutely beautiful architectural gem that would be, for five generations to come, a new historical district. This building is... |
| 02:26:03.00 | Nastassya Saad | May I also ask you to... |
| 02:26:16.15 | Nicole Beck | So is the nice sort of it has no redeeming design qualities. And this is an objective. |
| 02:26:18.08 | Chris Palomo | Can you just please adjust? |
| 02:26:23.69 | Chris Palomo | Thank you. |
| 02:26:26.22 | Nicole Beck | Um... premise. So that's all I have to say. It's a lost opportunity for those who have so much money not to take their money and do something absolutely spectacular. Can you please address the commission? Look at the Sydney Opera. Look at Riem Koolhaas. Ma'am, can you kindly address the commission and not sorry? Thank you. Just look at what gifted, talented architects were able to do with housing in Holland, in Sweden, in Greece, and not this like Peasley peak little place |
| 02:26:38.86 | Nastassya Saad | Can you please address the commission? |
| 02:26:46.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:27:01.50 | Nicole Beck | cramming to make money. That's my goal. Thank you. |
| 02:27:05.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:27:07.66 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Teresa and Kona. Teresa, welcome. You'll have two minutes to speak. |
| 02:27:22.02 | Teresa | Good evening. you So I don't know a whole lot about CEQA and I don't know a lot about housing density. But I know what I look at around town. You know, when I look at the Portofino And I look at that. I understand that there were 45 units in there. And there's currently nobody living there. And they look at the houses along Bridgeway. And I see them being degraded You know, and I talked to residents and residents who tell me that They are pretty much the only people living on their block Thank you. permanently in town. So I see a need for housing. You know, I also look at Apartments that have recently been opened at 455 square feet for $3,000 rent. And that is something that I couldn't afford and can't afford. And I look at an apartment in town here that's two bedroom and two baths. And it's the, they want $7,000. to pay rent. So do I believe that we need affordable housing? Yes. Do we need housing in general? Yes. You know, those people that lived in the Portofino They were my customers and they have all moved away. And so that financial base is gone. And every house that's left empty is, you know, has a financial price on it. So, yeah, I believe the town... does need more housing and it does need affordable housing as i struggle to find people to work. you know, in my business. Oh, by the way, Teresa and Kona, I have Angelino, I'm Linda's neighbor, sorry. That's all. Thank you. |
| 02:29:11.32 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Lily Day Champion. Apologies if I've misread your name. Welcome. You'll have two minutes to speak. |
| 02:29:23.86 | Lily Day Champion | Hi, I'm Nicole Bach's aunt and hence sixth generation South Sweden. And I think that when you've been in a town generationally since 1869, sorry, a decade too much, you can actually attest to the fact that there is historical value to that place because that family that you're part of has been incremental in building the place that you're living in. for way over a hundred years, which is in regards to how old California has been Oh, states in our country. quite prehistorical almost. Second thing is that I think there's one issue that I haven't heard really addressed in any expert statement or even, um, people statement here is that there's an issue I feel we're tiptoeing around is how are people with low income supposed to afford life, daily life in Sausalito? Do we expect them to go buy $10 coffee at Equator? Do we expect them to go buy $20 tuna fish sandwiches at drivers? This is the reality. So I'm sorry when I hear that this is a social project. What kind of life are these people in those affordable housing units are supposed to be able to afford here? Are they supposed to drive a bus for one hour and a half to get to the mission and get a burrito? I don't think that's really a really social way of looking at things for these people. Thank you. |
| 02:30:59.22 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Chris Palomo. Chris, welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 02:31:09.38 | Chris Palomo | Good evening, Kiddermissioners. My name is Chris Palomo. I'm a senior field rep of the NorCal Carpenters Union at a local 35. I'd like to thank you guys for the opportunity to speak tonight. I want to make it clear that I'm not here to oppose the proposed housing project before us. I recognize the need for housing and the importance of responsible development in our community. However, I do have serious concerns about this project, the project that will be built, specifically regarding the contractor selection and the labor standards that will be uphill or the lack thereof. I've spoken with an applicant who unfortunately is unwilling to agree to an agreement of using a responsible general contractor on this project at this time, which raises red flags about the quality of the jobs and the working conditions on this project. A responsible general contractor ensures that construction workers are in fair wages, receive proper training, and work in safe conditions. When developers choose contractors that cut corners on labor we often see lower safety standards misclassification of workers and even wage theft that's not the kind of projects also legal should support this commission has the power to influence how development happens in the city i urge you to ensure that any contractor selected for this project meets strong labor standards pays carpenter area standard wages and benefits and prioritizes skilled workers The construction of new housing should benefit our entire community, not just the finished project, but in the jobs it creates along the way. I believe you'll take these concerns seriously as you review this project. Thank you for your time. |
| 02:32:30.57 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. I have no additional speaker cards, but I will revisit the two speaker cards that did not result in public comment, just in case they have returned. John Pitlack and Holger Michal, going once, going twice, and I will move on to public comment on the Zoom application. I will call the hands in the order that they were raised. First hand raised is that of Babette McDougall. Babette, welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 02:33:05.01 | Babette McDougall | Can you hear me? Oh, yes. |
| 02:33:07.27 | Unknown | . |
| 02:33:07.98 | Babette McDougall | Okay, thank you. Um, So let me just say that I did start to circulate a letter today that generally invited us to think, in creative ways. I don't claim to be any expert and I have no vested interest in this project at all. I'm just watching it because we finally have a project to focus on. And that's what matters here, in my opinion. This is all my personal opinion. So I want to say that everything that has been said by the public thus far, I do not disagree with. In fact, I totally agree with. The one thing that I don't see that. we really need to wrap our heads around here is to take this opportunity. We have someone who is a longtime member of the community who has very strong feelings herself about what character means when you talk about what is Sausalito and why do we live here. And I think if there's ever a moment to come to terms on how we can start somewhere and move forward, because how many fights down the road are we going to have? I mean, really, this is the problem that we're going to face as Sausaledans. We are forced into more density, whether we like it or not. I think that's why the victory... Last Saturday, to keep the median open matters because we will become more dense population-wise. Personally, I'd like to see... And I can't speak for Ms. Fosh, but if it were a best case scenario in my book, I would say, let's all go back to the drawing board. I don't think she really wants to ace out the community of anything that we all desire in terms of the housing, the historical element in particular. One thing we have to acknowledge is that there are no foundational structures supporting the facades that we see and we currently call the downtown, historical downtown. Now, you know what's gonna happen the minute anybody starts to break ground on something new, it's gonna vibrate and shake and I think what's left is probably just gonna collapse in a heap. So I think here's our opportunity to actually leverage building and fortifying those existing historical structures that we love so much. |
| 02:35:11.81 | Director Phipps | I bet. Thank you for your comment. Next raised hand is that of Louis Mirante. Louis, you'll have two minutes. |
| 02:35:21.66 | Luis Morante | evening. Thank you. Welcome. Good evening. You can hear me? |
| 02:35:26.41 | Director Phipps | Yes, we can. |
| 02:35:27.35 | Luis Morante | Okay, great. Good evening, Social Legal Planning Commission. My name is Luis Morante. I am Vice President of Public Policy with the Bay Area Council. The Bay Area Council represents about 350 of the region's largest employers, and I'm here today in support of this project. The Bay Area has an immense housing crisis. We need to build about 440,000 new homes over the next eight years, which would be a quintupling of the rate at which we are currently building and have built housing in the Bay Area, just to meet our needs for the people who are expected to come here over that time period. That doesn't account for the shortage we already have. According to the department of housing and community development, it doesn't, uh, um, It doesn't account for the housing element cycles where we've missed our production needs. Our housing shortage is acute in the Bay Area. This project provides a perfect opportunity to build environmentally sensitive housing next to transit, next to high quality jobs. That's exactly the type of thing a region should be looking to do to make sure that we are the best region possible. in the country to live and work, which is the council's mission. This project brings not just housing, but ownership housing, which is an especially scarce supply in the Bay Area. The Bay Area's median home price continues to tick up. I myself used to, I grew up in the Bay Area and can no longer afford to live there, in large part because of the immense shortage of housing, especially ownership housing in that area. This provides 50 opportunities for 50 families to get a secure spot in the Bay Area, and I encourage you to support this project. |
| 02:37:25.85 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Brian's iPad 2. Brian's iPad 2, welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 02:37:36.29 | Brian Clark | Good morning, good morning, good evening. |
| 02:37:37.86 | Chris Palomo | It is. |
| 02:37:38.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:39.51 | Brian Clark | Brian Clark, how are you? I appreciate the panel's time. I... I've been watching the lengthy proceedings and read through all of the legal documents. I would like to dedicate this evening to the deceased Captain Robert Solomon, who was a JAG attorney who lived at 130 Prospect. and was a good friend. And I'd also like to dedicate it to our, deceased Mayor Lucy Succo. both great contributors to the community. I have been involved with three projects in Sausalito. I lived at 299 Glen. Avenue. I lived at 130 Prospect and I lived at 33 Edwards. And all of those were projects in process, meaning they all needed improvement, they all needed upgrades, or they were new builds, but they created housing. As it relates to this project, as I look at it, you said tonight is a CEQA meeting and through reading through, you know, innumerable documents and submittals and on between the appeals and legal documents. And this is not approval. This may be approval. So it gets very confusing. But then again, you distill it down and said it's really about CEQA. Well, as I read the documents in the submittals, when the application was deemed complete, The city had 30 days to respond to the application to move forward with CEQA. And the city did not. So that should be the end of it. The city did not. move forward in the statutory guideline to move forward. Then they missed a second deadline of 60 days. So on two statutory timeline. They didn't respond. So therefore, the project should be deemed complete. Thank you. |
| 02:39:39.70 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker. Ms. Bushmaker, welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 02:39:46.19 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, commissioners and staff and public. I request that you uphold the denial of the applicant's appeal and deny the applicant's new appeal. In other words, follow the staff recommendation for motion. While we're not here to discuss the merits of the case, We are I will just say I'm opposed to this motion. It's the wrong project at the wrong place. It provides high-end housing with token affordable housing. We're not going to get workers in these high end units that are facing the most majestic view in the world. So I would just focus on the job before you, which is the appeal, the upholding the denial of the appeal and deny the applicants new appeal. Thank you. |
| 02:40:36.72 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Vicki Nichols. Ms. Nichols, welcome. You will have two minutes. |
| 02:40:47.43 | Vicki Nichols | Good evening, President Erb. Yes, President Saad and Commissioner's Chair, excuse me. Vicki Nichols, 501 Olima. Um, I, like Sandra, I'm not going to comment on the merits of the project because frankly, that's not before you this evening. But I do have a couple of other comments and I think it's interesting that we've heard from the applicant's lawyer about new law. We know new law is coming down the pipe constantly since these laws have been done. But ironically, since SB 35 was written, One of the things I noticed early on was there was a specific carve out for historic resources. That's not been changed in all these subsequent adjustments by our legislators. So they still are valuing our historic structures and allowing CEQA to go forward. This these two buildings are in our historic district. They need to be evaluated under sequa. There's been a lot of semantics tonight, but they are listed. They are on the appropriate lists. And I believe staff's analysis has been done correctly. Thank you. The idea that a facade can replace a building is ludicrous to me. If you think about it, when we put things on historic registers, we do them as buildings, not walls. So I hope you'll take this under consideration tonight. Again, I don't want to comment on the merit parts of the project because it's not really germane tonight. But it's very important that you're looking at staff's review. I believe what their analysis has been appropriate. So I hope you will take the appropriate action. Thank you very much. |
| 02:42:32.95 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next raised hand is the one and only iPhone. |
| 02:42:38.51 | Jeffrey Conan | Hi, it's Jeffrey Conan from 325 Pine Street. And, you know, I'm always a little weary of a bill of goods being sold by guys in suits saying that they are going to just jam a project, Hell or High Water, from the state. I think everyone reasonably understands that We all have to make compromises in building housing, for sure. But at what length? Right? Are we really here? with this project, willing to just risk the decertification of our town Like at what length are we willing to compromise? There are places that we can build. And we can do it really good. But I think we have to be sensible to the rest of our community. Thank you. |
| 02:43:33.22 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. That does it for public comment. As far as I can see, I will give folks in the Zoom application a final opportunity to raise hands, going once, going twice. And I will give it back to you, Chair. |
| 02:43:49.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Director Phipps. Thank you for all of the public comment, both written and tonight here on Zoom and in the chambers. I am going to actually turn it back. There's still a minute and 50 on the clock. If the appellant and team would like to come up for any rebuttal, thank you, Maria, for the clock. Let me start whenever you're ready. |
| 02:44:17.97 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you very much. Ryan Patterson again. I don't want to take the time to refute. I think that the points have been pretty well expressed. I do want to clarify a couple remaining points and leave the commission with a few thoughts as we go forward. First, this is entitled to CEQA exemptions. I've talked about the Class 32. There's also the Section 15183 exemption, exemption which allows tearing off of an existing environmental review document because the project is consistent with the housing element density it is deemed under ab 1893 to be consistent for all purposes which allows us to use the land use general plan update environmental impact report as a starting point for environmental review. So even if the commission were to decide that CEQA review is necessary, it should be a much more focused review, only looking at peculiar impacts that were not reviewed in the previous environmental impact report. I think that's an important point. Again, we don't think that any further review is necessary, but if there is going to be some, it should be very narrowly focused. Second, I do want to clarify that the The commission is sitting on a somewhat unusual procedure tonight. This does constitute a final action on the project, because unfortunately, if the appeal is not granted, the project cannot go forward without the density that's requested. And also there is a challenged conduct notice pending. There's also state law that says that if a condition or a standard is imposed that would lessen the density. That does constitute denial of the project. Thank you very much for your time tonight. Really appreciate it. |
| 02:46:14.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. We thank you very much. You have given a lot of your time. We appreciate it. We will now close that whole section and bring it back up to the dais for discussion. Just to level set one more time, I think we've said it all multiple times, but we are just here to discuss the appeal, and we are not are not making a final determination on this project or any design any design review that's not what we're here for so we'll kick it off with that in mind um commissioner feller may i start with you get some thoughts and give us potential direction |
| 02:46:55.33 | Kristina Feller | Sure, I'm happy to kick it off. As this is a discussion between all of us, I think there was actually some really interesting questions um so i want to thank the commission for those i think the public comment was very helpful Yes, we're not here about design and all of that. And I just want to kind of state for the record that this applicant has every right to develop her property. just like any other applicant. in our city. We advocate for the applicant within the confines of what the laws and the ordinances, regulations, and so on. So I want to be really clear about that just as we start deliberations up here. I'm also a little curious about the eligibility for exemption on CEQA because it seems like the applicant might not have paid a fee to the city that could have started that determination. So I want to be mindful of that. That is part of this Exhibit A finding. So I want to be mindful of that. That is part of this Exhibit A finding. So I want to be mindful of that as well. |
| 02:48:04.82 | Kristina Feller | I know that there was a lot of potentially sounding like semantical arguments going back and forth. Some of this particular email attachment from HCD that highlighted a meeting with our city regarding the draft EIR, the Ordinance 1022, and the proposed density as 49 is also interesting to me. So I'm curious what the rest of the commission says. about this and I haven't made a determination yet, so I'd like to talk this through with everybody. |
| 02:48:47.16 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely, thank you very much. Commissioner Marlott. |
| 02:48:56.20 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:49:00.81 | Chris Palomo | Thank you. |
| 02:49:02.33 | David Marlatt | I think we all agree that tonight is really about staying focused on that mandate, that narrow mandate we have about whether to of denying his appeal and these two points. I'm generally kind of come down in support of that. I agree with some of the points made earlier that this is not about the design of the building. It's not about necessarily diving into building code issues or escape windows in bedrooms and so forth, a lot of it has to do with just the. reasonableness of the staff's comments in their two letters. Um, I find them generally reasonable. Even the request for an initial study on CEGWA could have happened more than a year ago, as was told to us, you know, we could be deep into that. They're not saying it's going to be denied. just saying that an initial study is merited given the scale of the building. and its inevitable, obvious, significant impact on the historic district. Not necessarily saying destroying the historic district, but the simple fact that that impact needs to be evaluated David Myers D' merits initial studies pretty modest, in my opinion, what what the staff is actually acquiring here. David Myers D' So those are kind of my my thoughts. And then I guess the last thought is as to the implied threat that a vote, you know, in favor of the draft resolution has been given to us. David Myers D' Effectively kills the project. I think that I think that kind of speaks a little bit to what Commissioner Feller commented earlier on, is that the Planning Commission not here to debate finances or economics or performance. That's not appropriate. And saying that the project dies if we support staff on this issue. kind of falls into that same category, that it should not be something that enters into our consideration. Thank you. |
| 02:51:00.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for your thoughts, Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 02:51:03.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair. First, I want to commend the public interest in this project. We have received, as Chair Sade has said, over 100 emails and detailed information. I also want to say for the record, I'm very impressed with what we got. Sometimes we get 50 boilerplate letters that say the same thing. Almost all of these things, whether it was pro or con, were very unique. And they got into the issues they felt were the most important. So I was very impressed with that. And I thought that was what this public process is about. Back in January of 2023, this commission supported putting housing on this site. But at that time, we had a plan for housing that was whether 20 units recently or 25 or whether you define 16 or 32. That was a plan that was part of the housing element of the vision for Sausalito. And so we're not here, as Commissioner Feller says, to get into the financial aspects of the project. So whether that can work or not work, that was the vision, and that is what makes sense for this part of Sausalito and as part of our general plan and part of our housing element. And so what we have today is not that, unfortunately. And so given the historic nature of the property, the fact that the density doesn't comply with our objective standards, and I do think that it does not warrant a CEQA exemption. I do hear what the attorneys for the appellant said that you might not need a full-blown EIR or you could use the work that was done before, but an exemption just doesn't seem to make sense to me. I was very impressed with the staff report and what the staff put together. They've gone through the issues. I've gone through the findings. I appreciate the Thank you. I was very impressed with the staff report and what the staff put together. They've gone through the issues. I've gone through the findings. I appreciate the fact that Ms. Tegui changed the findings to correct those two items that she mentioned earlier. And I can support the findings that are attached to the resolution. |
| 02:53:27.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. |
| 02:53:30.52 | Andrew Junius | Chair, would it be okay to ask a few additional questions to the city attorney at this point? |
| 02:53:34.17 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, absolutely. |
| 02:53:36.43 | Andrew Junius | Sergio, you still up there, Sergio? |
| 02:53:36.53 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. |
| 02:53:36.65 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. |
| 02:53:36.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:53:39.40 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, I haven't fallen asleep. It just took me a moment to turn on my camera. |
| 02:53:44.02 | Andrew Junius | Um, |
| 02:53:44.65 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 02:53:45.58 | Andrew Junius | The appellant, the applicant at the last minute there you know, kind of threw down the gauntlet and said, you know, the action we take tonight could deny the project. Um, Could you speak to procedurally where this goes and if there's an opportunity to appeal our decision this evening to the city council? |
| 02:54:05.88 | Sergio Rudin | So, yes, there is an opportunity to appeal this decision to the city council. We don't know for certain that the applicant is going to do that, and obviously that depends on what decision you make. So, but yes, there is an opportunity for further appeal. |
| 02:54:21.82 | Andrew Junius | Would that be considered... exhausting the remedies if they were actually thinking about taking us to superior court. |
| 02:54:28.32 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. Yeah, and typically you would expect that an applicant who is aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission would seek review. |
| 02:54:36.01 | Andrew Junius | Appreciate that, thank you. Um, |
| 02:54:37.79 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask a follow on question to that, Vice Chair? And just for the record, anybody can make an appeal of tonight's decision. Is that correct? Not just... |
| 02:54:49.45 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, looking at chapter 1084, that is our appeal chapter. I believe it does reference any aggrieved person. So, The short answer is, yeah, any aggrieved party may appeal decisions. Yes. |
| 02:55:08.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, just for clarification, back to you, Vice Chair. |
| 02:55:11.75 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 02:55:12.30 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Sergio. So, you know, I also would like to thank everybody involved here. I think the public comments were very helpful. I think the staff did a very good job with an extremely complicated issue. And I also applaud the applicant and the appellant for boiling it down. This is. as complicated as it gets, you know, we are dealing with, you know, cutting edge laws here. Everything's changes every year. Um, a lot of issues we're facing are cases of first impression there's no case law there's lots of uncertainty uh which makes our decision this evening that more that much more difficult um you know but i i don't you know i agree with everybody who's made comments supporting this but supporting housing at this site um you know to say what i've been saying for the last three or four years on this commission This city has produced no housing in the last couple of decades The state laws have finally arrived. I've been talking about this for years and and here we are We had a housing element process that identified this site put this site on the opportunity site list at 49 units per acre so No surprises, right? We all knew this day was coming and here we are. I'm not sure. I want to start with, I think, what is maybe the easier question, and I also appreciate Mr. Ryan's comment there at the very end. The CEQA question here, I think, in some respects, is from a legal standpoint, a little easier, although I think I have, I honestly don't know where I come down on whether it's listed or not, I understand the importance of that issue, but there are so many layers to that, and it's so confusing, I still haven't made up my mind. I would say, though, that You know, I think that it's in some respects for the housing, you know, the pro housing folks and the applicant here, the fact that SB 35 didn't work is a huge hit on them and which is, you know, brings CEQA back into the picture. But I think Mr. Ryan, Mr. Patterson even referenced that irrespective of what the issue is, this project can go through CEQA and can get approved along those lines, not withstanding the historic issue, whether it's listed or not. This is no question the buildings are CEQA resources, even if they're not listed. So I don't know. it's a little unfortunate we've had the class 32 exemption around in sequa for maybe even a couple of decades when that came out I was super excited. And then I got less and less excited over the years as nobody used it and as people found ways around it and it just seemed to not be as helpful as we want still relevant still gets used still could be applicable here. But again, it's kind of unfortunate, again, for the pro-housing people that we're stuck with this preservation issue, a historic district. I'm not a huge fan of preservation in the land use world. I think oftentimes it is, It is used to frustrate development unnecessarily. I think that might be the case here. I'm not denying the fact that there are historic features that South Salido has. I'm not denying the fact that some buildings in the city are historically important. I don't think these are, frankly. That said, you know, in some respects. So now I'll get back to the real issue here is the density, right? That is... a very technical issue. The conflict between the various housing element laws and the density bonus laws. are not resolved yet. I'm not sure we can resolve them tonight. I'm a little. |
| 02:59:08.12 | Chris Palomo | Nice. |
| 02:59:09.69 | Andrew Junius | just it's really frustrating where we are. Um, But I also would say that And one of the things we didn't really get into, and I, you know, not to open up another can of worms, but to emphasize just how common. complex this is going to get, whether it's this project or projects down the road, the idea that that we can have zoning controls and objective standards and comply with the housing accountability act in the face of the Secretary of Interior Standards with 10 different super subjective standards that are gonna run headlong into the ability of building housing in cities all over California, I think is a huge problem. I think that's all I have to say for now. I see where the city's leaning, or the commission seems to be leaning. I don't really have a thought yet as to how I'm gonna vote, but nor am I probably gonna make a motion. |
| 03:00:04.54 | Kristina Feller | Chair, can I ask another question to the city attorney? |
| 03:00:09.68 | Nastassya Saad | Sergio. |
| 03:00:12.87 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 03:00:13.99 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, City Attorney Rudin. I'm not sure that I got a clear answer, or at least one that I was able to understand, about sort of the moving target and dynamic nature of applying the constantly revised legislation out of Sacramento and how that applies here. And can you help me understand that better because I'm what I'm ultimately curious about is, you know, you have to kind of stop at a point in time to issue an appeal author all these letters. you know, get get on our calendar, write a staff report and all that kind of stuff. But since then, you know, there's still been evolution coming from. from Sacramento, and I'm just not sure I can reconcile how to handle that. In my own mind. |
| 03:01:14.84 | Sergio Rudin | I mean, I think you're hitting a on the fundamental issue, which is that the land use laws that are promulgated by the state are constantly evolving. And unfortunately, I think the cities just have to react. So you make the decision based on the law that applies at the time you make the decision. And that's unfortunately the short and sweet answer to this one. |
| 03:01:40.35 | Kristina Feller | So are there any laws that have manifested themselves that based on the time between the appeal and now and the staff report in this hearing that could affect what we're talking about this evening. |
| 03:01:56.82 | Sergio Rudin | I'm not aware of any laws that have come out since the staff report, which came out less than a week ago. No, typically land, Typically laws go into effect the January 1st of any given year. |
| 03:02:11.01 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I just, I wanted certainty. So thank you. Thank you for that. |
| 03:02:19.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Rudin. Thank you, Commissioner Feller. I also want to thank the public. Thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg for doing that. It's another topic that we're seeing a lot of engagement on and investment in the community, both pro and con. It's all welcome. So we appreciate that. It does help us make a |
| 03:02:31.03 | Chris Palomo | do. |
| 03:02:39.28 | Nastassya Saad | decision. I think we've gotten into a lot of points I won't belabor them I can make the findings that are in our resolution this evening I do want to just take a nod to the appellant it was in very interesting you know arguments and and really shed a lot of lights in a lot of areas but ultimately and as as somebody who was on the housing element advisory committee with Commissioner feller Thank you. were the last two standing original members of that housing element advisory committee years ago at this stage. And it was the painstaking process, painstaking process to literally drive around, talk to owners, seek input from the community on where these inventory sites and opportunity sites are going to come from. And this property in particular, was put into the housing element because of owner interest. And that is something we want to honor and value. And with that, It is a buildable site, and we do encourage that development. Personal opinions aside, the property owner, you said it best, does have a right to develop this property, and that is solidified in the certified housing element from 2023 at this stage. With that, however, I do agree with the staff's finding on, especially on, on project density. Um, I don't, I don't see the, um, I think it's quite, quite clear, um, in the findings to deny the appeal based on, um, you know, not being eligible for the density bonus. And that, that is the core issue here this evening. I also reasonably think, um, CEQA and the nature that the code is written for the density bonus and that that is the core issue here this evening I also reasonably think um sequa in the nature that the code is written for the historic district also makes sense so I'm going to be able to make these findings this evening um just with the note that you know we would we do hope to see development um on the property that as as it's zoned eventually but um this is this is where I'm at this evening so I'd be able to support what what's in front of me With that, I'm not suggesting a motion, but I am looking for a motion or further discussion on any points. |
| 03:05:02.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm happy to make a motion. I'd like to move the approval of the appeal related to the low income instead of the moderate income units, but deny the appeal for the remaining item pursuant to the revised resolution and the findings dated 4-2-25, which is the one that was attached today. |
| 03:05:24.27 | David Marlatt | I'll second that motion. |
| 03:05:24.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll second. |
| 03:05:25.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I think Commissioner Feller had a point of clarification or a question. |
| 03:05:30.55 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, there's motion on the floor here, but I want to get into a little bit more discussion because in here. This goes to one of the other basic questions that we had about the general plan max density versus the housing element. Max density, and this is the 29 versus the 49. I think what we heard tonight is that the housing element is prevails. So that's why we're looking at 49. Is that your understanding. |
| 03:05:58.00 | Nastassya Saad | That is my understanding. Correct. |
| 03:05:59.79 | Kristina Feller | So your motion includes 49 units per acre, is that correct? |
| 03:06:05.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, God. My notion |
| 03:06:08.78 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:06:09.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:06:09.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:06:09.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:06:09.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you PB, David Ensign, The motion is that. PB, David Ensign, Pursuant to the staff report that a possibility of 25 units for this site and or current zoning allows 16 with a density bonus to 32 both like. |
| 03:06:29.73 | Sergio Rudin | Like if I can clarify, the motion was actually to adopt the draft resolution, which in the draft resolution addresses. the staff determination, it doesn't tell the applicant exactly what's allowed. in terms of you know, getting into the granularity of, you know, are they allowed you know, their base density plus a housing element at 32 units. I mean, that's not going to be in that resolution. But it does address the staff's findings and the draft resolution does rely on the project's affordability. And does make reference to a 49 units per acre being allowed based on you know, provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. |
| 03:07:20.40 | Kristina Feller | Right. And I'm looking just so everyone knows what I'm looking at here is a exhibit a the findings section to a one and that's where I'm reading the 29 versus 49 I want to make sure. that your motion is clear and I'm clear what you are proposing. |
| 03:07:40.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Basically, the motion is that the 98 units per acre that would result is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. So what this is in essence saying is at 49 units to the acre, they're allowed 25 units. And under the general plan, they're allowed 16 units. And it doesn't get in any more detail but what this is not telling them what the density is that what this is telling them is the staff has determined that what they've proposed doesn't meet our development standards and we're concurring that the the proposal doesn't meet the development standards and denying the appeal on that grounds. We're not actually telling them what, I mean, there's a lot of data that backs it up, but we're not telling them what it needs to be. What we're telling them is what it can't be. |
| 03:08:38.03 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay, and I'm assuming that's part of the density bonus. |
| 03:08:46.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't understand the question. So, |
| 03:08:48.98 | Sergio Rudin | The draft motion on the floor is to adopt the |
| 03:08:51.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Or the definition. |
| 03:08:52.25 | Unknown | is, |
| 03:08:52.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:08:52.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:08:53.96 | Sergio Rudin | written resolution, which is in your agenda packet, |
| 03:08:56.77 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:08:57.64 | Sergio Rudin | So, you know, as part of that, that includes certain findings. Those are that, you know, the zoning ordinance and land use allow maximum density of 29 units per acre. The housing element allows a maximum density of 49 units per acre. No element of the general plan was a different density. The proposed project proposes 98 units per acre, which is not consistent with the zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation. as specified in any element of the general plan. |
| 03:09:24.33 | Nastassya Saad | And that is with the bonus, correct? OK. So we have a motion and a second. Do we have any further points of clarification or discussion? |
| 03:09:35.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | just just because we focused all on that this all just for the for the record and for the public it also includes the inconsistency with the development standards and get us into the detail regarding the location and size of the affordable units that that what was proposed with those sizes with the the where they were located on the back side without the decks compared to the others that's all part of this motion as well |
| 03:10:00.56 | Nastassya Saad | Correct. Yes. Everything that's on that public record for our resolution this evening is part of this. I'm going to look for a roll call, Director Phipps. |
| 03:10:13.57 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlant. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. |
| 03:10:18.09 | Matt Smith | Yes. |
| 03:10:19.95 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 03:10:19.99 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 03:10:20.34 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Vice Church Genius. No. Chair Assad. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:10:23.24 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 03:10:23.29 | Director Phipps | Yes. Motion passes. |
| 03:10:25.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Moving on to what I believe is adjournment. |
| 03:10:36.47 | Nastassya Saad | so moved. Thank you. |
| 03:10:40.42 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Have a great day. |
| 03:10:44.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
Richard Drury — Against: Representing Save Our Sausalito; urged adoption of staff resolution, stating the project is inconsistent with zoning, requires CEQA review, and could destroy the historic district. ▶ 📄
Jan Johnson — Against: Opposed allowing anything higher than 32 feet, warning it would destroy historic character, views, and tourism. ▶ 📄
Matthew Heimark — Against: Concerned about losing historic nature, environmental impacts, increased traffic, and safety. ▶ 📄
Chris Sullivan — In Favor: Argued for housing, saying Sausalito needs new homes and approving the appeal would provide 50 units where needed. ▶ 📄
Bonnie McGregor — Against: Opposed the project, citing blocked views, property value impacts, and the danger of becoming a 'concrete jungle'. ▶ 📄
Evan Jane Criss — Against: Called the project oversized and out of scale, threatening the historic district and requiring environmental review. ▶ 📄
Kirsten Thomas — In Favor: Noted that opposition always emerges when multifamily housing is proposed anywhere; urged the commission to allow the project to proceed to the next step. ▶ 📄
Matt Smith — In Favor: Accused the city of obstruction and flip-flopping; urged upholding the appeal to stop delay and allow the project to move forward. ▶ 📄
Niels Carlson — Against: Loved Sausalito's historical character; totally against the project and concerned about traffic. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — Against: Criticized the project's design as terrible and out of character, and expressed disappointment in the applicant. ▶ 📄
Nicole Beck — Against: Fifth-generation resident angry that the project would destroy the town's historical area, calling it a 'monstrosity' and missed opportunity for good architecture. ▶ 📄
Teresa (Teresa and Kona) — Neutral: Noted need for affordable housing and empty houses, but did not explicitly support or oppose the appeal; stated she is the applicant's neighbor. ▶ 📄
Lily Day Champion — Against: Argued historical value of the town and questioned how low-income residents would afford daily life in Sausalito. ▶ 📄
Chris Palomo — Neutral: From Carpenters Union, raised concerns about labor standards and contractor selection, not taking a clear position for or against the appeal. ▶ 📄
Babette McDougall — Neutral: Suggested creative solutions, noting the opportunity to fortify historic structures and find a compromise, while acknowledging earlier public concerns. ▶ 📄
Luis Morante — In Favor: Bay Area Council vice president supported the project as essential housing near transit, providing ownership opportunities. ▶ 📄
Brian Clark — In Favor: Argued the city missed statutory deadlines to respond, so the project should be deemed complete and move forward. ▶ 📄
Sandra Bushmaker — Against: Urged upholding staff's decision, calling it the wrong project in the wrong place with token affordable housing. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — Against: Believed staff analysis was correct; emphasized that historic structures need CEQA evaluation and that a facade cannot replace a building. ▶ 📄
Jeffrey Conan — Against: Questioned the sacrifice of the town's historic district for housing, saying there are other places to build. ▶ 📄