| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Andrew Junius | 9th, 2025. I will turn it over to the director, Director Phipps to take us forward. you |
| 00:00:05.18 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much, Vice Chair, and good evening to you, Chair Saad, Planning Commissioner, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Celestino Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street, as well as 135 the Alameda in City of San Salmo, 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 Saad, Chair Saad, is attending this meeting virtually. Chair Saad, could you please confirm for the record that you're attending this meeting in accordance with AB 2449's requirements for remote meeting attendance under the Just Cause provision? And if so, could you please describe the circumstances that support the Just Cause? |
| 00:00:49.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. Yes, I am. I can confirm I am here to take care of a parent who's had a procedure. And so I will be remote this evening under those circumstances. |
| 00:01:00.75 | Director Phipps | Very good, Chair. Thank you very much for confirming, and that is consistent with the circumstances that permit you to attend a meeting under Just Cause under AB 2449. And I'm seeing Attorney Otto has joined us. |
| 00:01:15.02 | Attorney Otto | Yes, actually, could you also confirm, are there any adults over the age of 18 in the room present with you? |
| 00:01:20.74 | Nastassya Saad | There's, Nobody in the room I'm in over 18. |
| 00:01:24.15 | Attorney Otto | Excellent. |
| 00:01:24.96 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. Thank you. |
| 00:01:27.88 | Director Phipps | With that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Luxenberg. Here. Commissioner Merlot. Is not present. Please let the record show. Commissioner Feller. Here. Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Sond. |
| 00:01:37.48 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:01:40.57 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:01:42.33 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:01:42.34 | Andrew Junius | Very good. We have quorum back to you, vice chair. All right. Moving on to item number two, approval of the agenda. Do we take public comment on that? |
| 00:01:50.80 | Director Phipps | uh... we we ought to take public comment on on all items thanks |
| 00:01:54.00 | Andrew Junius | Okay, I'm going to prior to a motion being made. I'm going to open it up for a public comment on approval of the agenda. Anybody in the room like to make a comment on that? Thank you. |
| 00:02:04.89 | Director Phipps | Looking to the chamber, looking to the Zoom application, seeing none. |
| 00:02:09.02 | Andrew Junius | Back to you. Great. Public comment is closed on item number two, approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion? So moved. |
| 00:02:15.06 | Kristina Feller | Second. |
| 00:02:16.72 | Andrew Junius | Can I roll please? Yep. |
| 00:02:16.82 | Director Phipps | Can we roll please? Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Feller? |
| 00:02:21.28 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:02:21.63 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:02:21.68 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:02:21.78 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. |
| 00:02:23.03 | Andrew Junius | Share us on. Yes. |
| 00:02:24.06 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:02:24.36 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:02:24.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:02:24.40 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Motion passes. Great. Moving on to item number three, public comments on items not on the agenda this evening. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda for this evening. Back to you, Director Phipps, for public comment. |
| 00:02:40.83 | Director Phipps | Very good. Thank you, Vice Chair. Again, looking to the chamber, seeing no interested speakers. Looking to the Zoom application, seeing no hands raised. I'll give it back to you. |
| 00:02:51.46 | Andrew Junius | Great closing public comment on item number three. Moving on to communications item number four. Do we have anything to report director Phipps? None from my end. Thank you, vice chair. Commissioners, anybody wanna speak up? |
| 00:03:03.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | None. None. No, thank you. |
| 00:03:06.40 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:03:06.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:03:07.02 | Andrew Junius | All right. Moving right along. Okay, let's move on to our public hearing for this evening. That's item number five 5a recommendation on ordinance amending chapter 10.44 section 10.44.010 purpose and applicability and section 10.44.190 residential uses in commercial districts of title 10 of the Sausalito municipal code. This is project ID 2025 00056 zoning ordinance amendment with Matthew Mandich presenting Matthew. Thank you. |
| 00:03:37.26 | Matthew Mandich | There he is, let's get going. Thank you, vice chair. And thank you for the introduction. We'll just go ahead and go to the next slide, please. So tonight the request is for the planning commission to provide a recommendation on the ordinance amending chapter 1044 section 1044 oh one oh purpose and applicability as well as section 1044 one nine zero residential uses in commercial districts of title 10 of the Sausalito municipal code and adopt a resolution with a recommendation to the city council. Next slide please. So I'm just going to start off a little bit of background, kind of what's in the current ordinance right now, what are some of the issues that are going on with that situation, and what our proposed changes are going to be tonight. So to start us off, Section 1044-010 of the Purpose and Implicability Section of Chapter 1044, which governs our specific uses, allows for the PC to waive requirements in the entire chapter of 1044 on a case-by-case basis. And this is found, again, in section 1044-010E. And I've provided that section of code for you there, which reads that findings to waive specific use requirements. The Planning Commission may waive specific use requirements, which are found in chapter 1044, established by this chapter in special situations when the following finding can be made. And this is just one finding, and it's based on unique project characteristics, location, specific use requirement is not necessary to meet the purpose and objectives of the underlying zoning district and general plan designation. So there are a couple issues with this section of code that I'm highlighting here for you. This right now, because it's on a case-by-case basis and there's not a lot of definition around it increases litigation risk and potential appeals for the city if exceptions are given under this code it is also not technically uniformly applying the zoning code across all sections of the code as is required for a general law city which Sausalito is instead you would need a variance or conditional use permit would be required to provide such an exception and those those would have findings required of them that are a lot more detailed and longer than just this one finding for this exception here. So you can see there's a number of reasons why we would probably want to eliminate this. This exception also appears in the other chapter or the other section of this chapter we're looking at, which is 1044-190. In particular, it's located in 190 C5 in the current code. This allows for waivers through an exception of residential requirements in special circumstances that again remain undefined. So a lot of ambiguity here surrounding these exceptions, and they should really be variances or a conditional use permit that would provide for some kind of exception, but on a case by case basis. Next slide, please. |
| 00:06:19.69 | Matthew Mandich | All right. Moving to the meat of this ordinance amendment, that is section 1044190, which governs residential uses in commercial districts. This section features provisions that require affordable units to be constructed on second floors in commercial districts when the project is five units or less. This can be an issue because it could lead to potentially 100% or 50% affordability requirements for projects that are one or two unit developments. So for one unit build, it would be 100% affordability and for a two unit, 50%, which is considerable. Based on feedback from our city attorney, this can be considered confiscatory or unconstitutional. So we're looking to change that. Most jurisdictions in general do not require more than a 15% affordable requirement, and they usually don't have any requirements for small projects such as these for under five units. For example, our section of code, which governs inclusionary housing listed right there, requires a 15% affordability for projects of four or more units in residential zones. So this is particularly in commercial districts, but that's what we have there. We also have a requirement in the same section for affordable units and commercial districts when the project of six or more units and that's going to remain at 20%. We're not looking to change that inclusionary requirement. Next slide, please. let's see here, 1044-190B requires all uses above the first floor in the commercial zoning district be residential. We feel right now that this is a current constraint on commercial development in our central commercial district and central commercial corridor. It's also not aligned with the existing uses. We have a number of restaurants that exist on second floors. We have several hotels that have hotel rooms on second floors. And it also is considered a lack of flexibility that kind of hinders, you know, landowners in the reuse and leverage of historic structures for non-residential uses. So we wanted to edit that as well. Moving on to 1044-190 in general, just lacks clarity concerning conversion of residential uses in the commercial residential district. There's a specific line in there that requires one of these exceptions we just talked about plus a cup to convert spaces that are residential uses in the commercial residential zoning district to commercial spaces however conversion from residential commercial in the CR district is not permitted under 1022 neither by variance nor CPS so we're going to edit that out as well next slide please And yes, so that's kind of the background on the current condition of the zoning ordinance right now, some of the issues we're finding with it. So I'm just going to lay out some of the proposed changes for you right here. We want to edit 1044-010, which is the beginning of that section on purpose and applicability of Chapter 1044 on specific uses. There's a whole list of all of the sections that are in the chapter listed in this section, and we're just going to delete those for brevity and to reduce redundancy so that's one change we're also going to remove those exemptions which i spoke about early in the presentation which should be requiring a variance or a cup to pass so that will be edited out we're also going to edit the commercial uses in residential zones and we're specifically looking at the commercial the central commercial zoning district and we're going to allow for commercial uses in the central commercial zoning district only above the first floor if one of these cases is possible here. So if the project proposed does not propose an expansion exceeding 1,000 square feet, then they could have a commercial use above the first floor. If the proposed project involves a historic structure and has received a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed project, then we would allow for also commercial use above the first floor. And if substantial evidence is presented to the PC, that residential project above the first floor is physically or financially infeasible. So that's going to be the changes we're going to be making that section. And all that is spelled out in the red line document that was provided as an attachment to the staff report. We're also going to edit 1044 190 C2 and add in 1044 190 D to better align with the ordinance 1022, which prohibits conversion of existing residential units to commercial uses in commercial districts if they were built before 1984. And that applies to all commercial uses. So we're just adding in a little bit of language to clarify that. Next slide, please. We're also going to edit 1044-190-C2 to remove the requirement for providing one affordable unit for projects of five units or less. And we're also adding a requirement there for an in-lieu fee for when the fractions of units, when you're calculating densities and units, if there's a fraction, if the developer chooses to round down, they could pay an in-lieu fee instead and do one less affordable unit. And this is only for projects or six or more units in commercial districts specifically. We're also going to add 1044-190-DB, which allows for affordable units to be less than two bedrooms if site constraint finding can be made by the Planning Commission. So basically if the site's too small or it doesn't make sense to have, you know, each unit be two bedrooms, we can allow for that to only be one bedroom or less. Add 1044-190-DC, allowing an applicant also to apply for a reduction, adjustment, or waiver of affordable housing requirements by showing a result in an unconstitutional result or confiscatory taking, something we were talking about before. So basically allowing applicants to apply for a reduction in these projects of six or more units for affordable requirements if it's considered to be an unconstitutional taking. Next slide, please. So that brings us to our staff recommendation, which is we recommend that the planning commission adopt the resolution before them this evening, recommending approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to the city council. That concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. |
| 00:11:54.60 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Mr. Mandich. Excellent presentation. Let's start with Commissioner questions. Let's start off with you, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:12:00.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair, and thank you for the presentation. I had really just two very, very quick questions that I'm hoping you can, shed a little bit of light on in one of your one of the last slides that we just saw you're referencing 10.44.190B. about financial infeasibility. And this commission has stated on multiple occasions you know, the findings that we make have nothing to do with financial feasibility, and we do not get into that type of not only financial analysis, but subjective analysis. So can you explain a little bit more what you mean by financial and feasibility? |
| 00:12:43.07 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. I mean, basically the cost of the project becoming prohibitive for providing those units. So if that's not something the PC is willing to consider in their determinations, we can certainly pass that on as a recommendation to the council and get feedback from the city attorney on that, but that was language, um, specifically provided by the city attorney. |
| 00:12:59.13 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you for that. And then in your staff report, which was excellent, thank you, or sorry, Kylie, did you want to weigh in on? That one question I had, the first question. |
| 00:13:09.82 | Attorney Otto | provide further clarification if you'd like, but I didn't mean to interrupt you if you wanted to. |
| 00:13:15.20 | Kristina Feller | No, that's okay. I mean, I'm just, I wanna make sure that we're clear what financial infeasibility means and how that's defined particularly to the commission because we're really not here to you know, say, well, sure you can afford it, or no, you can't, clearly you can't. When we talk about, cost disproportionality. I mean, certainly around the country, there are ways to consider that. But I want to know what was maybe in the legal mind behind this. |
| 00:13:46.15 | Attorney Otto | Basically, As I read it, it seems like it's more of a safety valve. If someone came before you and said it's impossible and they provided you substantial evidence to support that, That as you know, would be a taking if we did something where we were basically making where they could have no viable use of their property would be a taking. And this basically provides a safety valve so that the commission could then make the determination that It should not be applied in this scenario. It would not be on an everyday scenario. This is simply a safety valve in that unusual circumstances to avoid a taking, which would be, as you know, unconstitutional. |
| 00:14:22.31 | Director Phipps | And if I may to dovetail off that comment, specifically as related to inclusionary requirements, those requirements are legal requirements so long as they allow a fair rate of return to the property owner. And if a property owner doesn't believe that to be the case, we invite them to justify that so that the commission can review and make the determination, hopefully putting City in a position where we won't be requiring anything unconstitutional. |
| 00:14:43.54 | Kristina Feller | And |
| 00:14:50.58 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. That's the collective answer I was hoping to hear. So thank you team for that. The second question I have is in the staff report. In the background, you talk about this amendment is aligning the language more closely with our requirements of 1022. And I just wanted to give you, and if Kylie wants to weigh in, and of course, Director Phipps, a little bit more about your thoughts behind that. |
| 00:15:19.85 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so basically there's some language in that ordinance that doesn't allow for residential uses to be converted to commercial uses in commercial districts if they were built before 1984, which before the Fair Traffic Initiative, which is the other name for that ordinance, went into effect. So basically just clarifying that in the language of the code, which this is very much the pertinent section to be doing that residential uses in commercial districts. So just wanted to highlight in there. There's nothing being added there. That's not already in that ordinance. It's just clarity. |
| 00:15:50.60 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. I appreciate the clarification and additional information. Thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 00:15:56.34 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Commissioner Luxenberg. Thank you. |
| 00:15:58.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF |
| 00:15:58.90 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 00:15:58.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Matthew, again, thank you for an excellent presentation. I just want to get on the record and make sure I understand this. So the three items that are in D that project proposed within existing buildings shall not be required to create residential units. You listed three items. Those are any of the three, not all of the three. Is that correct? |
| 00:16:20.54 | Matthew Mandich | That's correct. Yeah. Either or it's not, you don't need to take all three of those boxes. It's one, two or three. Yeah. |
| 00:16:25.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | One, two or three. That's what I thought. I just wanted to get that on the record. And then in the first section where you're in the red line, you've deleted all of these other sections that are included in 1044. As you said, that was for brevity and redundancy. You're deleting the words from that introductory sentence, but all of those sections are staying. You're only modifying the two sections that you've identified. |
| 00:16:53.44 | Matthew Mandich | That is correct, yes. Those, all those sections in the chapter that are, you know, chapter 1044 governs a lot of specific uses, a dense section, long, and we just didn't feel that the purpose of evacability needed to state every single section within the chapter when they're already, you know, in the index for the chapter. So just kind of reducing some space there. And it's a lot, it's just a really long list. So, uh, city attorney thought it would be best just to delete that and move forward just Brevity, clarity, redundancy eliminated. So. |
| 00:17:19.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be great. And when you send this to the city council in the staff report there, if you could make that absolutely clear, just so there's no confusion there, that would be appreciated. |
| 00:17:29.25 | Matthew Mandich | happy to do so. |
| 00:17:30.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Those are my questions. Thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 00:17:33.03 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, commissioner Luxembourg commissioner side. |
| 00:17:35.98 | Nastassya Saad | No questions. Great presentation. Thank you for the straightforward staff report. Back to you, vice chair. |
| 00:17:42.24 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. All right. Let's open it up to public. |
| 00:17:44.98 | Director Phipps | Comment. Director Phipps. Thank you, Vice Chair. Looking to the chamber for any interested speakers. |
| 00:17:54.95 | Director Phipps | Mr. Giovara, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:18:05.19 | Art Giovara | My name is Art Giovara and I'm the owner of 599 Bridgeway and I've owned it since 2015. And what you're doing today seems positive to me and we're going in the right direction. |
| 00:18:20.38 | Kristina Feller | man. |
| 00:18:23.84 | Art Giovara | Some of the problems I have is that I have a retail downstairs I have a 5,250 foot office upstairs that I've not been able to rent since the pandemic because everybody's working at home. So I want to convert that to, Housing. And I've looked into doing senior housing. However, Some of the rules that you have for senior housing is you have to be in a senior housing overlay district. to provide senior housing Or you have to, which is B Street. You only have one street in Sausalito, which is technically allowed for senior housing projects. So... It's interesting that, you know, if you're a senior and you're living in Sausalito, not on B Street, you're sort of living here illegally. and you don't know what the government's going to do to you today. They were moving. Yeah. Uh, illegal people out. Yeah. Just a joke. But anyway. I find it interesting that that you, you only have one street. You have a lot of seniors. Yeah. in order to try and do these things, what you're requiring, seems excessive to me. It seems that you are... discriminating against seniors, in a sense, because you only have one street. That's the only one that's allowed. And I don't understand what a senior citizen overlay district is. uh, that's all I have to say. Thank you. |
| 00:20:28.31 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Diavara, for your comments. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none, Vice Chair, back to you. |
| 00:20:38.30 | Andrew Junius | Excellent. I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the dais. Would anybody like to start with some comments? I will be the last to comment. I'll make some comments and then we'll be looking for a motion. |
| 00:20:50.57 | Kristina Feller | Well, I can go ahead and start. There are no other volunteers here. You know, I appreciate the questions, Commissioner Luxenberg that you asked also, those were helpful. And I appreciate certainly brevity and clarity anytime we can achieve that in code. That would be helpful. I'm also hoping, and I do support this by the way, with the clarifications that we received. I also really hope that this is an impetus to look and scour other areas of our municipal code. That since 2019, I've been banging on about how we need to really look at the opportunities that we have in our municipal code and certainly aligning them with an onslaught of new legislation that has come from the state. It is very, very difficult. I don't think Sausalito is alone. in this regard and I do not want to get off topic, but I, I trying to align critical issues like this with the current state of affairs, let's say, whether they be legal or illegal folks in our country, there needs to be some due process here. And so aligning this closer with the language and spirit or intent of 1022, I'm certainly... all for that. And certainly this seems to make a lot of sense and is a natural evolution and progression. to exactly what this commission should be focused on. So with that, Vice Chair, this will certainly receive my support. |
| 00:22:38.27 | Andrew Junius | Great, thank you. Any other thoughts or comments? |
| 00:22:40.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I second commissioners fellow fellows comments about our code and some of the inconsistencies I see this is cleaning up some inconsistencies in the code so I can be supportive of this to the public comment I as you all know I've been very supportive of putting a senior housing overlays where appropriate in the city and happy to consider that in other places other than the one location that we have it now so but I can support the changes that are here this evening |
| 00:23:12.32 | Andrew Junius | Chair Saad, any thoughts? |
| 00:23:14.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. No, it was a thank you to Commissioner Feller because I had the same question about the financial feasibility. I was going to shy away from that completely as my only edit, but I think that makes sense in context. So I can support this wholeheartedly. I think it's needed. I think it's another step in the right direction for where we're trying to to go as a city, especially in compliance. So easy enough for me can support as is. |
| 00:23:40.27 | Andrew Junius | Great. Thank you. so just some final comments uh couldn't agree i think we're all uh whoops oh goodness um couldn't agree more simplifying the code is really an important priority i think the city should be doing more of this um and this really is the kind of thing i think the planning commission is really here for you know i'm not a big fan of the planning commission becoming a project approval commission but a planning commission that helps with planning and helps uh you know get the rules straightened out so that they're clear and and they work for everybody is a good idea i do think it's interesting the legal parts of this are kind of fascinating and i just want to make sure everybody understands a i fully understand the city attorney's position about potential liability i'm not sure how much a liability there has been in the past and maybe i'll leave that out there maybe there's been some that i'm not that aware of but |
| 00:23:45.16 | Kristina Feller | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:24:27.38 | Andrew Junius | You know, when when you move to a variance structure, you really do make it a little harder on property owners you know get changes that their projects need the standards are much higher we didn't really talk about that i don't want to open that up as a big question but it is something for the public to keep in mind the variant standards regarding hardships and exceptional circumstances are supposed to be pretty tough to meet because they're the um you really are bending the code at that point i think a lot of cities do rely on these type of exceptions to sidestep that a little bit. So, you know, one of the other ways that we could have approached this would have been just better handle on the exception criteria so that there were there wasn't so broad. I wasn't aware of that, frankly, until we really focused on this ordinance. So, you know, that's neither here nor there. But it is something that's interesting. I think the variance has come to us, right? The Planning Commission grants the variances. But does the staff grant the variance in the case where something doesn't come to the commission? |
| 00:25:27.00 | Director Phipps | Generally, there would be a public hearing format associated with the approval of a variance, even if it's a more administrative approval, for example, through the zoning administrator. Right. So the answer is yes, we still use the same findings. Absolutely. |
| 00:25:40.23 | Andrew Junius | always a public hearing word so um so you know i i just leave that there um uh it's it's an interesting cleanup um i'm not going to touch the 1022 issues those have been beaten to death um i i do think it's interesting it's it's fine for the city to be on the issue of the in lieu fee for fractional units it's fine for the city to take that money it's going to be nothing in terms of of what's what we're going to do with that. So I would suggest going forward that the city think about you know, allowing a developer to do an in-lieu fee for all the units. I mean, if you'd like, if the city's going to have some money to, to partner with an affordable developer for an affordable housing project in the city, they need a lot more money than the fractional pennies that they're going to get from an in-lieu fee for fractions of units. I thought commissioner Feller's comment was an excellent one regarding the, the financial issues. You know, and honestly, most, most developers aren't going to open up the performa to make that case anyway But I appreciate the city attorneys advice there and to the extent that really is the case It's going to be really on the staff's you know In the staff's judgment to ask for it to analyze it to bring us, you know conclusions as necessary. So With that, I think we're done Looking for a motion |
| 00:26:57.68 | Kristina Feller | Just a quick clarification, and I'm happy to make the motion, but Commissioner Luxenberg, did you ask for some certain clarity as we were looking at approving this or making a motion this evening? |
| 00:27:12.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was just asking to get on the record that what what when you look at the red lines it looks like they're crossing out sections and they're not so the text is all correct but I just wanted to make it explicit so that somebody doesn't misread this or down the road if somebody came in under outdoor dining and said oh that doesn't apply anymore that was deleted that they could go back to the video record and it says it's |
| 00:27:22.29 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:27:29.16 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:27:37.24 | Kristina Feller | Got it. |
| 00:27:42.10 | Director Phipps | And just if I may, Steph's happy to reflect that. And we did here and will implement that direction. |
| 00:27:49.54 | Kristina Feller | Well, if that's the case, then I would like to make a motion to approve Project ID 2025-00056, the recommendation on ordinance amending Chapter 10.44, Section 0.10 and 0.190 of Title 10 of the Sausalito Municipal Code. Second. |
| 00:28:11.41 | Andrew Junius | Great. Thank you. Director Phipps, could you call roll? |
| 00:28:15.19 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:28:15.24 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:28:15.26 | Director Phipps | Happy to. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:28:17.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:28:18.31 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:28:19.06 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:28:19.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:28:19.97 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:28:19.98 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:28:20.00 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Genius. |
| 00:28:20.83 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:28:20.91 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:28:20.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:28:20.96 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:28:21.03 | Andrew Junius | Yes. Cheers. |
| 00:28:21.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:28:22.11 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:28:22.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:28:23.04 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 00:28:23.90 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:28:23.95 | Director Phipps | Bye. |
| 00:28:23.98 | Andrew Junius | and passes. Our next item is a motion for adjournment. Can I get a motion? |
| 00:28:28.46 | Kristina Feller | So move. Thank you. |
| 00:28:30.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. |
| 00:28:30.52 | Andrew Junius | Meeting adjourned. |
| 00:28:30.84 | Director Phipps | you drink. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Good evening. |
| 00:28:36.89 | Nastassya Saad | Good night, guys. |
| 00:28:44.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |